Arnoldussen, S.
Citation
Arnoldussen, S. (2008, September 3). A Living Landscape : Bronze Age settlement sites in the Dutch river area (c. 2000-800 BC). Sidestone Press, Leiden. Retrieved from
https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13070
Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version
License: Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden
Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13070
Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).
4.1 IntroductIon
I have argued that the Dutch central river area is an ideal region for research that aims to answer questions on the nature and dynamics of Bronze Age settlements (Chapter 1). Much of this potential, is a direct consequence of the fluvial geogenesis of the region. Generally fair to excellent preservation conditions for features and organic remains – due to high groundwater levels – as well as the occurrence of vertical stratigraphy and protective covering sediments can all help to increase and preserve the information potential of former settlements (Chapter 2).
In six macro-regions in the Dutch river area, this information potential has been explored by excavations of Bronze Age settlement sites. These excavations did take place in different periods, under dissimilar conditions and differed furthermore in methodology and aims at their outset (cf. table 1.1). In order to be able to compare data between the various excavations, the differences in backgrounds, approaches and results are discussed in this chapter.
The seven main excavations of Bronze Age settlement sites situated within the six macro-regions (cf. fig. 1.6), are presented here in a standardized way. First, a brief summary of the research history is offered and an introduction to the archaeological and geological context of the excavation(s) in the macro-regions is provided. Second, for all main excavations the results for the Bronze Age period are presented.
Such a presentation of data is necessary for several reasons. For example, sites like Zijderveld and Dodewaard that were first investigated in the period 1965-1967 and have been published in full in 1999 (Theunissen & Hulst 1999a-b), have seen renewed archaeological research between 1995 and 2007 in their direct vicinity due to motorway and railway construction respectively (Appendices I and VI). In this chapter, the results of the various archaeological fieldwork campaigns for these sites are synthesised and discussed.
Another reason why the results of the seven main excavations are summarized here is that for some sites, the interpretation of the excavation results by the present author differs in important aspects from that of the original researchers. For example, at the ‘De Bogen’ excavations various ground plans have been forwarded for which a Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age date is claimed by the original excavators, while this is refuted in this study (section 4.4.3; Appendix III). Another example is the ‘Lienden’ excavation, for which the validity of a series of Middle Bronze Age structures forwarded by the original researchers is questioned in the present study (section 4.6.3; Appendix V).
Such important differences of opinion need to be made explicit in order for the reader to understand in what ways I have interpreted the data published by others throughout the remainder of this study.
A final argument is the fact that not all excavations have been published to a similar degree. In particular for the excavations at Wijk bij Duurstede (‘De Horden’ and ‘De Geer’; sections 4.5.3-4.5.4; Appendix IV) only preliminary reports have been published. For these two excavations, as yet unpublished data have been extracted from the original fieldwork documentation in order to allow comparison to the other excavations presented in this chapter.
The presentation of the excavation results for the six macro-regions in this chapter is as concise as possible, since much data has already been published elsewhere. Nonetheless, especially in cases where differences of interpretation are discussed, more detailed information on the methodology of excavations, regional context or palaeogeographical development may be necessary. Such information can – for all six macro-regions – be found in the appendices. There, for each macro-region a more detailed introduction to the geological context, archaeological research history and additional source criticism is offered. In addition, the appendices offer a combined occupation history and palaeogeographical reconstruction at the scale of the macro-region. Moreover, the relevance of additional find-spots other than the large-scale excavations is assessed in relation to the latter (Appendices I-VI).
With sufficient background information offered in the appendices, the discussion of the results for the main excavations is tailored to a limited number of topics. These are derived from the analytical levels of analysis forwarded in Chapter 3 (cf. fig. 3.1). Accordingly, for all excavations the results at the level of the house, the level of the house-site and the level of the settlement site as a whole are discussed for the Bronze Age occupation period.
In line with this scalar approach, a final section on the relation between the settlement site and its surrounding landscape is offered for each of the main excavations.
Combined, the information on the backgrounds and results from the excavations in the six macro-regions offered in this chapter, provides a qualitative overview of the nature of Bronze Age settlement sites in the Dutch river area.
This serves as a frame of reference for later more specific analyses (like that of specific Bronze Age settlement site elements in Chapter 5 or the nature of Bronze Age house-sites in Chapter 6).
4.2 zIjderveLd 4.2.1 inTroducTion
The village of Zijderveld has given its name to both the fluvial system on whose levee deposits it was built, and to an archaeological site situated c. 100-300 m to the northeast of the village centre. This site borders a sand-dredging site dug prior to the Second World War. At that time, no archaeological remains were noticed. In 1965, local archaeologists executed corings and test-pits, which yielded many Bronze Age artefacts.1 Between 1965 and 1971, the site was excavated by the State Service for Archaeological Investigations.2 In 2003, 2004 and 2007, additional archaeological fieldwork was carried out on the adjacent plots, which were threatened by widening of the nearby A2 motorway.3 The various campaigns have unearthed four Bronze Age house-sites with houses, fences, pits, wells and outbuildings as well as an extensive Bronze Age structured landscape outside these (infra). The preservation of the features was good (shallow features such as stake holes and cattle hoof-imprints were preserved) and some construction wood was preserved. The available radiocarbon dates suggest that the site was predominately used during the Middle Bronze Age-B (Van Zijverden 2003a; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 17). Few younger activities have disturbed the Bronze Age occupation level, but some Iron Age occupation on the same site was attested (see below and Appendix I). In addition to the Zijderveld excavation proper, there are a moderate number of sites in the wider vicinity that can be used to investigate Bronze Age occupation of the wider macro-region (see Appendix I).
4.2.2 general remarks
The Zijderveld macro-region encloses a large and geologically complex part of the Dutch river area. A considerable number of fluvial systems that came into being during the later Holocene are encountered in this macro-region.
Together with Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene river dunes also present, they provided prehistoric people with a multitude of landscapes to utilize. Over time, the fluvial deposits (levee and crevasse deposits) as well as river dunes, were recurrently used by prehistoric communities in this region. The distribution maps of Middle Neolithic and Middle Bronze Age(-B) finds from the Zijderveld macro-region show great similarities (Appendix I, figs. I.5 and I.8). However, as many of the find-spots represent results from test-pits with a rather limited extent – hampering the interpretation of the nature of the activities represented by the artefacts – it can only be suggested that the similar distribution plots may reflect comparable views on the preferred location for domestic sites during these two periods.
