Arnoldussen, S. & K.M. de Vries, 2014, Of farms and fields: the Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement and Celtic field at Hijken-Hijkerveld. Palaeohistoria 55/56, 85-104. (original) (raw)
Related papers
EAA Themes in contemporary archaeology, 2021
Targeted excavations of Dutch Celtic fields (Dutch: raatakkers) have yielded much-needed data on the ways in which Celtic fields developed and were used over time. This type of later prehistoric field system is common to gently undulating upland landscapes consisting of Saalian and Weichselian deposits, which were frequently affected by podzolisation. As direct dating of the use-period of Celtic fields is difficult, the Groningen Celtic field research programme employs combined archaeological, AMS- and OSL-dating of bank sediments. Using such dates, use-histories starting in the Middle Bronze Age and lasting well into the Roman era could be shown. Detailed palaeo-botanical analyses of bank sediments suggest that soil and plants from wetland parts were taken to settlements to be used as byre-bedding, after which they were enriched with household refuse (sherds, ash, charcoal) and carted-off to the fields to be used as manure. The locations of such settlements remain difficult to establish, as the chronological relations between settlement features and locations of banks are often unclear. Moreover, despite the fact that botanical macro-remains and pollen inform us on the types of crops cultivated, details of (changes in) the agricultural cycles still escape us.
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.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2018.5 The Celtic field research programme of Groningen University involves research excavations of Dutch Celtic fields or raatakkers: embanked field plots thought to date to the Iron Age (c. 800 cal bc–12 bc). In this paper, detailed attention is given to (a) the palaeoecology of raatakkers; (b) the relationship between habitation and agriculture in such systems; and (c) their dating and use-life. Counter-intuitively, it is argued that the macro-remains from crops such as barley, wheat, millet, and flax recovered from Celtic field banks represent a non-local (settlement) signal rather than document local agricultural regimes. Palynological approaches, in which a more local signal can be preserved but which also show evidence for details of the agricultural regime such as manuring strategies and fallow cycles, are argued to be more appropriate avenues to study local agricultural strategies. A discussion of the relations between habitation and agriculture shows that house sites uncovered within Dutch Celtic fields are almost invariably placed in positions partly overlapping banks. Moreover, in most cases such settlement traces appear to date to the Middle or Late Iron Age, raising the question of where the initial farmers of the Celtic fields lived, as the communities planning and first using these Celtic fields probably pre-dated the Iron Age. A critical review of existing dates and discussion of new OSL and AMS dates has shown that bank construction of Dutch Celtic fields started around the 13th–10th centuries cal bc and continued into the Roman era. The chronostratigraphies preserved in the banks testify to a sustainable agricultural regime of unprecedented time-depth: centuries of continued use make the system employing raatakkers the most enduring and stable form of farming known in the history of the Netherlands.
Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 53
In 1992, the member states of the Council of Europe co-signed the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage in Valletta (Malta) This has led to the development-led archaeology in many countries, also in the Netherlands, especially from 2001 onwards. But has Development-led archaeology been able to generate new knowledge about the past? Has increased prospection and excavation activity payed of? Should we continue in the same style, or should we formulate new kinds of research questions? These are the kinds of questions that the present book aims to discuss. The main goal is to assess the gain in knowledge resulting from development-led archaeology, notably for remains of the period 2850-1500 cal BC: the Late Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the start of the Middle Bronze Age. We know this period very well from burial mounds and bronze hoards. Bronze objects and burial assemblages are widely discussed in international literature, for the Bell Beaker period even with the Netherlands as a typological role model. The question we raise in this book is whether development-led archaeology has confirmed this picture, or whether large scale excavations in ‘Malta-context’ have generated other types of evidence. Have we been able to detect houses from these periods, or settlements? Are these comparable for all regions or are there regional differences? Do we have indications for social stratification; for migrations? The answers to such questions are hidden in the many reports that development-led archaeology has produced in the last 15 years. The problem is that so many site reports have been, that it is a large task to synthesise these data and translate them into coherent models. Therefor the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE) commissioned the authors to go over all the data assembled in the last 15 years, present them to the wider public in a synthesised form, and answer a number of research questions. Because these data are published in Dutch language site reports, this book has been written in English to make the data available to a European (scientific) public. Relevant sites have all been summarised in Chapter 7, which therefore has become the central part of this publication. A synthesis of the Dutch data was formulated in Chapter 8, demonstrating that especially settlement evidence has dramatically changed our perception of the period. The traditional image based on burial data needs to be altered completely. This has implications for the international discourse on the Beaker period as well. The book ends with a large number of methodical and theoretical avenues that can be followed to gain more knowledge in the next fifteen years of development-led archaeology. We plea for a far more integrated approach between all specialists involved in archaeological excavation and post-excavation analysis. Only then we will be really able to generate new knowledge about the past.
2007
Today, half of the Netherlands is situated below sea level. Because of this, water-management is of key importance when it comes to maintaining present-day habitation of the Dutch low-lands. In prehistory, however, large parts of the Dutch landscape were highly dynamic due to ongoing fluvial sedimentation. Vast deltaic areas with ceaseless river activity formed the backdrop against which prehistoric occupation took place. Although such landscapes may seem inhospitable, the often excellently preserved archaeological evidence indicates that people lived in these lowlands throughout prehistory. This book describes why Bronze Age farmers were keen to settle here and how these prehistoric communities structured the landscape around their house-sites at various scales. Using a vast body of evidence from several large-scale excavations in the Dutch river area, the author, reconstructs the changes in the cultural landscape over time. Starting from the Middle Neolithic, changing preferences for settlement site locations and changes in domestic architecture are traced in detail to the Iron Age. However, for proper understanding of the cultural landscape, not only settlements but also graves and patterns of object deposition – and their landscape characteristics – are discussed. By using evidence of over 50 major excavations, yielding over 300 house plans, this book contains by far the richest data-set on Dutch Bronze Age settlements. Most of these results were not before published in English, making this book of over 500 pages a true academic treasure for an international audience. The in-depth presentation of Bronze Age settlement sites, as well as the critical discussion of models and premises current in later prehistoric settlement archaeology, have an important relevance stretching beyond the Dutch lowland areas on which it is based. The wealth of high-quality Dutch data is presented as a synthesized (yet well-annotated) narrative, that rises above mere site interpretation, even more so due to its landscape-scale focus. Therefore this book is a must-have for those interested in later prehistoric cultural landscapes and settlement archaeology.