Aligned with the Past

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

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)

Lisa van Luling BA, 1562797 [email protected] RMA Thesis Archaeology (1086THRS) Thesis supervisor: Prof.dr. D.R. Fontijn RMA Prehistoric Farming Communities in Europe Leiden University, Faculty of Archaeology Warmond, July 1st 2020, final version

Table of contents

Acknowledgements...... 6 Part 1 - Introduction: Research aims, methods and theory ...... 7 1. Introduction ...... 8 1.1. Research aim and questions ...... 10 1.2. Methodology ...... 13 1.2.1. The dataset ...... 13 1.2.2. Approach ...... 14 1.3. Outline ...... 16 2. Theoretical framework ...... 17 2.1. Løvschal’s theory: Succession of developments ...... 17 2.1.1. Becoming boundaries ...... 18 2.1.2. Fixation and formalization...... 20 2.1.3. General sequence ...... 21 2.2. Referring to, appropriating, and respecting the past ...... 23 2.3. Limitations and pitfalls ...... 24 Part II - Case studies ...... 26 3. Epe-Niersen and Vaassen ...... 27 3.1. Introduction...... 27 3.2. Research history ...... 29 3.3. The natural landscape ...... 30 3.4. The cultural landscape ...... 32 3.5. The funerary landscape ...... 33 3.5.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period ...... 33 3.5.2. The funerary landscape Urnfield period ...... 40 3.5.3. The Celtic fields near Vaassen ...... 47 3.6. Discussion...... 53 4. Oss-Zevenbergen and the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave ...... 60 4.1. Introduction...... 60 4.2. Research history ...... 61 4.3. The natural landscape ...... 63 4.4. The cultural landscape ...... 65 4.5. The settlement landscape ...... 66

4.6. The funerary landscape ...... 68 4.6.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period in Oss- Zevenbergen...... 68 4.6.2. The funerary landscape of the Urnfield period in Oss-Zevenbergen ...76 4.6.3. The Chieftain’s barrow group ...... 84 4.7. Discussion...... 88 5. The settlements of Oss-Ussen and Oss-North ...... 96 5.1. Research history ...... 97 5.2. The natural landscape ...... 99 5.3. The settlement landscape ...... 101 5.3.1. Bronze Age settlements ...... 101 5.3.2. Early Iron Age settlements ...... 105 5.3.3. Fences from the Bronze Age and Iron Age ...... 108 5.4. Possible Celtic fields? ...... 109 5.5. Burials in the settlement landscape ...... 110 5.5.1. Middle Bronze Age ...... 111 5.5.2. Early Iron Age...... 111 5.6. Discussion...... 113 6. Boxmeer-Sterckwijck ...... 118 6.1. Introduction...... 118 6.2. Research history ...... 120 6.3. The natural landscape ...... 121 6.4. The cultural landscape ...... 122 6.5. The settlement landscape ...... 124 6.5.1. Bronze Age settlements ...... 124 6.5.2. Iron Age settlements ...... 128 6.6. The funerary landscape ...... 138 6.6.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period ...... 140 6.6.2. The funerary landscape of the Urnfield period ...... 144 6.6.3. Chronology and continuity ...... 153 6.7. Discussion...... 154 Part III - Discussion and conclusion ...... 162 7. Discussion ...... 163

7.1. Linear markers in a natural landscape: The effect of the of visual pre- Urnfield landscapes ...... 163 7.1.1. Barrow lines along the natural landscape ...... 164 7.1.2. The effect of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds ...... 166 7.2. Formalizing cemeteries: Urnfields ...... 171 7.3. Boundaries across: The formation of settlements and Celtic Fields during the Urnfield period ...... 173 7.3.1. The settlements of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, Oss-Ussen and Oss-North …………………………………………………………………………………………………..173 7.3.2. Celtic Fields: Lines across funerary landscapes and settlements? ..... 178 7.4. The ‘time-transgressive’ nature of the emergence of boundaries ...... 182 7.4.1. Barrow alignments...... 184 7.4.2. Settlements ...... 185 7.5. Towards a ‘tipping point’ and beyond ...... 186 8. Conclusion ...... 187 8.1. A “lawfulness” in the emergence of lines and boundaries ...... 188 8.2. Complete reorganizations of the Urnfield landscapes ...... 189 8.3. Evaluation and suggestions for further research ...... 190 Abstract...... 192 Samenvatting ...... 193 Bibliography ...... 194 Lists of tables and figures ...... 203 Tables ...... 203 Figures ...... 203

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.

Part 1 - Introduction: Research aims, methods and theory

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

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.

Figure 1.1: The three main research areas in the Netherlands (map from openstreetmap.org)

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

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

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 re-used, re- appropriated, avoided or erased?

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.

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 ➢ The long-term development of a monumental barrow alignment Vaassen ➢ The presence of a Celtic field ➢ The presence of small urnfields Oss-Vorstengraf and ➢ The barrow lines from the Bronze Age Oss-Zevenbergen ➢ The monumental burial mounds and urnfield graves from the Early Iron Age ➢ The monumental post alignments from the Early Iron Age (Zevenbergen) Oss-North and Oss- ➢ The apparent lack of older, visual monuments in the landscape Ussen ➢ The presence of Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements Boxmeer- ➢ The emergence of the dense urnfield(s) and/or grave clusters Sterckwijck ➢ 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.

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.

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 • Signs of re-use of older burial mounds re-used, referred to and/or • The creation of barrow lines or barrow clusters incorporated visual, • Urnfields forming near older burial mounds monumental features from • Rebuilding of farmsteads on the same locations, with the same the past. orientation • Rebuilding of fences, ditches and older banks on the same locations, with the same orientation Hypothesis 2: People • Signs of removal and levelling of older features completely ignored the • New graves created in different places than older ones –or with visual, monumental features inconsistent associations to older burials from the past. • 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.

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

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.

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

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

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.“

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).

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

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

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.

Part II - Case studies

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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

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

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).

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).

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 alignment by the Late Neolithic B must have been at least 3,5 kilometres, but if the

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).

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

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).

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).

Figure 3.7: Overview of all Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age barrows and urnfields recorded in Epe-Niersen and Vaassen, with the urnfields indicated by toponym (After Bourgeois 2013, 66, fig. 5.10).

It is immediately remarkable that at least one older (often Late Neolithic) barrow is closely associated with each of these urnfields. The urnfields and the older barrows were generally situated within 50 metres of each other, indicating that these ‘ancestral’ locations must have been deliberately picked (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 79). Furthermore, these are generally barrows that are located outside of the main alignment. Indeed, three urnfields are situated quite far away from it, whereas one lies near the northernmost barrow of the alignment. It must be noted that the latter barrow is still situated a few hundred metres from the others; therefore even this barrow could be considered to be ‘isolated’ from the rest.

Not much is known about the urnfields mentioned here. Excavations were limited, and most were carried out several decades to a century ago. The data presented in this chapter reflects all of the information that could be found about the urnfields

found near the barrow alignment of Epe-Niersen. This mostly concerns the locations of the urnfields, their layouts and their (approximate) sizes. This may limit the extent to which the relationship between the urnfield, the landscape and the older burial mounds can be analysed and interpreted.

Vaassen-Veenweg The only urnfield on which a fair amount of excavation data was obtainable is the one found in the town of Vaassen (Vaassen-Veenweg). Very little was left visible of the graves. They were most likely erased with the cultivation of the land and the development of the town. Still, two pieces of pottery were discovered during sand mining activities in 1939, which indicated the presence of a prehistoric cemetery here for the first time (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 150). The urnfield was finally excavated by the ROB (Rijksdienst voor Bodemonderzoek) in 1986. This excavation covered an area of 3100 square metres, in which 17 grave structures were documented. The estimated original size of the urnfield is about 70 x 40 metres, and it is thought that between 40 and 50 graves were originally present here. Notable are the square (or rectangular) ring ditches that are abundant here, distributed in small groups (see figure 3.8).

Such four-cornered ring ditches are more common during the later Urnfield period, namely the transition between the Early Iron Age and the Middle Iron Age. A number of the rectangular ring ditches are interrupted. Verlinde and Hulst (2010, 22) note that this phenomenon is less common in the northern Netherlands than in the south, where it observed frequently. Such interruptions were most common during the transition from the Early Iron Age and the Middle Iron Age. This Vaassen Celtic Field is a case in point. Two longbarrows, surrounded by rectangular ditches, were recorded as well. The largest one was 19 x 2 metres in size, and the other 5 x 3,5 metres (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 22).

Figure 3.8: Part of the urnfield at Vaassen-Veenweg (ROB in Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 24, fig. 6).

A puzzling discovery was an oval-shaped ditch with cremation remains. Under the remains, two shards of an All-Over-Ornamented (AOO) beaker were found, pointing to the late Single Grave Culture of the Late Neolithic (Drenth and Hogestijn 2014, 105). However, Verlinde and Hulst (2010, 116-117) warn that the presence of this beaker could be an anachronism. No traces of a burial mound were recognized in association with this ditch. The AOO-shards were from the bases of two different beakers of the same type. In case that this grave dates to the Late Neolithic, it seems more plausible that two beakers were deliberately broken before two of the shards were deposited in the grave ditch. This has been observed in other graves containing AOO-beakers as well, such as a grave at Anloo, Drenthe (eastern Netherlands; Drenth and Hogestijn 2014, 106). On the other hand, if this grave dates to the Iron Age, it could be that the AOO-shards were found nearby, but this is merely a wild guess. The shards may then have been added as a grave good, perhaps as a tribute to the ancestors. This is in addition to the fact that a Late Neolithic burial mound is situated nearby. No other urns were uncovered in the entire urnfield, which Verlinde and Hulst (2010, 22) explain with the notion that the cremation graves and any grave gifts were placed in relatively shallow pits, or were even deposited on the surface. Generally, more cremations have been uncovered in Early Iron Age burials than in later, Middle Iron Age burials. This is attested at the urnfield of Someren in the southern Netherlands, for instance. Apparently, cremation ditches became shallower over time (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 22-23). At this urnfield, as well, it seems plausible that cremation graves were originally present inside of the square ring ditches.