The intermediate periods, the Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age-A, are far less well known. This is especially remarkable as several branches of the Schoonrewoerd fluvial system, whose phase of sedimentation ceased around 2460 to 2140 cal BC, cross-cut the Zijderveld macro-region (Berendsen & Stouthamer 2001, 233-234; see Appendix I). These branches, and the intricate complexes of crevasses associated with them, must have provided a higher, and within a century or so wooded (cf. Van Beurden 2008), well drained and fertile occupation space. Downstream, occupation on the Schoonrewoerd deposits has frequently been attested (Louwe Kooijmans 1974; Appendix I). Consequently, the current absence of find-spots from the periods between the Late Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age-A is interpreted as a consequence of a low research intensity,4 implying that find-spots from these periods may be encountered on the Schoonrewoerd deposits within the Zijderveld macro-
1 Hulst 1967a, 2; Theunissen & Hulst 2001, 196; Appendix I.
2 RACM, formerly known as ROB; Hulst 1965a-b; 1966; 1967a; 1975a-b; 1991; Theunissen & Hulst 1999b.
3 Arnoldussen 2003; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005; Knippenberg in prep.
4 This should, however, also be seen in relation to the generally poor diagnostic nature of settlements datable to the Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age-A (sections 5.2.1-5.2.2; 7.2; Arnoldussen & Fontijn 2006, 292-301).
region in the future. The Early Bronze Age sherds in secondary (i.e. washed-out) context recovered at an excavation near the village of Culemborg (‘Culemborg - Den Heuvel’; Louwe Kooijmans 1966; Arnoldussen & Van Zijverden 2004; Appendix I) also point in that direction.
During the Middle Bronze Age-B, the higher parts of the Zijderveld fluvial system’s deposits – by then long inactive – appear to have been used intensively, presumably mostly for settlement. The same may be assumed for the Schoonrewoerd deposits, although direct evidence is lacking. Explaining the absence of Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age-A remains on (Schoonrewoerd deposits on top of) the Zijderveld deposits is difficult.
Sedimentation by the Schoonrewoerd system ends well before the Early Bronze Age and the scale of the Zijderveld excavations (total c. 2.4 ha) would allow for the recognition of artefacts and features from these periods if present.
Two lines of explanation may be forwarded.
According to the first explanation, activities did occur within the excavated areas during the Middle Bronze Age-A (and possibly also Early Bronze Age) and are represented by a wooden post radiocarbon dated to c. 1880- 1490 cal BC (Theunissen & Hulst 1999b, 158; see Appendix I). The absence of artefacts datable to this period could be explained by assuming that no typical artefacts were incorporated in deep features. Moreover, the erosion that is thought to have disturbed the Bronze Age surface after the main (Middle Bronze Age-B ) phase of occupation (see Appendix I) may also have washed away finds from earlier periods. Nonetheless, among the over 3500 sherds recovered from the Zijderveld excavations, not a single sherd could be identified as possibly dating to the Early Bronze Age or Middle Bronze Age-A This renders the erosion-theory suggested above rather unlikely.
In the second line of explanation, the Zijderveld deposits are interpreted as providing a marginal occupation area. During the active phase of the Schoonrewoerd fluvial system, crevasse deposits by this system overlay those of the Zijderveld fluvial system and possibly extended up to (on top of) the Zijderveld levee deposits proper. To the south of the Zijderveld micro-region, peat growth extended from the floodbasin and completely covered the Zijderveld channel and levee deposits (Berendsen & Hoek 2005). Consequently, only the highest part of the Zijderveld fluvial deposits, or the parts heightened by Schoonrewoerd crevasse formation, may have provided suitable locations for occupation. As the sand body of the Schoonrewoerd fluvial system is generally located 1-1.5 m higher than that of the Zijderveld fluvial system,5 the former would seem the logical choice for occupation in an otherwise (save for the river dunes) marshy and wet floodplain. It may be that the relatively small Schoonrewoerd levee and crevasse deposits were so intensively occupied that also lower lying soils, less suitable for crop cultivation, were in the end used for habitation. Although the current absence of well-documented dense Bronze Age occupation on the Schoonrewoerd deposits within the Zijderveld macro-region – as predicted by this line of argument – may weaken this argument, this line of explanation nonetheless seems the most promising of the two. It may at least offer a suggestion why it was not until the Middle Bronze Age-B, that these parts of the Zijderveld deposits were occupied.
4.2.3 The zijderveld excavaTions
Large scale excavations at Zijderveld took place in 1965 (Hulst 1967a), 1966 and 1971 (Hulst 1975a-b; Theunissen
& Hulst 1999b), 2004 (Knippenberg & Jongste 2005) and 2007 (Knippenberg in prep.). Altogether, 2.6 hectares of a predominantly Bronze Age cultural landscape have been unearthed (fig. 4.1). In the northern and north-eastern part of the excavations, Iron Age features and structures were recognized, implying that some of the features there – assumed to be Bronze Age in date – may in fact date to the Iron Age.6 Nonetheless, the excavation plans show that alongside the reactivated Zijderveld residual gully, four house-sites were erected and that the areas (as large as up to 180 to 250 m from the houses) around the house-sites were parcelled with fences (fig. 4.1).
Whereas the margins of a cultural landscape, from a theoretical perspective, may never be reached (section 3.2.5), the Zijderveld excavations show that within an area as large as 500 by 300 meters, the landscape was – in a regular fashion – altered or created through the erection of outbuildings and fences. This offers just a minimum size for the extent of Bronze Age built-up landscapes in the river area and one may wonder whether any “empty areas” would ever have been encountered had excavations extended into the northern or southern floodbasin. Despite these observations, particular geographical locations can be outlined within this wider built-up landscape based on
5 Berendsen, Faessen & Kempen 1994, 10; maps 1-2; Makaske 1998, 191; Appendix 3 no 2; Berendsen & Hoek 2005, 23 fig. 8.
6 Theunissen & Hulst 1999b, 177; Van Beek 2005, 80; Appendix I.
feature density, and in the numbers and types of structures reconstructed from these features. Often – but not always (see Appendix I) – feature density and variation in types of structures is highest directly around reconstructed farmhouses.
Houses
Four Bronze Age farmhouses have been recognized at Zijderveld (fig. 4.2).7 Although at first glance they appear rather dissimilar, they share a number of structural characteristics. The roof-bearing structure of all houses is formed by two rows of upright posts, indicating that they – and to a lesser extend possibly also the walls – carried the weight of the roof. The placement of posts within these rows (at generally 2-2.3 m interval and always in pairs perpendicular to the long axis of the building) may suggest the uses of trusses. Rows of stake-hole features at 1.3-1.5 m from these posts show that Bronze Age houses at Zijderveld had walls based on wattle-and-daub techniques. Often, two stretches of wattle-work were used as wall construction, with the area in between presumably filled in with sods or straw – or a combination – for stability as well as insulation. The rows of wall-stakes continue along the entire long sides of these houses and join an elaborate entrance construction on both short sides of the buildings. The word ‘elaborate’ is used to set them apart from the more generally occurring entrance portals – i.e. the first and last sets of roof-bearing posts
7 The tentative ‘round houses’ once claimed for Zijderveld (Theunissen & Hulst 1999b, 164-166) have been studied in detail by Theunissen, who has argued that these were not houses and that the reconstruction of most must be refuted (Theunissen 1999, 182-185, cf. section 5.8).
