SOME NOTES ON RECENT AND PRE- AND PROTOHISTORIC GEAR FROM NORTHWESTERN EUROPE

Dick C.Brinkhuizen

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. RECENT FISHING GEAR AND 2. 1. A few recent fishing techniques not requiring the use of any fishing gear 2.2. Fishing methods using actively operated fishing gear 2.3. Passively-operating fishinggear 2.4. Auxiliary fishing equipment

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS OF FISHING GEAR 3. 1. The method of approach 3.2. The -spear 3.3. The gorge 3.4. The fish-hook 3.5. The weir 3.6. The wickerwork fish-trap 3.7. The

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6. NOTES

7. REFERENCES

8. KEYWORDS

7 8 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

1. INTRODUCTION 2. RECENT FISHING GEAR AND FISH­ ING TECHNIQUES Objects are sometimes found that are interpre­ ted by the archaeologist as fishinggear or parts A characteristic feature of primitive cultures there of. For various reasons finds of items of is that social organization, food acquisition, fishing gear are very rare in direct relation to medicine and religion have not become iso­ the remains of their victims. In recent years lated elements of cultural identity. No diffe­ large quantities of fish remains have been rentiation of these elements has taken place. retrieved with more precise excavation me­ Even in present-day developed societies it is thods, but the fishing gear with which these still possible to trace remnants of cultural fish were caught are often absent or are un­ traditions that remind us of more primitive recognizable as such. Sometimes the investiga­ societies. According to Va n Doorn (1971), in tion of fish remains provides data from which Western Europe this is still valid to a limited it can be deduced what kind of fishing gear extent for inland and sea , notably with may have been used. Ethnographical sources regard to the fo llowing points. can also be of use in providing relevant data. a. The trade and its associated jargon are Such sources can only be made use of, however, handed down from fa ther to son; there is no on a certain condition. The natural environment official occupational training. described in the ethnographical source concer­ b. The is dependent on the na­ ned must be more or less equivalent to the tural breeding patterns of the fish . . natural environment ascertained fo r the pre­ c. The equipment handed down and the historic settlement. From a combination of working rpethods remain the same, with a few archaeological, pedological, botanical, zoologi­ exceptions. cal and ethnographical data it is then permis­ d. There is little contact between the fish­ sible to attempt reconstructions of prehistoric erman and other trades. The fisherman ma­ fishing gear. kes his own equipment. He carves his knitting­ The first part of this article deals with a needles out of wood, makes his own nets and number of fishing methods and types of fishing weaves his own wickerwork fi sh-traps. gear known from ethnographical sources. Much e. Forms of taboo are very abundant among of this information has been obtained from fisher-folk and sailors. Sirelius: Ober die Sp errjischerei bei den Finnisch­ f. Because automatization and mechaniza­ Ugrischen VD/kern (1906) and Die Volkskultur tion play hardly any role in freshwater fishery, Finn/ands. Jagd und Fischerei (1934). In these the terminology of the freshwater fisherman works the and fishing techniques includes many words that have undergone used by the Lapps, Woguls, Ostjaks and Syrjans little or no diffe rentiation. Thus there exists are described in detail. The last three of these in this terminology e.g. a close relation be­ peoples live immediately east of the Ural Moun­ tween bird and fish nomenclature. tains along the rivers that flow into the Ob In non-agrarian societies of the past and basin. The aquatic environment in this region present, gathering, hunting and fishing are is freshwater and contains a standing popula­ essentially the only means of existence. There tion of i.a. pike, perch, burbot and members is no great distinction between these three. It of the carp fa mily (Cyprinidae) and a migrant could be said that hunting and fi shing are popUlation mainly consisting of whitefishes methods of gathering that require the use of (Coregonidae). This ichthyofauna is compara­ tools. ble to that of the freshwater environment of An evolution in fishery technique is evident, Northwestern Europe. from fishingfo r individual fishto catching fish The second part of this article deals with a en masse. Thus we see the development of variety of pre- and protohistoric fishing gear fishing gear from those forms in which one from Northwestern Europe. fish can be caught at a time, to those forms in which many fish can be caught simulta­ neously. As for fishing methods, a correspon- Recent alld pre- and profohistoric fishing gear 9 ding distinction can be made between active this method of fishing (Sirelius, 1934). and passive fishing. What I mean by active fishing is that the fisherman searches for the fish or lures it towards himself and then tries 2.1.3. Catching fish by making the water turbid to catch it. With passive fi shing the fisherman only has to cqllect the fish that have become In small pools with a muddy bottom the caught in his traps or nets. Those types of fi sherman stirs up the silty substratum with fishing gear with which only one fishat a time a stick, so that the water becomes turbid. The can be caught generally involve active fishing, fish thus suffer a shortage of oxygen, fl oat up while those types of gear designed to catch to the surface and can be lifted out of the many fish simultaneously involve passive fish­ water. ing, although it is not always easy to make a sharp distinction between these two types of gear. 2. 1 .4. Poisoning

Of all known fi shing methods fishing with the 2. 1. A few recent fishing techniques not re­ aid of poison is the most effective. After being quiring the use of any fishing gear poisoned almost all fish come to the surface, more or less in a state of torpor, and from These techniques are very simple, and often there they can be lifted out of the water. In give good results. The use of such techniques Asia and South America many fish poisons by prehistoric fishermen will not have left any are known to fishermen. Rotenone, which is traces for the archaeologist to discover. Never­ prepared from the roots of plants of the genus theless I shall briefly describe some of these Derris, is used at the present time in biological fishing techniques. research concerned with fishery. This poison is effective at very low concentrations (0.5 I per 1,000,000 1 water) and is harmless to people. Formerly pOlsons were also used in 2. 1.1. Catching fish with one's bare hands the Netherlands. Such poisons were freely available and among Dutch fishermen were Many fish, even the swift and elusive , known as koggelbonen (Van Doom, 1971). can be caught with one's bare hands. With Also in ancient times in Europe various poi­ this method one must be able to see or feel sons derived from plants were used in catching the fish. fish. An extract of the flowers of the great mullein was used by the Greeks. The Romans used the juice of cyclamens (Muus & 2. 1 .2. Stunning fish with a stick or cudgel Dahlstf0m, 1968).

A fish that can be seen in shallow water can be struck dead with a stick or cudgel. The 2.2. Fishing methods using actively operated Syrjans had a certain method of fi shing that fishing gear was practised in the autumn. When ice forms over a surface of water, the oxygen distribution With these methods specially made equipment in the water changes and the fish come up is used by the fi sherman who is an active to just under the ice. They are visible through participant in the process of catching fish.The the thin ice if there is no covering layer of types of gear include the stick fitted with a snow. A blow is struck on the ice immediately hook, the rod with a bob, the stick with a above the fish by means of a stone, attached noose, the fish-spear (fish , leister), to a wooden haft. The pressure wave generated the gorge, and the fish-hook. A number of in this way stuns the fish. Since thin ice cannot these are in evidence in various archaeological take the weight of an adult man, boys practised contexts. 10 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

2.2.1. Th e stick with hook or gaff To gether with the latter the remains of a noose of horse-hair were found. A bent nail is fixed to a stick. A piece of bait is put on the nail. The baited stick is held in the water until the fisherman feels a fish 2.2.4. Th e fish-spear biting. Then he suddenly flings up the stick with the fish on it out of the water (Barthel, The basic form of this kind of fishing gear 1977). The fishermancan also use a non-baited is a long straight wooden stick with a fo rked stick. When he sees his prey, he carefully extremity. In the recent past the Lapps used shoves the stick with hook under the fish and this kind of fishing gear to catch arctic charr drags the fish out on to dry land. This is the (Sirelius, 1934). way in which the K wakiutl, who lived on the Elsewhere we findfish-spears with separate coast of British Columbia, caught salmon points (prongs). These prongs are often ser­ when these fish swam up the rivers en masse rated or barbed on one or both edges. They (Forde, 1934). This method was also used in are made out of bone or metal and are fi xed winter by the Woguls to catch burbot at night to the wooden shaft by means of cord. The with the aid of artificial light (Sirelius, 1934). most highly developed metal fish-spears have a socket into which the wooden shaft is fitted. Figure 2 shows a number of examples of recent 2.2.2. Th e rod with a bob fish-spears. There are also fish-spears with detachable The fisherman threads together a number of prongs. When a fish is hit the prong comes worms from end to end on a string and makes loose from the shaft, but remains connected a clew out of them. This clew of worms, or to it, at the end of a long line. We then call bob as it is called, is hung on a string, that the fish-spear a fish-harpoon and the prong is fixed to the end of a rod measuring about the harpoon-point. 1 m in length. With the aid of a piece of string Fish are also caught by means of bows and a stone is attached to the lower surface of the arrows. The fishing arrow that was used by bob (fig. 1). The weighted bob is let down the Ostjaks and Woguls consisted of a long into the water as far as the bottom. It is then shaft without any feathers and with a heavy repeatedly raised a few decimetres and allowed double-pointed arrow-head (Sirelius, 1934). to sink again. The worms and the movement Fishing with a fish-spear (fish-harpoon, fish­ of the bait serve to attract eels. These bite ing arrow) is a well-known practice almost into the bob. The fisherman feels this and lifts all over the world. The fi sh-spear is used in the line with the eel attached carefully out of places where the water is clear. When the the water. This method of fishing is carried fisherman sees his prey, he tries to spike it out at night. with his fish-spear or to shoot it using his bow and arrow. These techniques require a certain skill, as the fi sh is situated in a different spot 2.2.3. Th e stick with a noose in the water to where it appears to be, on account of diffraction. A correction therefore With this method a noose of copper wire or has to be made by the fisherman. other material, attached to the end of a stick, If the fisherman with his fish-spear wishes was carefully put into the water around the to exploit a local population of non-migratory body of a fishspotted by the fisherman. Then fish, he will have to search for his prey. A the noose was suddenly pulled tight an the freshwater, non-migratory fish that is eminent­ fish was flung on to dry land. This method ly suitable for catching with the aid of a fish­ was used in the Netherlands to catch pike. spear is the pike. As these large predators A few remains of pieces of wood from a peat­ freCJuent shallow water close to the bank or bog near Oberdorla (East Germany), dating shore, either when spawning or when lying from Roman times, have been interpreted by in wait, motionless, for their prey, they easily Barthel (1977) as including a stick with a hook fa ll victim to the fisherman armed with his and a stick used for fishing with a noose. spear. As this species is attracted to light, it Recent and pre- and pmtohistoric fishing gear 11

can also be speared at night using artificial locate his prey, and spike it with his fish-spear. light (Sirelius, 1934). Pike can be caught all The fisherman could also simply stand on top the year round. For the fisherman with his of the fish, so as to hold it down, and remove spear they are most vulnerable, however, from it from under his fo ot. This method is called the beginning of their breeding season (Feb­ bottrappen in Dutch (literally: flounder-tread­ ruary) until late in the autumn. When the ing). water temperature drops they search for The fish-spear that was used in the Nether­ deeper water. When the water is frozen over, lands for catching eels is known as an aalschaar they can be speared through blow-holes in the or elger in Dutch, equivalent to the English ice. term eel-spear (fig. 3). The fisherman stood Also other species of freshwater, non-mi­ on the bank or in a small boat and thrust gratory fish (e.g. bream) can be speared when the eel-spear haphazardly into the mud. On they are spawning in shallow water close to lifting the spear out of the water he could see the bank or shore. whether any eels had been caught between the If the fisherman with his fi sh-spear is ex­ prongs. ploiting a migratory popUlation, there is no need for him to search for his prey. He simply waits at a suitable spot until the fish swim 2.2.5. Th e gorge past. Fish species that fall into this category include salmon and sturgeon. The large The gorge is a short stick-like object, cylin­ salmon arrive from the sea at the mouths of drical in the middle and pointed at both ends. rivers and swim upstream together in large It may be made of wood, bone or iron. Gorges numbers in order to spawn. Then the water come in varying sizes. They may be only a of clear rivers looks red on account of the few centimetres long, or as much as 10-15 great number of salmon in their spawning centimetres. In the middle of the gorge (at its colour. The clearly visible, large fishthus form centre of gravity) a line is attached. To prevent an easy prey for the fi sherman with his spear. the line from slipping off, a groove, or a few Also sturgeon can be caught using fish­ shallow grooves or a notch may be cut in the spears. In the Fraser, a river in British Co­ surface of the gorge (fig. 4). The line is thrown lumbia, fishermen used to harpoon sturgeon into the water with the gorge hidden inside from their canoes (Lord, quoted by Clark, some kind of bait. If the fisherman feels a 1948). fish biting, he gives the fish time to swallow Inhabitants of the basins of southward flo­ the bait completely. Then the fishermanpulls wing rivers in the Urals also used to harpoon hard on the line so as to make it taut. In this sturgeon. This took place in winter, when the way the gorge is pulled into a position per­ rivers were frozen over. A large number of pendicular to the line and thus becomes stuck fishermen together smashed holes in the ice, in the throat of the fish. and tried to harpoon the sturgeon that had The line with gorge can also be used for been startled by the noise. When the fishermen passive fishing. The fishermanfa stens the loose had fi shed part of the river in this way, they end of the line on to something and goes away. went fu rther downstream and repeated their When a fish swallows the baited gorge and performance (Mohr, 1952). swims away, the line is pulled taut and the Also in the Netherlands the fish-spear is gorge similarly becomes stuck in the throat known to have been used. Its use is a thing of the fish. of the past, however, as it is now forbidden The size of the gorge, the strength of the by law. It was used fo rmerly for catching line and the kind of bait used are determining floundersand eels. factors for the species of fish that may be The flounder occurs abundantly in the Wad­ caught. den Sea. When this fish is startled its escape Partly because of its behaviour and the path in the water is marked by clouds of shape of its snout, the pike is a very suitable disturbed bottom-sediment. From these species of fish for catching with the aid of clouds of sediment the fisherman is able to a gorge. The gorge is then baited with a small 12 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

fig.l

a b c d fig.2

o \ fig.3

c:::::::: DOll � \c

a b c Jlm :=:::> c:::::::: fig.5

fig. 4

fig.6 fig. 7 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 13 fish. The fish used as bait is partly slit open hook hang vertically, then we see that the along the ventral surface, and the fisherman hook-shaft hangs more or less as an extension inserts the gorge into this aperture. of the line. In such a case the line must be Gorges are in fact used for a variety of attached to the extremity of the hook-shaft. purposes. Until recently gorges were used to If we now place the hook with its point catch wildfowl on .Lake Constance (Clark, against a hard object (the roof of the mouth ' 1948). Also Sirelius (1934) mentions the use of the fish) and pull on the line, we see that of gorges in catching waterfowl. At the same the hook takes up a different position. This time he states that elsewhere in the world position is characterized by an imaginary line gorges are used to catch crocodiles. running from the hook-point to the point of attachment of the line to the hook-shaft. We call this the line of pull (A-B). A second 2.2.6. Th e fish-hook imaginary line is formed by the longitudinal axis of the hook-point (the line C-D). The two If we talk about a fish-hook, then this piece imaginary lines A-B and C-D form an angle of equipment must consist of three distinguish­ with each other. This angle is called the angle able elements. These are: the hook-shaft, the of grip (fig.5a). To obtain optimal penetration, hook-bend and the hook-point. the direction of the hook-point C-D should The hook-shaft is the more or less straight coincide with the line of pull A-B (fig. 5b). part of the hook to which a line is attached. With a fish-hook of this kind, 'hooking' a fish At the end of the hook-shaft there is usually is not very easy. The hook opening (the some kind of modificationfor the attachment distance between the hook-point and the hook­ of the line. This may be in the form of a shaft measured perpendicular to the hook­ thickening of the shaft, a hole, one or more shaft) is small. On the other hand, the hook transverse notches in the shaft or one or more does meet the requirement that the chance of grooves cut into the shaft and running round the fish escaping is slight. The hook 'holds'. it. The hook-shaft passes into the hook-bend, well. that may be regularly curved or angular. The If the hook-point is bent away slightly from hook-bend passes into the hook-point. This the hook-shaft, then hooking a fish will be is more or less parallel to the hook-shaft. The easier. The hook opening is then bigger (fig. hook-point is shorter than the hook-shaft and 5c). On the other hand 'holding' the fish will has a pointed extremity, that can penetrate be a problem, as the line of pull is a different the body of the fish. This extremity may be one to that where the point of the hook fitted with a barb to prevent the fish escaping. becomes embedded. Then there is a chance For all types of fish-hook it is important that the fisherman will pull the-hook out of that they have a good penetrating capacity, the mouth of the fish. To prevent this the hook­ i.e. when in use the hook-point must point point is provided with a barb. in the right direction for it to be able to A good fish-hook will therefore have to be penetrate the fish easily. At the same time the a compromise between one that 'hooks' well hook must be of the optimal shape, so as to and one that 'holds' well. Borne, cited by minimize any chance of the fish escaping. This Lekholm (1951) estimated an optimal 'angle brings us to the concept of 'angle of grip' of grip' of 100. Present-day steel hooks with (Lekholm, 1951). If we let a line with a fish- a barb have angles of grip of 100 to 300. With steel hooks the 'angle of grip' can be modified by making the hook-shaft longer or shorter, Fig. 1. The rod with a bob. by slightly bending the hook-point or by Fig. 2. Examples of fish-spears (after Sirelius, 1934): a, altering the curvature. A relationship evidently b. Greenland; c. Russia; d. Finland. exists between the characteristic features of a Fig. 3. The eel-spear (after De Groot & Schaap, 1973). particular steel hook and the species of fish Fig. 4. The gorge (schematic). Fig. 5. The fish-hook and its mode of operation (sche­ that can be caught with it. A combination of matic). data, based on experience, of Biscoff, cited Fig. 6. The hoeklVant (schematic). by Lekholm (1951), and data of Lekholm Fig. 7. Ledger-line for catching sturgeon (schematic). (1951) provides us with the information on 14 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