Vaassen-Elspeterweg To the south of the barrow alignment, and to the south-west of Vaassen lies the urnfield of Vaassen-Elspeterweg. This urnfield is situated on the flanks of a sand- pushed ridge. The only excavations that were conducted here took place more than a century ago; in 1910 by the National Museum of Antiquities. In 1992, the ROB revisited the urnfield to measure it. As it turns out, the graves cover an area of around 100 x 100 metres. The mounds are still visible, and display a compact clustering of the 26 graves and three burial mounds (see figure 3.9). Originally, there are estimated to have been around 30 graves (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 151).

Figure 3.9: Schematic depiction of the urnfield Vaassen-Elspeterweg. The dotted features are older burial mounds (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 150, fig. 54).

Vaassen – Rollekootse Veld – Gortelseweg The urnfield at the Gortelseweg is the one associated with the Celtic field discussed in the following subchapter (3.5.3). It consists of at least 10 graves. Six of them were distributed over a 100-metres-long, arched line. Four other graves may have been part of this cluster as well; One grave is situated close to a presumed older barrow, and two more of such older barrows are situated to the north-west. Verlinde and Hulst (2010, 152) note that these four mounds could be much older than the urnfield; from the Late Neolithic or the Bronze Age. What these suggestions are based on is not mentioned, unfortunately. Based on the figure by Verlinde and Hulst (2010, 151; see figure 3.10), it does not appear that the barrows are significantly different in size. It is impossible to tell from this picture if there are any other

significant differences between them that could lead to the suggestion that some were older than others. Two graves of the urnfield were investigated in 1941 by the National Museum of Antiquities. They encountered two heavily disturbed barrows, with little archaeological remains. In 1948, the ROB documented the urnfield, where they noted that it was situated inside of the Celtic Field complex, which must have been constructed after the urnfield was created (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 152). The Celtic field and its associated barrows will be discussed in more detail in subchapter 3.5.3.

Figure 3.10: Schematic depiction of the urnfield Vaassen-Rollekootse Veld-Gortelseweg. The dotted features are older burial mounds (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 151, fig. 55).

Emst-Laarstraat The northernmost urnfield was likely the smallest one. Here, five graves appear to surround the southern half of a burial mound from the Late Neolithic B, covering an area of around 50 x 25 metres (see figure 3.11). Verlinde and Hulst (2010, 152) note that while the graves were initially visible monuments, they all disappeared by now.

Figure 3.11: Schematic depiction of the urnfield Emst-Laarstraat. The dotted features are older burial mounds (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 152, fig. 56) 3.5.3. The Celtic fields near Vaassen In the heathlands near Vaassen, on the Crown estates of the Veluwe, a Celtic field was discovered in the 1920’s by J. Butter. Between the years 1967 and 1969, an extensive investigation finally took place here (Brongers 1976, 40-42). The known parts of this Celtic field cover an area of 15 ha, but in prehistory, they likely covered around up to 100ha (see figure 3.12; Doorenbosch 2013b, 118). Towards the south the Celtic field ends at what Brongers (2076, 46) describes as a ‘narrow channel’. This is now most likely a depression in the soil as seen in figure 3.13. At the other side of this lower, wetter area, two burial mounds have been recognized. During these investigations, the Celtic field was plotted and measured to considerable detail.

Figure 3.12: The Celtic Field discovered near Vaassen, plotted on a modern map of the area. The burial mounds are marked with yellow dots, including barrows 273, 274 and 275 as indicated by Bourgeois (2013, 60-61). The presumed urnfield graves (Vaassen - Rollekootse veld – Gortelse weg) are marked with orange dots (map after openstreetmap.org, depiction of the Celtic field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22).

Figure 3.13: The Celtic Field complex as projected on a height map. The burial mounds and urnfield graves (Vaassen - Rollekootse veld – Gortelse weg) are marked with circles (map after https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer, depiction of the Celtic field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden- Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22).

Size and layout In figure 3.13 above, the height differences in the landscape of the Celtic Field complex are apparent. The height difference from west to east is perhaps only between 5 to 10 meters, but the layout of the earthen banks indicate that this did affect the way the Celtic Field developed. Some of the plots seem to have been shaped accordingly with this natural relief. This is especially apparent at the western side of the field complex. Furthermore, the soil under the field subsided and becomes wetter towards the east, as it slopes down towards the valley of the IJssel. The Celtic Fields system appears to end in his area. Brongers (1976, 42) said this was possibly because of the soil conditions were less favourable for agriculture.

In the north-west, where the ground was higher and dryer, old car-tracks seem to have formed another boundary for this Celtic Field. Unfortunately, they did not leave clear traces on the height map. However, excavations at this apparent old pathway have pointed out that the area to its south was used for cultivation, whereas the area to the north of the road abruptly changed into a regular heath-podzol profile. This pathway may have been there before and perhaps during the period in which the Celtic Fields were created (Brongers 1976, 42). The direction of the earthen banks may therefore have been influenced by the presence of roads (Brongers 1976, 58).

When it comes down to the overall layout of the Celtic field, it appears that it had a regular, rectangular pattern with almost all earthen banks intersecting at right angles. Quite a lot of “dominating linear axes” can be identified in this Celtic Field system. These are described by Løvschal (2015, 266) as roughly straight and continuous lines for at least ¾ of the length or width of the Celtic Field. Such lines may have been created entirely at once. However, it is also possible that a number or plots were individually created next to each other, eventually forming one or more extended straight lines (Løvschal 2015, 267). Such lines are noted by Brongers (1976, 57), who observes that the complex can be divided in two parts: A southern part that is made up of east-western oriented axes, and a northern part made up of north-southern oriented axes (see figure 3.14).

Figure 3.14: The Celtic field system to the west of Vaassen, with the presumed ‘dominating linear axes’ made bold (after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22).

Dates and time-depth Two agricultural phases have been distinguished; one before the construction of the Celtic field, and one after. The first agricultural practices took place in the same area, but it seems likely that the tree stumps were left in the ground after deforestation, no plots or banks were created and the soil was barely disturbed. In the subsequent stage, earthen banks were raised to surround the plots of arable land. The soil was now more disturbed, until just under the ancient surface. It is suggested by Brongers (1976, 56) that the tree stumps have been removed and possibly used to form the core of the banks. Pollen analysis has suggested that there was little time between the two stages. There may have been chronological continuity there, meaning that in already agricultural land a systematic parceling was applied.

Charcoal samples from postholes at the eastern side of the field complex were taken, which pointed to a date between 1418-1114 cal BC. Pollen analysis suggests a date closer to 1000 BC: The Late Bronze Age. Doorenbosch (2013b, 120) points out that the first agricultural activities must have been undertaken around this time, perhaps before the construction of the earthen banks. More C14-datings from the field complex have led to the estimate that this Celtic Field was in use between ca. 500 BC- AD 350. However, it seems unlikely that the entirety of this complex was used all at once. Another sample was taken from the features of a farmhouse that was found

at the southern boundary of the Celtic Field. Charcoal samples were radiocarbon dated and resulted in a terminus ante quem date of 671-396 cal BC, roughly in the Middle to Late Iron Age. It is possible that the house was built after at least parts of the Celtic Fields had already developed, but at this location, the house pre-dates the earthen banks (Brongers 1976, 51). Finally, a pit was discovered which was clearly dug into the Celtic Field layer. Radiocarbon samples from this pit resulted in a date between AD 82 and 352. which is considered to mark the end of the activities on this Celtic Field (Doorenbosch 2013b, 120).

Burial mounds on the Celtic field A number of burial mounds were found on and near the Celtic Field. They have not been excavated in recent times, though a number of them have been discussed and studied throughout the 20th century. Due to their close association with the field complex, they will be discussed in this section.

A small cluster of burial mounds is located in the midst of the Celtic field system (see figure 3.15 and 3.16). The orientation of the earthen banks may have been formed based on the presence of burial mounds, and perhaps the orientation of the way in which they aligned (Gerritsen 2003, 180). These 10 barrows found near each other were also discussed in the previous subchapter (3.5.2). They are considered to be a small urnfield with the toponym Vaassen - Rollekootse Veld – Gortelse weg. The graves are now divided over a number of plots. Two were situated next to each other (oriented N-Z) on one plot. Three were found on the plot directly to the east, two of which were placed right next to each other, oriented west-eastwards. The third barrow in this plot is situated slightly to the south-east. Two more barrows were found near the banks of a neighbouring plots to the south-east. The final barrow was found in isolation, in what seems to be the center of the known Celtic Field complex. The age and nature of these barrows remain unknown, as only two burial mounds have been investigated, and they turned out to be heavily disturbed. It is presumed that the burial mounds pre-date the Celtic Field system (Brongers 1976, 57). However, taking in consideration that part of the barrow group is thought to be an urnfield, then the latest graves may have been added while parts of the Celtic Fields were already actively worked. After all, the earliest radiocarbon dating taken from the field complex dates to the Late Bronze Age.

Figure 3.15: Left: Detail of the urnfield Vaassen-Rollekootse Veld-Gortelseweg situated in the Celtic field system, as depicted on the hillshade map of the AHN (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer). Right: Overview of the Celtic Field (Map after openstreetmap.org, depiction of the Celtic Field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22).

Figure 3.16: Detail of the urnfield Vaassen-Rollekootse Veld-Gortelsewe situated in the Celtic field system. Two of the urnfield graves appear to be missing (After Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden- Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22).

