Introduction
Since the introduction of Google Earth, I have been fascinated by the study of prehistoric landscapes from an aerial perspective. What began as curiosity gradually developed into a systematic way of observing sites and their surroundings. Over time, I expanded this approach beyond satellite imagery alone and began working with elevation data such as the AHN (Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland). By switching between different layers, subtle patterns and deviations become visible that are difficult or impossible to recognize at ground level.
This way of looking led me progressively further back in time. While studying early prehistoric sites, I encountered publications about Tjerk Vermaning. Rather than focusing on the debate surrounding his finds, I wanted to understand the locations themselves. By examining these known sites in detail, recurring irregularities emerged—patterns that did not easily fit purely natural explanations.
Learning to recognize Paleo traces
It became clear to me that Paleo-period traces cannot be understood by studying a single site in isolation. Pattern recognition requires comparison. To learn how such traces manifest in the landscape, many sites must be examined side by side. Over the past years, I have done this intensively, first in the Netherlands and later in other regions.
When I shared these observations with professionals, I was often told that people from such early periods did not leave recognizable traces in the landscape, or that any traces would have been erased by meltwater, erosion, or later geological processes. What I observed was generally attributed to natural Ice Age formations.
During these exchanges, someone working at the Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency told me that identifying discolorations or irregularities at already known sites amounted to “wishful thinking.” Yet it is precisely the repeated study of well-documented sites that allows patterns to be learned and recognized. Known locations provide essential reference points. Without them, there is no baseline against which new observations can be meaningfully assessed.
Sites as landscapes, not points
A key issue is scale. Paleo sites are often treated as small, localized find spots. However, when examined at landscape scale, many appear to consist of clusters of activity areas rather than a single location. This may explain why some areas are interpreted as workshops with dense flake scatters, while nearby zones are described as butchery sites. These are likely different functional components of one larger activity landscape.
In this context, what is identified as a “camp” is rarely an isolated unit. It is more often a fragment of a much wider terrain used repeatedly or over extended periods.
Visibility and preservation
In the Netherlands, Paleo sites are almost never open-air sites. One can stand on a known location and see *******—no structures, no surface finds. This absence is often taken as proof that ******* remains. Yet many traces only become visible through elevation models and relief analysis.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Some archaeological reports implicitly acknowledge this broader scale by referring to large areas with dense artifact concentrations, suggesting long-term or repeated use rather than brief, localized activity.
Why substrate matters
Preservation is strongly influenced by the nature of the substrate. Boulder clay is dense, cohesive, and resistant to reworking. Unlike sandy soils, it does not easily erase disturbances. Once modified, it tends to retain edges, boundaries, and structural irregularities for very long periods of time.
Meltwater and erosion may affect surface layers, but they do not automatically remove deeper or well-defined features. In some cases, disturbances even become more pronounced as surrounding material erodes more evenly.
Comparative perspectives: South Africa and Limburg
To test whether these observations were region-specific, I expanded my research beyond the Netherlands. In South Africa, where many Paleo sites are open-air sites, similar patterns are visible in calcrete and limestone layers. Large artifact scatters often extend across extensive areas, clearly demonstrating the true spatial scale of Paleo activity.
Closer to home, comparable conditions occur in Limburg, where limestone and loam form stable, workable substrates. Here too, I have observed irregular patterns that differ from surrounding natural formations. These materials, like boulder clay and calcrete, appear particularly suitable for preserving long-term traces of human activity.
The landscape as an archive
Across regions and substrates, the same principle emerges. Stable geological layers—boulder clay, calcrete, limestone, loam—can function as long-term archives. When Paleo sites are examined comparatively and at landscape scale, recurring patterns appear that are easily dismissed when viewed in isolation, but difficult to ignore when they repeat across multiple locations.
Personal motivation
What continues to motivate me is that at every site I study, traces become visible once I know how to look. I remain deeply fascinated by the clarity and coherence of the patterns that emerge—patterns that reflect deliberate use of the landscape by people whose knowledge and capabilities should not be underestimated.
For this reason, I repeatedly return to the same sites. As new satellite imagery becomes available, I re-examine known locations to see whether additional traces reveal themselves under different conditions. Over the years, I have built up a large archive of images, allowing comparison through time. This ongoing process is not about forcing interpretations, but about learning—slowly and carefully—how prehistoric landscapes can be read.