Table 1. Relationship between the size and hook opening of differences however in the way in which the steel fish-hooks and the species of fish that can be caught with ledger-lines are set up. In the hook-bend of them the non-baited hooks extra side-lines are af­

Fish species Estimated Estimated Total length Hook fixed, each with a float. Consequently the side­ maximum maximum of the hook opening lines take up a vertical position in the water length of weight of (fig. 7). The main line lies on the bottom. The the fish the fish distance between two successive hooks is 20- (cm) (kg) (mm) (mm) 30 cm. The sturgeon, which swims close to Bleak 20 0.04 up to 10 3-5 the bottom in its journey upstream, has to Roach 40 1 15 4-5 pass through the side-lines and thus may get Rudd 45 1.5 18-22 caught on a hook (Mohr, 1952). Whitefish 50 2 25 5-9 (houting) Bream 80 9 22-28 5-6 2.2.6. 1. Primitive fish-hooks Tench 70 8 22-28 6 Sirelius (1934) gives ethnological descriptions Perch 50 3.5 28-30 5-8 of some fish-hooks made of wood and bone Eel 100 4.5 28-35 that were used by the Finns, Woguls and 130 28 30-80 7-23 Pike Ostjaks. On the basis of the different forms Cod 150 40 30-70 Salmon 150 36 up to 110 7-23 in use Sirelius was able to establish a series Tunny 300 300 100-160 showing different stages of development (fig. 8). In hook a he sees a double-pointed wooden gorge with a pointed side-piece. The line is steel hooks presented in table 1. attached at the point where the main shaft From the table it follows that small fish and the side-piece meet. Hook b already has cannot be caught with large hooks. In general the shape of a true fish-hook. However, the we can say that the fishermanuses small hooks line is still attached at the point where the and thin lines to catch smaller kinds of fish main shaft and the side-piece meet (in the and large hooks and thick lines to catch larger hook-bend). Hook c has the same shape as fish. At the present time steel hooks are used hook b, except that the line is attached in the almost exclusively. This applies to fishing middle of the hook-shaft. At this point a notch activities on the European mainland, that are has been made on the inner side of the hook­ for the most part carried out by amateurs as shaft. (Also hook b has a notch here, though recreation. In commercial fishery at sea, lines it is not clear why). The final result of the with hooks are sometimes used because fishing shifting of the point of attachment of the line with nets may not be possible for various is to be seen in hook d. reasons. The hooks illustrated all have a total length Until recently, in the Netherlands, fishermen of 8-9 cm. They are all cut from the tough both of inland waters and at sea worked with wood of juniper, heather, honeysuckle and ledger-lines. These were called beug or hoek­ (sometimes) birch. At the same time we see want in Dutch:' They consisted oC very long that the hook-bend is wound around with lines with at certain intervals shorter transverse cord. The fisherman knows from experience lines, that each carried one baited iron hook. that the hooks made out of a single piece of At the same time floats and weights were wood (or bone) break easily in the hook-bend. attached (fig. 6). The hoekwant was cast in Therefore he makes composite hooks, that such a way that it came to lie more or less consist of two separate components, a hook­ on the bottom. In inland waters eels were shaft and a hook-point. If a fish is hooked caught in this way. At sea the species mainly that is too heavy, then it is possible that the caught in this way were cod and haddock. hook-point will break off. The fi sherman then Along the coasts of the Black Sea, the still .has the hook-shaft. He only has to make Caspian Sea and in the rivers that debouch a new hook-point. into them fishermen use ledger-lines to catch The Woguls and the Ostjaks used the fish­ sturgeon. These ledger-lines are comparable hooks exclusivel)' as passively-operating fish­ to the hoekwant. There are two important ing gear in the first place for catching pike, Recent and pre- and pr% his/oric fishing gear 15 also for large perch. The hook, baited with against the weir are taken out of the water a small fish, was put in the water on a line by a second fisherman with the aid of a dip­ with a large fl oat. The tip of the line was made net or stick with a hook. Fish regularly caught of a strip of leather and the main line of split in this way include pike, perch and members roots of pine (fig. 9). of the carp fa mily. This method of fishing must be carried out by at least two people, because the fish only stay close to the weir when 2.3. Passively-operating fishing gear someone continually splashes about fu rther upstream. This is therefore not a true kind In the preceding section we have already of passively-operating fishing gear. become acquainted with a passively-operating Sirelius also described the passively-opera­ kind offishlnggear, the ledgei1ine. With this ting weir in its most simple form as used by fishing gear, however, only one individual can these same ethnic groups. This is called laltam be caught per hook. Moreover the hooks have in those parts. A wooden weir is built trans­ to be baited again every time. This is not very verse to the direction of the stream fl ow. At effective and other kinds of fishing gear have the same time, slightly further upstream from been developed that enable fishermen to catch this weir two barriers are built, that point many fish at the same time. These kinds of diagonally towards the weir. In this way a passively-operating fishing gear are: the weir, funnel construction (throat) is the result, with the fish-surround, the wickerwork fish-basket a chamber behind i(serving to collect the fish and the fishing net. (fig. 11). The fish are driven into the chamber with the aid of a splashing stick, the throat opening is closed with a post or screen and 2.3.1. Th e weir the fisherman takes the fish out of the water using a dip-net; or stick with a hook. This: The weir is a kind of barrier or obstruction method of fishingis carried out by one person. that leads fish to a spot where they can be Another primitive kind of passively-opera­ easily caught and taken out of the wate·r. The ting weir is to be fo und in the Departeinent kind of construction material used depends du Var (France). In a swiftly flowing stream on the sediment of the river-bed, lake bed or a V- shaped weir of stones is built. The apex sea bottom (whether consisting of rock, gravel, of the weir points downstream. In the apex sand or clay) and the construction materials itself an opening is left, in which is placed available in the local environment. Thus weirs a bunch of twigs weighted down with stones ma,y be made of stones, felled trees, posts, (fig. 12). The fish present upstream of the weir sticks, bunches of twigs or woven screens of are driven towards the weir by means of laths, bamboo, etc. splashing the water-surface with a splashing In stagnant or sluggishly flowing water the stick. At the weir itself the increased strength weir is always used in combination with a more of the current forces the fish into the bunch elaborate kind of passively-operating fishing of twigs where they become caught up and gear. On the other hand the weir itself can killed. The bunch of twigs is now lifted out fu nction as a kind of passively-operating fish­ of the water and the fish caught up in it are ing gear in places where there is a strong removed. current or where there are great diurnal dif­ fe rences in water level. In the former case the 2.3.1.1. The development of the weir fisherman will have to use a splashing stick It is possible that natural barriers could have (2 .4.1.). served as an example for the construction of Sirelius (1906) described how the Ostjaks an artificial weir. Natural barriers are to be and the Woguls were still using the weir in found in places where the water level fl uctu­ its most primitive form at the beginning of ates. This occurs e.g. in places where rivers this century (fig. 10). A few hundred metres overflow their banks or along coastlines with upstream from the weir a fisherman uses a a large difference between the low and high splashing stick to drive the fishin the direction tide marks (e.g. the coast of Bretagne). As the of the weir. The fish that have collected up water rises the fish come close to the coast 16 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

b c d

fig.8

, / / (I / I / :: r : � . . == r 111/11 III -- ': --- :: . _- . fig.10 :"':-=-=-'=---=-:-:-.� - - - -.

s-.

fig.11

LLILI/I�I IILL

fig. 13

fig.15

fig.14 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 17 to search for food, and as the water goes down this problem, as the laths are bound together they swim back again. In places where there so tightly that no escape is possible. At the is a natural barrier, however, there is a chance same time the fishing gear can quickly be lifted that some fish will not be able to swim back out of the water in the event of a storm or in time. They stay behind in pools or become floods. Thus Finnish fishermenbuild their fish­ stranded and. thus become an easy prey for surrounds out of lath screens. These screens animals or for man. consist of pieces of pinewood, that are shar­ Obviously the fisherman will make use of pened at one end. The pieces of wood are such situations, and will extend natural bar­ bound together with birch twigs or straw using riers with large stones and pieces of wood so the Zwirnbindung (fig. 15). Cord is also made as to construct effective passively-operating out of strips of lime or willow bast twined fishing gear. In places along the sea coast together. where no natural barriers occur, wooden weirs When the fish-surround and the weir are are built that are V-shaped or in the form of to be put in position the screens are driven an arc. With weirs shaped like this the fish into the bottom of the lake or river. Then the are prevented from escaping as the water goes fisherman drives in heavier posts so as to give down. We findexamples of such weirs on the extra support to the screens. coasts of Thailand, India and Madagascar. They also occur in Western Europe, namely 2.3.2. 1. Th e development of the fish-surround in France along the coast of theAtlantic Ocean In contrast to the passively-operating weir, the (fig. 13), and in Germany on the Baltic coast fish-surround is also suitable for use in stag­ near Schleswig. Here such a weir is known nant and sluggishly flowingwater. It can catch as a gaard (Sirelius, 1906). fish swimming both upstream and down­ stream. Combinations of the fish-surround with the elements of a weir and the develop­ 2.3.2. Th e fish-surround (German: Fischzaun) ment of the fish-surround itself have resulted in very complicated fishing gear. A few exam­ Obviously in wide rivers and lakes there is ples, taken from Sirelius (1906), illustrate this no point in building a weir or liiltiim. The (fig. 16). collection chamber would be far too big and a. When the water in the middle of a river it would be impossible to take all the fish out or lake is too deep to build a fish-surround, of it. Therefore the chamber is made smaller the fisherman builds the fish-surround close so as to form a 'fish-surround', which is more to the bank or shore (fig. 16a). The throat or less round in shape. The two sides of the opens towards the bank. Immediately in front weir both project into the chamber (fig. 14). of the throat, along its midline, a weir element As the fishwill remain in the chamber for is placed at right angles to the bank. At the some time, they will try to find all possible same time the bank itself serves as a weir. With hiding places. The use of lath screens can solve this construction the fish can come into the surround from two sides. b. If the fishermanexpects the fish to come from a certain direction, then he places the Fig. 8. Development of the fish-hook based on examples fish-surround with the throat opening in this from Finland and Russia (after Sirelius, 1934). direction (fig. 16b). Here too two weir elements Fig. 9. Wooden fish-hook with line and float (Ostjaks) and the bank lead the fish into the fish­ (after Sirelius, 1934). surround. Fig. 10. The weir. S direction of flow of the river. Fig. 11. The laltam (after Sirelius, 1906). c. Small, shallow rivers and lakes can be Fig. 12. V-shaped stone weir with bunch of twigs (after exploited by placing across their entire width Sirelius, 1906). a combination of a number of fish-surrounds Fig. 13. Wejr on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean in France and weirs (fig. 16c). The throat openings of (after Sirelius, 1906). the fish-surrounds fa ce in opposite directions Fig. 14. Primitive fish-surround with weir construction (Woguls) (after Sirelius, 1906). alternately, so that fish can become trapped Fig. 15. Method of binding screens and wickerwork fish­ from both sides. traps, using the Zwirnbindung. d. In the previous example each fish-sur- 18 D.e. BRINKHUIZEN

round has to be emptied individually by the from the ice than from a boat, and at the same fisherman.This has led to the joining together time fish can be caught earlier. There is a risk, of the fish-surrounds to form one single fi sh­ however, that the fish-surround may be de­ surround. To facilitate emptying the fish-sur­ stroyed by ice-flows. round, the fisherman can build a small col­ As fa r as the catch is concerned the best lection chamber on to the fish-surround. This results are obtained in spring and in the collection chamber is also fitted with a throat autumn. At the end of the autumn the fi sh­ (fig. 16d). surround is taken out of the water, dried and e. An interesting variation is the spiral fish­ put away. The cord used to bind the laths surround of Anjala (Finland) (fig. 16e). In this together has often rotted away by this time. structure, which is made out of lath-screens, The laths are often in sufficiently good con­ duck not infrequently get trapped. On account dition to last another year, but many fishermen of the spiral shape they can no longer find make a new fish-surround and use the old laths the way out. Also the screens are placed so as firewood.1 In Finland the fish-surround is close together that the birds can no longer used to catch pike, perch, bream, roach, cru­ fly upwards. cian carp, burbot, (whitefishes) and eel. The fish-surroundswith their weirs are also The way in which the fi sherman takes the often placed in rows, one behind the other fish out of the fish-surround is described (fig. 17). vividly by Sirelius (1906) in the following From historical sources and recent data it passage: is evident t4at the fish-surround occurs widely in Asia and Eastern Europe (Russia, Estonia, Der fischzaunfang wird in Finland nirgends als berufs­ Poland and Hungary). In Western Europe on fischerei getrieben. In den meisten fallen beschrankt the other hand it is only found in ,Sweden, er sich auf die beschaffung der zukost fOr den Finland (except for the region where the Lapps hausbedarf. Es ist daher natOrlich, dass in voller arbeitskraft stehende leute ihre zeit nicht auf diese live), Yugoslavia and Italy (in the Po delta). fa ngart verwenden, wenn sie auch bei der schwierigs­ On the basis of this distribution and the ten aufgabe, der errichtung des fischzauns, mit hand etymology of this fishing apparatus Sirelius anlegen. Das visitieren wird gem den alten mannem (1906) comes to the conclusion that the fish­ und kraftigen knaben, wenn solche im hause sind, surround came to Northern Europe from a Obertragen. In fischreichen zeiten wird es mitunter sogar zweimal am tage vorgenommen, wird aber die south-eastern region of origin, via river-cour­ beute geringer, beschrankt man auch das visitieren ses and lakes. allmahlich, bis es zuletzt ganz eingestellt wird. Ge­ It is a matter of some doubt, however, wohnlich sieht man friih am morgen nach den fa ng­ whether this distribution pattern is correct. In geraten. Der betreffende mann nimmt einen fi sch­ the past, in shallow places along the Dutch zaunhamen und einen rindenranzen oder korb mit, in welchem er die fische nach hause transportiert. coast a kind of fishing gear was used that on Gem versieht er sich, wenn er die wahl hat, mit einem account of its shape is strongly reminiscent kleinen boot, bestenfalls mit einem nachen und wrickt of the fi sh-surround. This kind of fi shing gear, es zu seinem fa nggerat. Am ziel angelangt, steuert known as a kom (literally: bowl), consisted er sein fa hrzeug zuerst an das grasufer und scheucht of a long weir element that led the fish through die fische durch trampen gegen den fischzaun zu'. Dann rudert er an die leitwand des fischzauns und a throat-shaped opening into a semicircular kommt, indem er beiderseits im wasser stOrt, schliess­ collection chamber. The underside of this lich zur einkehlung des fa nggerats. Diese verschliesst ' collection chamber was closed off with a er ve rmittelst mitgebrachter stangen oder ruder und horizontal net. The vertical part was also made treibt die fische aus dem vorhof in die kammem. of network. The whole contraption was sus­ Nachdem er auch die einkehlungen der letzteren versperrt hat, nimmt er schliesslich den hamen zur pended by means of ropes from vertical posts. hand. Er driickt diesen am einen ende der kammer auf den grund und hebt ihn erst am anderen ende 2.3.2.2. Th e use and duration of the fish- empor. So kommen alle fi sche auf einmal herauf. Nachdem er eine kammer oder einen fischzaun un­ surround (and weirs) ' The fish-surround is built as early as possible tersucht hat, nimmt er die verschliisse der einkeh­ lungen weg und begiebt sich nach den anderen kam­ in the spring. This is done preferably at the mem oder fischzaunen, urn bei ihnen sein gliick zu onset of the thaw, when the ice can still be versuchen. Ausser fischen steigenals beute manchmal trodden. It is easier to build a fish-surround krebse auf, die vermutlich ein in dem fischzaun Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 19