Burial mounds and Celtic Fields are often found in association with each other. Løvschal (2015, 271) remarks that most barrows found near and on Celtic Fields are found either in isolation or in small clusters. Such seems to be the case on the Celtic Field of Vaassen. The barrows in question are not part of the large alignment of Epe- Niersen, but they have been described as a possible additional alignment by Bourgeois (2013, 60).

About 800 meters to the south of the Celtic Field are three burial mounds (see figure 3.17). Brongers (1976, 56) mentioned that these burial mounds were left undisturbed. This is striking, because they were situated on loamy sand, something that is favourable for agriculture. This suggests that these barrows must have had a meaning for the people dwelling here during the period of the Celtic Fields; a meaning that was more important than using fertile soils for agriculture. The barrows were excavated several times over the 20th century. The first excavations

took place in 1941, led by archaeologists Bursch and Tromp. They were then revisited and re-excavated by Lanting and van der Waals in 1970 and 1971. One of the barrows (273) was constructed in one phase, and dated using radiocarbon dating to 2850-2600 cal BC (Late Neolithic A). The second barrow, 275, consists of two mound phases. The first mound was constructed during the Bell Beaker Period, as indicated by a Veluvian Bell Beaker found in it. It was re-used during the Middle Bronze Age. Finally, the third mound (274) was constructed in two phases as well, though its dating is unknown (Bourgeois 2013, 53).

Figure 3.17: Left: Detail of barrows 273, 274 and 275, as depicted on the hillshade map of the AHN (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer). Right: Overview of the Celtic Field and surrounding area, (Map after openstreetmap.org, depiction of the Celtic Field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22). 3.6. Discussion The prehistoric landscape of Epe-Niersen is perhaps the most important example of a landscape shaped by a barrow alignment in the Netherlands. In the sections above, it became clear that the barrow alignment is a constructed, visible line that affected the behaviour and movement of people over the subsequent centuries. The landscape of Epe-Niersen is furthermore comparable to the landscapes of southern Britain and the North Sea coast as described by Løvschal (2014, 725-726), where boundaries typically emerged: It is a relatively flat terrain (especially next to the ice- pushed ridges to the south-west), close to water resources, and it facilitated grazing. But while Løvschal (2014, 725-726) mainly focused on landscape development during the first millennium BC, Epe-Niersen already saw the establishment of linear structures thousands of years earlier, during the Late Neolithic A (ca. 2850-2500 BC). The development of new lines and boundaries near this alignment through

Celtic fields and urnfields followed several centuries later, during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.

The ancestral barrow alignment Of the ten barrows that have been constructed during the Late Neolithic A, six initiated the formation of an alignment that would be respected and expanded over the subsequent centuries. Therefore, already during the first phases of this funerary landscape, a clear structure was initiated, namely that of a linear row of visible barrows. Over the subsequent centuries, barrow alignments would generally become a point of reference for other structures. Løvschal (2014, 739) notes here that the different acts of referring to burial mounds, such as building new barrows on the alignment during the Late Neolithic and (possibly) Bronze Age, and the development of Celtic Fields in barrow landscapes during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, is done according to certain ideas about the past. It could, for instance, have been a way to claim or emphasise (ancestral) rights to the land. The continued addition of burial mounds to the alignment of Epe-Niersen appear to suggest this as well. Likewise, the development of both Celtic fields and urnfield near ancient barrows seem to have been an act of referencing and re-appropriating these ancestral places.

While the main alignment, spanning between the town of Epe in the north and Niersen in the south, is the most prominent one, it has been argued that a number of minor alignments had formed as well (Bakker 1976 and Klok 1982 in Bourgeois 2013, 59). Both lines are significantly less regular; most barrows were not aligned according one axis. This could be because at least part of the barrows were situated on the ice-pushed ridges, as supposed to the plateau on which the main alignment was constructed. This may have affected the (less linear) choices of location of the burial mounds outside of the alignment. None of these barrows were (recently) investigated, so it is not possible make statements on their age, time-depth and chronology.

In the Bronze Age, old barrows also became location for new activities, such as the deposition of Barbed Wire pottery and, especially during the Middle Bronze Age, re- use through the interment of new graves. Whereas very little barrow activity was recorded from the Early Bronze Age, the practice of building barrows in the

alignment appears to have re-emerged in the Middle Bronze Age as well (Olerud et al. in prep.). Indeed, in a barrow landscape that was, at the time, already several centuries old, people were still deliberately re-using older mounds and constructing new ones according to this ‘ancestral’ alignment.

Roads and visibility Perhaps the most important characteristic of the burial mounds is their visual presence in the landscape. The act of constructing a burial mound not only transforms this space in a physical sense, but it transforms it into a place with a meaning. It is immediately clear that these mounds are burial places, and they were to be interacted with (Fontijn 2011 in Bourgeois 2013, 11). On top of that, the earthen mounds were built to stand the test of time; the following generations would still encounter the barrows, and therefore had to interact with them in some way (Bourgeois 2013, 11).

The visibility of the burial mounds was even more emphasized through the maintenance of an open heath landscape, something that must have lasted many generations. This effort to make such visible monuments, and to keep them visible for centuries on end, implies that the burial mounds must have held great value to the people living near this landscape (Doorenbosch 2013a, 217). This is especially clear for the Late Neolithic B, during which barrows were built between the older ones, and the alignment was expanded at both ends. The result was a row of visible burial markers through an open landscape, They could have been perceived as guides through the heaths, which is underlined by the numerous cart-tracks that have been recorded along the barrows (Bourgeois 2013, 189).

Indeed, the idea that barrow alignments were part of roads and networks in prehistory has been one of the most conventional explanations of the phenomenon since the beginning of barrow landscape research (Løvschal 2015, 266; Fontijn, 2011, 20). Clearly, the formation of cart-tracks in both prehistoric and recent times was majorly influenced by these alignments. Furthermore, the northern and southern ends of the barrow alignment appear to be linked with possible crossing points over narrow streams (Bourgeois 2013, 189). However, as has been implied above, barrow alignments most probably did more than just mark graves and act as guides for routes.

What is most important here is the linearity of this axis, and the way it allows passers-by to experience the burial mounds as they walk along and stand on top of the barrows. Bourgeois (2013, 106) mentions how, from the point of view of one barrow, the next one(s) were visible on the horizon. While this may no longer be the case in most places due to the forested environment, the open heath landscape that was maintained in prehistory greatly enhanced this visibility. This was, above all, an experience people interacted with. This included travelling along the barrow alignment, and adding new graves and monuments to it. The linear alignment created by the Late Neolithic barrows may initially have been a manifestation of a conceptual line, which over time became a long-term material anchor that people respected and referred to throughout the Bronze Age and the Iron Age (Løvschal 2015, 729).

Lines or boundaries? The idea of the barrow alignment as a ‘guide’ through the landscape, which had developed over the course of centuries, suggests that it did not quite serve the role of a ‘boundary’. It developed into a ‘line along’ the landscape rather than a ‘line across’ (Løvschal 2016, 259), not separating two areas, but instead linking them. The burial mounds also formed connections with each other, as from the view of one barrow, the next ones can be spotted on the horizon (Bourgeois 2013, 106).

However, this also applies to mounds that are situated several kilometres away from each other. There are a number of burial mounds on top of small hills that provide a view over multiple barrow groups. The barrow groups may lie outside of each other’s visibility range, but the burial mounds placed in between seem to bridge that gap. From the top of these burial mounds, up to three barrow groups can be seen at once (Bourgeois 2013 106). Therefore, the placement of some barrows outside of alignments and groups may appear to be somewhat random, but considering the visibility of this barrow and those around it might suggest that this location was carefully chosen.

On the other hand, barrow alignments could also have divided the landscape in two or more segments. A more recent approach applied in Denmark is that linear barrow alignments could have been used to mark large pasture zones and/or the collective rights of a community to these areas (Holst and Rasmussen 2013 in Løvschal 2015,

266). Here, it is important to mention Doorenbosch’s (2013a, 215) term ‘ancestral passage heath landscapes’ again. Indeed, what is no longer clearly visible in the archaeological record is the difference between the strip of heath around the burial mounds, and the more forested areas beyond within a few hundred metres. The transition line from heath to forest may have functioned as a boundary, rather than the barrow alignment. They could have separated the alignment from the rest of the landscape, which was dotted with more barrows built in more scattered groups. To what extent heath was present in the areas beyond the alignment is, unfortunately, not known.

Urnfields Here, I would like to return to the ancestral nature of burial mounds, and the ways in which people interacted with them through time – up until the Urnfield period. Indeed, the re-interpretation and re-appropriation of ancient burial mounds continued into the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Around a select number of relatively isolated, older barrows, urnfields of varying sizes and densities formed in the region. In this way, many centuries after their initial construction, these Late Neolithic barrows were respected and referred to as people created more burials in urnfields (Fontijn 2011, 23).

It is remarkable that the barrow on the alignments, while not forgotten, generally appear to have been left alone. Just one burial mound from either the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age was documented in the middle of the alignment. Other burials from these periods were found on the urnfields, which were all developed outside of the alignment with the possible exception of one, small urnfield at its northern end (Emst-Laarsraat). Every other urnfield is closely associated with (at least) one Late Neolithic burial mound that was clearly built outside of the alignment. It could be suggested that the long, ancestral barrow alignment was deliberately avoided during this period. Perhaps the construction of urnfields, which are generally fixed cemeteries of smaller graves and barrows, were not supposed to be formed on the alignment itself. Nonetheless, a link with an ancestral place appears to have been important. Though the people in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age may not have been aware of the true age of the barrows, these locations were clearly chosen in reference to the pre-existing barrow landscape which these people encountered,

perhaps based on a sense of collective memory about these ancient monuments. This could explain the decision to locate their cemeteries near old barrows that were not part of the barrow alignment. Bourgeois (2013, 206) adds that every time a new grave was added to an urnfield, this involved a process of redefinition and restructuration of the landscape. This process can be observed even more strongly in the long-term at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, which will be discussed in chapter 6.