Interessant. En natuurlijk altijd geologen die zeggen: het zijn overblijfselen van gletsjers..Gewoon lekker doorgaan zo, bij Borger bij hunebed zag ik ook foto’s van je en dat klopt. Op die plek heeft iemand met tracers gezocht, maar men wil niet graven. Dhr Klompmaker vond dat jammer, hij wilde graag groot gebied opgraven, en niet van die postzegelformaat opgravingen, las ik in zijn meest recente boek
Thank you for your response. I regularly encounter interesting traces that likely relate to later settlement areas, but I usually leave these aside deliberately. At this stage, my focus is almost entirely on the Middle and Lower Paleolithic. Only when something appears particularly clear or distinctive do I occasionally choose to share it.
For that reason, it would be especially interesting to conduct targeted research at locations that display specific Paleolithic traces. Hijken is a good example of this. At that site, particularly clear patterns are visible directly in the landscape. I have accumulated extensive imagery of this location, and the observed traces can be translated into concrete areas suitable for focused excavation. It seems plausible that additional lithic artifacts remain present there, which could further complement the existing collection.
I would strongly recommend a targeted excavation at Hijken. Such an investigation would allow the artifacts to be studied in situ and directly compared with other finds, providing clear evidence of their authenticity. A focused dig could finally resolve ongoing debates and place the lithic artifacts within their proper archaeological context
En natuurlijk ook: krijg je toestemming? Voor langere tijd.? Wie zoeken mee? Wil je een 1 hand op 1 buik team, of wil je een groep hebben, waarbij de leden onderling mogen verschillen over een aantal zaken, inzichten..open geest groep..dat je onderling overeenkomt dat je niet overeenkomt in visie..een groep vol discussie waar niet 1 selecteert, waarom selecteren eigenlijk?
Niet eenvoudig..
Al zal je gewoon eens 1 x zoeken met een vrijwilligersteam..als begin..
For the Vermaning find spots, involving independent investigators is essential. Their sole aim should be to determine whether a campsite is present, while remaining neutral with respect to the Vermaning case.
This approach offers the best chance of an accurate and unbiased investigation.
Other question, which somebody with the name Archeobart asked somewhere; what is a campsite? What do we have in vision then? Where to look for?
And Hijken , I read something on Klaas Geertsma website, that the digg should have been on another part. The wished diggsite was already destroyed..but correct me if im wrong. Klaas Geertsma had some complaints about the way it went
The part : Such an investigation would allow the artifacts to be studied in situ and directly compared with other finds, providing clear evidence of their authenticity.
That authenticity, is that also related to authenticity with Vermaning artefacts?
In the book : Valsheid in gesteente las ik: als de stenen authentiek zouden zijn, dan zouden amateurarcheologen dat wel eens hebben gevonden. Echter als je daar nooit amateurarcheologen hebt toegelaten in zo’n veld, hoe kan dit dan zijn? Hoeveel mensen, anateurarcheologen, steentjezoekers, andere zoekers hebben daar ooit gezocht, en dan ook nog met de gedachte; ik ga op zoek naar identieke artefacten als Vermaning? Ik heb tot nu toe nooit identieke artefacten gevonden op mijn plekken, er zit altijd wel een verschil in..
Wie van de lezers heeft zelf gezocht bij Hoogersmilde in dat veld naar stenen of artefacten?
Ik ben benieuwd.. het zou reacties moeten regenen, zou je denken..
I can point out exactly where to look
At this location, targeted investigation is clearly possible.
In my view, Vermaning’s find spot near Hijken is accurate; the traces in the field leave little doubt.
These observations should naturally attract professional attention and further examination.
A focused field check would likely confirm that additional lithic artifacts are still present.
Personally I agree. The structure in which such professional attention is organized leading to follow-up up searching and finally digging I don’t trust at all. Always the same archeologs, attached to the Vermaning case, and colored views, which already leads to weird unlogical determinations, spoils it.. I would rather see 4 archeologs on each Vermaningsite. A separate searchteam modell, and a controll group in each site.. because in this time its not open, more a blackbox modell and not very critical..
