Reply to “Burnt ant nests and their parallels with Mesolithic charcoal-rich pits: A comment on Huisman et al. (2024)” By Philippe Crombé and Roger Langohr

Crombé and Langohr (2025) criticize our interpretation (Huisman et al., 2024) that morphological and micromorphological differences between modern ant nest remains and Mesolithic “pit hearth“ features support an anthropogenic origin of the latter. In this response to the main points of their response, we argue that podzols were present during the Mesolithic and could be humus-cemented. Furthermore, the lack of tunnelling features in Mesolithic hearth features cannot be explained by archaeologists not digging deep enough, as such tunnels also extend laterally from an ant nest. The biological features observed in the Doel excavations do not match the morphology of ant tunnels. Moreover, the charred material we observed in a burnt nest does not match that of Mesolithic hearth features. We agree that further research on ant nests as well as on the Mesolithic features would strengthen our case, but this is difficult because of ethical and practical considerations.