Although urnfields are not discussed in Løvschal’s (2014) study, they seem to fit in with the idea of ‘formalized’ boundaries, which were made permanent through the repeated addition of new graves. They are not built in lines, however, but rather in denser, more fixed clusters in comparison to the Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds.

Celtic Fields Celtic fields emerged in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, around the same time as the urnfields. They mark the long-term use of agricultural fields. The earthen banks attest to this, which could have been constructed deliberately to create plots, or they could have been accumulated more organically through continuous ploughing against fences or the borders of said plots (Løvschal 2015, 272.). This resulted in the compartimalization of the land through repetitive patterns of squares and lines. This is a striking shift from the previously completely different ‘open’ landscape were burial mounds formed the only man-made lines (Løvschal 2014, 725). They also visually separated different sections, presumably all with different functions and/or owners. Indeed, as Celtic fields developed on the fertile soils near Vaassen, they not only established physical boundaries, but also conceptual ones. The plots of land had a specific meaning and function ascribed to them, namely that of farmland. While the area was likely used for farming before, the development of the earthen banks created a fixed structure within which these activities were carried out (Løvschal 2014, 725, 731).

In the physical landscape, the shift towards landscapes organized by squares and rectangles is notable as well. Groenewoudt (2011, 6-9) speaks of a new ‘morphological language’ that is expressed through the ways in which the landscape is shaped. This may be linked with the appearance of the square ring ditches at urnfields such as that of Vaassen-Veenweg. Another comparison can be made with

Iron Age cult places, which are fixed square shaped places as opposed to the older scattered bronze depositions (Fontijn 2002 in Groenewoudt 2011, 9). This might suggest an emergence of stricter borders and zones instead of ‘fuzzy’ and natural ones, and straight and rectangular shapes instead of curved and round ones (Groenewoudt 2011, 11).

The formation of the Celtic field complex may have involved the structuring and re- negotiation of the agricultural plots and their boundaries over time, meaning that these were articulations of boundaries as understood by Løvschal (2014, 731). Eventually, the earthen banks formed into the layout that can be observed on today’s elevation maps. The boundaries of this Celtic Field were established as some earthen banks were consistently used over time, which led to them being accumulated into higher, sturdier banks. These boundaries were most likely communually recognized and standardized, and therefore they may be considered ‘fixed and formalized’, as described by Løvschal (2014, 735-736). Especially the ‘dominant axes’ that were recognized in the Vaassen Celtic fields may have determined the subsequent addition of more plots over time (see figure 3.14 in the previous section). The relatively permanent and visible nature of the earthen banks furthermore allowed people to return to the plots, even if they have not been in use for a long time (Løvschal 2014, 236).

On the Celtic field near Vaassen, a small urnfield is located on this field system itself, whereas a number of older burial mounds are found at its southern borders. Brongers (1976, 57) interestingly notes that the barrows remained untouched, despite the fact that they were situated on favourable ground for farming. They were preserved and have become integral parts of the field system. The previously more scattered agricultural and funerary elements in this area were both referred to and respected while the Celtic fields were systematically laid out. They form a continuation of the previous farmlands, and the compartmentalization of this land was clearly influenced by the presence of the burial mounds and urnfield graves.

4. Oss-Zevenbergen and the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave

4.1. Introduction The municipality of Oss, located in the province of Noord-Brabant (the south- eastern Netherlands), harbours an archaeological record testifying to a long-term prehistoric occupation history. The remains include settlements and burial landscapes. The region is most-well known for the discovery of the large Iron Age Chieftain’s grave just outside of the city, consisting of an impressive assemblage of grave goods inside of a large bronze situla. The most exemplary find was a bent iron sword, decorated with gold inlay. But the richness of this grave is not unlike the overall archaeological wealth of Oss and its surroundings. The region has been subject of several excavation campaigns. The prehistoric funerary landscapes surrounding the Chieftain’s grave and Oss-Zevenbergen are located several kilometres to the south of the city. This chapter is dedicated to these two research areas, where remarkable barrow landscapes have formed between the Late Neolithic and the Iron Age.

The site of the Chieftain’s Grave and Oss-Zevenbergen are located close to each other, near a traffic intersection to the south-east of the city (see figure 4.1). This intersection is known as Paalgraven (post-graves), named after the burial mounds of Zevenbergen that were originally surrounded by post circles (Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 19). Now, the two research areas are separated by the highway, but it is possible that the two barrow landscapes used to be linked, or even part of the same funerary zone. Unfortunately, this area between the two sites can no longer be excavated due to the construction of said highway.

Figure 4.1: The location of the barrow landscape of the Chieftain’s grave and Oss-Zevenbergen (After S. van der Vaart in Fokkens et al. 2012, 184, fig. 2).

The two funerary landscapes appear to have been developed in distinctively different ways throughout prehistory. Most remarkable is the way in which the natural landscape appears to have influenced the formation of the burial mounds. Zevenbergen, in particular, saw the formation of a small barrow alignment during the Bronze Age, oriented along a natural sand ridge. In the Early Iron Age, a complex re-organization of this alignment commenced with the emergence of smaller graves and sturdy post alignments. Such developments were observed, albeit less pronounced, at the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave as well. Both research areas have proven to offer valuable insights into the emergence of boundaries, as described by Mette Løvschal (2014). The most notable elements in this case study are the effects of the natural landscape and ancestral burial mounds on the organization and segmentation of the landscape over time.

4.2. Research history For over half a century, archaeologists from Leiden University have been returning to the municipality of Oss in the province of Noord-Brabant for its rich archaeological record from prehistory, Roman times and the Middle Ages. The very first discoveries were already made in 1837, when several urns were found during land reclamations. No data on these urns remained, unfortunately (Fokkens and

Jansen 2007, 29; Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 20). When workers levelled the land in 1933, they, too found a number of urns. Further explorations led to the discovery of the well-known bronze situla mentioned above. This situla held not only cremated remains, but also an ornate, bent iron sword with gold inlay and a number other metal weapons and tools (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 9; Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 15). This burial mound is now generally referred to as the ‘Chieftain’s grave of Oss’ (In Dutch: Het Vorstengraf van Oss). Therefore, it will be named the ‘Chieftain’s Grave’ in the following chapters as well. This research area is also known as “Oss- Vorstengraf”.

Two years after its discovery, archaeologist dr. F.C. Bursch excavated three burial mounds near the Chieftain’s grave. One of these turned out to be a Bell Beaker Grave in which cremation remains were buried. This is quite unique, because cremating the dead was not at all a common practice during Late Neolithic (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 26). One other mound was accompanied by both a ring ditch and a post circle, and in the last, smallest mound traces of at least three post circles were found surrounding its central inhumation grave. It would take more than 30 years before further research was initiated (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 27).

In Zevenbergen, which is situated to the south-east of Oss, the presence of seven burial mounds caught the attention of archaeologist P.J.R. Modderman in the 1960’s. In 1964, there were plans to widen the highway that crossed the area, which would endanger the archaeological record (Fokkens et al. 2009, 12). Two of the burial mounds were therefore partially excavated using the quadrant method, and of several others measurements were taken (Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 21). The oldest remains were found under Tumulus I (also known as mound 8), which was excavated in 1965. This mound appears to have been erected in the Middle Bronze Age (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 22). Following this research, this area became eligible to be protected. This protection started in 1969.

Even though the Chieftain’s grave itself seemed to have been forgotten about at the time, new excavations took place in its vicinity in 1972. Archaeologist Beex uncovered four ring ditches. It is unclear if these are the remains of burial mounds. Just one urn was found, and it was located right outside of the largest ring ditch (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 28).

Through a long-running campaign named ‘the Maaskant project’ (of Leiden University and ARCHOL), which started in 1974, the settlements to the north and the funerary landscape to the south of Oss were the subject of research. The goal of this project was to create a clearer picture of the landscape in prehistory, including its local dynamics, its development, and how the people organized it (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 11). More recent investigations of the Maaskant Project, taking place between 1997 and 2005, led to the ‘rediscovery’ of the Chieftain’s grave and allowed archaeologists to truly investigate the landscape around it. More graves and ring ditches were subsequently discovered as well, which indicated that small urnfields may have been present at both barrow groups (Fokkens et al. 2009, 126; Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 10). During the reclamations of the land in the 1930’s, many of these graves were most likely damaged or completely removed, however (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 24).

The excavations conducted at both the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen were exceptionally extensive in scale and detail, and they allowed the researchers to study the funerary landscape as a whole. It appeared that this was quite an intriguing landscape in terms of structure; not only barrow alignments and monumental burial mounds were recorded here, but also urnfield graves and, at Zevenbergen, several post alignments (Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 15).

4.3. The natural landscape Both research areas are situated in the Maashorst, a slightly sloped area in the northern part of the Peel Blok which slowly rises upwards due to tectonic movements. To the west lies the Roerdalsenk, an area that, subsequently, slowly subsides. The Zevenbergen barrow group is located in the midst of these two dynamic areas, with the Chieftain’s grave to the north-west (see figure 4.2; Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 15; Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 35). The border between these two zones is called the Peelrandbreuk.

Figure 4.2: The locations of the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen on the elevation map (image after https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer).