In adition; who decides? On which conditions? Decides who is a member of the searchteam? Are people allowed who say; the Vermaning artefacts are real and authentik..? Or is it a political choice rather than a neutral choice?
Other question, which somebody with the name Archeobart asked somewhere; what is a campsite? What do we have in vision then? Where to look for?
And Hijken , I read something on Klaas Geertsma website, that the digg should have been on another part. The wished diggsite was already destroyed..but correct me if im wrong. Klaas Geertsma had some complaints about the way it went
Bij kaartje van Peest, zie ik 2 gebieden, en laten die overeenkomen met de 2 vondsconcentratieafbeeldingen in boek over Peest..ik zou die 2 plekken binnenste buiten keren..beter hele veld..
I can send you new images of that location
I would love to see them Michika. You know my emailadress, I did receive some photo’s via via..
You wrote: you can have a look at a site like Hoogersmilde. You mean a look at your pictures in Lidar, I presume If I look there personall in that field, i’m not allowed. Searching is forbidden it seems. Free persons arent allowed anymore to search or use their eyes. Its because of the Erfgoedwet. Erfgoed law..
These Stone Age sites are so vast that they can never be destroyed, nor can their traces ever be erased.
Excellent work Michika! Good to see this information getting out there. I’ve appreciated your guidance on where to look in Kenya for stone tools – your ability to spot anomalies in the landscape is incredible, and I always find something! Onwards and upwards with citizen science!! 🇰🇪 🇳🇱 🇲🇼
Ontzettend bedankt voor uw email.
Vergelijking van stenen en artefacten is altijd goed.
Vraag is : welke stenen of artefacten zijn in een bepaald gebied gevonden? Waar zijn die nu?
De mensen die daar de afgelopen 60 jaar zochten, mochten zoeken, konden zoeken weten dit denk ik ..als die preciesgenoteerd hebben if globaal de concentraties nog weten, dan kunnen die het vergelijken met die bepaalde patronen in zo’n vlak?
Dat vergt wel een plan
The Hijken (Vermaning) site has likely been examined several times in the past. Aerial and satellite images suggest that a flat area was opened there at some point.
If proper excavations had been carried out earlier, it would probably have been clear long ago whether this was a campsite. For many years, the focus was mainly on questioning the authenticity of the tools, rather than on investigating the site itself. Excavation would have been a more effective approach.
The traces visible in the field indicate the size of the site, with the area along the ditch—where Tjerk Vermaning found artefacts—appearing to be the central zone. Trial trenches across the field could provide the context needed to properly assess the finds.
A scientist’s duty is to seek the truth—not to protect comfort, reputation, or old disputes, but to test reality. Without investigation, everything remains unresolved. Seeking the truth is a responsibility, not an option.
In good faith, I initially shared imagery from sites such as Peest and Wijnjewoude (Wijnjeterp) with the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE), hoping to contribute objectively to the understanding of these locations. The submitted imagery, satellite images, and AHN extracts were carefully reviewed and compared. The assessment was that the visible discolorations and relief differences could not be regarded as concrete indications, let alone proof, of Middle Paleolithic structures or camps. It was emphasized that the age of these features is unknown and that natural origins (such as moisture-retentive depressions in the soil) cannot be ruled out. A second opinion by a Middle Paleolithic specialist familiar with both locations was proposed.
When I subsequently attempted to present imagery from the Eemster site near Lheebroek, I was informed that this material would not be forwarded, as the site was described as a falsified archaeological site caused by Vermaning and as having been extensively researched. On this basis, the imagery itself was not reviewed, and no substantive assessment of the submitted data was undertaken.
As a result of this immediate rejection, I decided not to share the imagery of Hijken, Hoogersmilde, Ravenswoud, and Leemdijk, as it was clear that the material would not be examined.
It is important to note that modern analytical methods—such as high-resolution satellite imagery and LIDAR—can provide new and objective insights that were not available during earlier investigations. Re-examining these sites using contemporary techniques could improve our understanding of the features and their possible age. The goal is not to defend previous conclusions, but to rigorously test hypotheses and expand our knowledge of Middle Paleolithic human activity in the region.
Refusing to consider new perspectives simply because they challenge past opinions goes against the scientific process. Progress depends on being open to evidence and willing to re-evaluate old questions with new data.