Aligned with the past. A study of the emergence of long-term lines and boundaries in the landscape of Epe-Nierssen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck in the Netherlands from the Late Neolithic until the Urnfield Period

(1)

Aligned with the past

A study on the long-term emergence of lines and boundaries in the landscapes of Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck in the Netherlands, from the Late Neolithic until the Urnfield period

(2)

Figure on front page: Schematic depiction of the barrow alignment and Celtic field at Epe-Niersen, Gelderland, NL (own rendition, after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)

(3)

1

Aligned with the past

A study on the long-term emergence of lines and boundaries in the landscapes of Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck in the Netherlands, from the Late Neolithic until the Urnfield period

Lisa van Luling BA, 1562797 lisamariavanluling@gmail.com RMA Thesis Archaeology (1086THRS) Thesis supervisor: Prof.dr. D.R. Fontijn

RMA Prehistoric Farming Communities in Europe Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology

(4)

(5)

3

Acknowledgements

Writing this chapter of acknowledgements feels like the biggest victory of all, since this means that these two years of hard work has paid off. This is the first part of a finished thesis - being able to write this down is exhilarating. Of course, this could not have been possible without the supervision, help, support and inspiration that I received from many people – professors, fellow students, friends and family. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to them.

First and foremost, I want to thank prof.dr. David Fontijn for his fantastic guidance as my thesis supervisor. Already at the start of my Research Master’s programme, he helped me explore a topic that I was still relatively unfamiliar with, but

tremendously interested in: The study of prehistoric landscapes, and particularly the landscapes of the Iron Age in Northwestern Europe. The many discussions, courses and experiences that he made possible over the years has certainly allowed me to become a much more confident researcher. The fieldwork at Baarlo-de Bong in 2019, as well as the MA-course How Deep History Shaped the Human World, were perhaps the most valuable and enjoyable parts of my RMA track. For this thesis, David’s feedback, suggestions and support has been tremendously important for bringing this project to a successful end.

My sincere thanks go to Dr. Quentin Bourgeois for the opportunity to join the augering campaign of Epe-Niersen in 2016, and the chance to work with the data from these investigations afterwards. These experiences have allowed me to find the final pieces of this puzzle which I would otherwise not have known about.

I would also like to thank the ‘inhabitants’ of the Flex room and the faculty, Oda Nuij. Louise Olerud, Leah Powell, Rory Granleese, Meike Valk, Florian Helmecke and Sara Ingrid Brenøe. Our discussions were always helpful and inspiring, and working together – be it in silence or not-so-much-silence – never failed to lift my spirits. I want to thank my family and friends for their continuous support throughout my studies. Thank you Peter van Luling, Rina van Luling and Manon van Luling for always being there for me. Thank you Dej Verbruggen for your love and support. And last but not least, many thanks to my dear friends Sarah Barbier, Bence Rácz, Martijn Bastiaans, Soraya Khushi Pasha, Marinde Opstal and Fanny.

(9)

7

Part 1 - Introduction:

(10)

8

1. Introduction

Over the course of the last few millennia of prehistory, the landscapes of

Northwestern Europe developed into the structured and organized landscapes that we may be familiar with from historical and modern times. Indeed, we are now used to systematic divisions of space, where every piece of land has an owner, a purpose, and is defined by clear boundaries. It can therefore be hard to imagine that this has ever been different: It was only during the Urnfield period (Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age) when such developments became clearly recognizable in the physical landscape. Indeed, the Urnfield period marks an archaeologically recognizable transition (Gerritsen 2003, 26). Farming plots, cemeteries, living spaces, communal spaces, religious places, recreational areas et cetera; they are the result of a process that has been taking place for millennia. There are no exact start and end dates for these developments; for some processes, the beginnings can be found in the Late Neolithic, while others remained insignificant until the Iron Age (Gerritsen 2003, 26). Furthermore, the emergence of boundaries is ‘time-transgressive’ in nature: These processes may have occurred at different places during different periods, but once they were put in motion, they underwent highly similar developments

(Løvschal and Fontijn 2019, 149).

Due to the great complexity of these developing landscapes from the Neolithic into Roman times, many detailed reports of specific sites and landscapes have been produced. However, Løvschal (2014, 726) felt that this is causing a lacking general understanding of the concept of ‘boundaries’ in a cross-regional and long-term perspective. The same principle was argued for by Gerritsen (2003, 24), who

iterated that focussing not only on local, but also on micro-regional contexts helps to understand subtle, yet fundamental transformations in the wider social sphere. He also recognizes the importance of considering the settlement territory, instead of the structures of a single farmstead or village in itself. In this way, larger elements that are visible in the landscape and important for the settlement organization are considered as well. Cemeteries and field systems are key elements in this settlement territory, which represent boundaries and landscape divisions (Gerritsen 2003, 120). At the same time, doing so while adopting a long-term perspective allows us to

(11)

9 infer about the collective ideas and values that existed and changed throughout time.

This thesis aims to follow the proposition made by Gerritsen (2003) and Løvschal (2014) to look at the development of different micro-regions within a wider area. A comparative study between a number of archaeological sites could shed light on the similarities, differences and nuances in the developments of the prehistoric

landscapes. This thesis therefore focuses on the emergence of boundaries during the late prehistory of the Netherlands. The sites that were selected for this research are Epe-Niersen, Oss-Vorstengraf, Oss-Zevenbergen, Oss-North, Oss-Ussen and Boxmeer Sterckwijck. The sites of Oss are all situated close to one another, whereas Boxmeer-Sterckwijck and Epe-Niersen are located in different regions (see figure 1.1). They were chosen based on their intriguing archaeological records, especially concerning the barrow landscapes, urnfields and, when present, Celtic fields and settlements. Furthermore, each of these sites have been subject to extensive research over the past decades, during which much attention was paid to the landscapes in which they were situated. The reasons for this selection will be further explained in subchapter 1.2.1.

(12)

10

1.1. Research aim and questions

Mette Løvschal’s (2014) article offers a compelling new understanding of the formation of landscapes that we are familiar with in the Netherlands. This will be discussed in more detail in chapter 2. Løvschal underlined her arguments with an interregional, long-term approach focusing on three main regions, the Netherlands being one of them. Such an approach was necessary, because focussing on specific sites, regions and periods will only provide very detailed knowledge about the changes happening at the site in question, without being able to ‘zoom out’ and understand the overarching logic, rules and systems behind it. Still, with this study, I would like to zoom back in again – though not too much.

Looking at the late prehistoric landscapes, something very interesting took place within the Netherlands alone. Especially the funerary landscapes saw very similar beginnings. For the sites of Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, the

emergence of barrow alignments is notable: These early expressions of lines in the landscapes were observed at each of these sites. However, especially by the Early Iron Age, they had developed in significantly different ways, which resulted in quite distinctly organized landscapes.