This landscape was shaped by thick layers of maritime, coastal and fluvial deposits that were deposited throughout the Quaternary, over the last 2,6 million years. The Rhine and Meuse were responsible for these fluvial deposits and formed a wide riverine zone. Eventually, during the Late Pleistocene (or Eemian, between 130.000 and 115.000 years ago) the Meuse assumed its current course. The subsequent period was the last Ice Age, the Weichselian (115.000-10.000 years ago), during which thick layers of coversand were deposited by the wind over time. However, on the Peel Blok, this coversand eroded away again (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 16, Van der Linde and Fokkens 2009 , 37-38).

The landscape of Oss-Zevenbergen is now mostly characterized by a narrow ridge of coversand, on top of which most burial mounds have been recorded (see figure 4.3; Van der Linde and Fokkens 2009, 37-38). This ridge must have been even more prominent in prehistory, as it was surrounded by low, wet valleys. On the top of the ridge, there were several smaller, natural elevations, some of which had burial mounds erected on top of them (Fontijn et al. 2013, 283). The burial mounds therefore form high marks in the landscape, which is further accentuated due to the down-sloping terrace towards the north (Van der Linde and Fokkens 2009, 52).

Figure 4.3: Elevation map of the research area, with the barrow groups of the Chieftain’s grave (I), a Bell beaker mound (II), Vorssel (III) and Zevenbergen (IV) marked on the map (Figure by Jansen and Van der Linde 2013, 42, fig. 2.8., after De Kort 2007). 4.4. The cultural landscape From the start of the Holocene, the landscape underwent changes that were predominantly caused by human activities. With this, this area gradually transformed into a cultural landscape. The most notable impact of human intervention was the deforestation of this landscape, which transformed it into an open heathland. It was this heathland in which the barrow landscape was created (Jansen and van der Linde 2013, 35). This is indicated by palynological research, which was used to reconstruct the landscape of the Late Neolithic, the period during which the very first burial mound was most probably erected (Fokkens et al. 2009, 210).

This means that people must have actively maintained this area before the first burial mounds were constructed. If unattended, heath will become forested again. The maintenance can include mowing, burning the vegetation, letting cattle and sheep graze, and cutting sods. For the latter three methods, evidence has been found in Oss-Zevenbergen. In fact, the very burial mounds that are central to this research were made with sods from the heath (Bakels et al. 2013, 239, 243-244). Doorenbosch (2013, 215) stresses that the heath has been a stable element of this

landscape for many centuries; practically every generation must have occupied themselves with maintaining this landscape, even if no barrows were constructed for a while.

The geophysical landscape, the presence of the high sand ridge and the development of a heath landscape all appeared to have played a major role in the choice of location for the burial mounds. The height differences of the Peelrandbreuk must have formed natural boundaries, contributing to the structuring of the cultural landscape. Furthermore, the wetter areas around the elevated ridge could have been visibly distinct due to differences in the vegetation as well (Van der Linde and Fokkens 2009, 52). Likewise, the Peel Blok is surrounded by steep ridges on all sides except at the south. The lower areas around it were wetter places and brooks; precisely the places where (ritual) depositions took place in prehistory. Fokkens et al. (2009, 218) suggest that these places held an ancestral meaning as well, which may have been why the people chose the higher zone next to these wet places as a location for burials.

For the Late Neolithic, no evidence of occupation is documented besides the construction of the very first, isolated burial mound (between 2300 and 2000 BC). Indeed, a single burial mound was found with some distance from the Chieftain’s grave that could be associated with the Bell Beaker culture. The creation of burial mounds throughout the Bronze Age and Iron Age can therefore perhaps be attributed to two main factors: The high sand ridge in the landscape being a prominent and visible place in the wider area, and the presence of said Late Neolithic burial mound nearby. This mound have formed an ancestral marker in the landscape, giving meaning to this location which would be expressed by the construction of multiple burial mounds through the centuries (Fokkens et al. 2009, 210).

4.5. The settlement landscape Very little evidence for settlements or farmsteads has been found near the funerary sites of Oss-Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave. Seemingly, from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC up until the 19th century, this area has been a largely uninhabited – yet cultural - heath landscape. Only slight traces of occupation, such as pottery sherds from the Bronze Age and Iron Age, have been discovered during

pioneering research to the south of the cemetery. These could indicate the presence of a Middle Bronze Age settlement (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 32; Fokkens et al. 2009, 224). Other sites yielding pottery from the Middle Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman times were discovered at the Hoge Vorssel and Munsche Heide. Both of these sites are located only about 6-700 metres away from the Chieftain’s Grave (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 33). The closest settlement that has been excavated lies 2,5 km to the south of the cemetery: Nistelrode-Loo (see figure 4.4). Here, postholes from the Middle Bronze Age were found. Unfortunately, no further insight into the nature of the (possible) settlements discussed here could be obtained.

Though excavated settlement sites are lacking near the barrow groups themselves, there have been extensive excavations of Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements several kilometres up north. These excavations were carried out in two projects: Oss-Ussen (Schinkel 1998) and Oss-North (Fokkens 2019). Chapter 5 of this thesis is dedicated to the settlement sites to the north.

Figure 4.4: The locations of the (possible) settlement sites (indicated in red), and the sites of Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave (indicated in black; map from openstreetmap.org).

4.6. The funerary landscape The two barrow groups of Oss-Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave are located at around 400 metres from each other. The highway junction that separates them unfortunately obscures the knowledge whether the two areas were part of the same ‘funerary zone’ or not (Fokkens 2013, 141). The soil is significantly wetter near the highway junction between the two areas, however, despite the many alterations of this area for the construction of the highways. This may suggest that the barrow groups were originally already separated by a wet zone through seepage in the soils (Jansen and van der Linde 2013, 42). The development of the barrow landscapes in both areas have been analysed separately. From here it is notable that both the funerary landscape of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen started to develop in similar ways during the Middle Bronze Age (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 84; Fokkens et al. 2009, 213). From this period onwards, however, the development of the two areas seem to have gone into two different directions. In this chapter, the developments of both Oss- Zevenbergen and the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave will be discussed, from the Middle Bronze Age until the Early Iron Age.

4.6.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period in Oss- Zevenbergen A total of 12 funerary structures have been discovered on the sand ridge of Oss- Zevenbergen. The oldest three monuments are from the Middle Bronze Age, which appear to have initiated the formation of a barrow alignment (Fokkens et al. 2009, 210). During a later period, two longbarrows were added to this alignment. It has been suggested that these two structures were built in the Late Bronze Age, though very little other signs of activities have been recorded from this period. Indeed, there seemed to be a general decline in funerary practices. This was not the end, however, and an immense ‘revival’ or ‘re-appropriation’ of the funerary landscape commenced in the Early Iron Age (Fokkens et al. 2009, 214; see figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5: Development of the barrow group at Zevenbergen between the Middle Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (After Fokkens et al. 2009, 211-214, figures 13.01a-d).

The new types of structures were built alongside the older ones. Some new burial mounds were built to be larger than ever before, flat graves appeared around them, and the entire landscape would be re-structured with the use of impressive, sturdy post-alignments (Fokkens et al. 2009, 214). The development of this cemetery over time will be discussed in the following chapter (see table 4.1 for an overview).

Table 4.1: Overview of the burial mounds documented in the cemetery of Oss (after Fokkens et al. 2009, 212).

Oss-Zevenbergen Phase Period Size Burial(s) Features Remarks Mound 1 LBA-EIA 4,7 x >23,5 Not found Longbarrow, built on a natural m elevation Mound 2 1 MBA-A? 12,5 m Ditch Double post circle 2 1600-1400 16 m Not found Double post BC circle 3 EIA Cremation After-interment in urn Mound 3 1 EIA 30 m Cremation Post circle remains + artefacts Mound 4 1 MBA-A Not found Built on a natural elevation 2 MBA-B 14,5 m Not found 3 Possibly extra layer on the southern side 4 Not found Mound phase 3 Mound 5 1 Possible burial mound? Seems to be natural elevation. 2 Possible second phase? Mound 6 (Tumulus II) 1 LBA-EIA 25 x 6 m Not found Rectangular Longbarrow post circle 2 LBA-EIA 27,5 x 7,5 Not found Rectangular m ring ditch 3 Cremation After-interment in urn Mound 7 EIA 45 m Cremation Built on a natural elevation (diameter) in urn Partially disturbed by badgers 1 m Large bronze assemblage and (height) charcoal found near centre, possibly result of pyre Eight postholes (alignment) found under mound Mound 8 (Tumulus I) 1 MBA-A Inhumatio n 2 MBA-B Cremation After-interment in urn 3 EIA Only After-interment shards 4 EIA Ring ditch Mound (ring ditch) 9 EIA 9,5 m Not found Ring ditch No burial mound remained Mound (ring ditch) 10 EIA 7,5 m Cremation Ring ditch, No burial mound remained in urn interrupted in S-E Mound (ring ditch) 11 LBA-EIA 4 m 2 urns, no Ring ditch No burial mound remained bones found Mound (ring ditch) 12 EIA 2,5-2,8 m Not found Ring ditch No burial mound remained

The Middle Bronze Age The oldest burial mounds at Zevenbergen were constructed at around the start of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA-A). Whereas one barrow from this period was found under the Chieftain’s grave ca. 400 metres to the west, three were documented at Zevenbergen, on the highest part of the sand ridge. This concerns mounds 2, 4 and 8, which together form a northeast-southwestern alignment (see table 4.1 above and figure 4.6). A burial was only found under mound 8, but the structures of all three indicate that each of them have been re-used multiple times over the subsequent centuries. This re-use includes the addition of secondary graves, new features and new layers of sods (mound phases) to expand or heighten the monument itself. It is not always clear when these mounds were re-used, however. Fokkens et al. (2009, 212) stress that multiple generations could have passed before a burial mound would be re-used and/or altered. For instance, the secondary cremation burial found in mound 8 appears to have been added in the Middle Bronze Age B, based on the typology its urn. If this is true, then as much as 500 years could have passed between the construction of the mound and its re-use (Fokkens et al. 2009, 212). However, while the area may not have been used for funerary practices, the heath landscape was still maintained by letting animals graze and sometimes even by burning the vegetation (Van Wijk et al. 2007, 105).