Fig. 4.1 Zijderveld cultural landscape as interpreted by Knippenberg and Jongste (2005, 63 fig. 6.23).
a: levee and crevasse deposits, b: residual gully c. farmsteads (uncertain), d: farmsteads (certain), e: hoof-imprints, f: structures, g: single- stake fences, h: double-stake fences, i: assumed fence connection.
spanned a smaller distance (thus presumably providing a doorframe, see section 5.2) – which are found in the Dutch river area as well as in the West-Friesland creek district.8 Whereas only two posts would suffice to create an elevation of the roof and a doorframe, these elaborate entrances comprise a funnel-shaped construction of three (sets of) posts. Such elaborate entrances occur also elsewhere (cf. Hessing 1991; Appendix II;
VI), but are mainly confined to the (central) Dutch river area. Their function is unknown, but Louwe Kooijmans has suggested that they represent a reinforcement of the entrances to counter the pressure exerted laterally by the interruption of the sod wall (Louwe Kooijmans, pers. comm., May 2003). But the presence of these entrances where no sod wall is expected, pleads against this (e.g. the house of house-site 4 (fig. 4.2, 4); Hessing 1991; Appendix II; VI). Perhaps – but this is rather speculative – the outer sets of posts served not so much as plain doorframes, but (additionally served) to more prominently display (household) symbols carved into, or attached to them.9 The two largest houses have eaves drip gullies, which may have supplied the clay to (re)plaster the walls.
Once dug, they served predominantly to keep the moisture away from the wattle-and-daub walls in order to minimize decay.
The houses were erected with alder and oak posts (Vermeeren 2005; Appendix I) and suggest very conscious use of wood-types. Some posts were reinforced with other wood fragments, and one post was placed on a wood fragment, the purpose of which was to act as a ‘shoe’ preventing settling (Vermeeren 2005, 43; 103). Efficient use was made of wood from oak trees, that were used
in lengthwise split sections as posts (opus cit., 111).10 The house on house-site 1 (fig. 4.2, 1) has many doubled posts, which indicate large scale repairs or consolidation, or alternatively, may be related to the construction of a loft
8 See section 5.2.3.3, cf. Bakker et al. 1977; IJzereef & Van Regteren Altena 1991; Appendix V-VI.
9 See Oliver 1997 for various examples of the different types of social messages (e.g. clan affiliation, cosmic or ancestral symbolism, occupant status or function) conveyed by such decorations. The special importance of doorways is possibly ‘…an expression of its importance as an entrance from the outside world to the privacy of the enclosed space within.’ (McDermott 1997, 323). Or, in the words of Paul Oliver, ‘Decoration is frequently only applied to specific elements within a building rather than to the structure as a whole. The selection of these depends on the surfaces presented by the component, its accessibility and often, its viewability. But it also is a frequent indication of relative importance, either of the component itself, or its function, or of what it defines. (…) Doorcases and door-frames, necessarily substantial to accommodate an opening in the wall structure, are often embellished with ornaments which expands the area of the doorway and makes a statement of access’ (Oliver 1997, 500, cf. Ali 1997, 593; Fokkens 2005d, 75 with reference to Hodder 1990, 129).
10 Possibly this splitting up of trees occurred because oak was relatively scarce, or simply because this species of wood was strong enough to be used even if split into sections.
Fig. 4.2 Zijderveld houses. The houses are labelled with the number of the house-site.
0 10m 1
2
3
4
Fig. 4.3 Zijderveld overview of Middle Bronze Age structures.
a: not excavated, b: structures, c: other features, d: double-stake type fences, e: single-stake type fences.
(Theunissen & Hulst 1999b, 160-162). It is unknown when exactly this house was erected, or after which time-span it was repaired or strengthened.
For the house on house-site 3 (fig. 4.2, 3), the time of construction can be determined rather precisely.
Two wooden posts of this house were radiocarbon dated and two others were dated by dendrochronology. The two dendrochronological dates show that this house was most likely built between 1426 and 1390 cal BC (Knippenberg
& Jongste 2005, 17; 125; Appendix I). One of the radiocarbon dated alder posts has been interpreted as a repair or reinforcement of the east short side entrance and dates between 1390-1120 cal BC, suggesting this took place minimally a decade after the initial construction (Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 17; 125; Appendix I). The various other dendrochronological and radiocarbon dates from this house-site suggest that the use-life of this house may have extended to 57 or even 76 years (Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 17; section 3.4.2).
House-sites
Apart from the houses proper, the house-sites at Zijderveld are difficult to define. They show considerable variation in general feature density and particularly, in the number and placement of elements such as fences and outbuildings.
The two largest houses have significantly more outbuildings within short (< 30 m) distance from the farmhouse than the smaller houses, despite the fact that clearly not all are contemporaneous (fig. 4.3).11 Such large numbers of outbuildings could hint at large food or cereal (sowing grain) storage (i.e. implying large households or communities) or large fodder storage (i.e. implying large herds). In essence, however, with the present absence of arguments ascertaining the function of such structures (see section 5.4), this is impossible to tell.
There may be a correlation between the number of outbuildings on a house-site and the duration of the use- life of the main farmhouse, but again comparative evidence is as yet absent. The fact that outbuildings often conform in orientation to that of the farmhouses and are rebuilt nearly on the same spot several times, suggests that we can interpret them as an integral part of the house-site (see fig. 6.17; Appendix I). The (re)building of these granary- type outbuildings must have been a significant act, materializing the link between their function(s) and a specific household need (or needs) through their orientation and proximity to the farmhouse (cf. section 6.4.2).
Several types of fences were used, and in some locations they seem to have been rebuilt (up to four times) in certain parts of the settlement site. Some of these renewed fences give the impression that around the houses, rectangular plots with rounded corners were defined (fig. 4.1; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 63; who interpret these areas as farmsteads). Unfortunately, the dating of fences is difficult and some stretches of fence run between the farmhouses and the possibly associated outbuildings, or even into a farmhouse proper (see fig. 5.45; Appendix I fig.
I.9 and I.12). Furthermore, most stretches of fence seem not to define house-sites, but to be part of systems of land parcelling at a larger spatial scale (see section 6.4.3).
Pits do not seem to cluster around the farmhouses and only at two house-sites were wells found at 5-19 m from the farmhouse (Appendix I, fig. I.12 and fig. I.14). In addition to the presence of a circular to oval ditch on house-site 3, Knippenberg and Jongste (2005, 71) claim that small (0,5-1 m wide) rectilinear ditches were also used to delimit house-sites and that their function was interchangeable with the fences, but definitive arguments for this hypothesis are lacking (see Appendix I).
Settlement site
The four house-sites of Zijderveld could have formed part of a single Bronze Age settlement site, whose extents were not reached within the current excavations. The presence of the A2 motorway in the middle furthermore hampers our interpretation of the former extents and nature of the Bronze Age settlement site. Available radiocarbon dates for house-sites 2 and 4 are not as precise as the dates for house-site 3, but also indicate occupation during the Middle Bronze Age-B (Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 17; 127). More direct evidence for social ties between the occupants of the various house-sites – such as communal boundary structures – is however lacking. One may perhaps infer such ties from the specifics of the building tradition of the houses (two double stake walls and entrance portals) or
11 House 1; n = 38; house 3; n = 18; house 2; n = 3; house 4; n = 3, see fig. 4.3, B-C; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005.
in the fact that all house(-site)s conform in orientation to each other and the fences between them.12 The system of orientation as a whole may have been guided by the trajectory of the reactivated Zijderveld residual gully, which would still have been visible as a marshy depression (Berendsen & Hoek 2005, 45).