For instance, in Epe-Niersen, the ancestral barrow alignment is still very much prominent. It was a monumental landscape, and the people in the Urnfield period undoubtedly noticed these barrows as they lived alongside them (Bourgeois 2013, 51). The banks of the Iron Age Celtic fields, which are still visible, are proof of human occupation in this period. Yet it seems strange to speak of an ‘Urnfield period’ here, simply for the reason that urnfields are nearly absent.

The barrow lines of Oss-Zevenbergen and Oss-Vorstengraf were, on the other hand, clearly interacted with during the Urnfield period. However, the formation of extensive ‘urnfields’ appears to have remained limited here as well. Unlike the other case studies, these landscapes were marked with enormous, monumental burial mounds; the Chieftain’s grave in Oss-Vorstengraf being the largest barrow known in the Netherlands (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 45).

At Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, at the exact same time, something completely different was going on. This area would develop into a large urnfield, marked by burial mounds

(13)

11 from the Middle Bronze Age until the Roman period (Vermue et al. 2015, 209). This indicates significantly different ways of interacting with the visual, monumental features from the past.

Similarly, the settlement landscapes recorded at Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck were organized in quite different ways. The reasons for these varied courses of

development of both the funerary and settlement landscapes are to be sought in the way people interacted with pre-existing elements and features in these landscapes. How is it possible that these regions in the Netherlands underwent such

significantly different developments from the Late Neolithic until the Iron Age? And how did the people in the Urnfield period deal with the ‘ancestral’ landscapes that they encountered? Based on these issues and observations, this thesis will aim to answer the following main research question:

➢ What is the influence of older, visual and monumental elements in the landscape on the way people structured the landscape in the Urnfield period?

There is a range of factors that have to be taken into consideration to answer this question. The landscapes that the people during the Urnfield period interacted with have been shaped over the long term, be it through natural means or through the (cultural or ritual) activities of humans. It is therefore important to consider what was already present in the landscape by the start of the Urnfield period.

For instance, the presence of natural hills, ridges or waterways can greatly influence the choices people made when organizing the landscape, building burial mounds and choosing places to settle (Løvschal 2014, 730). Over time, people would have dealt with the presence of man-made, visible burial monuments or settlement remains as well, influencing the long-term development of these areas. Leading up to the Urnfield period, the people encountered landscapes marked with features from the past, which were perhaps structured in lines, boundaries, scatters, groups

et cetera.

With all this considered, it is imperative to focus explicitly on how people reacted to these pre-existing elements during the Urnfield period. The urnfields themselves are especially intriguing in this study, because they are a phenomenon that is quite

(14)

12 characteristic for the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Netherlands. To be able to empirically study and understand these ‘stages of development’ and what impact they could have had, three sub-questions have been formulated that will be applied to each case study in this thesis:

➢ What visual, monumental elements from before the Urnfield period (Late Neolithic – Middle Bronze Age) were still visible in the landscape?

o What did the natural landscape look like? Were there any natural, structural elements that could have impacted the development and organization of visual, funerary elements in the landscape?

o What visual, monumental and/or funerary elements from the pre-Urnfield periods were present in the landscape?

o If present, were these visual monuments structured in any particular ways? • Did they form lines, scatters or (nucleated) groups?

• How did these structures and/or patterns develop in the long term? ➢ How were the funerary and settlement landscapes organized during

the Urnfield period (Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age)?

o Where have urnfields been recorded, and how did they develop? o Where have settlements been recorded, how did they develop and how

were they organized?

• Are the house plans oriented in any particular ways, and/or were there any fences and ditches surrounding the farmsteads? o Where have Celtic fields been recorded, and how were they organized?

➢ To what extent are structural elements from the Urnfield period linked with the visual, monumental and/or funerary elements of the past?

o How did the people in the Urnfield period interact with the natural landscape?

o How did the people in the Urnfield period interact with or refer to older settlement features?

• Were previously settled places re-settled, avoided or ignored? o How did the people in the Urnfield period interact with or refer to older

burial mounds?

• Were older burial monuments or funerary landscapes used, re-appropriated, avoided or erased?

(15)

13

1.2. Methodology

Each of the case studies will be tackled with the same approach: The presence of pre-Urnfield elements, such as the natural landscape and man-made features from the Late Neolithic until the Middle Bronze Age will be assessed first (sub-question 1). What happened in the Urnfield period, such as the construction of urnfields, Celtic fields and settlements will then be analysed (sub-question 2). After an extensive study of these stages in the landscape development, the extent to which the people in the Urnfield period interacted with, referred to or, perhaps, ignored the visual elements from the past will be assessed (sub-question 3).

1.2.1. The dataset

The sites that were selected as case studies for this thesis all consist of intriguing elements that are relevant for the research questions of this thesis. These include natural features in the landscape, such as ridges and waterways, as well as man-made, visual and monumental pre-Urnfield features like barrow alignments, settlements and fences. Of course, the presence of any Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age features is essential; most notably urnfields, but also Celtic fields and settlements. Epe-Niersen, Oss-Vorstengraf, Oss-Zevenbergen and

Boxmeer-Sterckwijck are all known for their funerary landscapes, which have developed from the Late Neolithic/Middle Bronze Age up until the Urnfield period. On the other hand, Oss-North and Oss-Ussen stand out because of the prevalent settlement histories that were recorded here, which can shed light on the relationship between the funerary and settlement landscapes as well.

Investigating the developments of these sites is possible due to the extensive and detailed studies that previously have been conducted and published, especially in the contexts of their wider landscapes. This data is gathered through a literature study based on the excavation reports, dissertations, articles and books that were published on the sites in question. The regions that will be analysed are disclosed in table 1.1, with a brief description on the most relevant elements of each of these sites for this thesis.

(16)

14 Table 1.1: The prehistoric sites in the Netherlands that were selected as case studies for this thesis with a summation of the elements of each landscape that are deemed especially important for this research.

Site Point(s) of interest Epe-Niersen and

Vaassen

➢ The long-term development of a monumental barrow alignment ➢ The presence of a Celtic field

➢ The presence of small urnfields

Oss-Vorstengraf and Oss-Zevenbergen

➢ The barrow lines from the Bronze Age

➢ The monumental burial mounds and urnfield graves from the Early Iron Age

➢ The monumental post alignments from the Early Iron Age (Zevenbergen)

North and Oss-Ussen

➢ The apparent lack of older, visual monuments in the landscape ➢ The presence of Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements

Boxmeer-Sterckwijck

➢ The emergence of the dense urnfield(s) and/or grave clusters ➢ The long-term development of a dense settlement landscape

1.2.2. Approach

When particular natural features and/or visible monuments are present from the pre-Urnfield period, empirical observations can be made of the ways in which the people from the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age dealt with these features. As shown above, the sites of Epe-Niersen, Oss-Vorstengraf, Oss-Zevenbergen and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck are notable examples of this. There are also landscapes without any older monuments and features from the pre-Urnfield period. The people who dwelled there would have dealt with a more ‘pristine’ landscape, a

tabula rasa. Oss-North and Oss-Ussen, two sites in a region where such older

monuments have not been documented, are therefore selected as well. In this way, the development of these landscapes can be compared to see if people dealt with these landscapes in different ways.