Figure 4.6: The Middle Bronze Age mounds 2, 4 and 8 on the research map of Oss-Zevenbergen (After Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, figure 13.01a).

Mound 2 is the most prominent burial mound in the alignment. Its location on the highest spot of the ridge, together with its round shape and height of 1,2 metres make it a very clearly visible burial mound, even at the time when this was still a small heath surrounded by woodlands (De Kort 2009 in Fontijn et al. 2013, 286). Four phases of use could be distinguished during further excavations: The two earliest phases from the Bronze Age, one after-interment from the Iron Age and three graves that were added much later, in Medieval or post-Medieval times (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 74). At the very western end of the alignment lies mound 4. This mound was hardly recognizable, and researchers in the 30’s, 60’s and 70’s have not noted the presence of this (possible) burial monument. However, recent excavations have pointed out that this is, in fact, an anthropogenic barrow of four phases, albeit a very disturbed one. It was built on top of a natural elevation (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 106). Mound 8, previously indicated as Tumulus I, was partially excavated in the 1960’s by Prof.dr. Modderman and Dr. Verwers. Only one mound phase was distinguished during the excavations, but multiple activities have taken place over time (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 126). A ring ditch was added in the flanks of the monument (Jansen and Heirbaut 2009, 63). The original assumption was that this ring ditch was associated with the urn from the Middle Bronze Age, but the link between the two is rather unclear. The other ring ditches in the research area were generally from the Early Iron age, which indicates that this one might have been dug around this time, too (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 124).

In summary, at least eight individuals were buried at Zevenbergen over the span of 500 years (between 1800 and 1300/1100 BC). Three were buried under their own barrows, and five were added to these monuments over the following generations. Indeed, burials were added to new or existing mounds only a few times over several centuries; there are likely no direct genealogical links between the primary burial and the individuals that were buried secondarily in the same mound. Clearly, even during times of less activity, this area appears to have retained its status as a landscape of mortuary meaning (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 90).

The Late Bronze Age The Late Bronze Age is the period in which urnfields started to emerge in the Netherlands. However, this is not yet the case in Oss. In fact, it seems that hardly any funerary activities have taken place between 1300 and 800 BC. Only two longbarrows, mounds 1 and 6, are possible contenders as Late Bronze Age mounds (See table 4.1). Van Wijk et al. (2009, 118) based this estimation on the filling-up of the ring ditch of mound 6, which included charcoal that was dated to between the ninth and eighth century BC. The burial mounds must therefore been present shortly before this. Furthermore, longbarrows started to appear more in the Netherlands from the Late Bronze Age onwards (Fokkens 2001, 243; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 73). This leaves a gap of a few centuries between the last barrows of the Middle Bronze Age and these two longbarrows. It is therefore suggested that they were the first barrows to be built in this area since a long time. This makes sense, since there seems to have been a decrease in the appearance of barrows between ca. 1400 and 1100 BC throughout the Netherlands. Indeed, the emergence of urnfields and longbarrows seem to have also marked a revival of barrow-building (Fontijn et al. 2013, 293).

The two longbarrows form an extension of the earlier established barrow alignment (see figure 4.7). This alignment must therefore have been an important factor in the choice of their locations. Furthermore, there was a large natural elevation between the two longbarrows, which could possibly have been perceived as part of the ancestral barrow alignment as well (Fontijn et al. 2013, 293).

Figure 4.7: The Middle Bronze Age mounds and the possible Late Bronze Age barrows on the research map of Oss-Zevenbergen (Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, fig. 1.13).

The longbarrow at the eastern end of the alignment, indicated as mound 1, had a quite irregular, elongated shape, which was orientated in parallel with the direction of the sand ridge. For this reason, it was uncertain whether this was an anthropogenic mound at all, and neither Verwers nor Modderman had documented it as such (van Wijk et al. 2005, 72). At the western side of the barrow, an anthropogenic layer indicated that this is likely a burial mound. Jansen and Heirbaut’s (2009, 57) preliminary interpretation is that a natural elevation of coversand was utilized by the people to create this burial monument. Due to the lack of a grave or any other remains that could be dated, the exact age of this mound could not be determined. However, longbarrows such as this one are most commonly associated with Urnfields. It is therefore most likely that this monument was erected in the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 74).

Part of mound 6 has already been subject to research during the 1960’s, when it was indicated as Tumulus II. At the time, it was thought to be a round burial mound, surrounded by a ring-ditch and an oval-shaped double post circle. Later on, it appeared that this round part of the burial mound further extended eastwards – as

it turned out to be a longbarrow (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 115). Within the mound, some cremation remains and potsherds were uncovered, which were likely part of an interment from the Early Iron Age. The potsherd show similarities with schräghals-urns from this period (Valentijn 2013, 60). This must have been the second phase of the monument.

The appearance of both a ring ditch and a post circle is unique. What is even more striking is that along the long sides of the barrow, there were only traces of a single row of posts, whereas double rows were found along the rounded ends of the longbarrow. Now, a total of 135 postholes are known (see figure 4.8; Jansen and Heirbaut 2009, 62; Valentijn 2013, 48-50). This post setting appears to be the oldest feature of the monument. The ring ditch was dug in a later period, and the first phase of the longbarrow could have been erected at any point during this process; this is entirely uncertain (Valentijn 2013, 67).

Figure 4.8: The ground-plan of mound 6 and the postholes (Valentijn 2013, 50, fig. 3.3).

The placement of the posts has been analysed in great detail by Valentijn (2013, 53), who observed that the way someone would have experienced the monument depended on where they stood and how they moved around it. From some perspectives, parts of the longbarrow could be seen through the posts, whereas they would completely block one’s view at other places. This is described as a ‘shutter effect’. Whether all posts were present at the same time is not known, however. Therefore, this is only a hypothetical situation. When the post circle was constructed

cannot be said with much certainty, unfortunately, but it appears that it existed before the ring ditch was added, since the latter cuts through the post features in some places. Valentijn (2013, 62) remarks that the outer posts at the ends of the barrow could have been added later; perhaps even at the same time as the ring ditch.

All in all, it appears that this is a quite complex monument, which had been re- shaped several times over a long period. While the mound itself must have been a striking point in the landscape, much effort was made to build a complex post circle around it, making it stand out even more. Later, when the post circle must have already disappeared, a ring ditch was dug around it to mark it in a significantly different way (Fontijn et al. 2013, 290).

4.6.2. The funerary landscape of the Urnfield period in Oss-Zevenbergen It was not until the Early Iron Age that the mortuary landscape of Zevenbergen became in use much more intensively. Indeed, it is clear that the people put enormous amounts of effort into what appears to be the ‘re-appropriation’ of an ancient funerary landscape. Fokkens et al. (2009, 215) describe this as a transformation from a ‘dormant’ ancestral landscape to an active element in the formation of the communal identity. New, monumental burial mounds were constructed, older ones were re-used, smaller burials were created and several alignments of posts were constructed between the mounds, forming lines or compartments within the cemetery itself (see figure 4.9).

The re-appropriation of older funerary landscapes is commonly observed in Early Iron Age contexts. Among the many possible reasons why this could have happened, one includes the emergence of new elites during this time, leaving their own marks on pre-existing funerary landscapes through the construction of monumental burial mounds and the re-use of older mounds (Fokkens et al. 2009, 216). In any case, it is clear that great efforts were put into the development of this landscape, especially concerning the large, new burial mounds and the post alignments (Fontijn et al. 2013, 308). The post alignments will be discussed later in this subchapter. Furthermore, at least three urns with cremated remains were found in older burial mounds, which were determined as after-internments from the Early Iron Age. This concerns mounds 2, 6 and 8 (Fokkens et al. 2009, 215).

Figure 4.9: The Early Iron Age structures on the research map of Oss-Zevenbergen (After Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, fig. 1.13).

New, monumental burial mounds Two new, large burial mounds were erected in Zevenbergen. Fontijn et al. (2013, 307) observe that the two mounds constitute both a continuation and a break from former traditions. Mound 7 was added to the pre-existing alignment, and the shape of the mound resembles that of the Middle Bronze Age. However, it is much bigger in size, making all other mounds seem small in comparison. Mound 3, which is also of considerable size, was built to the north, outside of the alignment, and therefore clashes with older traditions.

Despite its less prominent location and relatively low height, mound 3 is well- visible in the landscape. The mound was clearly built in one phase and accompanied by a post circle (Jansen and Heirbaut 2009, 59, Van Wijk et al. 2009, 88). At the south-western side, some posts had a second counterpart. These do not seem to be replacements or reparations, but would have been present simultaneously (see figure 4.10; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 98). Whereas the post circle and general structure suggested that this concerns a Middle

Bronze Age mound, the discovery of an iron fibula pointed out that it must have been built in the Early Iron Age instead. This also indicates that this particular mound may have been built around the same time as the Chieftain’s grave. The idea that two large mounds were constructed at around the same time within the same cemetery is interesting to note (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 102).

Figure 4.10: The post circle around mound 3 (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 97, fig. 6.17).