Even if the house-sites were not fully contemporaneous, they still reflect an attitude of not disrupting the (pre-)existing methods and orientation of landscape structuring (cf. section 8.2). Evidently, Bronze Age communities had no desire to overbuild houses, nor to place their newly erected houses at ‘awkward’ angles to those pre-existing, both of which are valid options from a functional point of view. This hints at ‘respect for what was there before’ – or for what was still there – and reflects Bronze Age decision making, for whatever reasons they may have had to do so. It is tempting to interpret the discovery of three similar farmhouses within 150 m distance from each other as a single settlement, but without additional arguments, this is perhaps more telling on contemporary notions of ‘what constitutes a settlement’ than on prehistoric ones.
The overbuilding of the farmhouse on house-site 3 by outbuildings, and possibly the large number of outbuildings on house-site 1, indicate that the order and lay-out of the Bronze Age landscape changed over time. The reasons to build granary-type outbuildings on (former) house-sites could either be practical (e.g. it was an already cleared space, or it formed the highest part of the micro-topography), but was possibly also related to notions on the former (mythical, ancestral) occupation and may even have been connected to cycles of regeneration (entrusting the storage of sowing grain to the ancestors?) but this must remain speculative.
The other sites discovered in the Zijderveld macro-region datable to the Middle Bronze Age(-B) do not allow for a more detailed analysis of the nature and dynamics of Bronze Age settlement sites. This is a direct consequence of the prospective methodology used (corings or test-pits) and the absence of remains dated typologically or by radiocarbon dating to this period (see Appendix I).
Settlement and landscape
Presumably near the end of the life-span of the Schoonrewoerd fluvial system, extensive crevasse formation occurred (cf. Stouthamer 2001, 21-22). Some of these crevasses will have extended – facilitated by the easily erodible sand of the Zijderveld fluvial system’s crevasses – into the Zijderveld levee deposits and residual gully. Figure 4.4 shows the location of some of these gullies, but more may have been present. Whatever Neolithic activities took place on the Zijderveld levees,13 these will, in parts, have been reworked or completely destroyed by the Schoonrewoerd crevasse activity. The gullies left by the Schoonrewoerd crevasses gradually got filled by floodbasin deposits, while peat formed in the reactivated residual gully and an alder carr vegetation developed locally (De Jong 1970-1971, 83;
Van Beurden 2008).
Some incidental flooding still took place, as is evident from the clay layer intercalated in the residual gully’s peat deposits and from changes observed in the pollen data (Van Beurden 2008). Over time, in the higher parts of the landscape, an alluvial hardwood forest of ash, elm and relatively abundant oak evolved, whereas in the lower lying areas the alder carr and open water vegetation still prevailed (fig. 4.4; Van Beurden 2008).14 This formed the base of the landscape that evolved prior to the main (Middle Bronze Age-B) phase of occupation.
Crop processing – and presumably also cultivation – of hulled barley and emmer wheat, may have taken place on the higher parts of the landscape (De Jong 1970-1971, 80; 83; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 148). The crevasse deposits originating from the Schoonrewoerd fluvial system will have provided a natural bridge to maintain communication with people living on the nearby (distance c. 500-600 m) Schoonrewoerd deposits. Access to the major fluvial systems, either for fishing or river transport, presumably took place through (crevasses branching from) the Honswijk and Hennisdijk fluvial systems situated 3.5 to 7 km to the north (see Appendix I, fig. I.8).
12 The perpendicular orientation of house 2 is interpreted here as also conforming to this single, albeit bi-axial, system of orientation (cf. section 6.4.1).
13 Cf. De Jong 1970-1971, fig. 8; Theunissen & Hulst 1999b, 168; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005, 84.
14 De Jong 1970-1971; Theunissen & Hulst 1999b, 171-172; Bakels 2005; Vermeeren 2005; Van Beurden 2008.
Fig. 4.4 Palaeogeographical development and occupation of the Zijderveld micro-region during the Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age-A (A & D), the Middle Bronze Age-B (B & E) and the early Iron Age (C & F)(after Van Zijverden 2003a; Van Beurden 2008).
a: floodbasin deposits; open water and peat development, b: alder carrs and wet meadows, c: alluvial hardwood forest; dryer; poplar, ash, alder and garden plots(?), d: highest parts; oak trees, e: outline of channel deposits of the Zijderveld (north) and Schoonrewoerd fluvial systems, f: structures.
Near the end of the 14th century cal BC, the Zijderveld residual gully was once more reactivated, presumably by a crevasse from the Honswijk fluvial system.15 This will have started a period of increased sedimentation, effectively ending the Middle Bronze Age phase of use of the site.
4.2.4 conclusions
The excavations at Zijderveld provide us with a large cut-out of a Middle Bronze Age(-B) settlement site on top of (crevasse deposits on top of) a fossil fluvial system. To both sides of the main residual gully, house-sites were constructed. These were integrated into a much wider system of parcelled land – and possibly fenced-in house-sites – of which the limits were not reached within the 300 by 500 m excavation extents. Within this large area at least four Middle Bronze Age house-sites were present, but the A2 motorway obscures much of our view. The preservation of many fragments of construction wood from the house and some outbuildings on house-site 3, allow for the first time to make an objective estimate of the durability of Bronze Age houses, which may easily be over 50 years.
Furthermore, the extensive radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates (n = 13) on house-site 3 allow to assume contemporaneity between the (rebuilt) outbuildings and the farmhouse with more reliability. Besides this remarkable dating evidence, the remains recovered from Zijderveld compare well to those of other Middle Bronze Age sites from the Dutch river area.
4.3 eIgenbLok and ensPIjk 4.3.1 inTroducTion
The rich archaeological record for the Bronze Age in the Eigenblok macro-region has only relatively recently been discovered. The macro-region is named after a field toponym of a plot near the village of Rumpt where, prior to the Betuweroute railway construction, prospective coring uncovered archaeological remains.16 These plots were further investigated with additional coring and test-trenching.17 As the sites proved to be of good quality and the Betuweroute could not be diverted to miss these sites, they were selected for excavation (Jongste & Van Wijngaarden 2002;
Appendix II). These excavated sites were situated on an inactive fluvial channel’s levee deposits, and on the crevasse splay deposits that covered this channel’s levees and crevasse splays (Van Zijverden 2002a; 2004a). On most sites the normal array of settlement site structures, such as houses, outbuildings, pits, fences and wells were encountered. The overall feature preservation was good and shallow traces such as human footprints, cattle hoof imprints, ard marks and stake holes were preserved. In the postholes of various structures many alder, some buckthorn and a single oak post stumps had been preserved (Brinkkemper et al. 2002, 554-555). The dates obtained for these posts, together with available geological terminus ante and terminus post quem dates, allow for a general date of the Bronze Age occupation to between the 17th and 12th century BC. Most dates, and all direct dates for structures however, point to a main phase of activity during the final 15th and 14th century (Jongste 2002a, 35-36; Appendix II).
