Twenty-three centuries of history on an artificial dwelling mound in Groningen (The Netherlands). Project Rasquert (original) (raw)
Related papers
2022
In 2015 at Dalfsen (the Netherlands) archaeologists made an amazing discovery. They found a burial ground dating from the TRB-period (3000-2750 BC) comprising 141 burial pits. The TRB is dated in the last phase of the Middle Neolithic period and is well known for its megalithic monuments which are widespread through large parts of northern Europe. Until recently few non-megalithic burial grounds were known and the find of the Dalfsen burials created new opportunities to study the mortuary ritual in more detail. It sheds light on the social organisation of local TRB communities in this part of the world. The results not only provide evidence for the existence of large multi-person burial mounds during the TRB-period, but also provide intriguing evidence of continuity from this period to the period of the Corded Ware culture – a transition now often interpreted in terms of migration. This volume is the first scientific publication dealing with this unique site. It contains a detailed description and interpretation of the site. A catalogue in which all graves and finds are described in detail, is available separately.
In search of the invisible farm. Looking for archaeological evidence oflate medieval rural settlementin the sandy landscapes of the Netherlands (1250-1650 A. D.) Pátrání po neviditelné usedlosti. Hledánî archeologických dokladu pozdne středověkého venkovského osidlenî v pse cnych typech krajiny v Nizozemsku (1250-1650 n. 1.) Jan van Doesburg -Bert Groenewoudt The roots of most modern landscapes in the sandy areas in tbe Nortb, East andSout th of heNetherlands are essentially medieval or post-medieval, although their babitalion history reaches back deep into prebistory. Unfortunately research illlo (post-) met/ieval settiement patterns is bamperetl by the fact t.bat -in comptuison 1oith preceding periotls -the arcbaeological visibility of farm buildings constructed afier ca. 1250 is generally very bad, whereas extant farms are rarely oftler than ca. 1650 Tbis gap is caused by, on tbe one band, the introduetion of new buidling tecJmiques that render farmhouses essenlitûly invisible, and on the other the deslruction of arcbaeological evidence due to the continuous use of late met/ieval farmsteads rigbt upto thepresent. The period of ca. 1250-1650tbere.fore represents a gap in archaeological record. In this short paper we will analyze this problem and sugges/ afewpossib/e answers; !bere are, however, no easy solutions.
The Neolithic stone cist at Heveskesklooster (Prov. of Groningen, the Netherlands)
(By H.K. Kamstra, J.H.M. Peeters & D.C.M. Raemaekers.) The stone cist was a chance find resulting from the excavation of the dwelling mound (wierde) of Heveskesklooster. Owing to its location beneath this younger site and a layer of natural sediment, also the Neolithic surface surrounding the stone cist was excavated. This provided a rare opportunity to study the use of space surrounding the monument. The stone cist was probably built between 3200 and 2950 cal. BC. The flint assemblage testifies to the activities that took place in the area surrounding the stone cist. Although the particular date of these activities is difficult to correlate to the stone cist, it seems that these took place during both TRB and later Neolithic periods. The flint assemblage cannot easily be fit into a bipartite division between ritual and everyday activities. Compared to other TRB stone cists, the Heveskesklooster stone cist yielded few chamber finds. This is the first indication that later inhabitants of the site may have disturbed the content of the burial. Another can be found in the absence of some of the orthostats. Both arguments suggest that in their behaviour the Late Neolithic habitants at Heveskesklooster did not revere the stone cist burial as an ancestral place, but instead seem to have desecrated it. It is concluded that local Corded Ware communities may have had widely differing notions about the relevance of TRB monuments to their sense of ancestry and identity.
2020
This publication presents the results of the 2005–2007 excavations at Swifterbant S4, carried out by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology. S4 is a well-preserved Neolithic wetland site (c. 4300–4000 cal. BC) located within the Swifterbant river system in the Netherlands. We present the landscape setting, the various finds categories and the spatial patterns with three research themes in mind. Theme 1 concerns the environmental setting, subsistence and site function. We conclude that the Swifterbant hunter-gatherer-farmers exploited a mosaic-type landscape. Theme 2 deals with developments in site function during the occupation and exploitation history of the site. This analysis leads to the observation that episodes of cultivation and settlement alternated at S4. Theme 3, the use of space, was difficult to study due to the fragmented nature of the excavation plan. This site monograph makes Swifterbant-S4 the most comprehensively published site of the Swifterbant river system.
2018. A Neolithic backwater? Dutch developments in the 4th millennium BC
One of the defining elements of the European Neolithic is certainly the occurrence of enclosures: zones delimited from their surroundings by means of ditches, banks and palisades. Intriguingly, enclosures are typical for this prehistoric period but not found everywhere. Apparently, these monuments do not characterise all societies in this period. This paper fo-cuses on one of the areas without evidence of Neolithic earthwork architecture: the Netherlands. As such, it may be used as a filter to separate the »general meaningful behav-iour» of the communities from those actions typical for the earthen monuments. To this end, the archaeological record of the earthen monuments is divided into behaviour related to human burial rites, delimiting space and meaningful deposi-tions. If we take all lines of evidence together, it becomes clear that the types of burial rituals and (other) meaningful deposi-tions in the enclosures are not defining elements of these societies. Similar activities occurred in the enclosure-free environment of the Dutch Neolithic. The most striking difference remains the enclosures themselves. Which role did these localities fulfil in society? Why did these communities along the southern North Sea coast have no use for this role? The answers to these questions should be found in continued effort to understand the activities within the enclosures excluding the impressive evidence for ritual behaviour.
Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 43, 1999