Mette Løvschal’s (2014) theory on the emergence of boundaries will be considered when recording the chronological formation and development of visible features that can be considered as linear markers, lines and boundaries. The theory and associated terminology of Løvschal’s (2014) study will be elaborated on in chapter 2.

(17)

15 Doing this may shed light on the impact that both natural and pre-Urnfield features could have had on the way the area was structured, and how lines, boundaries and demarcated spaces emerged. The emergence of barrow landscapes, settlements, Celtic fields and urnfields will be studied in a chronological manner, so that the context in which specific lines and boundaries emerged can be pictured in more detail. The geophysical context of these landscapes will be taken into close consideration as well.

The sites will furthermore all be studied with a few hypotheses in mind. To get a better grasp of the situation in each respective landscape, two polarizing hypotheses have been formulated regarding the way in which the people dealt with the existing landscape in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (see table 1.2). This approach is chosen as it aids a critical reflection on what was happening in the landscape. The first hypothetical situation is that the people who started to inhabit the area

always respected, referred to or incorporated the older features, such as burial

mounds, as much as they could. Old barrows would be re-used and incorporated in new cemeteries, and they all became part of a landscape shaped accordingly with previous landscape organizations. Furthermore, boundaries such as fences, ditches and Celtic fields would have been clearly (re)structured in reference to these older features. For instance, fences around a settlement would always have been rebuilt on the same places with the same orientation, or the earthen banks of a Celtic field would perfectly align with a row of older burial mounds. In short: The older features and monuments were to be crucial references in the organization of the landscape in the Urnfield period.

The other hypothetical situation is quite the opposite: The people who inhabited an area with older visible features would have made no references to said features whatsoever. Instead, the older features would be ignored or overridden by new ones, with no regard to the presence, orientation and meaning of older lines and

boundaries. In practice, means that the archaeological record would show that visual, monumental features such as burial mounds were levelled, and ditches, fences and other structural features were removed. New patterns of organization would transgress or override older ones, creating completely different landscapes. These two scenarios would result in quite different results.

(18)

16 Table 1.2: The two polarizing hypotheses that were formulated to empirically study the way people dealt with older, visual landscapes during the Urnfield period.

Hypothesis: Empirical and archaeological results: Hypothesis 1: People always

re-used, referred to and/or incorporated visual, monumental features from the past.

• Signs of re-use of older burial mounds

• The creation of barrow lines or barrow clusters • Urnfields forming near older burial mounds

• Rebuilding of farmsteads on the same locations, with the same orientation

• Rebuilding of fences, ditches and older banks on the same locations, with the same orientation

Hypothesis 2: People completely ignored the visual, monumental features from the past.

• Signs of removal and levelling of older features

• New graves created in different places than older ones –or with inconsistent associations to older burials

• Interrupting or levelling barrow lines New lines and boundaries transgressing or ignoring older landscape organizations

1.3. Outline

In the following chapter, the theoretical framework of this study will be laid out. This will mostly comprise of Løvschal’s (2014) theory on emerging boundaries, and the ways in which this concept can be applied to the case studies in the Netherlands. Furthermore, any possible pitfalls or biases will be disclosed as well. After this, each case study will be tackled in chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6. The research history, landscape and long-term development will be discussed, and each chapter will be concluded with a discussion. The final discussion commences in chapter 7, where all results will come together and the research questions will be applied. This thesis concludes in chapter 8, where the final result is presented, along with an evaluation of this study and some suggestions for further research.

(19)

17

2. Theoretical framework

Central to this thesis is the article written by Mette Løvschal (2014) on the emergence of boundaries in the late prehistory of Northwestern Europe,

complemented by Fokke Gerritsen’s (2003) study of the transforming landscapes and local communities of the south-eastern Netherlands during the Urnfield period. These two studies are implemented to be specifically geared towards a landscape-approach to the Urnfield period in the Netherlands.

Similar approaches have been implemented in other parts of Northwestern Europe as well. For one, Løvschal (2014) compared Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands with each other. Monumental structures such as barrows have been a re-occurring element in each of these regions. However, there are some notable differences between the prehistoric landscapes of the three countries, as well as the way in which they have been approached in archaeology. For example, Bradley (1998, 147, 158) described a development from ‘ritual’ landscapes of earlier prehistory to ‘agricultural’ landscapes in the UK. In British archaeology, the term ‘ritual landscape’ emerged in the 1980’s to describe the structures that were less ‘functional’ in more ‘sacred’ in nature, dating to the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Monuments played a central role in this, as the term ‘ritual landscape’ was often attributed to landscapes consisting of megaliths, barrows, ditches and enclosures, whereas little settlements were found nearby (Robb 1998, 159, 163).

However, this thesis will focus on the theories and approaches that are particularly relevant for the study on the Urnfield landscapes in the Netherlands. In this chapter, the main arguments and hypotheses that will be applied to the case studies of this thesis will be elaborated upon.

2.1. Løvschal’s theory: Succession of developments

In 2014, Mette Løvschal published an article in which she described a clear and logical succession of landscape developments in the Urnfield period that can be recognized in Wessex (the UK), West-Jutland (Denmark) and the Netherlands. With this, she initiated the first steps towards developing an overarching model for the development of Bronze Age and Iron Age landscapes in Northwestern Europe. The three areas in question have a few things in common. First of all, the terrain is

(20)

18 relatively flat, and sources of freshwater are abundant (Løvschal 2014, 725). The cross-regional developments that were highlighted may have been expressed in different ways in every region, but they generally show similar tendencies in the interaction between people and their surroundings, especially when it comes to the emergence of boundaries. Boundaries may be understood not only in a physical sense (banks, ditches, fences, rows), but also in conceptual ways (community, ownership, rights, obligations, labour - something people contested, agreed on and/or obeyed; Løvschal 2014, 725). The conceptual boundaries of a community or identity are oftentimes bound to a territory or locality as well. The boundaries found in the landscape may thus very well be there to articulate a local sense community, belonging and identity.