Within the Eigenblok macro-region, a second larger excavation of a Bronze Age settlement site has been undertaken at one kilometer to the south-southwest of the village of Enspijk (Ter Wal 2005b). This site was discovered during a combined coring and fieldwalking campaign undertaken prior to the widening of the nearby A2 motorway (Haarhuis 1998, 19). Here too, a campaign of test-trenches preceded the more extensive excavation (Ter Wal 2004a).
On this site, parts of two or possibly three house-sites were uncovered. These were situated on the levee deposits of the Enspijk (downstream connection of Hooiblok) fluvial system and date to the Middle Bronze Age-B (Ter Wal 2005b). Here, the feature preservation was comparable to the Eigenblok excavations, but no construction wood had been preserved (Ter Wal 2005b, 7).
4.3.2 general remarks
The palaeogeographical development of the Eigenblok macro-region is comparatively ill-understood. Only the fluvial systems dating to the end of the Holocene (e.g. Hooiblok, Enspijk and Gellicum) have been mapped reasonably
15 See Hulst 1967a, 7; 18; De Jong 1970-1971, 83; Van Zijverden 2003a; Appendix I; contra Berendsen & Hoek 2005, 22.
16 Asmussen & Exaltus 1993, 55-63; Asmussen 1994, 96-105.
17 Asmussen 1996; Jongste 1996; Bulten 1996.
accurately.18 Their dating is however often uncertain. For the earlier Holocene fluvial systems, both location and age are not known.19 The fact that the system on which the Eigenblok sites were found was not known or mapped prior to the Betuweroute construction works is a tell-tale sign (Jongste 2002a, 13). In addition, the Bronze Age occupation discovered at the Enspijk excavations conflicts with the previously assumed younger age for the Hooiblok and/or Enspijk fluvial systems, on which levee deposits the occupation took place.20
Presumably, the fluvial system on which the Enspijk settlement site was situated, formed the upstream connection of the Eigenblok system (Van Zijverden, pers. comm., Feb. 2006). Analysis of laser-altimetry data has indicated that various other – as yet unmapped – fluvial systems and crevasse deposits are to be found in the Eigenblok macro-region, whose exact morphology and age remains to be investigated (Van Zijverden 2004a; Van Zijverden & Laan 2005). These ill-mapped or unmapped systems may have affected the possibilities for human occupation of the Eigenblok macro-region, but sufficient data to determine this is lacking as yet.
The limited exposure and knowledge of the early Holocene landscapes within the Eigenblok macro-region explains the absence of finds from the early Holocene. Nonetheless, human activities on small river dunes and levee deposits must have taken place. Pollen analysis of a sample from the residual gully of the Eigenblok fluvial system has, for instance, shown that agriculture and possibly occupation took place during the final fourth and/or initial third millennium BC (Brinkkemper et al. 2002, 442; 448-449; Appendix II).
It is only for the (end of the) Late Neolithic period, that more securely datable finds from the Eigenblok macro-region are known. Both the Enspijk and Eigenblok excavations have yielded Bell Beaker period ceramics.21 Unfortunately, little contextual information for these finds is available. At Enspijk, sherds were recovered from the finds-rich vegetation horizon that covered the (predominantly Middle Bronze Age) settlement site (Ter Wal 2005b, 27-28). At Eigenblok, the Late Neolithic ceramics originated from the finds-layer(s) containing predominantly Bronze Age ceramics (Jongste 2002a, 34-38; Bloo & Schouten 2002). No features could thus be dated by association to the Late Neolithic on either of these excavations.
At two sites of the Eigenblok excavations, vertical stratigraphy allowed to differentiate between an older and a younger period of use. It is not clear what the exact starting date for the former should be, but a residual gully date of c. 3340-2930 cal BC (Berendsen & Stouthamer 2001, 199; Appendix II) for the underlying Eigenblok fluvial channel and levee deposits serves as a terminus post quem.
These lowermost levels are covered by crevasse splay deposits for which a terminus ante quem date of c. 1920-1680 cal BC is available (Jongste 2002a, 35; Appendix II). This implies that at least from the end of the Late Neolithic to the first half of the Middle Bronze Age, various parts of the landscape were suitable for human activities. The types of features discovered on this lower level are comparable to those of the later Middle Bronze Age-B occupation phases; stakes of fences, postholes, pits and ard-marks.22 The apparent similarity is countered by the absence of clearly recognizable house plans and substantial outbuildings.23 Presumably at the end of the Middle Bronze Age-A, a barrow (and possibly a second barrow) was erected within the Eigenblok excavation extents.24 Despite the presence of ceramics and preserved posts datable to the Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age-A in the Eigenblok excavations, the nature of the human activities during these periods can often not be reconstructed.
Ard-marks discovered on the lower level of Eigenblok site 5, indicate that in any case crop cultivation took place there.25 Clear house plans or features are lacking for these periods as well, but based on the small number of identified sherds,26 the intensity of these activities should perhaps not be overrated.27
18 Cf. Stiboka 1973; Verbraeck 1984; Berendsen & Stouthamer 2001; Van Zijverden 2004b.
19 Cf. Asmussen & Exaltus 1993, 14; Asmussen 1994, 27; Van Zijverden 2004a; Van Zijverden & Laan 2005; Feiken 2005, 15-16.
20 Berendsen & Stouthamer 2001, 199; 201; 208; 235; revised dates, Berendsen & Hoek 2005, 31; Berendsen & Stouthamer 2005, 19.
21 Bloo & Schouten 2002, 243-254; Ter Wal 2005b, 27-28; Appendix II.
22 Infra; Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002; Appendix II.
23 But see Appendix II, figs. II.5 and II.7.
24 Jongste 2002a, 35; Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 137; 157-159; Appendix II.
25 Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 131 fig. 3.26; 141-142; Appendix II, fig. II.5.
26 A total of 22 at Eigenblok (Jongste 2002a, 37-38) and 11 at Enspijk (Ter Wal 2005b, 27-28).
27 But see Appendix II, fig. II.8 or Chapter 5, fig. 5.5 no 4 for a tentative Middle Bronze Age-A ground plan.
Nonetheless, the presence of a marginal amount of ceramics from the Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age-A on sites with abundant Middle Bronze Age-B pottery, appears to be a consistent factor for Bronze Age sites in the river area (see section 7.3.2). Unfortunately, the excavations executed in the Eigenblok macro-region offer no clear-cut arguments to explain this recurring type of combination. From the lowermost levels at the Eigenblok excavation, only 183 gram of ceramics were recovered, none of which could be typologically dated to the earlier – presumably Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age-A – phase (P. Jongste, pers. comm., Jan. 2006).