verendeter fisch in die gefangenschaft gelockt hat. Es fish can be caught with the trumpet fish-trap. ist auch nicht selten, dass sich eine ente, gew6hnlich Fish-traps of this kind are placed in swiftly ein von fischen lebender taucher, in den fischzaun flowingstreams and rivers, and in places where verirrt. Durch die einkehlung kann sie sich nicht zuriickfinden, und die kammer ist gew6hnlich so eng, there is temporarily a strong water current e.g. dass sie beim versuch zu fliegen mit den fliigeln an as a result of heavy rainfall, or a thaw, or die wande schlagt. Durch mannichfache misslungene tidal action. In England a kind of trumpet anstrengungen ermiidet, muss sie notgedrungen das fish-trap is actually used for catching flatfish. schicksal der fische und krebse teilen. Figure 19 shows a trumpet fish-trap from Finland. The total length of this trap is 1.6 m. The first hoop is made of the thin stem 2.3.3. Th e wickerwork fish-trap of a fir tree, the outer casing is made out of firbranches split lengthwise and the cord used This kind of fishinggear generally consists of for binding consists of firroots. a long fu nnel made ofwickers plaited together, An interesting kind of trumpet fish-trap is of willow or some other kind of wood that known from the estuary of the Severn, that is similarly pliant. The wide opening of this opens out into the Bristol Channel between funnel where the fish enter is called the mouth. England and Wales (fig. 20). This so-called This is often formed by a hoop. This word salmon putcher is 1.7 m long and the largest implies that the mouth is circular. However, opening measures 53 cm in diameter. The there are also fish-traps with oval, semicircu­ salmon putchers are put in position, with their lar, square or rectangular mouth openings. largest opening facing downstream, in rows above and below on to wooden The external wall of the fish-trap is referred and fixed : to here as the outer casing. The narrow, constructions. In the' estuary there is a big hindmost part of the outer casing is called the difference in water level between low and high tail. Tw o main types of wicker fish-traps can tide. Moreover, the water that rises with the be distinguished, namely the fish-trap without incoming tide is very turbid. Consequently the throat (German: T!'ompetenreuse) and the fish­ salmon swimming upstream do not see the trap with throat (Sirelius, 1906) (fig. 18). The fish-trap, and become caught inside it. In a throat (Dutch: inkeling, inkel, enkel) consists state of 'panic' the fishtries to escape through of a small wicker funnel that is inserted in the narrow opening. In the attempt the fish the big fu nnel. jerks itself so forcefully that it becomes stuck fast, and cannot be released by even the 2.3.3.1. Th efish-trap without throat or trumpet strongest current of the ebb tide. fish-trap In the salmon putcher only one fish can be This is a funnel-shaped wickerwork fish-trap caught at a time. This is in contrast to the which does not have a special throat. The normal trumpet fish-traps, which can catch trumpet fish-trap is mostly used in combina­ several fish at a time. tion with a weir in places where the water current is very strong. It is placed in the water 2.3.3.1.1. Th e development of the trumpet fish­ with its wide opening facing against the cur­ trap. Sirelius (1906) presumes that this kind rent. The fish that enter the trap are forced of fish-trap is derived from the bunch of twigs by the water pressure into the narrow part weighted with stones, which is placed in the (the tail) of the funnel, where they become opening of the V-shaped weir (2.3.1.). Evi­ stuck fast. Consequently the fish are unable dently it is not very easy to lift a bunch of to turn around and swim away. Sometimes twigs, containing fish, out of the water. There there is a so-called fish-hole in the tail of the would thus have been an incentive to develop trumpet fish-trap. The fish that have been a light-weight and portable kind of fishing caught can be removed from the trap through gear, with which the catch could be lifted out this hole. When the fish-trap is in use the fish­ of the water all at once. Thus Sirelius sees hole is seale<;i off with a wooden plug, or a the prototype of the trumpet fish-trap in a bunch of twigs, or the wickers of the outer kind of fishing gear used in the Departement casing are tied together at the tail end with du Var (France). Here, in addition to the V­ a piece of cord. In principle most kinds of shaped weir with a bunch of twigs, a V-shaped D.e. BRINKHUIZEN 20 ////16/11// a

c fig.16

fig.17

fig.22 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 21 weir with two bundles of reed is used. These to one another at regular intervals by means bundles of reeds, that are held together by of cord. This binding is done using the Zwirn­ strips of lime bast, are joined together at one bindung technique. The cord fo rms the so­ end. When the fishing gear is in use there is called cross-strips. The mutual distance be­ a bunch of twigs between the two bundles. tween these cross-strips is usually 6 to 10 cm. A further development of the trumpet fish­ They can run around the fish-trap in the fo rm trap would be the type of fishing gear that of circular or spiral bands. Figure 22 gives comes from the Departement d'Aude (France) an example of a light fish-trap with two (fig. 21). With this kind of gear the hindmost throats, that is used for catching eels. It is part, where the fish become trapped, is already made out of laths of pine wood. The cross­ closed in the form of a funnel. The foremost strips are made out of pine roots. These have part is still open, however. been divested of their bast layer and tanned in boiling soda water with oak- and beech­ 2.3.3.2. Th e fish-trap with throat bark (Peesch, 1966). In sluggishly flowing and stagnant waters the The closely woven fish-trap also has wickers trumpet fish-trap cannot be used. Because the running in the longitudinal direction of the water pressure is too low, the fish can swim fish-trap. The distance between adjacent wick­ freely in and out of the trap. To prevent this ers is greater than in the light fi sh-trap, the fisherman makes use of the fish-trap with however, for the outer casing is largely formed throat. by the cross-strips (fig. 23). These cross-strips are also made out of wickers. They are woven close to one another by means of the LeilJ­ 2.3.3.2. 1. Th e weaving technique used fo r fish­ wandbindung techniqu� (Vogt,,' 1937). Sirelius traps with throat. The fish-traps with throat (1906) finds these closely woven fish-trapsonly can be made in two different ways, as regards among the Magyars and related peoples. They weaving technique. On the basis of the. weaving are used for catching very small kinds be'fish. technique used we can distinguish between the Thus in the north of Yugoslavia small cypri­ so-called light fi sh-trap and the closely woven nids are caught with a closely woven fish-trap fish-trap (German: Korbreuse). The former (fig. 24). To lure the fish inside the trap, the owes its name to the fa ct that the wickerwork throat opening is rubbed over with bread. has an open structure. As a result of this much light can penetrate the fi sh-trap, in contrast 2.3.3.2.2. We aving methods fo r fish-trap s and to the closely woven fish-trap. With the light the kinds of wood used. The fish-traps can be fish-trap the outer casing and the throat are woven out of different kinds of wood. In fo rmed mainly of wickers that run in the Finland they are often made out of willow longitudinal direction of the trap. These wick­ wickers. For this purpose wickers are used that ers run more or less parallel to one another. are one year old, that are gathered in the The distance between adjacent wickers is usual­ autumn or at the end of the winter. Here fish­ 1.5 ly 0.5 tot cm.2 The wickers are connected traps are also made out of the wood of fir, pine and juniper. For cross-strips are used: roots of fir, pine and juniper, strips of bast of birch, willow and lime or sometimes flax. Fig. 16. Va rious forms of fish-surround (after Sirelius, Closely woven fi sh-traps are also sometimes 1906). made out of wood shavings. In the Netherlands Fig. 17. Fish-surrounds in Finland (after Sirelius, 1906). the fish-traps known as the prikk01f(lamprey­ Fig. 18. The fish-trap(schematic): a. fish-trap without internal fu nnel; b. fish-trap with basket), the aalkorf and the aalkubbe (both internal funnel. eel-baskets) were woven exclusively out of Fig. 19. Tr umpet fish-trap with semicircular mouth wiltow wands. These were also wickers of one opening from Finland (after Sirelius, 1906). year of age. Usually the basket-maker used Fig. 20. The salmon putcher (after Sirelius, 1906). unpeeled wickers fo r the hoop of the mouth Fig. 21. Tr umpet fish-trap from France (after Sirelius, 1906). opening. He then used peeled (,white') wickers Fig. 22. Eel-trap from Lunow (Germany) (after Peesch, for the outer casing of the aalkorf that was 1966). used mainly in salt and brackish water (a so- 22 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

fig. 23

b fig.26 fig.25 Recent alld pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 23 called white basket). Unpeeled ('green') wic­ the throat) narrower by cutting away regularly kers were used to weave the so-called dark an outer-casing wicker. A combination of basket (Dorleijn, 1977) So far as I have been these two methods is also known to occur. able to ascertain all recent Dutch fish-traps The opening through which the fisherman are light fish-traps. The terms prikkorj and removes the fi sh from the trap is often made aalkorj do not mean that we are concerned by the basket-maker at the end of the tail. with closely woven fish-traps. This fi sh-hole is closed off when the trap is The basket-maker can begin weaving a light in use by means of a wooden , a woven fish-trapin different ways. The basket-makers lid or a bunch of straw; alternatively the outer­ of Lunow (Germany) begin by weaving the casing wickers may be tied together with a tail end. The throat is woven separately and tough binding, that can be undone. There are is later inserted in the outer casing (Peesch, also fish-traps that have a fish-holein the outer 1966). Other basket-makers begin by weaving casing. The opening is sealed off with a woven the first hoop (Van Doom, 1971; Michelsen, or solid wooden flap. One of the many fish­ 1952) or by drawing together into a circle the traps of the Syrjans has no true fish-hole. In ends of the first hoop, if it is made out of this particular case the outer casing is not one twig (Sirelius, 1906). The throat is woven woven concentrically around the throat, and on to this first hoop. The basket-maker then the space that is thus created between them weaves the wickers of the outer casing on to is used as a fish-hole. When this fish-trap is the first hoop. In this way a fish-trap is in use the pole to which it is attached covers produced, in which the outer casing completely this opening. encloses the throat (fig. 25a). It is also possible The dimensions of the fish-traps (particu­ to weave the outer-casing wickers on to a cross­ larly the light fish-traps) are variable. In Ger­ strip of the throat. Then a fish-trapis produced many (Lunow) the eel-baskets are 120 and 150 in which the throat projects slightly out of cm long and the lamprey baskets 100 cm. There the outer casing (fig. 25b). A transitional form are also so-called We hrriisen (fish-traps that between the fish-trap with a built-in throat are used in combination with a weir). These and the fish-trap with the throat sticking out measure 5-6 m in length and have a mouth of the outer casing is to be seen in figure 26. opening of 1-1.5 m (Peesch, 1966). For a The outer-casing wickers are woven on to the number of Finnish fish-traps Sirelius (1906) first hoop. At the level of the middle of the mentions lengths of between 100 and 130 cm throat the outer casing becomes narrower, and and mouth openings between 100 and 130 cm behind this level it becomes wider again. To and mouth openings between 35 and 60 cm. strengthen the wickerwork of the outer casing The Dutch fish-traps also varied in size. The extra hoops are sometimes fitted. To give the prikkorj was 50-100 cm long, and measured fish-trap its funnel shape, the basket-maker 20-30 cm in diameter. This fish-basket had a weaves the cross-strips not around every outer­ cylindrical outer casing, and two throats (the casing wicker, but around every pair of these so-called hoedje and petje - the little hat and wickers. He does this at regular intervals. Thus the little cap). The basket was used for catching towards the tail the outer-casing wickers come river lampreys and smelt. So fa r I have not to lie increasingly closer together. The basket­ been able to find any measurements fo r the maker can also make the outer casing (and eel-baskets. Van Doom (1971) mentions only the use of the eel-basket with two throats and two wings that were woven on to the firsthoop (fig. 27), the welie (a large eel-basket), the vleugelkorj (literally: winged basket, an eel­ Fig. 23. Method of weaving fish-traps, using the Lein­ lVandbindung. basket with one weir element), the waas (an Fig. 24. Closely woven fish-trap from Batrovci (Yugo­ eel-basket especially suitable for use in strong slavia). Photo: B.A.I., Groningen. currents), a Friese korj (literally: Frisian bas­ Fig. 25. Placing of the throat: a) fish-trap with built­ ket, a short basket with two wings) and the in throat (Finland); b) fish-trap with throat sticking out of the outer casing (Russia) (after Sirelius, 1906). kachelk01f (literally: stove basket, an eel-bas­ Fig. 26. Fish-trap with built-in throat and narrowed ket without wings, in the shape of a pot-bellied outer-casing (Sweden) (after Sirelius, 1906). stove). 24 D.C. BRINKHUIZEN Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 25

The Dutch aalkubbe (a special kind of eel­ In the Netherlands, in the big rivers a basket or eel-pot) is a bell-shaped trap mea­ number of lamprey-baskets or eel-baskets were suring 50-60 cm in length. At the rear opening placed next to one another in the water on of the throat a silk net (called an inkeltje) is a steel wire or thick rope (a so-called weel attached, that is fastened to the tail with a or kubbenlijn ) (Van Doom, 197 1). In the piece of cord. (called an enkelsnoertje). The former Zuiderzee many eels were caught with fish-hole is situated at the end of the tail and the aalkubbe. The position of this kubbe in is closed off by means of a wooden plug. The the water is quite different to that of other space between the peeled outer-casing wickers fish-traps, i. e. it is vertical instead of horizon­ measures 0.5 cm and the space between the tal. The baited kubbe is weighted with stones cross-strips 4.5 cm. These cross-strips are wo­ and is hung on a cord from a stick stuck at ven in a spiral around the outer casing. The a slight angle into the bottom. This is done diameter of the rear opening of the throat in such a way that the mouth hoop just touches measures 5 cm (fig. 28). the bottom. The position of the kubbe on the ground can be altered by placing the stick at 2.3.3.2.3. Fishing with a trap and the kinds oJ a steeper or less steep angle accordingly. Du­ fish caught in it. To fish effectively with fish­ ring cold weather the eel moves down deeper traps (and other fishing gear), the fisherman and then the hoop has to rest on the bottom. must· have a broad knowledge of the habits During warm weather the kubbe may be lifted of the different kinds of fish. This means that up a little higher (Dorleijn, 1977). he must know his fishing waters (with regard The wicker fish-traps are not very durable. to depth, current, substratum, etc. ). In addi­ According to Sirelius (1906) the Finnish fish­ tion insight into weather conditions and fa­ traps are worn out after a few years. According miliarity with his equipment are important. to Dorleijn (1977) the aalkubbe that was used On the basis of this knowledge he sets out in the Zuiderzee lasted for two years. his fishing gear. 3 In principle almost any kind of fish can be The larger fish-traps are placed in combi­ caught with a fish-trap. For technical reasons nation with a weir. These can be very large this is not done, however, and for many kinds permanent weirs. The fish-trap is then lowered of fish no special fish-traps are made. Such into the weir and lifted out of it with the aid fish are caught with nets or lines. So fa r I of a vertical gate construction (fig. 29). have not found any special fish-traps in West­ In the Netherlands this kind of fishing is ern Europe for catching the larger kinds of known as weervisserij (literally: weir fishing). fish such as sturgeon and catfish. This can be It involves the use of a V-shaped weir, almost simply explained: large (predatory) fi sh are 1 km long, with a fish-trap made of yarn to rare compared to other, smaller kinds of fish. catch herring and anchovy and the zalmsteek A special fish-trap for large fish would provide (a row of fi sh-traps) to catch salmon. too low a yield. Moreover smaller kinds of In addition fish-traps are used in combi­ fish can easily swim in and out of such a fish­ nation with loose (transportable) weir ele­ trap. We thus find fish-traps for catching those ments. The fish-trap is then often anchored kinds of fish that are present in large numbers to a post, that has a central position in front in the waters concerned. These are nearly of the mouth opening. Also the tail can be always kinds of fish that are not very big attached to another post with a piece of cord. compared to sturgeon and catfish. When the Sometimes the tail is weighted with a stone. fishermanuses a fish-trap in combination with Fish-traps may also be put down in the water a weir or a fish-trap with wings, he does not completely weighted with stones. need to use any bait. The aalkubbe and the prikkorJ are baited, however. In the Nether­ lands the freshwater fisherman used the fish­ trap to catch the following kinds of fish: eel, perch, members of the carp fa mily, pike, ruffe , Fig. 27. Eel-basket with two throats and two wings, from the Netherlands (after De Groot & Schaap, 1973). smelt and river lampreys. When a migrant Fig. 28. Aalkubbe (wooden plug missing) from the species of fish was temporarily present in Netherlands. Photo: C.F.D., Groningen. freshwater (e.g. salmon, sea trout, houting, 26 D.e. BRINKHUIZEN

