This thesis endeavoured to investigate whether ardmarks could be used as a proxy for field systems in prehistoric archaeology. It considered the assumption that the crystallization of field...Show moreThis thesis endeavoured to investigate whether ardmarks could be used as a proxy for field systems in prehistoric archaeology. It considered the assumption that the crystallization of field structure occurred in the Middle Bronze Age. To discover whether this was the case, this thesis tried to investigate whether social organization was also evident in the earlier field systems. The main question was how did social organization change from the Middle Neolithic to the Early Iron Age? To answer this, this thesis used ardmarks as a proxy for field systems. One of the main uses of ardmarks in current archaeological debate is to provide evidence for intensification. This thesis instead looked at the demarcations, organization of ardmarks, field systems, and how the ardmarks are currently documented to try to discover changes in field systems in prehistory. This study included 28 case studies ranging from the Middle Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. Two types of evidence were found that describe a change in social organization and therefore tenural function of fields in different phases of the prehistory. The first was the layout of the fields in the landscape and the second was the intensification of these fields. The Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age fields were set on the perimeters of landscape features; slope and tops of dunes were important focal points for the organization of these fields. The ardmarks show a pattern of parallel and perpendicular furrows to the slope. This emphasizes the natural landscape as a focal point for these fields and non-demarcated fields. Due to the local changes in natural landscape features, one could argue that these fields were set for the organization of the local settlement rather than a larger inter-organizational structure. However, in the Middle Bronze Age a shift of the layout of fields towards the lower places within the local landscape can be seen. Moreover, an increasing amount of enclosures in the form of ditch systems marks that this shift towards the lower lying areas was deliberate. However, in many case studies it is evident that the natural landscape was still influenced the layout of these fields. It is only in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age that the local relief of the landscape is disregarded for the structure of field systems. This is evident in the more dominant structuring of fields systems for inter-organizational purposes. However, this indicates that tenure was practiced in the Late Neolithic in a more local settlement scale, and that from the Middle Bronze Age it changed towards a larger organization than that of a single settlement organizational perspective. Therefore, we see a clear change in the use of fields in social organization on different landscape levels. In the end, this thesis showed that the organization of field systems changes considerably in chronology but also regionally. However, one should question if these field systems are a direct relation to tenure and chiefdoms, or rather changes in techniques and social organizational views of the land.Show less
This thesis treats the Iron Age farmstead in Dutch archaeological research. The farmstead is commonly applied as interpretation method in archaeological research. However, the information that is...Show moreThis thesis treats the Iron Age farmstead in Dutch archaeological research. The farmstead is commonly applied as interpretation method in archaeological research. However, the information that is gained from applying the farmstead to interpret archaeological features is poor. The reason for this is that the farmstead as a concept lacks definition. In order to understand the concept of the farmstead, a model is proposed in this study. This model, the process related farmstead model (PRF-model), is designed to gain insight in the processes influencing the presence of the farmstead. The PRF-model is based upon analogical reasoning, using data from pre-modern farmsteads. The basic principle of this model is that the farmstead is not a static entity but a dynamic place, which presence and shape depends on its agricultural purpose. The purpose of applying this model is to provide additional argumentation that can be used to interpret archaeological features. The PRF-model is tested upon two case-studies. These are the sites Raalte – Jonge Raan and Zutphen – Looërenk. This analysis showed that the farmstead in both sites greatly differ, because their agricultural purpose differs. I emphasize that there is a need for models to be applied on the archaeological record, so that a more credible understanding of the past can be obtained and new research methods can be proposed. This is necessary in order to get rid of the outdated and uncritically applied interpretation methods of the archaeological features that make up the farmstead.Show less
During the Late Bronze Age (1100-800 BC) and Early Iron Age (800-500 BC) urnfields are constructed throughout North-Western Europe. In the Middle and Late Iron Age and the Roman period urnfields...Show moreDuring the Late Bronze Age (1100-800 BC) and Early Iron Age (800-500 BC) urnfields are constructed throughout North-Western Europe. In the Middle and Late Iron Age and the Roman period urnfields are occasionally reused. Urnfields are used as a location for settlements and cemeteries. This research aimed to make an inventory of the different forms of reuse in Noord-Brabant and Northern Limburg. Fourteen case-studies were selected in order to investigate the different forms of reuse. The data from these sites was supplemented with data from other publications. The research showed that the forms of reuse were more divers than previously thought. During the Middle- and Late Iron Age urnfields are often used as settlement locations. Sometimes urnfields are overbuilt by these settlements. But often houses are constructed near urnfields while granaries are constructed directly on the urnfields. This suggested that we might be dealing with a positive appreciation, possibly connected to a cult in which the ancestors were used to enhance fertility. It is also possible that the ancestors, who were buried in these urnfields, were used to claim land. During the Middle- and Late Iron Age urnfields were also reused as burial sites. This might be a limited continuation of the earlier burial rites where deceased were buried close to their ancestors, a phenomena already observed in the Late Neolithic period. During the Roman period urnfields were still used both as settlement location and as burial sites. The reuse of urnfields as location for burials diminishes through time. Urnfields are not as important for the placement of Roman cemeteries as was previously thought (only 5,4% of the Roman cemeteries are located near urnfields). During the 4th-century AD reuse of urnfields as a location for cemeteries ceases. This could be the start of the myth forming around urnfields, which is observed in the Medieval period. However it should be noted that some urnfields in Flanders were reused as cemeteries during the Merovingian period thus perhaps the reuse still continued during this period. The presented results are comparable with the results from other studies conducted in Flanders, Drenthe and Westphalia.Show less
