Research master thesis | Archaeology (research) (MA/MSc)
open access
Towards the end of prehistory, the landscapes of Northwestern Europe developed into carefully organized places that feel more akin to those of historical and modern times. According to Mette...Show moreTowards the end of prehistory, the landscapes of Northwestern Europe developed into carefully organized places that feel more akin to those of historical and modern times. According to Mette Løvschal (2014), these landscapes saw the emergence of lines and boundaries with specific functions and meanings, especially in the Urnfield period (Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age). This thesis focuses on a number of micro-regions in the Netherlands: Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The aim of this study is to gain a nuanced, inter-regional understanding on how these organized landscapes developed in the long term, and what influence older, visual features from the past had on the way people dealt with them in the Urnfield period. Especially barrow alignments are notable. They clearly impacted the way people dealt with these ‘ancestral landscapes’, but in significantly different ways. At Epe-Niersen, the urnfields and Celtic field emerged solely near ancestral mounds outside of the barrow alignment. At Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, the opposite happened: The barrow line itself transformed into a dense urnfield. Thirdly, the barrow line of Oss-Zevenbergen was completely re-structured with the construction of large, monumental burial mounds, scattered urnfield-graves and post alignments. A close association between the funerary landscape and settlements is observed at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. On the other hand, Oss-North and Oss-Ussen are a striking example of a landscape that lacked any older, visual features before the emergence of settlements in the Middle Bronze Age. Therefore, in the absence of pre-existing lines and boundaries, people ended up creating them themselves, after which they were referred to in similar ways during subsequent occupation phases. This study demonstrates that the past was unavoidable in the organization of landscapes in the Urnfield period. Furthermore, the general succession in which barrow lines, urnfields, Celtic fields and organized settlements emerged was time-transgressive in nature, meaning that they developed at different point in time at each site. Nonetheless, is seems that each region reached a certain ‘tipping point’ were the landscapes inevitably developed into highly organized areas in line with the past.Show less
This BA thesis focusses on one aspect of the burial tradition of the late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in the South of the Netherlands and adjacent Belgium (1100-500 B.C.). During this period...Show moreThis BA thesis focusses on one aspect of the burial tradition of the late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in the South of the Netherlands and adjacent Belgium (1100-500 B.C.). During this period of time, the vast majority of the population of North-western Europe was buried in large collective cemeteries; urnfields. Therefore, this period was also known as the Urnfield Period. The deceased were cremated and buried in small burial pits, with or without urns, to which small burial mounds and ring ditches were added. Nevertheless, in different locations, there are examples of burials in which the deceased were buried in much older burial mounds (secondary burials) or changes have been made to these burial mounds (modifications). This concerns an aberrant burial practice with re-use of burial monuments from a distant past. Although this phenomenon has been named in several publications, it lacked further analysis hitherto. This research, which is based on literature review, accommodates such analysis with a further categorization, with the underlying purpose to recover patterns. To achieve the recovery of patterns several things have been researched, among which are the type of burial mounds re-used, the manner in which they were heightened, expanded and cut through, the locations within the burial mounds where the deceased were buried, the type of grave goods that were present, the type of individuals that were buried and the correlation between them. In addition, the potential motivations for this phenomenon have been discussed, to which degree this corresponds with common burials in urnfields and whether this could have been a collective tradition. This has revealed a high degree of diversity in re-use, yet there appears to be indication of specific choices, and in particular two specific patterns have been revealed. Firstly, several individuals were potentially purposefully buried eccentrically within older burial mounds, whereas others were buried in the centre, disturbing the original graves. Therefore, in some cases, one could have been aware that people from a near or distant past were buried in these burial mounds. Secondly, the practice of secondary burials almost exclusively concerned female individuals; at least in the cases with sex estimations. Because this research was focused on aberrant burial practices, the amount number of available samples was, in fact, too small for definitive conclusions. Further research could be directed at the expansion of the research area (e.g. to Germany) and, if possible, to research the (osteological) “raw data” of sites with cases of re-use.Show less
The main question of this research is about which of two models about urnfields and Late Prehistoric land division fits best with the data around the sites Baarlo de Bong and Venlo-Zaarderheiken....Show moreThe main question of this research is about which of two models about urnfields and Late Prehistoric land division fits best with the data around the sites Baarlo de Bong and Venlo-Zaarderheiken. In the first model from Roymans and Fokkens (1991), it is suggested that burials were moving together with the settlements during the Middle Bronze Age (new burials at new places), whereas later burials from the Late Bronze Age (urnfield period) were formed in central locations within the landscape together with one or two families. In the other model, burial landscapes are suggested; these are zones without connection to the settlements were burials are placed in large areas stretching up to several kilometres in length (Arnoldussen and Fontijn 2006, 301). To answer the question, information was gathered from the Dutch national archaeological database known as Archis, from which information was gathered regarding the locations of former urnfields, burial mounds, Roman burials etc. This information was combined with information from the AHN; a Dutch elevation map from which small round hills could be identified as potential burial mounds around sites. The combination of the locations of supposed former burial mounds/urnfields and the hills of the elevation map can be used to make special correlations between the observations and the two archaeological sites. From this research, it could be concluded that at the site of Venlo- Zaarderheiken, there are a lot of observations of Prehistoric and Roman burials in close vicinity of the site. At Baarlo de Bong however, there are only a few observations of burials in the vicinity of the site. Because of this, Venlo-Zaarderheiken seems to be a candidate for a burial landscape, because of the many observations in close vicinity of the site, which also stretch out over a much larger area. On the other hand, both models could fit for Baarlo de Bong, because of the relatively small size of the burial site. The model of Roymans and Fokkens could not be rejected, thus both models are possible.Show less