fig.29

fig.30

fig. 33

fig. 32 ------=r=;;=r="r=r==r=f=r='7=i

fig. 34 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 27 twaite shed and allis shed), these were fished trap the Syrjans also use a trap that consists too. In brackish/salt water herring and an­ of a loose throat and a loose outer casing. chovy were caught. The herring fishery with This throat is inserted in the outer casing. This fish-traps on the Frisian Wad (the tidal shal­ kind of fishing gear can also be regarded as lows) yielded a supplementary catch including a transitional fo rm between the trumpet fish­ flounder, gurnard, sole, codling and ray (Van trap and the fish-trap with fi xed throat. The der Molen, 1976). most developed fish-traps are those with an outer casing and throat made entirely out of 2.3.3.2.4. Th e development of the fish-trap with cording (2.3.4.4.). throat. On the one hand Sirelius (1906) regards the fi sh-trap with throat as a fu rther devel­ opment of the fish-surround, on the other hand 2.3.4. Th e fishingnet he regards it as a further development of the trumpet fish-trap. The final stage in the development of the It is evident that tish-surrounds placed in fi shing gear is the fishing net. This consists sandy and muddy bottoms are not completely entirely of cords that are knotted together in escape-proof. Fish can dig them selves into such a way that a meshwork is produced with the substratum and in this way escape under diamond-shaped openings. The cording of the barrier. Because there is no roof present, recent fishing nets is made out of hemp, cotton, birds of prey visit the fish-surround. Also nylon or other synthetic fibres. Sirelius (1906) strong sunlight can have a damaging effect mentions that in Finland also willow bast was on the fish. In the event of sudden flooding used formerly. Fishing with nets is in almost the fish-surround may disappear under the all respects more advantageous than fi shing water thus enabling the fish to escape. More­ with lines, weirs and wickerwork fish-traps. over, there are obvious difficultiesinvolved in The fishing net is less conspicuous, so the fish emptying a fish-surround of its catch, on are caught more easily in it. Once fish are account of its necessary situation in deep trapped in a net they become confused in the water. A transitional form between the fish­ meshwork and are hardly able to escape. surround and the fish-trap with throat is seen Moreover fishing nets are easy to handle and by Sirelius (1906) in a fi sh-surround from take up little space when they are stored away. Southeast Asia (fig. 30). This fishing gear has On the basis of their shape fishing nets can a base, and the top ends of the fe ncing are be divided into four groups, namely the square tied together. The contraption is placed ver­ net, the round net, the rectangular net and tically in the water, however. Figure 31 shows the bag-shaped net. a fish-trap with throat that is used by the Syrjans. This trap can be regarded as a further 2.3.4. 1. Th e square net developed form of trumpet fi sh-trap, since it This net is suspended by its corners from two has an especially long and narrow tail.4 The flexible sticks placed crosswise. At the point trap is made out of willow wickers. The cross­ where the sticks cross a cord is fa stened, and strips are roots of fir. The mouth-opening is the other end of this cord is attached to the square. end of a long stick. This kind of fishing gear In addition to the above-mentioned fish- is called a square net (Dutch: kruisnet or totebel) (fig. 32). The net has a closely spaced meshwork, and is let down horizontally into the water, until it comes to lie on the bottom. The fi sherman may place a bait on the net, Fig. 29. Weir with two fish-trap openings (Syrjans) (after but this is not essential. When the water is Sirelius, 1906). turbid, the fisherman raises the net haphazard. Fig. 30. Fish-surround from Siam (after Sirelius, 1906). If the water is clear, then he actively goes in Fig. 31. Fish-trap with a long narrow tail (Syrjans) (after search of fish. Then, whenever a fish swims Sirelius, 1906). Fig. 32. The square net. above the net, the net is lifted up. The di­ Fig. 33. The cast-net (after Zivkovic, 1956). mensions of square nets vary. Those that are Fig. 34. The drift-net. operated by hand measure c.4 m2• If the 28 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN fisherman is fishing from a boat, he uses a synthetic material and to the lower rope bigger net (e.g. 25 m2). Such a net would be weights made of stone, lead or some other mechanically operated (Van Doom, 1971). heavy materiaLS It is clearly obvious that rectangular nets are derived from the weir. 2.3.4.2. Th e round net Figure 34 shows the simplest form of drift­ This circular fishing net has a diameter of net, that is still widely used. From this basic about 4 m. The periphery of the network is kind of drift-net other kinds have been devel­ strengthened with a thick rope, to which lead oped that are more effective. I will not go into weights are attached. At the centre-point of this matter in any further detail. An important the net there is a small opening, in which a point is that the use of a boat is nearly always cow's horn or a ring made of horn is fi xed necessary for fishing with rectangular nets. to protect the network. Passing through this ring are a number of ropes (Dutch: pezen), 2.3.4.4. Th e bag-shaped net that are attached to the periphery of the net This kind of fishing gear consists of a network at regular intervals (fig. 33). This kind of funnel that is held open by means of a number fishing gear is known as a cast-net. The fish­ of wooden or metal hoops. In this funnel a erman stands in a boat or wades into the water number of constrictions are present. To lead and throws this net as fa r outspread as possible the fish towards the trap one or two network on to the surface of the water. On account wings are attached to the first" hoop (fig. 35). of the lead weights the net sinks rapidly to These network fish-traps are attached to posts the bottom and covers the fish there present. and placed in shallow water in lakes, rivers By pulling up the ropes that run through the and along the coast. central hole the fisherman is able to trap the The wickerwork fish-trapstood as a model fi sh inside the net, which is then pulled out fo r the development of the bag-shaped net. of the water. This in turn gave rise to the development of Van Doom (1971) states that the cast-net the drag-net or trawl. Seeing that this kind is derived from the stulpmand. This is a basket of fishery involves such a high degree of without a base. With this device the fisherman development of the fishing boat and fishing stands motionless in shallow water and waits techniques, however, I will not go into any until a fish or a shoal of fish comes along. further detail on this matter. As soon as the prey comes within reach, he quickly thrusts the basket down over the fish and can easily remove the fishfrom the basket. 2.4. Auxiliary fishing equipment Barthel (1977) mentions the find of a stulp­ mand dating from Roman times in Oberdorla. In the actual process of catching fish only a few items of auxiliary equipment are used. 2.3.4.3. Th e rectangular net These are: the splashing stick (Dutch: plons­ This fishing net is a rectangular network, of stok, German: Y;'ampe), the gaff (German: which the two long sides are attached to strong Schlaghaken) and the scoop-net or dip-net ropes (the top and bottom ropes). The dimen­ (Dutch: haam or schepnet). At the same time sions of this kind of fishing gear are very one could regard the boat and the live-box variable, and depend on the waters that are as auxiliary fishing equipment. In view of the to be fishedwith it. Smaller specimens measure fa ct that terms like scoop-net and boat need e. g. 10 m in length and 1 m in height; others no further description, I shall not devote any may be as much as several hundreds of metres attention to them here. long and ten or more metres high. The rec­ tangular net is always placed vertically in the water. This can be done in two ways: either 2.4.1. Th e sp lashing stick the net is suspended on vertical posts that are driven into the lake, river or sea bottom (a This is a long wooden stick with a small flat standing net) or the net is used as a so-called wooden disc at one end. There are also splash­ drift-net. In the latter case, to the upper rope ing sticks that have a hollow wooden disc, are attached floats made of wood, cork or a hollowed-out gnarled piece of wood or a Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 29 piece of leather (Sirelius, 1906). To alarm the catching salmon and is usually slightly smaller fishand to drive them towards the fi shing gear than the sturgeon hook (Van Doorn, 1971). noise is made in the water. The fisherman can Van der Molen (1976) mentions the use of a do this by merely hitting the water surface gaff in the hoekwant fishery. The fishery mu­ with an ordinary stick. It is evident that the seum in Moddergat (Friesland) possesses a splashing stic:k results in a more rapid and finely decorated iron hook that was used in effective flight of the fish, however, as it bringing in large cod. produces a noise of greater resonance. A species of fish that does not flee from the noise, but rather is attracted by it, is the 2.4.3. Th e live-box European catfish. The predatory fish is only active at night. In order to make the fishactive This is a square or rectangular wooden con­ in the daytime, the fisherman makes use of tainer with a lid. In the bottom and in the the splashing stick. In Yugoslavia a wooden lower part of the sides small holes are present, or iron stick c. 40 cm long is used fo r this so that water can flow in and out of the purpose. At the end of this a hollowed-out container. The live-box provides a means of disc, c. 5 cm in diameter, is attached (fig. 36). keeping alive fish that have been caught, and With this splashing stick the water is struck also of transporting them alive. obliquely from above. This is done very re­ In the Netherlands large wickerwork trailing gularly (c. 20 strokes per minute), and in this baskets were used for transporting river lam­ way a resonant singing noise is produced, that preys from Arnhem to Vlaardingen. These carries a long way. According to Risti6 (1977) baskets were secured alongside the fishing boat this sound imitates the noise that is made when (Lobregt & Van Os, 1977). A fixed live-box a large catfish snaps up its prey. Impelled by in a fishing boat is known in Dutch as a beun their insatiable appetite the catfish swim to­ or bun. In Yugoslavia wooden live-boxes are wards the source of the noise. Here they are used that are in the shape of small boats c. caught with a strong line and large baited 1 m long. These are pulled along by means hook, which the fi sherman moves up and down of a rope attached to the fi shing boat. in the water. As it is difficult to haul in large During excavations of Early Medieval Do­ catfish from the riverbank or shore, this kind restad (Wijk bij Duurstede), a rectangular of fishing is only done from a boat. oaken frame was found in the bed of the Rhine, dating from Carolingian times. This frame had a bottom made of a wickerwork of willow 2.4.2. Th e gaff wands, while in the frame there were holes that had been bored into it, in which remains The gaff consists of a long wooden stick with of the side-walls were still present. The object a large iron hook at one end. The hook is has been interpreted as the remains of a live­ sometimes barbed. It is attached to the stick box (Van Es, 1974; Casparie & Swarts, 1978). by means of thread (fig. 37). With the aid of the gaff the fishermanremoves from the water the larger fish that have swum into the pas­ 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS OF sively-operating fishing gear. I have also men­ FISHING GEAR tioned the gaff as an actively operated kind of fishing gear under 2.2. 1. Among the people In the article 'The development of fishing in living around Lake Ladoga a similar gaff is prehistoric Europe' (Clark, 1948), detailed used for catching seals (Sirelius, 1934). information is given about the ways in which In the Netherlands, those who fish in rivers prehistoric man in Europe exploited the na­ are fa miliar with specific types of gaff, namely tural fish populations as a source of fo od, and the steurhaak and zalmhaak (literally: sturgeon about the kinds of fish that were certainly or hook and salmon hook). The sturgeon hook probably caught. After this survey had been is a large crescent-shaped hook that is thrust published, in the field of archaeology hardly into a sturgeon when it threatens to escape any more attention was devoted to this subject. from the net. The salmon hook is used in Recent research has shown, however, that 30 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

c »?bP > r r £m;;-;t atli»ttM MW,. fig.37

'-,,.

'. 9 !

'--'''. __ J �'.

. .... ' t . __.- I : ",' , ",

fig. 38 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 31 some assumptions made in that article were types of pre- and pro to historic fishing gear premature, and therefore stand in need of from the Netherlands, as mentioned in the text. readjustment.

3.2. The fish-spear 3.1. The met�od of approach In prehistoric assemblages since the Upper In looking for references to pre- and proto­ Palaeolithic, objects evidently occur that strong­ historic fishing gear in the archaeological li­ ly resemble the loose prongs of recent fish­ terature I have had to restrict myself in many spears. These are long (c. 15 cm) narrow points ways. For example, I have not attempted to that have a number of small barbs on one make an inventory of the non-independently long edge. They are made out of bone or antler. operating types of fishing gear. That would and are called leister prongs or barbed points. be a very time-consuming task, as there are These barbed points are found especially in many scattered references to such finds in the those countries around the southern part of literature. Rather, I have limited myself to a the North Sea, the North Sea itself and coun­ few brief remarks on fish-spear prongs and tries around the Baltic Sea, as isolated finds gorges, and also to the description of six bone in old lake-bottom sediments. Barbed points fish-hooks from the Netherlands, in conside­ have also been found in excavations of Me­ ration of their effectiveness from a theoretical solithic (Maglemose) settlements in Denmark. viewpoint. In . these settlements fish remains were also With regard to the independently operating' found. Among these remains those of pike fishinggear I have not made any special effort evidently predominate, or at least occur re­ to look for references to archaeological finds gularly (Degerb.0l, 1945). Also the find of a ' of weirs, fish-surrounds andfishing nets. Finds pike skeleton in the close vicinity of a barbed of weirs and fishing nets are well known. On point (Indreko, 1948) makes it probable that the other hand, so far I have not come' across the barbed points were for catching fish. any finds offish- surrounds. Emphasis is laid, On the basis of this evidence Clark (1948) however, on the inventorization of Mesolithic stated: 'Evidently, from the rarity of remains and Neolithic wickerwork fish-trapsand frag­ of other species, we have to do with a spe­ ments thereoffrom the Netherlands, Northern cialized pike fishery. In summer this was Germany, Denmark and Sweden. In addition, mainly carried on by spears as the fish lay with regard to these findsattention is devoted quiet in still, shallow water'. That this state­ to the plaiting method used and the degree ment is too one-sided and may lead to wrong of regularity in the wickerwork, as fa r as can conclusions is clear if we look at the Late be ascertained. Also in a number of cases a Preboreal settlement of Star Carr. Partly on reconstruction is attempted of the fish-trap or the basis of the absence of pike remains (no fragment in order to gain some idea of the fish remains were fo und at all) Clark (1954) possible type. concludes that the settlement cannot have been Figure 38 indicates the sites of the various inhabited in the summer. However, besides the fact that pike can be caught just as well in winter, Wheeler (1978a) comes to the conclu­ sion, on the basis of biological and palaeogeo­ graphical fa ctors, that pike could not have Fig. 35. Network fi sh-trap with two wings. been present at the time in the lake next to Fig. 36. Splashing stick for activating catfish(Yugoslavia) (after Zivkovic, 1956). which Star Carr was situated. The data that Fig. 37. The gaff(after Sirelius, 1934). have been obtained from the material of the Fig. 38. The Netherlands at the present time, showing Danish Maglemose settlements are not appli­ the findspots of the various types of pre- and proto­ cable a priori to contemporary settlements historic fishing gear: I. Rotterdam-Europoort; 2. Vlaar­ elsewhere. Many barbed points were indeed dingen; 3. Rotterdam-Bergschenhoek; 4. Molenaars­ graaf; 5. Olst; 6. Spoolde; 7. Noordoostpolder; 8. terpen present at Star Carr. Despite the absence of area; 9. Emmerer.fscheidenveen; 10. Utrecht; 11. Dore­ fish remains, in my opinion these barbed stad (Wijk bij Duurstede). points could certainly have been used for 32 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

fig.39

fig. 40

12 0 • 11

10 0

9 0 • x x 0 8 • 0 7 0 x 0 6

5 X x i ::::!: 4 x x u x

z 3 x � • I X. I-

TOTAL WIDTH IN CM Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 33

catching fish, namely fish of the salmon family. boreal or Early Boreal. About 10 barbed On the basis of the biology and the distribution points have been found as a result of sand­ of salmonids it is well possible that there dredging operations at Europoort, Rotterdam. existed a standing population of arctic charr They probably come from a deposit that is or a migrant population of salmon and sea­ dated in the very beginning of the Boreal trout in the Late Preboreal lake. However, for (Louwe Kooijmans, 1970/1971, 1976). Some ' physiological and chemical reasons the chan­ of these barbed points are very small (c. 5 ces of remains of salmonids becoming fossi­ cm) in comparison with barbed points from lized are very slight (Lepiksaar, 1975; Wheeler, other sites. Despite their small size, that these 1978b). Also cultural factors can be respon­ objects functioned as fish-spear prongs is not sible for decreasing the likelihood of preser­ impossible in my opinion. vation of salmonid remains. For example, it is known that certain North American Indian tribes prepare the salmon they catch by split­ 3.3. The gorge ting them lengthwise, drying them and then pounding them into fish-meal (Casteel, 1976). Bone objects interpreted as gorges are known It will thus be clear that salmonid fish pro­ from as early a context as Upper Palaeolithic cessed in this way will leave no or hardly any sites in France (Sirelius, 1934; Clark, 1948). remams. Reinerth (1926) illustrates two objects from In Neolithic and later periods it is evident a Swiss Neolithic lake-shore settlement which that the finds of barbed points decrease. This he interprets as gorges. The larger specimen may be, on the one hand, the result of the measures 11.2 cm in length and 1.2 cm in development of better fishing gear and, on the diameter; the smaller one is 3.9 cm long and other hand, due to the transition from hunting, 0.4 cm in diameter. Barthel (1977) mentions fishing and fo od-collecting to agriculture and a number of bone gorges dating from Neoli­ stockbreeding. Fish-spears remain in use, how­ thic, Roman and Early Medieval times from ever. The Greeks and Romans used the fish­ Thuringen. The author also mentions that the spear, as is evident from frequently occurring constriction in the middle of the gorge is not illustrations in pictorial art. This does not necessary. This became evident to him as a mean that for the Greeks and Romans this result of experiments with gorges. was the most important kind of fishing gear. The fish-spear is rather the kind of tackle used by those who fish for pleasure, and as such 3.3.1. Gorges in the Netherlands emphasizes the element of sport. In the Netherlands many bone artifacts resem­ bling gorges have been found in the terpen 3.2. 1. Barbed points from the Netherlands of Friesland and Groningen (fig. 40). Most of them have not been dated, however. Similar Also from the Netherlands a number of barbed objects are also known from the Early Medi­ points are known. One of these comes from eval town of Dorestad. Some Dutch authors Emmererfscheidenveen (fig. 39). On the basis think that these objects were used in spinning, of the data of Clark (1936), the object is dated while others leave the question open as to what by Louwe Kooijmans (1970/1971) in the Pre- function they may have had. Roes (1963) describes a number of these objects yet she does not attribute any fu nction to them, but says 'not all the rods need have served the same purpose for there are many different Fig. 39. Barbed point from Emmererfscheidenveen. types among them'. Photo: R.M.O., Leiden. In my opinion it is possible that a number Fig. 40. Double-pointed bone rods from the Dutch lerpen of the double-pointed short bone rods that area. Photo: C.F.D., Groningen. Fig. 41. The relationship between length and width of have been found in the Netherlands were used bone fish-hooks,from Southern Sweden (after Lekholm, as gorges. In the middle of some of these rods 1951) and the Netherlands. a number of notches or a small hole can be 34 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