Nonetheless, the frequent overlap between such earlier (Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age-A period) and Middle Bronze Age-B period remains is in need of explanation. Taking an ecologically deterministic viewpoint, one may assume that inhabitable surfaces were sufficiently scarce for frequent overlapping of sites to have occured, and might thus explain why older period remains are so often encountered on younger period sites. This line of reasoning, however, has two main flaws. The first is that it assumes the physical landscape as well as the cultural traditions influencing its use, to have remained unchanged during both periods. For the periods and the geological area under study, both seem unlikely. The second flaw is that – even if one assumes both physical landscape and societal structure to have remained comparable – the size and context of the artefact assemblages is incomparable. To illustrate this, the 20 odd Late Neolithic to Middle Bronze Age-A sherds from Eigenblok originate from a ceramic complex of 9553 sherds (over 146 kg; Bloo & Schouten 2002, 219). Although for the Eigenblok excavations a taphonomic explanation for the unequal distribution is possible,28 this unequal distribution is encountered too frequently for this to be an entirely satisfying explanation.29
Finally, it should be noted that the archaeological information for human occupation of the Eigenblok macro-region is very much confined to the two excavated areas at Eigenblok and Enspijk. For nearly all periods, additional find-spots from other parts of the macro-region are unknown. Only from the Iron Age and the start of the Roman period, a higher number of find-spots is known (Appendix II). This scarcity of prehistoric sites can be explained by an overall low number of extensive excavations carried out, combined with the general depth of later prehistoric remains below the present-day surface, which decreases the recognizability of such sites in fieldwalking campaigns.30
4.3.3 The enspijk excavaTion
Widening of the nearby A2 motorway necessitated the Enspijk excavation in 2004 (Ter Wal 2004a; 2005b). In total, over more than half a hectare was excavated in the shape of a roughly 240 by 14 to 40 m wide strip orientated perpendicular to the underlying fluvial system (fig. 4.5; Ter Wal 2005b, 11). The diversity of features recovered (single and double-stake types of fences, postholes, pits and a ditch segment) corroborate the interpretation of the site as a Bronze Age settlement site. In this excavation, three Middle Bronze Age(-B?) house-sites were partially uncovered.
It is clear from fig. 4.5 that the Bronze Age built-up landscape was considerable larger than the arbitrary section uncovered in the Enspijk excavation. The cluster of postholes located in the central part of the excavation, may very well extend eastward outside of the excavation limits. Furthermore, to the south as well as to the north of the cluster encompassing the three partial house-sites, stretches of fence – mostly orientated in line with, or perpendicular to house 1 – indicate a scale of landscape parceling that by far transcends the maximal size of the excavated transect.
Houses
Perhaps it is all the more remarkable that within such a narrow trajectory, no less than three ground plans of Bronze Age farmhouses were recognized (fig. 4.6). The arrangement of the roof-bearing posts in two straight rows, the
28 The phase of crevasse formation ending the first period already referred to above, may have washed away much of the older period’s surface layer and consequently the finds (Van Zijverden 2002a, 70).
29 Cf. Enspijk (section 4.3.3; Ter Wal 2005b), Dodewaard (Theunissen & Hulst 1999a; Appendix VI), Tiel (Hielkema 2002b; 2003; 2004;
Ufkes 2005; Van Hoof & Jongste 2007), Lienden (Schoneveld & Kranendonk 2002; Appendix V), De Bogen (Meijlink & Kranendonk 2002; Appendix II).
30 Cf. Asmussen & Exaltus 1993, 12; Van Zijverden 2002a; Feiken 2005; Berendsen & Hoek 2005, 28.
presence of a more closely set entrance ‘portal’ and the double-stake walls of two of them conform very well to other Bronze Age farmhouses in the river area.31
The dense concentration of features in the northwest part of house 2 is remarkable (fig. 4.6, no 2), but it is unclear whether these represent an internal construction within this part of the house. Alternatively, they could be the result of repairs, but these posts cannot have carried much weight as most of them were rather small (Ter Wal 2005b, 19; section 3.2.3). Two short perpendicular lines of stakes were found in the south-east part of house 2. They may represent cattle stalls, but the excavator remains cautious in his interpretation because of the small numbers of stakes involved (Ter Wal, loc. cit.). If, however, the interpretation is correct, this farmhouse would be the only Bronze Age farmhouse from the Dutch river area with tangible evidence for the indoor stalling of cattle.32 Presumably, a 5 m stretch of the wall of house 2 was once replaced (Ter Wal 2005b, 19).
House 3 is slightly different. Here, the spacing between the roof-bearing posts is exceptionally large (2.75 m mean; Ter Wal 2005b, 21) and no more closely set entrance portal could be recognized. Perhaps this building had a function different from that of houses 1 and 2, but on the exact function can only be speculated. Samples of charcoal from two postholes of both house 1 and 2 have been subjected to radiocarbon dating. These samples contained different
31 See especially Zijderveld (section 4.2; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005; Appendix I) and Dodewaard (section 4.7; Theunissen & Hulst 1999a; Appendix VI).
32 See section 5.2.3.3, especially figs. 5.16 and 5.17.
Fig. 4.5 Overview of the Middle Bronze Age structures at Enspijk – A2/Op- en Afrit Geldermalsen.
a: not excavated, b: structures (houses, outbuildings, fences), c: structures, d: other features.
fragments of charcoal that had been combined and for which no wood species identification was made, which decreases the accuracy of the dates.33 The calibrated ranges all fall between 1500 to 1130 cal BC (see Ter Wal 2005b, 19; Appendix II). However, as the association between the construction of the houses (the incorporation of the charcoal into the posthole) and sample ages (the time the wood was burned) is inherently weak, these samples cannot but give a rough indication of the period(s) of use of the settlement site (see section 5.2.3.1).
House-sites
Establishing the nature of the house-sites is difficult, as the close proximity of the farmhouses to one another complicates the association of farmstead elements such as granaries and pits to individual house(- site)s. According to the excavator, no indications for prehistoric farmsteads were encountered (Ter Wal 2005b, 43). Three reconstructed granary-type outbuildings are situated ‘within’ the ground plans of houses. If this interpretation is correct, it would positively indicate at least several phases of use of one of the house-sites. As neither absolute dates nor cross-cutting features are available, it is not clear whether these outbuildings pre- or postdate the houses. Furthermore, if we assume house 3 to also have been three-aisled in construction, the close proximity to the ground plan of house 1 suggests that these two cannot have functioned contemporaneously. Outbuilding 5, for which a date of c. 1400-1120 cal BC on charcoal from a posthole is available, also overlaps with the ground plan of house 3.34 In conclusion, various phases of use of the house-sites at Enspijk must be assumed, but their relative phasing is unknown. At best, the conclusion can be drawn that for Bronze Age farmers, the erection of outbuildings on former house-sites and construction of houses near former house-sites – or alternatively; the construction of houses on plots previously used for outbuilding and/or houses – was unproblematic.35
Settlement site
Despite the absence of clear-cut house-sites, at the level of the settlement site, diverse and extensive landscape ordering is visible. Various structures from the Enspijk excavation conform to a dominant system of NW-SE orientation.
Houses 2 and 3, however, deviate slightly – to an identical degree –from this pattern, suggesting that both belong to a different phase of landscape structuring. House 1 conforms to the dominant orientation (albeit perpendicular), as do most of the fences and two (possibly three) of the four-post outbuildings. Perhaps these too belonged to a single phase of landscape structuring. Such phases, however, could span considerable periods of time. The rebuilding, up to five times, of identical types of fences in the north and south of the excavated area may illustrate the importance
33 Cf. Mook & Waterbolk 1985; Waterbolk 1970; Lanting & Van der Plicht 1993-1994; 2002; 2003.
34 UtC-13614: 3019 ± 41 BP; Ter Wal 2005b, 24; 32. From the same posthole, a top part of a barrel-shaped pot was recovered (table 8.1;
ibid.).
