This MA thesis focuses on ceramics from the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Netherlands (2000-12 BC) and their use for dating purposes. Researchers used to define and subsequently date types...Show moreThis MA thesis focuses on ceramics from the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Netherlands (2000-12 BC) and their use for dating purposes. Researchers used to define and subsequently date types on the basis of characteristics, which is known as a typo-chronology. Around the mid-20th century, absolute dating, and 14C dating in particular, was developed. The legacy of typo-chronology was kept alive, however, and only sporadically questioned by researchers that reverted to absolute dating. In many cases, this questioning was also carried out for narrower time periods. This thesis brings typo-chronologies and absolute dating together within the context of a wider time period, in order to discover the current status of research for this wider time period and to find out how/where research is currently lacking. This endeavour was started by initially compiling an overview of the applicable typo-chronologies considering a handful of variables relating to shape, decoration and material. Subsequently, a compilation of research was made that compares ceramics to absolute dating. Aside of this, a dataset of ceramic assemblages tied to absolute dating was created and discussed. The combined data was used for discussions and conclusions. Finally, the combined results were used to create a physical reference collection with a manual containing a lot of tables and imagery. The main conclusions are that some periods (e.g. Late Bronze Age) are typologically overshadowed by other periods (Iron Age). The vast amount of detail of the leading Iron Age typo-chronology generally causes researchers to make mistakes. Recommendations include paying more attention to some periods and types of ceramics in order to fill voids of knowledge created by focus and disregard. Better compilations and visualisations (e.g. 3D scans) of absolutely dated examples are also recommended.Show less
This MA thesis focuses on ceramics from the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Netherlands (2000-12 BC) and their use for dating purposes. Researchers used to define and subsequently date types...Show moreThis MA thesis focuses on ceramics from the Bronze and Iron Ages in the southern Netherlands (2000-12 BC) and their use for dating purposes. Researchers used to define and subsequently date types on the basis of characteristics, which is known as a typo-chronology. Around the mid-20th century, absolute dating, and 14C dating in particular, was developed. The legacy of typo-chronology was kept alive, however, and only sporadically questioned by researchers that reverted to absolute dating. In many cases, this questioning was also carried out for narrower time periods. This thesis brings typo-chronologies and absolute dating together within the context of a wider time period, in order to discover the current status of research for this wider time period and to find out how/where research is currently lacking. This endeavour was started by initially compiling an overview of the applicable typo-chronologies considering a handful of variables relating to shape, decoration and material. Subsequently, a compilation of research was made that compares ceramics to absolute dating. Aside of this, a dataset of ceramic assemblages tied to absolute dating was created and discussed. The combined data was used for discussions and conclusions. Finally, the combined results were used to create a physical reference collection with a manual containing a lot of tables and imagery. The main conclusions are that some periods (e.g. Late Bronze Age) are typologically overshadowed by other periods (Iron Age). The vast amount of detail of the leading Iron Age typo-chronology generally causes researchers to make mistakes. Recommendations include paying more attention to some periods and types of ceramics in order to fill voids of knowledge created by focus and disregard. Better compilations and visualisations (e.g. 3D scans) of absolutely dated examples are also recommended.Show less
This Graduation Project revolves around the real caste study and co-creation project Berk&Hout which is situated on the boundary of the municipalities Tilburg and Udenhout (the Netherlands). An...Show moreThis Graduation Project revolves around the real caste study and co-creation project Berk&Hout which is situated on the boundary of the municipalities Tilburg and Udenhout (the Netherlands). An important element in the development of this new residential area was the excavation of a Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age urnfield together with settlement traces from the Bronze Age and Roman Period. The aim of this paper was to explore the possibilities of co-creation projects for archaeological research, especially for its public outreach including citizen participation. Co-creation is an upcoming concept in the field of public archaeology, a branch of archaeology that concerns itself with the interaction between the archaeological research and the public. The intention of co-creation is to create an environment in which all stakeholders of a project work together to define the goals of a project, create the plan and make joint decisions. In order for co-creation to become increasingly prevalent in the field of archaeology, the establishment of two treaties by the Council of Europe were necessary. It started with the implementation of the Malta convention (1992), which ensured conservation and protection of the archaeological heritage and with that the role of the archaeologists in society and within (development) projects. At the same time, with the Malta convention the importance of the accessibility of heritage and the role of public awareness was considered. In the Faro convention (2005) the focus on participation in cultural heritage was developed even further. The framework aided the shift in focus from how Europe’s heritage should be protected to why heritage should be accorded value. Its intention was to change the role of the public in assigning value to heritage and emphasizes that heritage should not just be defined by the heritage professionals: the democratization of heritage. It was an important step in order to facilitate co-creation projects because of a shift in the agency, the valorisation and inclusiveness of cultural heritage. The Faro convention also mentions the potential of heritage as resource for sustainable development and ability to enhance the quality of life through placemaking and creation of communities. Five case studies from Netherlands and its neighbouring countries demonstrated the potential that archaeology has in co-creation projects when designing with archaeology is used. Based on the master plan of Berk&Hout, the scientific results of the archaeological research and the stakeholder analysis, it was decided to physically implement the archaeological heritage in the landscape of Berk&Hout through designing with archaeology. Three designs were suggested that were themed around several steps from the ladder of citizen participation; information, concertation and co-creation. This research by design made apparent the possibilities and challenges that designing with archaeology offers for the field of archaeology and heritage within co-creation projects. It is a permanent and sustainable way to physically represent the heritage of a place. With active involvement of the stakeholders it can lead to community building and enhance the quality of life for an area. Co-creation and ‘designing with archaeology’ can transform the space of the development project Berk&Hout into a place again: from cremation to co-creation.Show less