seen. These notches could serve as a distin­ period. These three hooks I shall refer to from guishing mark for the fisherman, while at the here on as hook a, hook b and hook c. In same time they would prevent the line from addition to these, three isolated finds of fish­ slipping off the rod. hooks are known, to which I shall refer as hooks d, e and f. Hook a is a bone hook (maximum length 3.4. The fish-hook 4.3 cm) without a barb (fig. 42a). At the top of the hook-shaft there is a small thickening The oldest fish-hooks that we find in North­ or knobble. Below this knobble a groove western Europe date from the Boreal-Meso­ appears to be present, that runs around the lithic. These fish-hooks measure up to several hook-shaft. In the hook-bend one can still see centimetres in length and have no barb. They part of the perforation that determined the are made out of a single piece of bone or antler. shape of the hook-bend. Bone fish-hooks with a barb and combination Hook b is a bone hook (3.1 cm long) without hooks with separate hook-shaft and hook­ a barb (fig. 42b). there IS no knobble present point appear in Northwestern Europe at the to prevent the line from sliding off. However, end of the Neolithic. Soon afterwards metal the diameter of the hook-shaft does increase fish-hooks make their appearance (approxi­ towards the top. With this hook, too, part mately in the Late Bronze Age) (Clark, 1948). of the perforation is visible. Nevertheless bone fish-hooks both with and Hook c is a bone hook (2.6 cm long) without without a barb continue to remain in use (see a barb (fig. 42c). No provision has been made e.g. Solberg, 1909). Until recently fisherfolk to prevent the line from slipping off. With this who had little or no contact with techno)o­ hook, too, part of the perforation is still visible gica!ly advanced, cultures still used bone and in the hook-bend. wooden fish-hooks. Consequently it is obvious Hook d measures 7.6 cm in length and is that an isolated find ofa bone or metal fish­ made out of antler (fig. 42d).6 It was found hook is difficult to date. in the River IJssel at Olst. This is a hook with Lekholm (1951) studied 40 bone fish-hooks a barb. Around the hook-shaft there runs only from Southern Sweden. Of these 29 had been a single groove, and not several grooves as fo und in freshwater deposits and 11 in marine mentioned in the description given by Louwe deposits. None of the hooks were dated. From Kooijmans (1974). an examination of the complete specimens it Hook e measures 9.2 cm in length and is was evident that the hooks from the freshwater made out of antler (fig. 42e).7 It was found deposits were generally smaller than those at some time around 1950 in the Zwolse Vaart from the marine deposits (fig. 41). Also the in the N oordoostpolder (Van der Heide, 1972). hook opening was evidently bigger with in­ The hook has a barb. Just below the top of creasing length of the hook-shaft. In addition the hook-shaft there are three notches present the grip angles were measured. These varied on both the inner and outer side. These notches from -25° to 65°, though most of the hooks have been cut in such a way that they alternate had a grip angle of between 30° and 40°. This with respect to one another. This implies that range corresponds fa irly well with the grip the line was attached to the hook-shaft spirally. angles of modern steel hooks. The cross-sections of the hook-shaft, the hook­ bend and the hook-point are more or less round. 3.4.1. Bone fish-hooks fr om the Netherlands; Hook f measures 11.7 cm in length and is description made out of antler (fig. 42f).8 It was found in 1948 on the Frisian side of the Noordoost­ Louwe Kooijmans (1974) mentions six bone polder (Boeles, 1951). The hook has a barb fish-hooks from the Netherlands. Three of an,d the top of the hook-shaft consists of a these were found together with a tool made large rectangular knobble. In cross-section the of red-deer antler and a few flint artefacts in hook-shaft is rectangular and the hook-point grave II at Molenaarsgraaf in the Ablasser­ round. The inner side of the hook-bend is more waard. The grave dates from the Bell Beaker or less flat, while the outer side is rounded. Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 35

About 1.5 cm away from the knobble of the Table 2, The measurements and grip angles of the fish-hooks hook, on one side of the hook-shaft a shaliow a-f transverse groove is present, measuring about Length Width Hook Angle of grip (0) 2 cm in breadth. opening (mm) (mm) (mm) A B

Hook a 43 17 13 57 45 3.4.2. Measurements Hook b 31 15 10 48 33 Hook c 26 14 11 63 62 The various measurements and grip angles of Hook d 76 25 16 55 32 the hooks a-f are given in table 2. They are Hook e 92 43 24 46 36 taken according to figure 43.9 Hook f 117 57 28 42 28 Two different grip angles were determined. Grip angle A is the angle between the ima­ ginary line through the axis of the hook-point and the imaginary line from the hook-point which does not appear in table 1, is fished to where in my' opinion the line was attached, for with a hook that is of the same size as namely below the knobble or around the or larger than those used for catching pike groove situated nearest the top. I have also and salmon. Remains of large European cat- assumed that the line was attached to the outer ,fish have been shown to occur regularly in side of the hook-shaft, facing away from the pre- and protohistoric settlements in the catch­ hook-point. ment area of the ,Maas, Rhine and IJssel Grip angle B is the angle between the (Brinkhuizen, 1979a). The hooks e and f could imagmary line through the axis of the hook­ have been used for catching cod and other point and the imaginary line from the hook­ large species of marine fish. On the basis of point to that part of the top of the hook-shaft the size of its grip angles it would seem situated closest to the hook-point (Lekkolm, impossible to catch a fish with hook c: the 1951). fish would very readily get hooked, but could just as easily escape. Moreover no provision has been made to prevent the line from slipping 3.4.3. Conclusions off the hook-shaft. This could mean that the hook was specially made to serve as a grave On the basis of the data presented in table gift for the dead, and that it was never used 2, that have been included to some extent in for catching fish. figure 41, we can draw a few conclusions. It is difficult to assign a date to the undated On the basis of their measurements the hooks d, e and f. Metz (1975) dates hook d hooks a, b and c fit well in the group of in the Mesolithic. On the basis of the presence freshwater fish-hooks from Sweden. This is of a barb we should date the hook, according in agreement with their place of origin, which to Clark (1948), in the Late Neolithic or was situated in a former freshwater tidal delta. thereafter. Hook d could have been used for fishing in Hook e shows traces of working on the inner either freshwater or the sea. The findspot side of the hook-bend and the hook-shaft. suggests rather that it was used in freshwater. Clason (pers. comm.) deduces from the nature On the basis of their measurements it seems of these traces that the hook was made with that hooks e and f were intended for use in the aid of flint tools. On the basis of this a the sea. dating in the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze On ethological and anatomical grounds, e. g. Age would seem justifiable. Traces of inha­ the way in which fish of a particular species bitation dating from this period have been bite, the position of the mouth of fish of a fo und in the region concerned. Although the particular species, etc., the data of table 2 can exact fi ndspot of the hook is not known, we also be compared' with those of table 1. It know that the local aquatic environment was would then appear that hooks a-d could only a freshwater one fo rmerly. In that case the be used fo r catching pike, salmon and Euro­ hook must have been used for catching fresh­ pean catfish. This last-mentioned species, water fish, quite possibly European catfish. 36 D.C. B RINKH UIZEN

a b c d e fig. 42 , , \�:

, -->, fig. 43

fig. 47 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 37

Va n der Heide (1955) dates hook f, on the framework must almost certainly have been basis of isolated finds in the vicinity, in the part of a weir. In H0yland (Western Norway) Late Neolithic or in the Early Bronze Age. a similar weir was found in the channel of Although this dating cannot be rejected, it is a silted-up stream, that once connected two my impression that the hook dates from a small lakes. The sediment in which the find younger perio�. This is suggested by its shape was present was dated by means of pollen and the way in which the hook-bend and hook­ analysis to the period of transition from Stone shaft are neatly finished off. The size of the Age to Bronze Age in Norway. Becker (1941) hook indicates that it was used for sea fishing. describes a fragment of a wattle screen from On the basis of the assumption that in the Svinninge Velje (Holbaek district, Sjaelland, Netherlands the first seaworthy fishing boats Denmark). The find was made in a marine were built only in Roman times, the hook can deposit, dating from the Atlantic (zone VIIb perhaps better be dated between the beginning according to a palynological investigation by of the Christian Era and the Early Middle Troels-Smith). The fragment, which measured Ages. Seeing that the environment in the 65 x 50 CIp., was made out of parallel wickers vicinity of the findspot was a freshwater or connected to one another by means of twisted brackish one, the hook must have been lost strips according to the Zwirnbindung techni­ from a fishing boat on its way to or from que. The wickers were lime twigs and the strips the sea. Because of its size, it is also possible were of lime bast. In the immediate vicinity that the hook was attached to a stick and used of the fragment some 20 or so pointed stakes as a gaff. were found. These stakes, which measured 3- 5 cm in diameter, had been driven into the bottom in a row. Becker interprets the whole 3.5. The weir construction as a weir, that led the fishtowardS a fish-trap. In my opinion this is not necessarily If the water conditions were suitable,. prehis­ so. The find-spot once formed part of -the toric fisherfolk would certainly have made Lammefjord and with the tidal movement of use of weirs. However, archaeological finds water in this locality the weir could have of weirs or fragments thereof are rare. There functioned as an independently operating kind are various reasons to account for this (3.6). of fishing gear (a so-called gaard: 2.3.1.1.). Becker (1941) also describes the find of a wickerwork fish-trap from a peat-bog at Mag­ 3.5.1. Archaeological finds of fish-weirs outside leby Long (Sow district, Sj aelland, Den­ the Netherlands mark). At a distance of 2-3 m from the fish­ trap a fragment of a screen was found. This Clark (1948) mentions the find from KyrksHitt did not have any cross-strips, but the wickers (Finland) of a row of vertical posts, about 13.5 were most probably clamped between obli­ m long, with horizontally lying branches. This quely standing sticks. It is clear that we are concerned here with a fish-trap with a weir.

Fig. 42. Fish-hooks made of bone or antler, from the 3.5.2. Fish-weirs in the Netherlands Netherlands: a, b and c. Molenaarsgraaf (after Louwe Kooijmans, 1974); d. Olst (photo: R.M.O., Leiden); e, Up to the present time no finds have been f. Noordoostpolder (photo: C.F.D., Groningen). made of clearly recognizable weirs. During the Fig. 43. Measurements of the fish-hook. a length; b width; c hook opening; A, B grip angles. excavation of the Neolithic settlement in Vlaar­ Fig. 44. Reconstruction of the enclosure for catching dingen, in the tidal creek that ran alongside sturgeon at Vlaardingen (after Boddeke, 197 1). the s.ettlement many wooden posts were found. Fig. 45. Layer 2 of the fish-trap fragment from Nidl0se Boddeke (1971) interprets these as the remains e (after Beck r, 1941). of a weir for catching sturgeon. When the Fig. 46. Fish-trap fragment from Magleby Long (after Becker, 1941). water was rising the sturgeon would first pass Fig. 47. Median cross-section of the reconstructed fish­ a V- shaped weir with a throat opening and trap fragment from Fjellenstrup. then come up against a solid barrier of posts. 38 D.e. BRINKHUIZEN

Before the tide turned the throat opening was we are concerned here with the use of a weir sealed off, so that the sturgeon could no longer as an independently operating kind of fishing escape down to the sea. At low water the gear either by itself or in combination with sturgeon could then be simply removed from a fish-trap is not clear. The latter alternative the enclosure (fig. 44). In this method we see seems to me more likely. the principle of the laltam (2.3.1.). During the excavation remains were also found of a riet with a mesh-width of 24 cm. 3.6. The wickerwork fish-trap Among these remains a dermal scute of stur­ geon was present. Van Iterson Scholten (1977) The find of a wickerwork fish-trap or a frag­ is of the opinion that this net was used to ment of such a trap can be regarded as a very seal off the throat opening of the weir. The rare find indeed. This becomes clear if we look net from Vlaardingen could also be a net for at the conditions under which a wickerwork transporting heavy objects, like a sturgeon. To fish-trap has to function. Fish-traps are set my mind the use of the laltam in Vlaardingen in shallow water in places where fish are is a reasonable supposition. Detailed exami­ abundant. In such places the water is eutrophic nation of the excavation ground-plans, that and thus rich in oxygen. Fish-traps are subject so fa r have only partly been published, may to rapid oxidation. Moreover it is evident that provide more information on this matter. In e. g. the wickerwork of an eel-basket disinte­ a photograph published by Va n Iterson Schol­ grates as a result of the exertions of the eels ten (1977) a row of posts is visible that is trapped inside in their attempt to escape. After strongly reminiscent of a weir. a couple of years the trap is worn out and In Spoolde, during the investigation of a is then thrown away or burnt. In view of the site where objects made of antler had been local conditions (a eutrophic environment), found, a gully was cut into which probably the chances of the trap ending up in an dates from the Bell Beaker period. At the environment with good preservation condi­ . bottom of the gully filling a number of roughly tions are extremely small. This occurs only hewn wooden posts were present (Van der if the trap becomes rapidly covered by a Heide, 1962). It is possible that these posts sediment or if the oxygen content of the water were used for the attachment of fish-traps or suddenly decreases drastically. Also it is evi­ nets; alternatively they may have formed part dent that a fish-trap or fragment thereof that of a weir. has ended up in an environment with good At Molenaarsgraaf in the Ablasserwaard, preservation conditions becomes as soft as the excavation was carried out of a settlement butter in the course of time. Before the trap dating from the period of transition from the is recognized as such, it has therefore often Neolithic to the Bronze Age (Early Bell been partly dug away. Nevertheless a number Beaker/Barbed Wire Beaker). In the stream of fish-traps or fragments of traps have been channel that ran alongside the settlement, a found and recovered. Also in a number of cases number of pointed wooden posts were found. fish remains have been found in the immediate Some of these were still standing vertically, vicinity, that may originate from fishthat were others were leaning at an angle as a result caught with the aid of these traps. of the pressure of water flowing through the channel. The excavation plan of the stream channel does not show any systematic distri­ 3.6.1. Archaeological finds of wickerwork fish­ bution of the posts. Louwe Kooijmans (1974) traps fr om Denmark presumes that nets or fish-traps were attached to the posts. Alternatively these posts could Fish-trap fragment, found in 1905 in the be regarded as the remains of a weir. Amosen at Nidl0se, Holbaek district, Sj ael­ In the Netherlands weirs were used for land. This find is described by Becker (1941). fishing in the Middle Ages. An 11th century The fragment dates from the Early Atlantic copy of the list of property belonging to the (zone VIIa according to the zonation of Knut church ofSt. Martin in Utrecht mentions seven Jessen). It measures 52 by 38 cm and consists fish weirs in Muiden (Blok, 1974). Whether of two layers of wickerwork. The wickers Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 39 measure 0.5-0.7 cm in thickness and are made Fish-trap fragment, found in 1940 during of birch twigs. The space between the wickers turfcutting operations in Fj ellenstrup near measures at most 0.9 cm. The cross-strips are Gilleleje, Sj aelland. Before the fish-trap was made of split pine roots. The distance between recognized as such, 1-1.5 m of it had already the cross-strips, that hold the wickers together been dug away. The find isdescribed by Becker by means of the Zwirnbindung, measures 4- (1943) and has been dated by Iversen, on the . 8.5 cm. basis of pollen analysis, in the Middle Atlantic. In the wickerwork of one layer the wickers From the geological investigation it became run almost parallel. In the other layer, how­ evident that the fish-trap lay in the bank zone ever, the wickers converge towards one another of a former small island. This small island was and a few wickers have been cut away situated in the narrow fj ord that connected with some degree of regularity (fig. 45: see the S0borg Lake with the Kattegat in the Early arrow). On the basis of this difference Becker Atlantic. The excavated fragment has a total concludes that layer 2 is part of the throat. length of 2.95 m. The maximum width is 90 Layer 1 is then part of the outer casing at cm. The width at the end of the tail is 20 cm. the level of the throat. The fi nd is thus part The wickers of the wickerwork measure 0.3- of a light fish-trap with throat. 0.6 cm in thickness and are peeled. The dis­ Fish-trap fragment that was fo und in 1940 tance between adjacent wickers is at most 0.7 in the Magleby Long, SOH" district, Sjaelland. cm. The twisted cross-strips are made of twigs, This fi nd is described by Becker (1941). With split lengthwise. The space between the cross­ some reservation the fragment can be dated strips measures 5.5-6.5 cm. To give extra to the beginning of the Subboreal (zone VIII strength to the outer casing there are some­ according to the zonation of Knut Jessen). The times two or three cross-strips close together. fragment consists of a flattened fu nnel (fig. The entire structure is plaited together by 46). The wide end of this measures 18 cm; means of the Zwirnbindung method. The wick­ the width at the narrow end is 5.5 cm. The ers of the tail-end are tied together with a piece total length of the fragment is 34.5 cm. The of cord, which could be undone. wickers measure 0.4-0.6 cm in thickness and In the tail a small stone is present. From are made of lime twigs. These are attached that part of the fish-trap that had been dug to one another with twisted lime-bast cross­ away a few remains were retrieved. These strips by means of a Zwirnbindung. To some consisted of two layers of wickerwork, which extent the cross-strips run in a spiral around differed from each other. In one layer the the fu nnel. The distance between cross-strips wickers run parallel to one another (the wick­ is 3.5 cm at most. The top of the cone is closed ers of the outer casing); in the other layer off by a double cross-strip. The funnel has the wickers converge towards each other (the been made narrower by cutting away wickers. throat wickers). Also peat was found contai­ In the funnel a stone c. 7 cm in diameter was ning three layers of wickerwork. On the basis found. At some distance fr om the fi sh-trap of this Becker interprets the find as a fish­ fragment the remains of a weir were fo und trap with throat measuring c. 4 m in length. (3.5.1 .). Becker interprets the find as the tail­ If we estimate the diameter of the wide part end of a fish-trap, which was placed in the of the excavated fragment, this comes to c. water weighted with stones. It is not possible 60 cm. The tail of the funnel is bound together to ascertain whether a throat structure was to make it shut. From the reconstruction it present. In making a reconstruction of the tail­ is therefore clear that the fish-trap was very end, I noticed that the wide end of the funnel narrow (fig. 47). In my opinion we are here measured c. 11 cm in diameter. The other end also concerned with the transition form be­ of the funnel is tied together so as to make tween a trumpet fish-trap and a fish-trap with it shut. Therefore the tail-end must have been throat, i. e. the long narrow fish-trap with very narrow. It is thus well possible that the throat. fragment is the tail-end of a trumpet fish-trap. Fish-trap fragment, found in 1968 during It could also be a transition form between a the excavation of a coastal settlement dating trumpet fish-trap and a fish-trap with throat, from Early · Atlantic times at Villingebaek, i. e. the long narrow fish-trap with throat. Sj aelland. Kapel (1969) mentions the find, but 40 D.e. BRINKHUIZEN