35 Cf. sections 4.5.3 and 7.3.2.
0 10m 1
2
3
Fig. 4.6 The Bronze Age houses from the Enspijk excavation (house numbers correspond to those in the text).
that was given to upholding the orientation of the (previous) system of landscape structuring. It is, however, quite likely that in the southern cluster, fence lines belonging to both main phases of orientation have been preserved.
This too can be informative on Bronze Age decision making: despite the fact that the orientation of the house(- site?)s changed, the fences were – conforming to the new system of orientation – still placed in the same zone of the landscape. A previous phase of landscape ordering was in this sense still respected. The function of these systems of fences remains unclear and the small size of the excavation does not allow to speculate whether they could have formed some kind of settlement site boundary.
Settlement and landscape
The settlement site of Enspijk was situated on an inactive fluvial system.36 Both the vegetation horizon – which was preserved in the more lower-lying parts of the excavation – and stretches of fence continued across the main residual gully (Feiken 2005, 13). This indicates that this fluvial system was inactive and that its residual gully had already been filled-up. As a consequence, no water-filled channel was available for riverine contacts and drinking water had to be obtained through the digging of wells (although none were uncovered) or from elsewhere. The nearest active rivers during the Middle Bronze Age-B were the Hennisdijk and Est fluvial systems, located c. 6 km to the northeast and southeast of the Eigenblok macro-region respectively, but unmapped or misidentified downstream branches or crevasses of these systems may have provided fresh water even closer by (Berendsen & Stouthamer 2001, 199; 200;
205).
It is very well possible that the orientation of the (vegetation in, or alongside, the) inactive and covered residual channel has influenced the orientation of the Bronze Age settlement site. The clustering of fences in the southern part in particular, may be related to the former presence of the residual gully. However, it may equally well be that the morphology of the entire fluvial system’s deposits (levees and residual gully, i.e. at a larger spatial scale), instead of the residual gully trajectory, was the structuring element. The excavation extents, however, are too confined to solve this.
4.3.4 The eigenblok excavaTion
As stated in section 4.3.1, archaeological coring campaigns and two campaigns of test-trenches had demonstrated the high quality of two clusters of archaeological remains underneath the fields known locally as ‘Eigenblok’. In the vicinity of these two sites on which the excavations initially focused, some areas showed slight discoloration on aerial photographs that were interpreted as possible barrow crop-marks. In addition, corings executed for the compilation of a detailed palaeogeographical map also yielded archaeological remains. It was decided that these locations were also to be investigated with test-trenches. Some of these test-trenched sites (sites 1 to 4, see fig. 4.7) were thereafter selected for more extensive excavation (Jongste 2002a, 20-25; Appendix II). All but site 3 yielded parts of Bronze Age house-sites.37 These house-sites were established on the higher parts of a complex geological landscape. The Bronze Age occupation layer was formed in the top of a layer of silty to sandy clay (crevasse deposits) or heavy clay (floodbasin deposits), that had been deposited on top of older levee and crevasse deposits (Van Zijverden 2002a;
2004a; Appendix II).
Houses
A total of seven houses was reconstructed (see fig. 4.8). Most sites only yielded a single house, but on sites 2 and 6, two houses were reconstructed. The high densities of features on the various sites often complicated the identification and reconstruction of the houses.
The house from site 1 (fig. 4.8, no 1) could be reconstructed reasonably completely. The roof-bearing structure consists of two rows of regularly spaced posts. A slight bend in the rows of posts and a slightly larger span (distance between the two rows of posts) in the easternmost part of the house may indicate that the construction took place in two phases, but this is uncertain. In both short sides, entrances are reconstructed. The eastern entrance comprises a more closely set entrance portal, whereas the western entrance included a more widely set elaborate
36 For a discussion whether this fluvial system should be labelled Enspijk or Eigenblok, see Appendix II.
37 Jongste & Van Wijngaarden 2002; Jongste 2008; supra; Appendix II.
entrance portal. The latter type of entrance occurs uniquely in the Dutch river area and has also been encountered at Zijderveld and Wijk bij Duurstede.38 More or less in the middle of the house, a large patch of (burned?) clay was visible. This has been interpreted as the remainder of a clay-lined floor, or possibly a hearth area (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 88-89).
The two houses of house-site 2 overlap, have an identical orientation, and their ground plans share many structural properties (fig. 4.8, nos. 2 and 3). The degree of similarity is strong enough to assume that the people who constructed the second house, had detailed knowledge of the constructional details of the previous building (cf. Therkorn 1987a, 219). A complete, on-the-spot, yet slightly off-set rebuilding of a farmhouse by its residents may be assumed.
Possibly, the second house (fig. 4.8, no 3) is the younger of the two (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 104).
The reconstructed southeast end of the younger house is disputable. The proposed radical change in span from the normal three meter to over five meter, implying a change from a three- to a single-aisled construction, seems unnecessary and is unparalleled. Most likely, both houses were not much longer than the eight trusses which can be easily identified. In the published plans, they form the northwestern-most part. Consequently, only the entrances in the northwest short side are considered reliable. As with the house on site 1, a single line of stakes indicates the wall for both house-phases.
38 Sections 4.2.3 and 4.5.3; Knippenberg & Jongste 2005; Appendix I; Hessing 1991; Appendix IV.
Fig. 4.7 Middle Bronze Age structures reconstructed at the Eigenblok excavation. Trenches and structures are plotted on a profile-type map (lighter shades represent higher, drier and more sandy to silty soils, darker shades represent more clayey to peaty, lower lying soils).
The hatched area is the Eigenblok fluvial system’s residual gully.
a: trenches, b: structures.
Fig. 4.8 Middle Bronze Age houses from the Eigenblok excavation (1 = house-site 1, 2-3 = house-site 2, 4 = house-site 4, 5 = house-site 5, 6-7 = house-site 6).
0 10m 4
5
6
7 1
2
3
The house on site 4 could only be partially uncovered, as a recent drainage ditch cuts through it (fig. 4.8, no 4).
This ground plan has been interpreted as a ‘Blerick’ type of house, because of the presence of sturdy outer posts which lack exact perpendicular placement to the roof-bearing posts.39 There are, however, some problems with this interpretation. Firstly, the absence of a row of comparably deep posts on the southwest side should be accounted for.
Secondly, the reconstructed overall width of nearly seven meters is on the extreme limit of the widths known for acceptable Dutch Bronze Age house plans (see section 5.2, esp. fig. 5.26). Possibly, these posts are part of another structure which, unfortunately, cannot be reconstructed in more detail. The inner rows of posts should nonetheless be interpreted as the roof-bearing structure of a Bronze Age farmhouse, but the association of the ‘outer posts’ is dismissed here. If the doubled posts placed centrally at the northwestern end indeed ever were part of the house, than the absence of an entrance portal in the short side should be noted.