Both the conceptual community and the physical landscape also contain elements of memory and history. For instance, burial mounds are considered to mark an

“ancestral landscape” (Bourgeois 2013, 16; Fokkens et al. 2012, 198). But besides mortuary landscapes, there are also places and zones of day-to-day interaction, representing tenure (rights to the land) and people’s relationship to each other and the land. When concerned with the relationship between communities/local identities and the landscape, Gerritsen (2003) coined two questions: “Firstly, how

did households and local communities constitute and represent themselves as social groups through their interaction with the landscape, and how and why did this change over time? Secondly, how were these constructions of identity related to patterns of the appropriation of land, and how and why did this change over time?” Clearly, these are

two very closely related problems. (Gerritsen 2003, 14).

2.1.1. Becoming boundaries

In Løvschal’s (2014) view, the very first clear expressions of boundaries took place during the second and first millennia BC. The landscapes were still mostly

untouched: They were flat and lacked any pre-existing boundaries, except for any natural boundaries such as rivers, ridges and forests. The way people exploited these areas was greatly influenced by such natural boundaries. As communities started to become increasingly anchored onto certain areas, the creation of open heaths, barrow alignments and fenced settlements constituted the emergence of physically and/or conceptually demarcated zones.

(21)

19 For example, the first man-made lines could have emerged in the shape of markers, of which barrow alignments are a clearly visible example even today (Løvschal 2014, 726, 733). These alignments did not appear all at once, but were created and returned to over the course of centuries or even millennia. They furthermore do not constitute impenetrable boundaries, but rather ‘lines along’ the landscape which may have been associated with roads along which people travelled (Fontijn and Løvschal 2015, 152). On the other hand, the earthen banks of Celtic fields or fences around farmsteads did establish a division of spaces - there is a clear sense of what is ‘inside’ and what is ‘outside’. Attached to these physical boundaries are ideas about what functions and meanings these spaces have, and who or what is allowed to enter (Løvschal 2014, 728).

Linear markers, such as barrow alignments, often appear to have been points of departure for further landscape divisions over subsequent periods. One way in which this could have occurred is through the articulation of boundaries over time. These boundaries generally respected the previous use and organization of the area (Løvschal 2014, 731). The earthen banks of Celtic fields are a notable example of this. They often emerged out of areas that were already used for agriculture, which were demarcated by less durable boundaries such as fences, ditches and stone rows. Consequently, the functions of the spaces were separated more clearly in

comparison to the previous, more open and diverse divisions of the land (Løvschal 2014, 731). That is not to say that these new boundaries were fixed in space. On the contrary, the field plots would be moved around and re-purposed regularly. They therefore may have marked the first articulations of more stabilized boundaries (Løvschal 2014, 732).

Another form of boundary development in these landscapes is described as

process-related. These lines were generally constructed in areas where no pre-existing linear

markings existed, and therefore represented new claims or appropriations of the land. At other times, they would be constructed in landscapes that was already organized, but appeared to explicitly re-define these earlier boundaries. The latter often occurred in areas that were under demographic or ecological tension. Examples of this include the pit-zone alignments in Jutland and the fences enclosures of Oss, which appeared to clash with any older lines and settlement

(22)

20 patterns present in the respective landscapes. It is interesting to note that these boundaries were not permanent either, much like the articulations of boundaries described above. They were often only in use for shorter periods of time, and were therefore rarely repaired or re-used (Løvschal 2014, 735).

Both articulated and process-related boundaries appear to be the result of ongoing negotiations about the structuring of the landscapes. These very first structures can perhaps not yet be considered commonly acknowledged principles, but rather ‘zones of transition’. They may have represented frameworks for social affiliations, and serve purposes that are more than just ‘functional’, as they are also

‘conceptually’ generated (Løvschal 2014, 725).

2.1.2. Fixation and formalization

As time went on, some boundaries fell into disrepair, while others were re-enforced and re-used. In the long-term, this succession of re-enforcement, by building new boundaries on top of existing ones, could result in the formalization of some boundaries. A notable example of boundaries which became very durable due to repeated re-use are Celtic field banks, which can still be recognized in the landscapes today, several millennia later (Brongers 1976, 31). The most durable parts of these field system appear to have been the main axes, which were repeatedly used as points of departure for the creation or re-structuring of plots. Indeed, this stage in the development of boundary landscapes included a

continuation of existing ways, while also creating something new. The repeated use of some earthen banks resulted in them getting higher, sturdier and therefore more visually prominent and permanent (Løvschal 2014, 739). In this way, a selection of boundaries, lines and axes were preserved in the long term, while the spaces

between them remained dynamic. Other boundaries, such as settlement fences, may have been less permanent in nature. However, as the materials perished, a sense of stability and continuity could be created through their repeated reparations

(Løvschal 2014, 725). Gerritsen (2003, 121) illustrated this idea further by referring to research carried out by H. T. Waterbolk in the northern Netherlands in 1973. He remarked that the main elements of village structures from late and post-medieval times were already present before Roman times. Likewise, Late Iron Age cemeteries and Celtic field complexes were also found to have formed a basis for sub-recent

(23)

21 village territories. Similarly, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age burial grounds show a remarkable long-term continuity (Gerritsen 2003, 121).

This continuity is not only based on the repeated use of physical boundaries, but it is implied that their symbolic and social meanings were constantly maintained as well. The act of rebuilding and re-using certain boundaries also means that the past was actively respected and referred to. This is most prominently the case in landscape where older burial mounds were present. These ‘ancestral places’ (Bourgeois 2013, 11) were often incorporated into Celtic field systems and settlement. This makes it all the more clear that boundaries were not merely functional. After all, those

boundaries that referred to ancestral markers appear to have been the most durable ones; they may have obtained a special meaning which the people and their

subsequent generation had agreed upon (Løvschal 2014, 737).

2.1.3. General sequence

The different forms of boundary formation described above represent the phases of a general sequence in the emergence of boundaries in Northwestern Europe as recognized by Løvschal (2014). The development and incorporation of boundaries in the landscapes was expressed and articulated in various different forms across the vast landscapes in Wessex, the Netherlands and West-Jutland (see figure 2.1). However, Løvschal (2014, 730) stresses that the general principles are part of a long-term and widespread genesis. In each of the three areas, the development of lines and boundaries appear to have gone through a number of stages which were expressed in different ways but developed towards similar, highly organized landscapes on a large scale. As Løvschal (2014, 737) worded it: “This indicates a

general tendency or lawfulness in the emergence of boundaries, namely, a lawfulness that unfolded at different points in time in a long-term perspective according to specific geographical conditions and culture-historical trajectories.“

(24)

22 Figure 2.1: The generalized sequence of the emergence of boundaries in the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands (Løvschal 2014, 738, fig. 8).