a b

fig. 51

fig . 50 fig . 52 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 41

gives no description of it. He interprets the those of the throat, and one halfway down fragment as being the throat of a fish-trap. the outer casing behind the throat. From the photos accompanying his article it Figure 48b shows a light fish-trap with can be deduced that the wickers are most throat too. This specimen also has a hoop probably peeled. They converge towards one halfway down the outer casing. The wickers another and �re joined together with cross­ of the outer casing are tied together at the strips according to the Zwirnbindung techni­ end of the tail with a piece of cord, which que. Here too the wickerwork has been made could be loosened. The tail is fa irly wide. This to become narrower by the cutting away of implies too that the specimen is not a trumpet wickers. The distance between the cross-strips fish-trap. becomes smaller towards the narrow end. At Fish-trap fragments, found at Koster Vig least two layers of wickerwork are visible. (to be more correct: Sprove), Damsholte, Praes­ Whether the fragment is the throat or the tail t[0 district, M0n. The find consists of 12 frag­ of a fish-trapwill only become clear when the ments of one or more fish-traps. No further entire structure has been finally prepared. information is available, as the fr agments In the course of the excavation fish remains were found in the course of turf-digging ope­ were found. These come from spurdog, cod .rations. They are kept in the National Museum and pike (identification U.M0hl). in Copenhagen where their classification num­ Tw o fish-traps and fish-trap fragments, ber is A 39570-81.10 found in 1946 in Lille Knapstrup, Holbaek Mathiassen (1948) mentions this find, about district, Sjaelland. The fi nd was made in the which no more pUblications have appeared as course of turf-digging operations in a peat­ far as I am aware. bog and has only been published in a short Mathiassen (1948) mentions the find of a communication in a Danish journal (Becker, fish-trap at Svinnige Velje. In his publication 1946). The find consisted of two almost com­ he refers to Becker (1941). The latter author, plete fish-traps with throat. These lay c. 2.5 however, interprets the find as a fragment of m apart. Moreover about 6 m away from these a weir (3.5.1 .). fish-traps the fragments of five or six other traps were found. To gether with one of the fragments pieces of cord were found, as well 3.6.2. Archaeological finds of wickerwork fish­ as stones around which cord had been wound. traps fr om Sweden It is clear that this fish-trap was formerly anchored with the aid of stones. The find is Fish-trap fragment, found in 1952 in Jonstorp, provisionally estimated to date from the At­ parish of Jonstorp, Schonen. The find is des­ lantic period. cribed by Petersson & Olausson (1952). The Clark (1965) illustrates the two almost com­ fragment was found, when a well was being plete specimens from Lille Knapstrup. The dug, at a depth of 6.3 m below the surface findspot that he mentions is however incorrect. in a marine sandy gyttja, that dates from the Figure 48a shows a short, light fish-trap with Atlantic (probably an older phase of zone Vs throat. The trap has two hoops, namely one according to the zonation of Ta ge Nilsson). where the wickers of the outer casing meet The fragment measures maximally 10 by 20 cm and consists of two layers of wickerwork. In one layer the wickers converge towards one another and wickers have been cut away with some degree of regularity (fig. 49: see arrow). Fig. 48. The two complete fish-traps from Lille Knap­ strup, Holbaek, Sjaelland (after Clark, 1965). In the wickerwork of the other layer the Fig. 49. Fish-trap fragment from Jonstorp (after Pe­ wickers run parallel and with a certain degree tersson & Olausson, 1952). of regularity two adjacent wickers are enclosed Fig. 50. Fish-trap from the Schliisbeker Moor (after within a single loop of a cross-strip (a 'double Sprockho ff, 1953). wicker'). The working scheme fo llowed in this Fig. 51. Closely woven fish-trap from Oberdorla (after Barthe1, 1977). layer is: 1 double wicker, 2 single wickers, 1 Fig. 52. Fish-trap C from Rotterdam-Bergschenhoek double wicker, 3 single wickers, 1 double (after Sarfatij , 1978). wicker, 2 single wickers, 1 double wicker, 3 42 D.e. BRINKHUIZEN single wickers, etc. On the basis of these 3.6.3. Archaeological finds of wickerwork fish­ differences the authors conclude that one layer traps fr om Northern Germany is a fragment of the throat structure and the other part of the outer casing. The wickers Fish-traps, found in Lake Dummer. Petersson used are unpeeled birch twigs. As a result of & Olausson (1952) mention this find, with the pressure exerted by the overlying sediment reference to the publication ofReinerth (1939). they have been deformed into wickers 0.1 cm In the latter a broad description is given of thick and 0.3-0.4 cm wide. The cross-strips the results of the excavation of a settlement consist of peeled willow twigs split lengthwise. of the Funnel-Beaker Culture (Dummer-Lem­ The space between the wickers is at most 0.7 bruch). There is mention of findsmade of fish cm. The distance between the cross-strips, that remains, from pike and perch, but not of any hold the wickers together by means of the fish-traps. On the other hand, Durr (1962), Zwirnbindung, is 3.5-5 cm. Also a double cross­ who was excavation technician for Reinerth, strip is present, consisting of two closely ad­ does indeed mention two fish-traps in com­ jacent single cross-strips (fig. 49: the cross­ bination with two weirs for this site. In contrast strips on the extreme right). We also know to Reinerth's publication, Durr states that the of one species of fi sh that was caught with settlement was occupied twice, namely in the this fish-trap. Between the two layers of wick­ Neolithic and in the Iron Age. He sees in­ erwork some fish remains wer"e present, namely dications of inhabitation during the Iron Age those of a c. 45 cm long cod (identification in the presence of bones of domesticated O. Nybelin/J. Lepiksaar). horses. Also Reinerth mentions that bones Fish-trap fragments, found together in 1951 were found of both domesticated and wild in the course of turf-digging activities in the horses. As neither author gives any measu­ Nebbe mosse, parish of Ostra Vemmerl6v, rements of these bones, we are unable to verify Schonen. The find is described by Stjernquist, whether or not the horses were indeed domes­ Nilsson & Nybelin (1953). It dates from the ticated. In addition Durr points out that an Late Atlantic (the younger part of zone Vs Iron Age pot was found. This pot is currently according to the zonation of Tage Nilsson). regarded as a Late Havelte pot of the Funnel­ The fish-trap is made of willow twigs split Beaker Culture (Bakker & Van der Waals, lengthwise. The connecting elements consist 1969). Another indication of inhabitation du­ of twisted cross-strips of a different species ring the Iron Age is given by the find of a of willow that hold the structure together by pointed stake from the vicinity of the weir. means of the Zwirnbindung technique. The This stake is said to have been cut by a metal space between the wickers measures c. 0.6 cm axe. However, in my opinion the fi nd of a and between the cross-strips c. 4 cm. It cannot single stake cut with a metal axe gives no be ascertained from which part of the fish­ decisive proof of inhabitation in the Iron Age. trap the fragments originate. That the frag­ Durr sees the most convincing argument for ments do indeed come from a fish-trap and mUlti-period inhabitation in the presence of not a weir is clear from a fragment, in which the fish-traps. If the Neolithic settlement is a narrowing of the wickerwork is visible. contemporaneous with the fish-traps, then it follows from the location of the fish-trapsand Pettirsson & Olausson (1952) also mention the weirs that these stood on dry land. This means following unpublished fish-trap fragments that the fish-traps cannot have been contem­ from Sweden: poraneous with the Neolithic settlement. They Fish-trap fragment, found in 1946 in the must therefore be older or younger than the Nebbe mosse, parish of Ostra Ve mmer16v, settlement. A dating in the Iron Age is possible, Schonen. but on the basis of the above-mentioned ar­ Fish-trap fragment, found in 1947 in Hiil­ guments not imperative. jarp, parish of Tofta, Schonen. Fish-trap fragment, fo und in the Priestermoor Fish-trap fragment, found in 1951 in the near Duvensee, Kreis Herzogtum Lauen­ Store mosse, S6sdala, parish of Norra Mellby, burg. This fragment is said to date from the Schonen. Mesolithic (Schwabedissen, 1949). No further details of this findhave been published. Recent alld pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 43

Fish-trap, fo und in 1952 during turf-digging 3.6.4. Archaeological finds of wickerwork fish­ operations in the Schliisbeker Moor, Gem. traps from the Netherlands Moorsee, Kreis PIon. Sprockhoff (1953) gives a brief description of this find and an outline Fish-traps, found in 1978 at Rotterdam-Berg­ sketch of its position in situ (fig. 50). From schenhoek during the excavation of a small a palynologic(ll investigation it is evident that 'extraction camp', situated on a small 'peat the fish-trap dates from the Early Atlantic. island' measuring 10 m2 in area and only 30- The fish-trap, which was originally fastened 35 cm in thickness. The group of finds dates to posts, was fo und as a 10-12 cm thick layer from the Late Atlantic (5415 ± 60 BP: GrN of wickerwork. This wickerwork consisted of 7764). The finds consist of a few sherds, three willow wickers c. 0.5 cm thick, which had been pieces of flint,a few bone tools, faunal remains carefully attached to one another by means and worked wood, including the fish-traps. of cross-strips made of bast. The distance Three almost complete fish-traps were found between the wickers measured just 0.5 cm and as well as a fragment of a fourth. Together that between the cross-strips about 5 cm. At with a few large planks this fragment formed the same time the author states that the funnel the basal part of one of the layers added to structure, which was at least 2 m long and the peat island to make it higher. The three had a mouth opening about 1.5 m across, can other fish-traps lay in the surrounding clay. clearly be distinguished from the tube-shaped In addition, scattered among the find-bearing end of the fi sh-trap which was almost 2.5 m layers were a few fragments of wickerwork, long. that may have come from the fish-traps. From the outline sketch of the fish-trap in Louwe Kooijmans, who carried out the ex­ situ it is not clear to me where Sprockhoff cavation, presents a brief report on this group made these observations. On the basis of the of finds in Sarfatij (1978).11 No special study drawing I myself am inclined to regard this of the fish-trapshas appeared as yet. Evidently find as a light fish-trap with or without a all of them were light fish-traps. Their wick­ throat, which was fixed to posts, in combi­ erwork thus consists of wickers held in place nation with two weir sections (wickerwork by cross-strips by means of the Zwirnbindung. screens). A closer study of this find will provide From one of the fish-traps it can be deduced more details. In addition Sprockhoff mentions that the cross-strips were plaited around the the findof a second fish-trap, which was fo und wickers as separate 'hoops'. At the spot where 12.5 m away fr om the fi rst one, lying undis­ the 'hoop' closes, the cross-strip passes diag­ turbed in the peat. The remains of a third onally out of line so as to commence the next specimen were found that same year elsewhere 'hoop'. in the peat. The three complete fish-traps are about 1.50 Also in Southeastern Germany wickerwork m long. Tw o of them are provided with a fish-traps and fragments thereof have been throat. The third one is throatless, however. found. Thus in the peat-bog near Oberdorla This implies that it is a trumpet fish-trap. If (Thiiringen) many specimens came to light in we look at one of the fish-traps with throat the course of excavations. These dated from (fig. 52), however, then we see the remains Roman times (Barthel, 1977). They had all of the two hoops it contained. Th�se hoops been plaited from willow twigs. Among the have been broken or came loose as a result specimens found there was only one light fish­ of the tension within the wickerwork. When trap, which had no throat. All the other fish­ the hoops sprung loose part of the outer casing traps (about 20 specimens) were fish-traps with came loose with them, though not the throat. throat. The wickerwork of these fish-traps had This could indicate that the throat was faste­ been made according to the Leinwandbindung ned to the outer casing in only a few places. technique (fig. 51). In a number of these fish­ It is also possible that the throat was a separate traps stones were still present, that had served element which was inserted into the outer as weights. One fish-trap still contained fish casing. If this theory is correct, then the fi sh­ remains, namely of a pike. trap without throat could be a trumpet fish- 44 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN trap or a separate outer casing. Further study wicker, 2 single wickers, 1 double wicker, 2 of the fish-traps and their attempted recon­ single wickers, etc. These double wickers are struction will probably provide the right ans­ coloured black in figure 53. The double wick­ wer.12 ers run as fa r as the eighth cross-strip, after During the excavation sieving was carried which they can be traced no further. The eighth out, and many fish remains were thus found. cross-strip lies more or less concentrically These come from pike, perch, ruff, eel, mem­ within the hoop. The distance between the two bers of the carp fa mily and European catfish. is about 15 cm. The number of wickers that Fish-trap fragments, found at Vlaardingen are plaited on to the hoop amounts to c. 200 during the archaeological investigation (1959- and the number of wickers of the eighth cross­ 1961) of the settlement of the Vlaardingen strip to c. 150 (the double wicker is counted Culture (4330 ± 60 BP: GrN 2303; 4330 ± 100 as one wicker). The ratio is thus 4:3. The BP: GrN 2487). The find is described by Van estimated diameter of the hoop is about 62 Iterson Scholten (1977). It consists of two cm. From this diameter and the estimated ratio fragments, namely a hoop with remains of it follows that the diameter of the eighth cross­ wickerwork and a small fragment of wicker­ strip must have been about 46.5 cm. On the work, that may come from the former. The basis of this data a reconstruction can now wickerwork consists of slightly converging be made. From this reconstruction it follows wickers, held together with cross-strips by that it must have been possible for the outer means of the Zwirnbindung. The cross-strips casing to be plaited to the throat. The fragment are made of bands of twisted bast and measure could thus be part of a short fish-trap with 0.3 cm in diameter. The distance between the throat (fig. 54a). As we do not know how the wickers is at most O� 7 cm. About the hoop narrowing continued after the eighth cross­ the author says: 'The weel fragment consisted strip, there still remain three other possibilities. of an outer hoop of two or three pieces of If the fragment did not become any narrower, wood, between which the side bars were clam­ then it would have been a trumpet fish-trap ped. The outer hoop was wound around with (fig. 54b). Alternatively the fragment may be strips of bast 8 mm wide. In situ, the outer an isolated throat, that was placed inside a hoop measured 56 x 68 cm and the circum­ separate outer casing (fig. 54c). The reverse ference was 193.7 cm, which, after reconstruc­ is also possible: the fragment may be an tion, resulted in a mouth diameter of 62 cm' isolated outer casing, inside which a separate and further on 'on account of its shape this throat was inserted (fig. 54d). fragment is probably the internal fu nnel of The construction of the hoop is strange. a weel, but in the absence of other fragments Generally, for a hoop a single long thick wicker no fu rther reconstruction can be attempted'. was used. The hoop of this fragment consists If this interpretation is correct, then some­ of two or three pieces of wood. In my opinion where on the fragment there should still be this indicates that the hoop became weakened remains present of the area of attachment or broken in the course of use. By the addition between the wickerwork of the outer casing of elements to provide extra strength this and that of the throat. The most obvious place problem was overcome. This also explains the fo r this is the hoop. Here no remains are fact that the wickers in the NW-quadrant of present however. It is also possible that the the hoop are clamped between the hoop and attachment area of the outer casing lay in that the strengthening elements. Elsewhere around central part of the throat that has been de­ the hoop this is not the case. stroyed. To find out whether this may have During the excavation of the settlement fish been the case, it is necessary to make a remains were found, which could be identified reconstruction. For this purpose we have to as remains of sturgeon, thin-lipped grey mullet cOl)sider the technique that was applied to and pike (Brinkhuizen, 1979b). Sturgeon was make the wickerwork narrower. This narrow­ certainly not caught with this fish-trap (3.5.2.). ing begins from the fo urth cross-strip. Here Fish-trap found in 1971 during the exca­ we see the so-called double wickers, like those vation of a former bed of the river Rhine in of the fish-trap fragment from Jonstorp. The Utrecht (Van Regteren Altena & Sarfatij , plaiting system that was followed is: 1 double 1973). The find dates from the second half Recent alld pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 45