Mound 7 is a very intriguing monument. The diameter of the mound is around 40 metres, which makes it one of the largest burial mounds in the area, and even in the Netherlands as a whole; almost as large as the Chieftain’s grave (Fontijn et al. 2013, 83). An urn of the schräghals type from the Early Iron Age was originally placed in a small pit. This urn is interpreted to be the primary, central grave of this mound (Fontijn et al. 2013, 96). Eight post features were found under mound 7. They were placed in two rows of four. Fontijn et al. (2013, 109) think that these features must be the remains of a construction, post alignment or allée that existed before the construction of the mound, though their exact dating is unsure. An allée is a corridor created by posts, which is now thought to have functioned to guide funerary processions towards the barrows. The two rows leave enough room for a person to walk through it (Fontijn

et al. 2013, 111; 292). While the purpose of this double alignment cannot be traced with certainty, it is suggested that it could have been related to the older mound 6, located directly to the south-west (Fontijn et al. 2013, 117). The posts roughly align with the central axis of this longbarrow, which is situated down the slope. Fokkens (2013, 150) notes that they could also have referenced the sand dune on top of which mound 7 was built. This natural elevation could have been erroneously perceived as a burial mound. When it comes down to the build-up of mound 7, it is notable that it appears to have been erected on top of a natural elevation, just like the older mounds 1 and 4. There are signs of activities on this elevation which must have taken place already before the construction of the burial monument (Fontijn et al. 2013, 291). One sign of activity is a pit filled with charcoal, yielding a C14 date of between 1780 and 1610 cal BC: The Middle Bronze Age A. A fire must have been lit here, after which the remains were deposited in a pit (Fontijn et al. 2013, 112). Possibly, the people may have (erroneously) perceived this elevation as a burial mound as well, or an important ancestral place in any way. The most unforeseen discovery was a large concentration of bronze finds and charcoal, which were found very deep down into the mound. They were situated on top of the natural elevation, and covered by sods (Fontijn et al. 2013, 80, 91). This find assemblage is, like the urn discussed above, dated to the Early Iron Age. Fontijn et al. (2013, 96) therefore think that the two are associated with each other. The main hypothesis here is that a pyre was built for a cremation in the Early Iron Age. This pyre must have been built on top of the natural elevation, after it was stripped off of its natural vegetation. These are interesting choices, because they are not quite practical; the wind could have prevented the fire to keep burning, and the loose soil could have caused sand to blow away and hinder the people present at the funeral. This natural elevation therefore must have served a particular role to these people, perhaps one that has to do with the ancestral nature of the barrow alignment, or simply because of its prominent, high location (Fontijn et al. 2013, 295). The assemblage of bronze objects was included on the pyre. The cremated remains were then assembled, put in an urn and finally, it was buried just south of the pyre. The mound was then constructed on top of this burial place (Fontijn et al. 2013, 117).

Urnfield graves Five ring ditches from the Early Iron Age were found to the south of mound 3 (see figure 4.11). It is remarkable that these smaller graves are dated to the Urnfield period, but they do not seem to form a true urnfield. Instead, they are a group of burials scattered next to alignment, with relatively large distances between them (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 86). The graves are significantly smaller than the mounds discussed above. A similar size difference is observed at the Chieftain’s grave, which is likewise surrounded by a small cluster of Early Iron Age burials (See subchapter 4.6.3.; Fontijn et al. 2013, 304). There were no (clear) traces of a burial mound at any of these features, but within two of them, the remains of urns and cremations were still left behind (Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26). In one grave (ring ditch 10), the shards of the urn match the Early Iron age schräghals-type (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 130). It appears that three of these graves, namely 10, 11 and 12, were ‘divided’ from the rest of the cemetery by two post alignments. Only ring ditch 9 was situated outside of this so- called ‘compartment’ (Fontijn et al. 2013, 304).

Interesting here are the relatively large distances between each ring ditch. At other urnfields in the southern Netherlands, it is common that up to hundreds of ring ditches are found very closely to one another (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 91). Van Wijk et al. (2009, 126) plead for the possibility that more urnfield burials were probably present originally, but many of them could have perished. Furthermore, relatively small urnfields have been uncovered at Epe-Niersen and Vaassen as well. Though the graves at these sites were clustered closer to each other than the graves of Zevenbergen, the size of the group could be comparable to the urnfield of Emst- Laarstraat, for instance (see subchapter 3.5.2; Verlinde and Hulst 150-152). Therefore, it appears that this area was the location of a small urnfield that was in use during a short span of time (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 131).

Figure 4.11: Detail of the barrow group in Zevenbergen. Features H9-12 mark the ring ditches that were found to the south of mound 3 (After Van Wijk et al. 2009, 132, fig. 6.44).

Post alignments The burial mounds of Zevenbergen have yielded a great deal of valuable insights about the funerary landscape, its time-depth and the way it was structured. But this information would not have been complete if the area between the burial mounds was not subject to research as well. The ring ditches discussed above are one example of this. However, more unique discoveries were made, most notably a total of five post alignments of different lengths and orientations (see figure 4.12; Fontijn et al. 2013, 305-307). Post alignments are not an uncommon find in prehistoric funerary contexts. Under the Chieftain’s grave, for instance, a double post alignment (or an allée) has been found as well (see subchapter 4.6.3), and another such alignment was recorded under mound 7 in Zevenbergen. Since the mounds covered these postholes, this means that the post alignments must have been present before the Early Iron Age (Jansen and Heirbaut 2009, 63-64). For the other post alignments in Zevenbergen, an Early Iron Age dating is suggested, even though no direct evidence could attest to this. Still, their placement in relation to the burial mounds can offer new insights into the spatial organization of the barrow group, consisting of both older and younger burial mounds, during the Early Iron Age (Fontijn et al. 2013, 305).

Figure 4.12: Overview of the rows of post found in Zevenbergen (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 132, fig. 6.44).

When post alignments are found in a funerary context, most of the time it concerns older, multiple rows of posts parallel to each other, as is the case under the Chieftain’s grave. However, in Zevenbergen, the five post alignments all appeared in singularity. They are each quite different in size, the longest being 116 metres and the shortest only 8 metres. Their placements and orientations furthermore appear to refer to the locations of the burial mounds. After all, they are situated between burial mounds, but never cross or touch them. The posts are evenly and widely spaced in generally straight alignments, but at some places they are curved or a few posts were placed slightly out of line (Fontijn et al. 2013, 305; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 136). The post alignments must have been important and sturdy, judging from the size and depth of the post-holes and the length of one of the alignments that has been (partially) excavated (Fontijn et al. 2013, 307).

While not many sites are known at which a similar situation is found, this could be due to the lack of research in funerary landscapes aside from the burial mounds themselves. What takes place between and around these mounds is rarely researched, let alone excavated. This is illustrated by the discovery of a similar, single post alignment in Uden-Slabroek (Noord-Brabant) during the re-excavation of its prehistoric cemetery. This site is located only a few kilometres away from Oss- Zevenbergen, which may suggests that we are dealing with a local tradition here. Since a rich Hallstatt C burial was discovered at Uden-Slabroek as well (comparable to the mound 7 at Zevenbergen), it could be that this local tradition of single post alignment was related to these graves (Fokkens 2013, 149; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 138). What they would have meant to the people who built them is, of course, hard to say, but they clearly provided some structuring and divisions in the landscape, influencing the way people would have experienced them and moved through them (Fontijn et al. 2013, 110).

The alignments at both Uden-Slabroek and Zevenbergen do not appear to have led to any particular burial mounds, like an allée would. Instead, they seem to have formed divisions between the barrows, creating smaller compartments. What the post alignments do point out with certainty is that the barrow landscape consisted of much more than just the burial mounds alone. The landscape was organized and used in a wider variety of ways (Fontijn et al. 2013, 306-307). The development of

these lines through the area appear to have been influenced by the presence and locations of older, ancestral monuments.

One of the main pitfalls when researching these post alignments is the inability to estimate the date of these features. No finds could directly indicate the age of the alignments. Both Van Wijk et al. (2009, 136) and Fokkens (2013, 146) plead that the structures must have been built within a short time-span, and in reference to the burial mounds. The main hypothesis is that they were built within a few years in the Early Iron Age and formed an integral part of the barrow zone. This could tell us a lot about the spatial organization of a funerary landscape that was, at the time, already centuries old and still in use (Fontijn et al. 2013, 305).

As mentioned above, the post alignments seem to compartmentalize the funerary landscape and the burial mounds within, separating them from one another. Perhaps different zones in the barrow group were shielded off (symbolically) with these widely spaced posts, or they could have emphasized certain routes through the area. Another suggestion is that the alignments were built amongst the old barrows to re-appropriate this funerary zone, whilst also giving it new meaning (Fontijn et al. 2013, 307). Especially interesting are the smaller structures of two or four posts that are associated with some of the post alignments. At other sites in the Netherlands, such constructions were generally older and found on places where barrows would be built later on, usually in the Middle Bronze Age. These small structures could have functioned as exhumation platforms or houses of the dead. On the other hand, they could have been a (symbolic) reference to granaries (Spiekers in Dutch; Fokkens et al. 2009, 215, Fontijn et al. 2013, 307).

4.6.3. The Chieftain’s barrow group The notorious Chieftain’s grave of Oss lies less than half a kilometre westwards of Oss-Zevenbergen. This Iron Age burial mound is now one of the largest known in Western Europe, with a diameter of 53 metres (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 45). It is not only striking because of its size, but also its prominent location in the landscape. From the burial mound, one has a good view on the surrounding landscape, especially the lower, wetter areas which were most likely places for ritual activities, such as depositions. This, too, is thought to have been an important reason for the

people to bury important members of the community in this place (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 87).

Based on typological considerations towards the situla and the sword, the current estimate is that this monument was constructed during the sixth or fifth century BC (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 83). As the bronze situla contained cremated remains, the sword and the bronze tools, this grave may be the richest one that has been found thus far in the Lower Rhinelands (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 24). The grave itself appears to have been buried in a pre-existing barrow, which had been present since the Bronze Age (Holwerda 1934 in Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 490). Therefore, for the burial of the Chieftain, a new mound was added on top of this older monument. Keeping the older burial mound intact must have been a conscious decision made by those who constructed the Chieftain’s grave (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 50).