Put briefly, it is apparent that the landscapes became increasingly entangled with this succession of emerging boundaries, and were formalized as they were further re-used, re-negotiated and interacted with. Despite the differences between the areas in the ways in which these boundaries were expressed, the general principles surrounding them were quite comparable, and they resulted in corresponding outcomes in every area. Indeed, it does appear that once this process was started, there was no way of going back (Fontijn 2019, personal communication). This indicates that there must have come a moment, a ‘tipping point’, where the start of this process became irreversible. This idea is comparable to Robb’s (2013) model of ‘convergence’ in the context of the Neolithization of Europe. In his paper, he argued that hunter-gatherer communities adopted ‘Neolithic’ ways of subsistence, such as farming and sedentism, in diverse ways and paces. However, these varied cultures all ended up entering an ‘inevitable’ and ‘irreversible’ process; there was no going back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. These varied ways of transitioning into the same direction – that of the Neolithic farmers – was called the ‘Neolithic Envelope’, depicted as a funnel-shaped model (Robb 2013, 666-669).

(25)

23 Similarly, over the Middle Bronze Age, a ‘convergence’ towards organized,

demarcated landscapes appeared to have been set in motion in quite diverse ways. Investigating the different ‘steps’ of this process may offer some insight into when the ‘point of no return’ was reached in the Netherlands. At the same time, the manner in which this process got started and developed can be very different per region. The key regions in this research; Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, are known to be very different in these aspects. This may have something to do with the cultural landscapes that had formed before the emergence of boundaries. For example the Urnfield landscapes and the way they would be organized may have been greatly dependent on the presence of old burial mounds from the Late Neolithic and Middle Bronze Age (Bourgeois 2013, 65).

The general sequence of developments in the Urnfield landscapes of Northwestern Europe have been theorized by both Gerritsen (2003) and Løvschal (2014).

However, there is one striking difference between the two works: Gerritsen has put much more emphasis on the role of the emerging urnfields. The reason for this difference is an understandable one: Urnfields are much more prominent in

Gerritsen’s research area, namely the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region. Løvschal (2014) took on a more interregional approach, including the Netherlands, England and Denmark. Especially in the latter regions, urnfields did not take on such

monumental forms. Instead, the Late Bronze Age people in Denmark re-used older barrows to bury their dead. If Urnfields did emerge, this happened on a much smaller scale and in the vicinity of older barrows. Therefore, the urnfields are not considered to have been a striking new phenomenon in the landscape (Thrane 2013, 753).

2.2. Referring to, appropriating, and respecting the past

As the development of the landscape and its boundaries went on during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, people would encounter the marks that the ancestors/people of the past had left in the landscape. Most notable examples are the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows. Considering the fact that the thousands of barrows are clearly visible in the present-day Netherlands, there is no doubt that they were especially unavoidable in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. One of the main questions of this thesis is how people interacted with these remains, and

(26)

24 how this affected the subsequent stages of organizational development. In

subchapter 1.2.2., the hypothesis was stated that the presence of older features and monuments prompted the people to do something with them. In the case of burial mounds, they are assumed to have attracted the accumulation of more burials, as well as settlements and other structures (Bourgeois and Fontijn 2008, 42). This is often hypothesised because the presence of barrows could have given the people dwelling in these territories a sense of right to the ancestral land (Løvschal 2014, 739). Of course, it is also possible that the older features were deliberately avoided or overridden by new features (Bourgeois 2013, 20). Whether people opted to respect, re-appropriate or avoid older landscape elements must have greatly influence the course of history and development. Studying the chronological development of landscapes, and hereby paying close attention to the relationships between funerary and settlement features, should make clear what the people chose to do with elements of the past.

2.3. Limitations and pitfalls

It is important to consider the limitations and biases archaeologists deal with in the study of funerary landscapes. One of the most important limitations to this study was elaborately described by Bourgeois (2013, 114). Barrow landscapes as we know them are the result of several millennia of development. When studying these

landscape, there is a strong tendency to see these landscapes as if they were formed in one ‘synchronous layer’; one long phase during which distinct decisions were made in each timeframe. However, this reduces the many generations of people who worked on it to one single perspective. When five “Middle Bronze Age” barrows are discovered, they are all seen as the same phenomenon, and it is assumed that the people building each mound had the same ideas and sense of logic about this monument and the landscape it is built in. In reality, the chronology and time-depth of the barrow landscape in question cannot be determined much detail. Oftentimes all we know is that is must have been built during the Middle Bronze Age, a period of 400 years. It is not known whether the barrows were all built within the same decade, or just one per generation or even century. Each of these situations would make a great difference for the interpretation of the barrow landscape as a whole. There is not much that can be done about it, but it is therefore especially important

(27)

25 to know what we are studying, namely the “sedimented activit[ies] of an entire

community over many generations” (Ingold 1993 in Bourgeois 2013, 115).

At the same time, it is important to consider that even in prehistory, the people may not have had (detailed) knowledge about the age and time-depth of a burial mound, let alone who exactly was buried here (and therefore, what their genealogical ties to this monument were). What may have mattered most is that the barrows were highly visible and permanent, and the people who lived near them were aware that they were burial mounds (Bourgeois 2014, 15). It is generally hypothesized that this led to the ascription of an ancestral meaning to these places, and therefore, acts of re-appropriation and incorporations of these monuments.

Another important factor, which is difficult to visualise for such a long period, is what the landscape looked like. For most research areas, the landscape used to look entirely different. Most importantly, the vegetation of the wider area and the burial mounds themselves. Palynological research has pointed out that most burial mounds were built in a landscape that was, at the time, heath. In such an open landscape, the barrows were even more striking than they are today. In regions such as Epe-Niersen, this is difficult to imagine since the area is covered with pine forests, obstructing the view from mound to mound. Barrows that are still situated in the heath landscape may reveal more about what they used to look like, but Bourgeois (2013, 127) paints an interesting picture. Newly built or newly re-used barrows would not yet be covered with vegetation, making them stand out even more than older barrows. The soil-coloured mounds might only have matched the patches on the ground where the sods have been removed.

(28)

26

Part II - Case studies

(29)

27

3. Epe-Niersen and Vaassen

3.1. Introduction

In the archaeological study of funerary landscapes in Northwestern Europe, barrow alignments are a well-known phenomenon. They have been found not only in the Low Countries, but also in Denmark and Britain (Løvschal 2015, 260). The longest, and perhaps therefore most well-known barrow alignment of the Netherlands is located between the towns Epe and Niersen in the province of Gelderland. The alignment in question covers an area of about 8 x 8 kilometres. In total, 110 burials are known here. A little less than half of them, 46 barrows, form an alignment of ca. 6 kilometres long (see figure 3.1; Bourgeois 2013, 51).

Figure 3.1: Overview of all burial mounds, urnfields and Celtic fields recorded in the region of Epe, Niersen and Vaassen (after Bourgeois 2013, 52, fig. 5.1; map of the Netherlands after

https://newyse-res.cloudinary.com/image/upload/t_newyse_original/v1568030350/501-6696412.png).