fish-t rap with long narrow with fish -trap ./ tail and fixed � fish - trap with long narrow / throat (type C l ) � trumpet fish - trap short wide tail - tail and ( type A) and fix ed thr. oat loose throat � fish-trap with / ( type D) (type S) � short wide tail / and loose throat (type C 2 )

Fig. 56. Ty pe classification of fish-traps.

of the first century A.D. (1880 ± 35 BP: GrN intermediate fo rms known to us from ethno­ 6633). It was fi tted with a throat and measured graphical studies we are confronted with the 95 cm in length. The wickerwork of willow typological series given in figure 56. twigs had been made according to the Lein­ On the basis of this typology we can now wandbindunR technique. Between the wicker­ classify the prehistoric fish-traps (table 3). As work ot the throat and outer casmg a number the fi nds usually consist of fragments, for any of stones and a clay net sinker which had particular case we cannot determine the exact served as weights were present (fig. 55). The type. fish-trap strongly resembles the closely woven Thus in the table for each fi sh-trap the fi sh-traps from Oberdorla. different possibilities are indicated. The fish­ Tw o fish-traps found in 1975 during the traps are listed not according to site location, excavation of the Early Medieval harbour but in order of age. complex in the Kromme Rhine riverbed at From table 3 a few conclusions can be Dorestad (Wijk bij Duurstede). Both fish-traps drawn. The Lille Knapstrup fi sh-traps (type were approximately 3.5 m long and plaited C2 or D) date in all probability from the according to the Zwirnbindung technique. One Atlantic period. The Magleby Long fi sh-trap fish-trap was fitted with a throat. Due to the (type A, B or Cl) dates from the beginning difficult excavation conditions (rising ground­ of the Subboreal. From this it follows that water) this observation could not be made on on the Danish island of Sjaelland a more the second one. The two fish-traps will be primitive type was in use at a later time than published in another article in the near future. a more highly developed type. If we now consider the fish-traps found in Northwest Europe as one group, then it is clear that the 3.6.5. A fe w remarks concerning the Lille Knapstrup fish-traps are typologically prehistoric wickerwork fish-traps comparable with the Bergschenhoek fish-traps C and F. Also the latter are some 500 years 3.6.5.1. Th e typology older and as regards type more highly devel­ If we wish to ascribe a wickerwork fish-trap oped than the Magleby Long tish-trap.14 This to a particular type, then first of all a typology implies that we cannot link the typological must be established. A sentence such as 'a fish­ series to the archaeological time-scale that has trap made of wickers and cross-strips of the been established for Northwestern Europe. In type well known from South Scandinavia' other words: the typology is only descriptive (Glasbergen et al., 1966) is of little value as and has no chronological significance. This so fa r no typology has been established for can be explained from the ethnological data. fish-traps. To arrive at a typology, we must In Finland, France and England, up until fi rst return to the trumpet fi sh-trap. Sirelius recently the trumpet fish-trap (type A) and (1906) proposes that this fish-trap developed the fish-trap with fixed throat (type D) were via some intermediate forms into the fish-trap both in use at the same time. Which type of with fixed throat.13 On the basis of some fish-trap was used depended on the speed of 46 D.e. BRINKHUIZEN

- " - " -- - " -- , - " - ..- " - r- - - - / [" --- a

------

------..- [- --- b

[,.--- , -- I' - - - I I ..-"-� / ..-"-- --- 1/- d

fig. 54

fig. 55 fig. 57 Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 47

flow of the water. The Woguls, Ostjaks and Table 3. Classification of the prehistoric wickerwork fish-traps Syrjans e .'en had the types A, Cl, C2 Clnd D. fuund in :-.Iorthwest iurope

On the basis of this evidence it is reasonable Fish-tr::ps Type to assume that in prehistoric times too the A i3 Cl C2 D Dating various types of fish-trap in any particular Nidl�se • ••• Early Atlantic region could .have been used alongside one Villingebaek • •••• Early Atlantic another at the same time. Schliisbeker Moor • • • • Early Atlantic Fj ellenstrup • • Middle Atlantic 3.6.5.2. Th e origin of the wickerwork jish- Jonstorp • • • • Middle Atlantic traps Bergschenhoek fish-trap C •• Late Atlantic The Nidl0se fish-trap, which dates from the Bergschenhoek fish-trap F • • Late Atlantic Bergschenhoek fish-trap B • • Late Atlantic Early Atlantic, already possesses a loose/fixed Lille Knapstrup • • Atlantic throat and the wickerwork is regularly plaited. Lille Knapstrup • • Atlantic This high degree of precision indicates that Magleby Long • • • Early Subboreal the fish-traps had undergone development Vlaardingen . • • • • • Early Subboreal already before the Atlantic. Where this de­ velopment took place and when it began cannot be said at present. In principle the area of origin could have been any locality where fishwere present and from which the necessary long familiar way, namely using the fish-spear construction materials could have been obtai- . and fishing nets. Finds of fish-spearbarbs and ned. As regards the Upper Palaeolithic rein­ parts of drift-nets (3.2 and 3.7) are known from deer hunters, who lived in Northwest Euro­ the Early Mesolithic of Northwest Europe. The · pe near the periphery of the ice sheet, we can first wickerwork fish-traps found here date: almost certainly say that they were not fa miliar from 'the Middle Mesolithic. They are, how­ with wickerwork fish-traps. In the enyiron­ ever, already in an advanced stage of de\(el­ ment in which they lived the necessary con­ opment. There are two possible explanations struction materials were lacking at that time. for this. If the deVelopment of the fish-trap It is true that fish livedin the rivers and lakes did take place in Northwest Europe, then this that were present near the edge of the ice­ occurred fa irly rapidly. The alternative expla­ sheet, namely cold-resistant freshwater and nation is that the fish-trapdeveloped elsewhere migratory fi sh. These may have been caught and was introduced into Denmark at a far­ using e.g. the fish-spearand perhaps nets made advanced stage of development. This devel­ of strips of leather knotted together. In the opment could have taken place e.g. in the Late course of the climatic amelioration and the Palaeolithic in the interior or on the coasts accompanying changes in flora and fa una the of Southern Europe. The construction mate­ reindeer hunters were gradually forced to rials were available there and the fish fa una switch over from hunting reindeer to hunting was presumably the same as that present wild boar, red deer, roe deer, elk, aurochs and today. Which of the two explanations is correct birds. In addition their means of subsistence cannot be ascertained, also on account of the included fishing and fruit-collecting. It is ob­ lack of finds. From Rosenlund (1976) it is vious to assume that fishing was done in the evident that in Denmark the number of fish species that could be identified among the bone material from Early Atlantic settlements Fig. 53. Vlaardingen, cutting 17, in situ drawing of the shows a sharp increase with respect to those weeI by S. Hoek, I.P.P. (after Van Iterson Scholten, 1977). from older settlements. This could indicate the The double wickers are shown in black. introduction of a more effective means of Fig. 54. The four possibilities fo r the reconstruction of catching fish, but it is more likely that this the fish-trap from Vlaardingen. increase in fish species is due to the fa ct that Fig. 55. Closely woven fish-trap from Utrecht. Photo: Foto Dienst Gemeente Utrecht. the colonisation of the Danish waters had Fig. 57. DraWing of the unfolded' net I from the Nebbe almost been completed at the Boreal-Atlantic mosse (after Stjern'quist et al. , 1953). boundary. 48 D.C.BRINKHUIZEN

3.6.5.3. Th e plaiting technique and the the Stone Age to the Early Iron Age, can only mean materials used that the fishery was not developed during the pre­ historic period. All the Mesolithic and Neolithic fish-traps found in Denmark, Sweden, Northern Ger­ However, in putting forward this theory the many and the Netherlands are light fish-traps. author has disregarded the possibility that The wickerwork of these fish-traps was with­ certain fish species may be considerably un­ out exception plaited using the Zwirnbindung derrepresented in the faunal remains. For this technique. The material used for the wicker­ is evidently the case with species of fishhaving work varies. For the wickers ofthe outer casing a skeleton rich in fat. These species include: and the throat, twigs of lime, willow and birch fish belonging to the salmon family, to the were taken. The cross-strips were made of herring family, to the mackerel family and to twisted bands of willow and lime bast, longi­ flatfish (Lepiksaar, 1975). That herring were tudinally split willow wickers and pine roots. indeed caught is shown by the excavated All these materials are the same as those which herring remains from a Middle Neolithic settle­ were used until recently in Finland. ment at Korsnas, Grbdinge, Sbdermanland, Sweden. From a refuse pit, measuring 2 m 3.6.5.4. Th e catch x 0.6-0.7 m and at least 0.3 m in depth, an In view of the skill with which the prehistoric earth sample weighing 2,375 grammes was fish-traps were plaited, it is certain that these taken. This sample was found to contain, in were by no means inferior, in terms of effi­ addition to several hundred remains of pike, ciency, to their recent counterparts. On the perch, eel and whitefish, at least 21,000 re­ analogy of recent wickerwork fish-trapssome mains of herrings (Aaris-S0rensen, 1978). authors regard the prehistoric ones as intended for catching eels. That this is by no means 3.7. The fishingnet necessarily so is shown by the Jonstorp fish­ trap, which was used in a marine environment. The oldest fishing net known to us dates from In this fish-trap remains of cod were present. the Early Boreal. The remains of this net were The fish remains that were found with the found in 1913 at Korpilahti in the neighbour­ Bergschenhoek fish-traps do not only come hood of Antrea. This place lies to the west from eels, but also from various other species Lake Ladoga in what was formerly Finnish of fish. This is not unusual, for as a general of territory. The find is mentioned by i.a. Clark rule a fish-trap is not selective as to its catch. (1948, 1965, 1975), Stjernquist et al. (1953), Almost all and crustaceans that are Welinder (1969) and Van Iterson Scholten smaller in diameter than the diameter of the (1977). Eighteen flat, more or less oval floats rearmost throat opening can be trapped in­ of pine bark were found, each perforated at side.15 Once inside the trap generally only one end. Below several of these floats remains those fish which are smaller in diameter than of the net were still present. The cord from the space between the wickers of the outer which this net had been made consisted of casing can escape. One fish species that could two strips of willow bast twisted together. have been caught with prehistoric traps is the Close by these floats lay 31 unworked fist­ herring. Clark (1948) states: sized stones. The find is interpreted as the remains of a seine,16 that must have measured A point to emphasize is that, apart from a few rib­ 27-30 m in length and 1.3-1.5 m in height. bones from Solager in Denmark, remains of herring are conspicuously absent from the prehistoric settle­ In addition to this fishing net Van Iterson ments of Europe. The herring fishery is notoriously Scholten (1977) also mentions the find of a subject to great local tluctuations, but such can hardly Mesolithic fishing net from Vuoksenranta. be held to account for the absence of herring-bones Ayrapaa (1950) shows a photo of this find. from so many regions over so lengthy a period. The However, this is the same as the illustration absence of a fish, which to-day is caught in larger numbers than any other, from early settlements in given by Clark (1975) of the net from Kor­ the whole region from the Baltic to the west coast pilahti. Also from the texts and references of of Norway and northern Britain, and extending from the two authors it is clear that one and the Recent and pre- and protohistoric fishing gear 49

same fi shing net is concerned here. Thus one provided by these nets with data from recent Mesolithic fi shing net is known from Finland Swedish lime-bast fishing nets it seems not and this is mentioned in the literature as the unlikely to the authors that the recent ones fishing net from Korpilahti, Vu oksenranta or are directly descended from their prehistoric Antrea. predecessors. As to the kinds of fish caught Another findof part of a drift-net is a disc­ by net I, among the netting a number of bones shaped float ofpine bark from the Bare mosse of tench were found (estimated length of the (Sweden). From a pollen-analytical investiga­ fi sh: 50 cm), as well as a caudal vertebra of tion it has been established that this floatdates a pike (estimated length of the fish: 50 cm) from an early stage of the Boreal (Welinder, and scales of a roach. 1969). Thus it is contemporary with the drift­ net from Antrea. Indreko (1948) describes the find of a frag­ 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ment of a flat oval float of pine bark from Siivertsi (Estonia). An unworked fist-sized In the fir.st part of this article a number of stone with cord remains from the same region fi shing methods and types of fishing gear is interpreted as a weight for a fi shing net. known from ethnographical sources are des­ The fi nds have been dated by pollen analysis cribed. Three principal fishing methods can to the BoreallAtlantic transition. be distinguished: From Northwest Europe net fragments da­ a. Fishing without the use of any fishing ting from younger periods are also known. gear; such as catching fish with one's bare Schwabedissen (1957, 1957/1958) mentions hands, stunning fishwith a stick, catching fish the findof an almost complete fishing net from by making the water turbid, and poisoning. Rude 2 (Forstermoor, Kr. Schleswig), a settle­ The last two mentioned methods are more or ment of the Erteb011e/Ellerbek period. The less unselectiv� with regard to the fish species . author says that the net consists of triangular and their sizes, and fish are caught en masse. and diamond-shaped mesh work, the . cord b. Fishing by means of actively operat�d being knotted with so-called Fischer- oder fishing gear. The types of gear include the gaff, We berknoten. 17 From a peat-bog near Ordrup the rod with a bob, the stick with a noose, (Denmark) a fragment of an unknotted net the fi sh-spear, the line with a gorge and the is known, dating from the Neolithic (Clark, line with a fish-hook. When the fisherman is 1965). Dating from the same period are a fishing with one of these types, he searches number of net fragments from the Nebbe for the fish, or lures it towards himself, and mosse, parish of Ostra Vemmerlov, Schonen, tries to catch it. The method can be time­ Sweden. This fi nd has been excellently des­ consuming and is more or less selective with cribed by Stjernquist, Nilsson & Nybelin regard to the species and the size of the fish. (1953). The fragments were fo und to have Usually one fish is caught at a time. Deter­ come from three different nets. It was possible mining factors are e.g. the clearness of the to Istudy two of these (fragments I and 11) in water, the size of the gorge/fish-hook, the detail. Thus the material used could be iden­ strength of the line and the kind of bait. tified (lime bast), and the mesh-width (net I: c. Fishing by means of passively-operating 4-5 cm; net 11: 5-6 cm) and the type of knot fishing gear. The kinds of fishing gear are: the (net I: Pfahlbau knot; net 11: another type) weir, the fish-surround, the wickerwork fish­ could be ascertained. From the position of the trap and the fishing net. When the fisherman knots in the two fragments it was evident that uses these he only has to collect the fishwhich net I had been made in the round and net have become trapped. 11 not. In addition net I showed some par­ The weir itself can function in places where ticular features from which it was clear that there is a strong current or great diurnal this had been part of the tail of a bag-shaped differences in water level. In stagnant or slowly net (fig. 57). In view of the small size of the flowingwater it is always used in combination remaining fragment (c. 30 x 50 cm), however, with the fish-surround,fish-trap or fishingnet. the overall shape of the net cannot be ascer­ These combihations have resulted in very large tained. On the' basis of comparison of data and complicated complexes of fishing gear. 50 D.C. BRINKHUIZEN