Another house, again of a slightly different type, was uncovered at site 5 (fig. 4.8, no 5). The two rows of roof-bearing posts are placed at gradually increasing and decreasing distance from each other, giving the inner roof- bearing structure a curvilinear to cigar-like shape. Such an inner construction is also known from some houses at
‘De Bogen’ and Wijk bij Duurstede.40 It shares another rather unique feature with the latter site: the occurrence of a possible entrance in the long side of the farmhouse (cf. Hessing 1991, 45 fig. 4, no 8). If the last, more closely set posts in the northwest short side are to be interpreted as an (repaired) entrance, the total number of entrances recognized amounts to three. Two extra posts next to the roof-bearing posts in the north-west part of the house are interpreted as repairs or as a consolidation of the latter (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 132). A large patch of yellowish clay with a black core in the centre of the house near the entrance in the long side is thought to indicate the location of the hearth (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 133).
The two houses of site 6 proved most difficult to recognize. After the main phase of Bronze Age occupation, the site was used for crop cultivation, to which the abundant ard-marks testify (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 144; 156; Appendix II, esp. fig. II.16). The dense ard-scratches decreased the visibility of the archaeological features. Nonetheless, two possible houses were reconstructed (fig. 4.8, nos. 6 & 7). The first house (fig. 4.8, no 6) lacks the consistent pattern of two rows of roof-bearing posts that characterizes some of the other houses of Eigenblok. Moreover, post size and depths vary significantly (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 151 fig. 3.36).
Essentially, its validity as a Middle Bronze Age-B farmhouse should be questioned, although the finds-distribution plots seem to indicate a concentration on the location where house 1 is reconstructed (cf. fig. 6.36, B).41 Based on these observations, house 1 is for now best interpreted as a tentative Bronze Age structure, possibly a house. The second house is also problematic (fig. 4.8, no 7). This house too was disturbed by the ard-marks, which is used by the excavator to explain the absence of posts where they were to be expected (P. Jongste, pers. comm., Feb. 2006).
Even in that case, the structure appears irregular. If the curved ditch segment bears any relation to the house (cf.
Zijderveld; Appendix I), then the easternmost reconstructed extension, should probably be disaggregated from the proposed house plan. Quite interesting are the two small linear ditches inside the house, which are interpreted as cart or wagon-tracks (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 152).42 Despite some doubts on the reconstruction of house 2, a Bronze Age house plan was presumably present at this location and it is considered a possible house plan in the remained of this study.
With several of the houses discussed above, the post stumps were preserved and were submitted for radiocarbon dating. A post from the older house of site 2 was dated to c. 1495-1395 cal BC, a post of the house on site 4 was dated to c. 1520-1425 cal BC, two posts of the house on site 5 were dated to c. 1495-1400 cal BC and a post from house 2 at site 6 was dated to c. 1495-1215 cal BC (Jongste 2002a, 35). In conclusion, possibly as early as the final decades of the 16th century BC, but certainly during the 15th century, Bronze Age farms were constructed at Eigenblok (see also Jongste 2008).
39 Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 119, see Theunissen (1999, 120-121) for the type plan of Blerick.
40 Meijlink & Kranendonk 2002; section 4.4.3; Appendix III and Hessing 1991; section 4.5.3; Appendix IV respectively.
41 Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 148-149.
42 Possibly, such tracks were caused by pulling heavily (dung?) loaded wagons out of the farmhouse in humid conditions (cf. Von Magdstein 1857; Coeckelbergs 1903, 95; Erens & Prick 1982, 40).
House-sites
No evident farmsteads can be recognized in the Eigenblok house-sites. This is partially due to later disturbances on some sites, to high feature densities on others, but above all it is due to the limited extents of the excavations (fig. 4.9).
With all of the Eigenblok houses, the excavation limits are reached within 11 m of the house (Hielkema, Prangsma
& Jongste 2002; Appendix II).
At site 1, the shape and orientation of some stretches of fence suggest a relation to the farmhouse. In addition, four- and six-post outbuildings appear to cluster near the house. To assign both fences and outbuildings to the house-site of house 1 is problematic. Various outbuildings overlap with house 1, or each other, and several of the outbuildings overlap with the fences. Evidently, various phases of use must be reconstructed. Preserved wooden posts from two outbuildings and a stake from one of the fences were radiocarbon dated, but as the house is not dated, no implications on their association with house 1 can be made. A similar situation can be constructed for house- site 2. Here too, stretches of fence and clusters of four-post outbuildings seem to be related to the farmhouse(es).
Unfortunately, most of these are undated. Therefore, the fences at these sites cannot be used as reliable indicators of prehistoric farmsteads (cf. section 6.4.3).
The house on site 4 appears to be ‘surrounded’ by a large number of pits, but due to the small extent of the excavation, it is not clear whether the observed clustering of the pits has any relation to the house or whether it is coincidental (cf. section 6.4.4). Site 5, with its low feature density, may be the best source to look for prehistoric structuring of the house environs. All structures present at Eigenblok site 5 seem to conform to a northwest-southeast system of orientation. If we assume that this shared orientation is an expression of an intention not to disrupt the pre-existing landscape structuring – or more explicitly: as an expression of contemporaneity – than the available radiocarbon dates for two outbuildings (dated to the 14th to 13th century BC, i.e. 10 to 143 years after the house) may indicate that such intentions were long-lived (cf. section 3.4.2). For site 6, analysis of the house-site structuring is hampered by the uncertain recognition of both houses, their close proximity and the overall low number of house-site elements reconstructable (Hielkema, Prangsma & Jongste 2002, 159). Nevertheless, as on site 5, the various elements which were recognized also seem to conform to an – albeit less rigidly adhered to – system of northwest-southeast orientation.
To conclude, although some structuring of house-sites discovered in the Eigenblok excavations may be argued for, they do not allow the reconstruction of clear-cut Bronze Age farmsteads. On most house-sites there is a dominant set of orientations discernible, to which often the house, the majority of the outbuildings and – if preserved – stretches of fence conform. However, the location of the various elements such as fences, outbuildings and possibly pits in relation to the house, differs significantly between the house-sites. Lastly, it should be noted that the plots on which the house-sites are situated, often showed intensive use (i.e. high feature density) from periods other than the more readily recognizable Middle Bronze Age house-site structures. Whether this occurred prior to, of after the Middle Bronze Age phase of occupation – or both – remains unknown, but this higher feature density in any case complicates the recognition of farmsteads.43
Settlement site
The high feature densities at most of the house-sites indicate that the recognized house-site structures are only part of the story. In the northwest part of site 2, for instance, a dense cluster of stake- and postholes was visible, in which no ‘normal’ structures could be recognized. Such clusters may, however, be just as much part of the Middle Bronze Age settled landscape as the houses and outbuildings proper. The fact that the nature of the constructions reflected does not allow reconstruction, should nonetheless be no grounds for wholesale dismissal. Such clusters – or the constituent structures responsible for their palimpsest outlook – may have been considered part and parcel of Bronze Age settlements. In most cases, however, the assumed time-span of the occupation, combined with a lack of stratigraphy and absolute dates, does not present evidence to postulate that such clusters were an integral part of a given Bronze Age house-site.
43 See Appendix II for Iron Age use of the sites.
Fig. 4.9 Overview of the Eigenblok house-sites. Insets A to E are all to the same scale.
a: not excavated, b: Middle Bronze Age structures, c:
other features.