(30)

28 Considering the fact that the research area is located between two towns, it has to be taken into consideration that part of the archaeological record has been obscured and disturbed in recent times. The developmental growth of the towns and the agricultural activities taking place on the land between them significantly lessened the archaeological visibility of this area (Bourgeois 2013, 56). The original size of the barrow landscape, the length of the barrow alignment and the presence of urnfields, Celtic fields and settlements could therefore not be investigated fully. The barrow alignment as we find it today ends at the towns of Niersen at the south-western end, and Epe at the north-eastern end. The incidental find of a battle axe in Epe may indicate that a barrow used to be present there. No more barrows were found beyond either of the two towns, however. Nonetheless, the remaining part of the alignment itself appears to have stayed untouched by large-scale human activities. Especially the southern half of the alignment seems to be maintained in excellent preservation (Bourgeois 2013, 56-57).

Epe-Niersen is a relevant case study for a multitude of reasons. Most notable is the barrow alignment that crossed the landscape already from the Late Neolithic onwards. This alignment may represent the earliest emergence of lines and boundaries in this region, which clearly affected the organization of this landscape during subsequent periods. The idea of ancestral burial mounds influencing and prompting the construction of more barrows nearby is clearly evident here. In fact, they appear to have stimulated the formation of the most well-known barrow alignment in the Netherlands (Bourgeois 2013, 51). Even those barrows recorded outside of the alignment had a long-term impact, as is evident by the small urnfields that appeared around some of them.

Another important element in the research area is the Celtic Field complex near Vaassen in the south-east. The earthen banks attest to the creation of a carefully organized and demarcated landscape. Interestingly, even these much younger features appear to have been closely related to older burial mounds, which have been found on and around the field system. Here, too, an urnfield emerged in the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age.

(31)

29

3.2. Research history

The burial mounds are located in the Crown Estates (Dutch: Kroondomein), an area that is owned by the Dutch Royal family. Because this was private property until 1959, there was little chance of incidental archaeological finds or discoveries by amateur archaeologists. Even today, visitors must abide to strict rules in this area when it is opened. Some barrows located outside of the Crown estates were investigated before by amateur archaeologists, but unfortunately there are also signs of grave robbing (Bourgeois 2013, 54). The limited access to the Crown estates also protected the burial mounds in a way.

Knowing of the presence of these mounds, queen Wilhemina invited archaeologist J.H. Holwerda to excavate them at the start of the 20th_{century. Holwerda was the} curator of prehistory at the National Museum of Antiquities at the time (Bourgeois 2013, 51). His excavations took place between 1907 and 1911, during which he excavated a total of 28 barrows. This 4-year campaign was one of the first scientific excavations of burial mounds in the Netherlands. The documentation and the results are therefore accessible, but because Holwerda was one of the first to conduct such research, a lot of revision and re-interpretation had to be done in recent times. For instance, different mound phases were often not recognized at the time. It was instead generally assumed that the burial mounds were made up of wooden structures that eventually collapsed (Bourgeois 2013, 55).

Most of the barrows that were excavated by Holwerda were part of the alignment, whereas only six were not. Strangely enough, the location of five barrows could not be traced. This may be because of lacking documentation, but the mounds may have been demolished as well (Bourgeois 2013, 57). The only thing that was confirmed by the excavators at that time is that these five barrows were part of the alignment. In the 1950’s, the study of these burial mounds was picked up by P.J.R. Modderman. He proposed the theory that this barrow alignment may have formed along a prehistoric road (Modderman 1955 in Bourgeois 2014, 52). The idea that burial mounds are part of roads and networks in prehistory has been an important discourse since the beginning of barrow landscape research (Løvschal 2015, 266). Bourgeois (2013, 189) postulates that the alignment does lead to a crossing point of the stream valley in the north, and perhaps in the south as well. This also means that

(32)

30 some of the cart-tracks found along the alignment can be prehistoric. Certainly, much of these cart-tracks are fairly recent as well. This demonstrates the effect of the barrow alignment even millennia later.

To this day, 38 barrows have been excavated out of the 110 barrows that have been documented. Among them, 24 barrows were part of the alignment (Bourgeois 2013, 58).

3.3. The natural landscape

The region of Epe-Niersen and Vaassen is situated in the mid-eastern part of the Netherlands. This is close to the Veluwe, a forested landscape on ridges that have been formed by the pushing land-ice during the Saalien Ice Age. This land-ice also covered the area that is now the municipality of Epe, which created the slight hills and valleys of the current landscape (Van der Werff 1999, 24). The research area is located on the eastern flanks of the ice-pushed ridges.

During the last Ice Age (the Weichselien), the land ice did not reach the Netherlands. However, most of the soil was permanently frozen (permafrost). As the soil melted again, water flowed away and hereby created several shallow, but wide valleys such as the Niersen valley, which is nowadays dry (Bourgeois 2013, 52). Throughout the Weichselien, the wind deposited thick layers of coversand. Several gulleys and valleys eventually dried up, and the coversands started to accumulate in these places as well, creating more sand ridges (Van der Werff 1999, 25). From the start of the Holocene, 10,000 years ago, the climate became warmer. Vegetation started to cover the landscape, putting an end to the accumulation of coversands.

Sedimentation by rivers and gulleys became the main factors that further shaped the natural landscape, such as through the formation of peats. At some places, however, the wind did create some drift sand areas (Van der Werff 1999, 26). The lowest areas, such as the valleys, were filled with alder brooks and peats during prehistory. Some of these peats are still present today. They surround several ridges of coarse sand and a high plateau of loamy sand. This plateau and the ridges are the places where the burial mounds are most abundant (Bourgeois 2013, 54; see figure 3.2).

(33)

31 Figure 3.2: Elevation map of the Veluwe, on which urnfields are plotted with yellow dots, and burial mounds from before the Late Bronze Age with red dots (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 81, fig. 32).

(34)

32

3.4. The cultural landscape

The natural landscape described above became a cultural one as people started to inhabit, use and work the landscape more intensively. The earliest signs of intensive human occupation in Epe-Niersen are associated with the Corded Ware complex, which had spread throughout Northern, Western and Central Europe in the 3rd millennium BC (Bourgeois 2013, 163). The most prominent visible markers are the burial mounds, of which the oldest ones date to the Late Neolithic.

These monuments were not built in a completely untouched environment, however. Pollen analysis has shown that, like at most other sites, the area was transformed into a heath landscape already before the first burial mounds appeared. Maintaining such a landscape warrants maintenance by humans. This may have involved grazing cattle and sheep, and/or the burning of the vegetation by people dwelling here (Doorenbosch 2013a, 217). Finds associated with the Funnel beaker culture (Middle Neolithic) have been encountered in the region as well, further indicating that humans were already present this region (Bakker 1982, 97).