The duration of these complexes depends on archaeological record. Emphasis is laid on the the construction materials used. Those parts pre- and protohistoric wickerwork fish-traps made of wickers, roots or strips of bast (the from the Netherlands, Northern Germany, screens, collection chambers, fish-traps and Denmark and Sweden. fishing nets) are worn out after a couple of On the basis of the ethnographically known years. Heavier vertical wooden posts to which types of wickerwork fi sh-traps a simple type these contraptions are fa stened last longer. classification for the prehistoric wickerwork In regard to the wickerwork tlsh-traps two fish-traps has been made. The few Mesolithic main types can be distinguished: the trap and Neolithic wickerwork fish-traps found fit without internal fu nnel, or trumpet fish-trap, into this typology. However, from the datings and the trap with internal funnel. Which of of these traps it is clear that the established the two is used depends on the speed of flow typology is only descriptive and has no chro­ of the water. nological significance. A further division of the fish-traps with The most striking conclusion concerning the internal funnel can be made on the basis of prehistoric wickerwork fish-traps found in the weaving technique used. In regard to this Northwestern Europe is that their overall we distinguish the light fish-trap, which is shape, the plaiting technique and the materials woven according to the Zwirnbindung, and the used were the same as those which have been closely woven fish-trap, which is woven ac­ used until recently. In view of this, it is certain cording to the Leinwandbindung. The latter is that the prehistoric wickerwork fish-traps were mainly used for catching very small kinds of very efficient and could have trapped nearly fish. all the fish species which were living at that In general a fish-trap or fishing net is not time. It is also clear that they were used both selective as to the catch. However, the plaiting in a freshwater and in a marine environment. technique used, the diameter of the rearmost throat opening, the mesh-size of the net, the kind of bait and the position of the fishing 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS gear in the water can influence the fishspecies and sizes caught. For the realization of this article I am grateful The most highly developed fishing gear is to a number of people. In the first place to the fi shing net, and on the basis of its shape Or. A.T. Clason and Or. W. Prummel who four groups can be distinguished: the square read through the text and commented upon net, the round net, the rectangular net and it; fu rthermore to Professor L.P. Louwe Kooij­ the bag-shaped net. mans who provided me with useful informa­ In the actual process of catching fi sh, the tion on fish-traps; to K. Vlierman (Rijksdienst fisherman sometimes uses Cl. fe w items of voor de IJsselmeerpolders) for information auxiliary fi shing equipment. These are: the concerning the two fi sh-hooks from the Noord­ splashing stick, the gaff, the scoop-net, the live­ oostpolder; to EH. Kuiper and Son for placing box and the boat. the aalkubbe at my disposal; to J.M. Smit In the second part of this article a few (B.AJ.) for executing the drawings; to Mrs. general comments are made on the pre- and H. Klaassens and Mrs. E. Rondaan-Veger protohistoric actively operated fishing gear, (B.A.I.) fo r typing the manuscript; and to Mrs. the bone and antler fish-spear prongs, gorges S.M. van Gelder-Ottway M.Sc. for the trans­ and fish-hooks. Six fish-hooks from the Neth­ lation into English. erlands are described and considered from a theoretical viewpoint with regard to their effectiveness and the possible fish species that Postscript could have been caught with them. In regard to the passively-operating fishing T,he present article was concluded at the end gear, some comments are made on the finds of September 1979. Since that date no fewer of prehistoric weirs and fishing nets. Finds of than two bone fish-hooks and more than 200 fish-surroundsare conspicuously absent in the barbed points or fragments thereof have been Recent and pre- and protohistoricjishing gear 51

recovered from the Rotterdam-Europoort bility that the fish-trap with throat is derived from the sand dredging works (pers. comm. L. Verhart, fish-surround. R.M.O.). Also a fish-trap possibly dating from 14. Becker (194 1) ascribes the Magleby Long fish-trap to the Funnel-Beaker Culture. 200- 100 B.C. was found during the excavation 15. Only the aalkubbe (2.3.3.2.3.) that was baited with of terp 100 in the Uitgeesterbroekpolder near herring roe, worms, etc. caught exclusively eels. The Uitgeest (pers. comm. A. van Gijn, LP.P'). diameter of the rearmost throat opening (5 cm) and the . deviating position of the trap in the water were deter­ mining factors for this.

16. Seine = a drift-net, one end of which is taken out 6. NOTES from the shore and subsequently hauled in again on land so that the net encompasses a wide arc. The net I. In the Netherlands, however, it is known that the is hauled in from both ends, so that the fish enclosed ( = screen of a zalmsteek a row of posts with hurdles in within the net are driven ashore in a heap. between that salmon swim up against, before being 17. There are at least five different known types of driven into fish-traps) rotted away already halfway knots (Van Iterson Scholten, 1977). through the summer and then had to be replaced by a new one (Van Doom, 1971). 2. This distance is dependent on the size of fish that the fisherman wants to catch in his trap. 7. REFERENCES 3. Fish-traps can also be used for fishing in winter. The Syrjiins cut a long trench in the ice, in which a Aaris-S0rensen, K., 1978. Knoglematerialet fr a den mel­ weir of young evergreen trees is constructed. At the place lemneolitiske boplads ved Korsnas, . Grddinge socken, of the fish-trapan even bigger hole is made. When fishing Sddermanland ( Riksantikvarieiimbetet och Statens is in progress the fisherman must ensure that this hole' Historiska Museer Rapport 8). Stockholm. does not freeze over. An already existing weir can also Ayrapiiii, A., 1950. Die iiltesten steinzeitlichen Funde be used in this way (Sirelius, 1906). aus Finland. Acta Archaeologica 21, pp. 1-43. 4. Fish-traps may also be provided with a long tail Bakker, J.A. & J.b. van det Waals, f969. Denekamp'­ because the fisherman expects a lot of fish and does Angelslo. Cremations, collared flasks and a corded not wish to pick up his catch immediately. ware sherd in Dutch final TRB contexts. ,In.: G. 5. Until recently the Finns used flat oval' wooden Daniel & P. Kj aerum (eds.), Megalithic graves and floats. As weights for nets they used i.a. oblong stones ritual. Papers presented at the III Atlan tic Collo­ wrapped in birch bast (Sirelius, 1906). quium, Moesgard 1969. K0benhavn, pp. 17-50. 6. Collection Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, R.M.O. Barthel, H.J., 1977. Die Germanische Binnenfischerei d 1928/12.1. im Gebiet des See- und Moorheiligtums von Ober­ 7. Collection Rijksmuseum voor de IJsselmeerpol­ dorla. Alt-Thuringen 14, pp. 148-185. ders, without inventory number. The hook is made out Becker, e.J., 1941. Fund af ruser fra Danmarks sten­ of red-deer antler (pers. comm. Dr. A.T. Clason and alder. AarbEJgerfor Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, Dr. W. Prummel, B.A.I.). pp. 13 1-149. 8. Collection Fries Museum, F. M. 240/1. Boeles Becker, C.J., 1943. Et 6000-aarigt fiskeredskab. Fra det (195 1) says that the hook is made of (whale?) bone. gamle Gil/eleje , pp. 70-87. According to Van der Heide (1955) the hook is made Becker, e.J., 1946. Stenalderens ruser var konstrueret of whalebone. However, in a more recent publication som nutidens. Salomarisen Leksikon- Tidsskrift 10, (Van der Heide, 1972) the whalebone has changed into pp. 1118-1 120. 'probably antler of elk'. On the basis of closer inves­ Blok, D.P., 1974. De Fr anken in Nederland. Bussum. tigation it is evident that the hook is made of antler. Boeles, P. e.J.A., 1951. Friesland tot de elfde eeulV. 2nd The raw material was most probably the antler of an ed. 's-Gravenhage. elk although a large antler of red deer cannot be excluded Boddeke, R., 197 1. Vissen & vissen. Amsterdam. (pers. comm. Dr. A.T. Clason and Dr. W. Prummel, Brinkhuizen, D.e., 1979a. On the finds of European B.AJ.). catfish (Siluris glanis L.) in the Netherlands. In: M. 9. The length measurements of the hooks a-d are taken Kubasiewicz (ed.), Archaeozoology 1. Proceedings of from Louwe Kooijmans (1974). Their width, hook ope­ the IIlrd InternationalAr chaeozoological Conference ning and grip angles were estimated from illustrations. held 23-26th April 1978. Szczecin, pp. 256-26 1. 10. This information was kindly given to me by P. O. Brinkhuizen, D.C., 1979b. Preliminary notes on fish Nielsen, assistant curator of the First Department of remains from archaeological sites in the Nether­ the National Museum in Copenhagen. lands. Palaeohistoria 21, pp. 83-90. 11. The find is erroneously mentioned in the Archaeo­ Casparie, W. A. & J.E.J. Swarts, 1978. Houl. Sp iegel logische krQniek van Zuid-Holland for the year 1977. Historiael 13, pp. 267-28 1. 12. In particular the diameter of the hindmost throat Casteel, R.W., 1976. Fish remains in archaeology and opening must be noted. This opening determines the paleo-environmental studies. New York. size of fishes able .to swim inside. Clark, J.G.D., 1936. Th e Mesolithic settlemellt of North­ 13. Also Sirelius (1906) does not exclude the possi- ern Europe. Cambridge. 52 D.e.BRINKHUIZEN

Clark, J.G.D., 1948. The development of fishing in Louwe Kooijmans, L.P., 1976. Local developments in prehistoric Europe. The Antiquaries Journal 28, pp. a borderland. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het 45-85. Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 57, pp. 227- Clark, J.G.D., 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cam­ 297. bridge. Mathiassen, T, 1948. Dallske Oldsager I. Aeldre Sten­ Clark, J.G.D., 1965. Prehistoric Europe, the economic alder. K0.benhavn. basis. 2nd ed. London. Metz, W. H., 1975. Pre- en protohistorie in Ve luws museum Clark, J.G.D., 1975. Th e earlier stone age settlement of 'Nairac' te Barneveld. Bameveld. Scandinavia. Cambridge. Michelsen, P, 1952. Risflettede alekuber, Fm National­ Degerb01, M., 1945. Subfossile fisk fra kvartaertiden i museets A/'bejdslllark, pp. 91-100. Danmark. Vidensk. Medd. fr a Dansk Naturh. Foren. Mohr, E., 1952. Del' Stor. Leipzig. 108, pp. 103-160. Molen, S.J. van der, 1976. Vissers van wad en gat. Doom, T. H. van, 1971. Te rminologie van de riviervissers Leeuwarden. in Nederland. Assen. Muus, B.J. & P Dahlstf0m, 1968. Zoetwatervissengids. Dorleijn, P. , 1977. Geen moed vist ook. Bussum. Translated and edited by R. Boddeke. Amsterdam/ Diirr, H.W.A., 1962. Zur Ausgrabung an der Hunte bei Brusse!. Diimmerlohausen 1938/39. Unpub!. man. Peesch, A, 1966. Holzgeriit in seinen Urformen. Berlin. Es, W. A. van, 1974. Vis uit Dorestad voor mijnheer Petersson, M. & E. 0lausson, 1952. Eine mesolitische Calkoen. Westerheem 23, pp. 89-94. Fischreuse aus Jonstorp, Schonen. Meddelandenfran Forde, D.e., 1934. Habitat, economy and society. Lunds Un iversitets Historiska Museum, pp. 141-157. London. Regteren Altena, H.H. van & H. Sarfatij, 1973. Waar­ Glasbergen, W. et al. , 1966. De Neolithische nederzet­ nemingen in de bouwput 'van V. & D. Achter tingen te Vlaardingen (Z.H.). In: W. Glasbergen & Clarenburg. Maandblad Oud Utrecht 46, pp. 68-70. W. Groenman-van Waateringe (eds.), In het voet­ Reinerth, H., 1926. Die jiingere Steinzeit del' Schweiz. sp oor van A.E. van Giffen. Amsterdam, pp. 41-65. Augsburg. Groot, S.J. de & S. Schaap, 1973. De Nederlandse visserij Reinerth, H., 1939. Ein Dorf der Grossteingriiberleute. rond 1900. Amsterdam. Germanen-Erbe 4, pp. 226-242. Heide, G.D. van der, 1955. Archaeological investigations Ristic, M., 1977. Ribe i ribolov u slatkill7 vodall1a. Beo­ on new land. Antiquity and Survival 2, pp. 93-1 22. grad. Heide;G.D. van der, 1962. Een bijzondere bodemvondst Roes, A., 1963. Bone and antler objects fr om the Frisian in Overijsse!. Verslagen en Mededelingen �an de terp-mounds. Haarlem. Ve reniging tol beoefe ning van Overijsselsch Regt en Rosenlund, K., 1976. Catalogue of subfossil Danish Geschiedenis 77, pp. 21-35. vertebrates, jishes. K0benhavn. Heide, G.D. van der, 1972. Graven naar het verleden. Sarfatij, H., 1978. Archeologische kroniek van Zuid­ Utrecht. Holland over 1977. Holland 10, pp. 297-312. Indreko, R., 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeit ill Estland Schwabedissen, H., 1949. Die Bedeutung der Moorar­ (= Kiing!. Vitt. Hist. och Antik. Akad. Hand!.). Stock­ chiiologiefUr die Urgeschichtsforschung. Offa 8, pp. holm. 46-74. Iterson Scholten, ER. van, 1977. Rope and fishingtackle. Schwabedissen, H., 1957. Ausgrabung mesolithisch/ In: B.L. van Beek, R. W. Brandt & W. Groenman­ neolithischer Wohnpliitze im Satruper Moor, Kr. van Wateringe (eds.), Ex Horreo. Amsterdam, pp. Schleswig. Germania 35, pp. 371-373. 135-143. Schwabedissen, H., 1957/1958. Die Ausgrabungen im Kapel, H., 1969. En boplads fra tidlig- atlantisk tid ved Satruper Moor. Offa 16, pp. 5-28. Villingebaek. Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsm ark, pp. Sirelius, U.T., 1906. Ober die Sp errjischerei bei den 85-94. Finnisch-Ugrischen Vo lkern. Helsingfors. Lekholm, e.G., 1951. A technical study of some Scanian Sirelius, U.T., 1934. Die Vo lkskultur Finnlands I. Jagd bone fi sh-hooks. Meddelanden fr an Lunds Un iver­ und Fischerei. Berlin/Leipzig. sitets Historiska Museum, pp. 123-143. Solberg, 0., 1909. Eisellzeitfu llde aus Ostjilll1larkell Lepiksaar, J., 1975. Uber die Tierknochenfunde aus den (= Videnskabs-Selskabets Skrifter n. Hist.-Filos. mitteralterlichen Siedlungen Siidschwedens. In: A.T. Klasse 7). Christiania. Clason (ed.), Archaeozoological studies. Papers of Sprockhoff, E., 1953. Fischreuse aus dem Schliisbeker the Archaeozoological Conference 1974, Groningen. Moor. Germania 31, pp. 229-230. Amsterdam, pp. 230-239. Stjemquist, B., T. Nilsson & O. Nybelin, 1953. Some Lobregt, P. & J. van Os, 1977. De laatste riviervissers. stone age fishing tackle from Scania. Meddelanden Zutphen. fr an Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum, pp. 123- Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., 1970/1971. Mesolithic bone and 148. antler implements from the North Sea and from Vogt, E., 1937. Geflechte und Gewebe del' Steinzeit. Base!. the Netherlands. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor Welinder, S., 1969. Ett barkflote fran Bare mosse. . - het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 20-21, pp. 27- , Fornviirlllen 64, pp. 37-38. 73. Wheeler, A., 1978a. Why were there no fish remains Louwe Kooijmans, L.P., 1974. Th e Rhine-Meuse delta. at Star Carr? Journal of Archaeological Science 5, Four studies on its prehistoric occupation and Holo­ pp. 85-89. cene geology. Leiden. Recent and pre- and protohistoricjishing gear 53

Wheeler, A., 1978b. Problems of identification and 8. KEYWORDS interpretation of archaeological fish remains. In: K.D. D.R. Brothwell, Thomas & J. Clutton-Brock The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, (eds.), Research problems in Zooarchaeology ( = Oc­ casional publication). London, pp. 69-75. Europe, prehistory, protohistory, recent, Zivkovic, 0., 1956. Ribolov i ribarske sprave na Ta misu. ethnography, .' archaeology, zoology, fishing Rad Vojvodjanskih Muzeja 5, pp. 194-204. technique, fishing gear, fish-trap, type classification.