By the Late Neolithic, an elongated heath of at least 1,6 kilometres had seemingly formed, which covers the size of the barrow alignment that formed over time. Doorenbosch (2013a, 215) describes them as ‘ancestral passage heath landscapes’, because they must have been maintained for centuries on end, by many generations throughout the Late Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age. It is therefore remarkable that it remains unknown where exactly these people lived. Besides one Iron Age farmstead at the Celtic field near Vaassen, no prehistoric settlements are known in the region (Brongers 1976, 52). Furthermore, this does not fit the general

hypothesis that, between the Late Neolithic and Middle Bronze Age, settlements were built close to burial mounds (Doorenbosch 2013a, 217).

More prominent additions to the cultural landscape come from the Iron Age. Celtic fields, which are dated between 500 BC and AD 200, have been observed on the north-west of the township of Vaassen (Brongers 1976, 40). They are not

immediately visible when walking through the area in person. The elevations of the former earthen banks are subtly hidden under the vegetation, and sometimes completely obscured by buildings, roads and forests. Aerial photographs led to the discovery of several Celtic field complexes throughout the Netherlands, especially at

(35)

33 Vaassen (Brongers 1976, 31, 40). More recently, elevation maps such as the AHN (Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland) became a main method for the detection of Celtic fields (see figure 3.3). The prehistoric agricultural complexes, as well as the burial mounds that are often found nearby, are strikingly visible on these maps. Around and between the Celtic field system are older burial mounds, as well as urnfield graves from the Iron Age (Van der Werff 1999, 28).

Figure 3.3: The Celtic field complex discovered to the west of Vaassen, as seen on the hillshade map of the AHN (screenshot taken from https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer). It is located in the south-east of the research area, as referenced on the map by Bourgeois (2013, 66, fig. 5.10).

3.5. The funerary landscape

As stated above, Epe-Niersen is most notable for the long barrow alignment that was recorded here. Less well-known are the urnfields found in this area. This may be because they are relatively small in scale, and little research has been conducted on them in recent times. Part of the funerary landscape is furthermore incorporated into the Celtic field that has been recorded near the town of Vaassen. The barrow alignment, urnfields and the Celtic field will be discussed in the following sections.

3.5.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period

The barrow landscape of Epe-Niersen was for a large part shaped already during the Late Neolithic. Most burial mounds that have been excavated had its first phase built during this period. For a long time, there was no clear evidence for barrows that could be dated to the Bronze Age, though it has to be noted that this may be due to the fact that Holwerda’s campaign was executed at a time when little was known about burial mounds and mound phases. The methodology employed more than a

(36)

34 century ago would not have benefitted the accurate dating of the mounds either (Bourgeois 2013, 58). However, more recent coring campaigns indicated that part of the burial mounds in the alignment were constructed during the (Middle) Bronze Age, based on found pottery sherds and dating cremation remains (Olerud et al. in prep.).

The Late Neolithic

The oldest barrows appeared already during the first half of the Late Neolithic (Late Neolithic A; 2850-2500 BC). A total of eleven barrows from this period were

documented, six of which were built in a northwest-southeastern oriented

alignment. These burial mounds were all excavated by Holwerda (Bourgeois 2013, 58). For as far as is known, this ‘initial’ alignment was at least 1,6 kilometres long (Bourgeois 2013, 59). Two of the six barrows were placed right next to each other, whereas the others were spaced with varying distances from one another.

The other four (possibly five) burial mounds were scattered with a distance of at least 2 kilometres outside of the alignment (see figure 3.4). Some of them could perhaps have been part of their own group or alignment, although no clear pattern in their distribution is obvious today. For instance, Bourgeois (2013, 59) suggests that this could have been the case for some of the scattered barrows found to the west of the alignment, which according to Bakker (1976, in Bourgeois 2013, 59) could have been part of a separate ‘road’ that led to the main alignment. It would have been an northwest-southeastern oriented line of barrows, of which one is dated to the Late Neolithic A (marked with number 642 on figure 3.4). Due to the poor excavation of the other barrows, and the fact that most were not excavated at all, it is not possible to determine whether this hypothesis could hold true for all barrows.

A group of barrows to the east possibly formed another alignment. This alignment is less clear, and the barrows were not all placed in according to the same axis (see figure 3.4). They seem to be integrated with the Celtic field of Vaassen, which may have influenced the way in which this barrow group had formed (see subchapter 3.5.3). Unfortunately, none of these barrows have been excavated. The age of each barrow, and therefore the time-depth of the group and the way in which it had developed is completely unclear (Bourgeois 2013, 60).

(37)

35 Figure 3.4: Overview of all LN-A burial mounds recorded in Epe-Niersen (Bourgeois 2013, 60, fig. 5.5).

From the data that is known, it appears that most barrows built during the Late Neolithic A were (or became) part of at least some kind of alignment (Bourgeois 2013, 185). The idea of building burial mounds in alignments seems to have

persisted into the second half of the Late Neolithic; the Bell Beaker period (ca. 2500-2000 BC). The main alignment expanded, though due to the lack of clearly datable finds and features, it is uncertain which barrows were constructed during this period. Bourgeois (2013, 60) stated that four barrows could be dated to the Bell Beaker phase, and five others were also constructed at some point in the Late Neolithic. If these barrows were indeed constructed during the Late Neolithic B, then at least nine new barrows were added during this period (see figure 3.5).

(38)

36 Figure 3.5: Overview of all (possible) LN-A LN-B burial mounds recorded in Epe-Niersen

(Bourgeois 2013, 61, fig. 5.6).

Three of these barrows were constructed between the oldest barrows of the alignment. One of the three is certainly dated to the Late Neolithic B. To the south-west, the alignment was extended with at least two mounds, which are both dated to the Bell Beaker period. At the other, north-eastern end of the alignment, six barrows are known of which only two have been excavated. The northernmost of the two is dated to the Bell Beaker period, and the other was more ambiguously dated to the Late Neolithic (Bourgeois 2013, 61). For as far as is known, the middle part of the alignment was therefore constructed first, between ca. 2600 and 2500 BC

(Bourgeois 2013, 62). The alignment may have been extended further towards Epe and Niersen, but for now this is merely a possibility. The total length of the

(39)

37 six barrows at the northern end turn out to be from this period, it would be almost 5,4 kilometres (Bourgeois 2013, 62).

Like during the first half of the Late Neolithic, new barrows were constructed quite far outside of the alignment. Two were recorded from the Late Neolithic B, one of which was built to the north, and the other to the south near the Celtic field. The latter was structured close to two older barrows. A rich assemblage of grave goods was found in it, among which a Veluvian Bell Beaker and a number of amber ornaments (Bourgeois 2013, 62).

As the barrow landscape developed further, some instances of re-use were observed in Late Neolithic A barrows. The oldest cases of this date to the Late Neolithic B, as three Late Neolithic A barrows are found to have been revisited for the interment of a new grave (Graves 275, 309 and 630; see figure 3.5 above). After the new graves were dug into the old mound, additional layers of sods were used to cover them up and heighten the barrows themselves. Interestingly, one of the re-used barrows was part of the group outside of the alignment, where one new barrow was constructed as well. The grave found in the newer barrow is very similar to the grave added to the older barrow in the event of re-use. The two graves may therefore have been added at around the same time.

What is also remarkable is that shards of Veluvian Bell beakers were repeatedly found on top of the older barrows. In Epe-Niersen, such shards were found on top of three (Late Neolithic A) barrows. It must be noted here that in each of these

instances, it concerned (relatively) large sherds from the same pot (Bourgeois 2013, 62). These shards would therefore not have coincidentally ended up here, in the form of debris from a settlement or other activities. Instead, it appears to have been a practice that was deliberately performed on top of old barrows.

In summary, during the second half of the Late Neolithic, there already were several ways of referring to the pre-existing, ancestral barrows: The construction of new barrows in the pre-arranged alignment (near old barrows), the creation of new graves in old barrows, and the deposition of Veluvian Bell Beaker (or shards thereof) on top of old barrows. The older monuments clearly held an important position in this landscape, in the sense that they influenced where new burials and mounds were created (Bourgeois 2013, 62).

(40)

38

The Early Bronze Age

The Early Bronze Age marks the first two centuries of the second millennium BC. Throughout the Low Countries, this period is often seen as a ‘gap’ period where little to no burial mounds were constructed (Drenth and Lohof 2005, 449). A similar decline is observed at the barrow alignment of Epe-Niersen, but at the same time it is clear that the barrows that had been built 500 years prior to this period were not forgotten. Barbed Wire pottery, which is typical for the Early Bronze Age, was found at several locations in the area; even at places where no burial mounds were

documented (Bourgeois 2013, 63) Furthermore, at least two new barrows were constructed during this period. At one barrow, this could be attested based on the Barbed Wire beaker found in the grave. In the other barrow, such shards were found near the old surface. This may be the result of a typical practise for the Early Bronze Age in the Low Countries: Whenever barrows were constructed, it seems to have been a common tradition to smash a (Barbed Wire) beaker on the barrow’s location, seemingly before its actual construction. The shards are often found on the old surface under the mound (Bourgeois 2013, 62). These are the only two instances of barrow construction that seem to have taken place in the Early Bronze Age. It is therefore suggested that, while the practice of building barrows for the dead did not disappear, it was done significantly less often. Bourgeois (2013, 186) suggests that this may have occurred only once every generation, if not less.

Middle Bronze Age

What becomes truly difficult is determining which burial mounds were constructed during the Middle Bronze Age. Bourgeois (2013, 64) points out that many mounds that were excavated by Holwerda could date to this period, but the documentation descriptions, and interpretations from his excavations do little to shed any clarity on the age and time-depth of these barrows. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, more recent augering campaigns did point out that at least four burial mounds were constructed in the Middle Bronze Age. This was based on radiocarbon dating of cremations and charcoal remains (Olerud et al. in prep.).

What is clear about the Middle Bronze Age is that this was a period during which re-using older barrow became a much more common practice. Most burial mounds are found to have been re-used at some point, with a recording of 16 secondary graves

(41)

39 in total. Some barrows were re-used multiple times, such as three Vaassen barrows (274-276; see figure 3.6), among which a staggering number of 14 secondary graves were found. How many graves were added per burial mound is unclear. The

discovery of large, coarse urns among them may suggest that at least part of these secondary burials were added during the Middle Bronze Age (Bourgeois 2013, 64).

Figure 3.6: Overview of all Middle Bronze Age barrows recorded in Epe-Niersen (Bourgeois 2013, 64, fig. 5.8).

(42)

40

3.5.2. The funerary landscape Urnfield period

By the Late Bronze Age, the landscape of Epe-Niersen was marked with a striking, long burial alignment that must have stood out in the open heaths. From then onwards, a number of relatively small urnfields developed in the area. Furthermore, the appearance of a Celtic field to the south-west of the funerary landscape indicates a high degree of spatial organization in the vicinity of the older barrows and the urnfields. The organization of the funerary landscape during the Urnfield period will be discussed in the following sub-section.

The Urnfields

Little is known about any burials mounds that were constructed after the Middle Bronze Age in the region of Epe-Niersen. Remarkably, one barrow in the alignment was dated to the Middle Iron Age. It was distinguishable due to the rectangular ditch that surrounded it, and it was dated based on the Iron Age pottery associated with its cremation grave (Bourgeois 2013, 65). This barrow is situated roughly in the middle of the alignment, and it appears to line up perfectly with the main axis. Apart from this burial mound, it seems that little to no more additions were made to the barrow alignment during the Iron Age. Funerary activities still took place in the region, however, as four different urnfield have been discovered to date.

The urnfields are given names based on their topological position (see figure 3.7). One urnfield was recorded at the northernmost end of the barrow alignment, close to a burial mound that was dated to the Late Neolithic B (Emst-Laarstraat). Another urnfield is situated to the south-east of the alignment, in close association the Celtic field and a barrow group that may have formed a (albeit irregular) small alignment of their own (Vaassen – Rollekootse Veld – Gortelseweg; Bourgeois 2013, 59). To the south-west of Vaassen, another urnfield was discovered, as well as a Late Neolithic A barrow (Vaassen-Elspeterweg; Bourgeois 2013, 65; Brongers 1976, 57). The fourth urnfield is located further towards the east, inside of the town of Vaassen (Vaassen-Veenweg).

Aligned with the past. A study of the emergence of long-term lines and boundaries in the landscape of Epe-Nierssen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck in the Netherlands from the Late Neolithic until the Urnfield Period

Aligned with the past

Aligned with the past

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

Part 1 - Introduction:

1. Introduction

1.1. Research aim and questions

1.2. Methodology

1.2.1. The dataset

1.2.2. Approach

1.3.

Outline

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Løvschal’s theory: Succession of developments

2.1.1. Becoming boundaries

2.1.2. Fixation and formalization

2.1.3. General sequence

2.2. Referring to, appropriating, and respecting the past

2.3. Limitations and pitfalls

Part II - Case studies

3. Epe-Niersen and Vaassen

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Research history

3.3. The natural landscape

3.4. The cultural landscape

3.5. The funerary landscape

3.5.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period

3.5.2. The funerary landscape Urnfield period