The Bronze Age barrow was not the oldest burial mound in the wider area, however; only 150 metres to the north-east lies a burial mound from the Bell Beaker period (2300-2000 BC). It is part of a separate barrow group, known as the Klokbeker- cluster (Bell Beaker cluster). Three other mounds, most likely also from the Late Neolithic, were present, though they appear to have been destroyed before any research had taken place on them (Jansen and van der Linde 2013, 43). More of such Bell beaker mounds have been recorded in the wider region, mostly along the Peelrandbreuk, such as at Nistelrode further to the south, and Schaijk to the south- east (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 26).

The post alignment under the Chieftain’s grave A very interesting discovery was a double post alignment which runs partially underneath the Chieftain’s grave. This northwest-southeastern oriented alignment was 16 metres long, 1 meter wide and the posts were placed with a distance of 1.20 metres from each other (see figure 4.13). Fokkens (2013, 143) suggested that this alignment could have been an allée; a corridor that led towards the bronze age mound under the Chieftain’s grave. This is merely an hypothesis, however; no further evidence could neither confirm nor deny this.

Figure 4.13: Excavation plan of the Chieftain’s grave and the post alignment that was found underneath (Drawing by H. Fokkens and J. van Donkersgoed in Fokkens 2013, 143, fig. 2).

Based on the placement of the posts, the alignment could be divided into four segments of four pairs of posts. For this reason, Fokkens (2013, 151) thinks that the structure was not built all at once. Instead, the different segments could have been placed shortly after one another, which could explain the ‘wobbly’ appearance of the post rows. Double post alignments such as this one have been found at other sites as well, where they are generally dated to the Middle to Late Bronze Age. Such a date seems plausible for the alignment in question as well, since it appears to be related to the Bronze Age mound under the Chieftain’s grave (Fokkens 2013, 149). Indeed, the post alignment under the Chieftain’s grave must have been present before the construction of this mound, which further implies that they are associated with the

older Bronze Age barrow. The soil formation in the post features do indeed suggest that at least a hundred years had passed before they were covered up by the new mound. Unfortunately, no further finds could offer better insights into the age of this alignment (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 54).

The barrows around the Chieftain’s grave Since its first discovery in 1935, the idea that the Chieftain’s grave could have been part of a barrow group had already been established. Further research throughout the past century has confirmed this, and shed more light on the nature of this funerary landscape. The oldest burial of this cluster is the Middle Bronze Age burial under the Chieftain’s grave. Directly surrounding the Chieftain’s grave are three more older, smaller mounds from the Bronze Age, all surrounded by ring ditches. They may have formed a small barrow alignment, akin to the one recorded at Zevenbergen (see figure 4.14; Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 24, 50-51).

Figure 4.14: Overview of the cemetery surrounding the chieftain’s grave in Oss. 1: Bell beaker grave, 2-3: burial mounds from the Bronze Age, 4: Remains of the chieftain’s grave and the urnfield, 5: ring ditches (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 25, fig. 2.6).

More research in the area directly surrounding the Chieftain’s grave led to the discovery that this monument marked the northern boundary of a small urnfield, of which unfortunately not many graves have survived the reclamation activities of the 1930’s. Indeed, the discovery of four smaller graves caught the researchers by surprise. They were all cremation graves, three of which were buried in an urn and the other possibly in a piece of cloth. Furthermore, two of the urns are determined to be Iron Age shräghals-urns. Since no other features were found near the burials, they could have been flat graves (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 53). Fontijn and Jansen (2013, 27) proclaim that the urnfield near the Chieftain’s grave shows striking similarities with the one recorded at Zevenbergen. Finally, the very latest addition to this urnfield appears to be the Chieftain’s grave, as discussed above.

4.7. Discussion The funerary landscapes of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen are quite valuable for this thesis, especially by virtue of the research that has been conducted here under the Maaskant project. The extensive excavations at Zevenbergen are especially intriguing, because nearly all burial mounds and their surroundings have been excavated and studied to exceptional detail (Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 15). The barrows at the Chieftain’s grave, the barrows of Zevenbergen and two clusters to the south together form an ancestral landscape of more than 1 kilometre in length (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 76). The extensive research campaigns at both sites allows for an analysis of the chronological development of both landscapes, which can be compared to the general sequences of landscape development as proposed by Mette Løvschal (2014).

The two barrow clusters seem to be closely related, mainly due to their proximity to each other. They also share similar time-depths and dynamics, as the first burial monuments in both areas were built during the Middle Bronze Age, which was followed by a ‘gap’ of very little activity in the Late Bronze Age. Then, in the Early Iron Age, both sites saw the development of monumental burial mounds. The largest mound is the Chieftain’s grave, and two smaller, yet similar mounds 3 and 7 were built at Zevenbergen. At both sites, the burial mounds were accompanied by small urnfields (Jansen and van der Linde 2013, 42; Fontijn et al. 304).

The two barrow groups may seem quite similar, especially during the Bronze Age. However, they show two distinctly different courses of development over time. At Zevenbergen, a complex cemetery full of different structures, alignments and boundaries formed during the Early Iron Age. New monuments were built, for which clearly tremendous amounts of effort were made, while the older barrows were re- used. Lines and boundaries appeared to play a special role in this period, as impressive post alignments, made with thick-sturdy posts were constructed between the monuments, creating smaller compartments with burials within them and perhaps guiding the people who moved through this landscape. Such post alignments are lacking at the site Chieftain’s grave; the areas around the burial mounds were treated much differently at the two sites. It is therefore important to realise that a barrow landscape can consist of much more than the highly visible burial mounds. In this case, the nowadays less visible post alignments emphasize a striking difference between two otherwise very similar barrow groups. The formation of lines and boundaries appears to have been more emphasized at the barrow group of Zevenbergen, whereas the barrows near the Chieftain’s grave appear to be placed in a more scattered pattern. How did these distinctively different barrow groups form; what are the origins of the structures that the people have created?

Natural beginnings The natural landscape is likely where it started. Physical, natural boundaries may not have been overwhelmingly present; perhaps only in the vegetation, height differences, and the presence of forests and brooks. However, the relatively high sand ridges, surrounded by steep slopes and lower, wetter valleys must have been important factors in the development of the cultural landscape in late prehistory. It is observed throughout the Netherlands that burial mounds were most often built on well-visible places, on higher spots in open heath landscapes (Bourgeois 2013, 5). This is certainly the case on the Maashorst as well. Deforestation of this area contributes to the open character of the sand ridge, making it a striking elevation in the area and creating a clear view into the lower, wet valleys from the ridge itself. An open heath landscape was already created and maintained by people for some time before the construction of the very first burial mounds in the Late Neolithic.

The Chieftain’s grave and the barrows around it were built on the higher river terrace at the edge of the Peelhorst. About half a kilometre to the west, the barrow groups of Zevenbergen was formed on top of an elongated sand ridge. Indeed, the emergence of the barrow alignments from the Middle Bronze Age onwards seems to follow the natural relief of the landscape, as it is oriented along the sand ridge and the ridge of the Peelhorst. This landscape ensured a prominent, visible location of the barrows, which seems to have been an essential reason why these locations were chosen for the construction of burial monuments in the Middle Bronze Age and subsequent periods (Jansen and Fokkens 2007, 18).

On top of that, a number of small, natural dunes had formed on the top of the sand ridge of Zevenbergen. Such natural elevations were formed by the accumulation of wind-blown sand. They were higher places on the sand ridge itself. These elevations ended up forming the basis of the burial mounds that would be built over time. The possibility that the burial alignment was already ‘formed by nature’ seems plausible. Even today, natural sand dunes are sometimes perceived as burial mounds until augering- or excavation campaigns prove otherwise. “Mound 5” in Zevenbergen is a case in point (see table 4.1 in chapter 4.6.1). While it was considered to be a possible burial mound, excavations yielded no evidence for anthropogenic layers (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 115). Therefore, in prehistory, natural dunes could have been perceived as ancestral places as well, leading to the funerary activities taking place exactly there. Of course, it is also possible that the elevations were utilized as basis for the burial mounds, ensuring their height and visibility.

All in all, the choices of location for the burial mounds to the south of Oss was clearly anchored in the local topography, after which they themselves became lines of reference in the further articulation, negotiation and formalization of the funerary landscape (Løvschal 2014, 730).

Visibility The oldest barrow in the area was built in the Late Neolithic, near the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave (Fokkens et al. 2009, 210). More of such isolated Bell Beaker burial mounds have been recorded in the region, mostly near the ridge of the Peelrandbreuk (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 26). This situation is quite different from barrow landscapes in the northern Netherlands, such as Epe-Niersen, where a large

number barrows were constructed close to each other to form alignments. It appears that this is a common pattern among barrow landscapes in the northern half of the Netherlands. In the southern Netherlands, and therefore Oss as well, where the Late Neolithic burial mounds were generally found in isolation (Bourgeois 2013, 185). Still, the permanent and inherently visible nature of the Late Neolithic barrows near Oss might well have been the starting point of the creation of the barrow clusters we know today (see figure 4.15). This is underlined by Arnoldussen and Fontijn (2006, 31), who point out that the effect of the widespread, isolated burial mounds are often underestimated, while they really seem to have been foundational to the landscape structuring of successive generations. A significant explanation for the locations of barrows is related to their visual aspects. After all, because of the monumental nature of barrows, it can be assumed that they were ‘meant to be seen’ (Bourgeois 2013, 105). They may reflect the emergence of the earliest punctual and linear markers in the landscape, kicking off the general sequence of articulated divisions in the landscape, followed by larger-scaled, articulated and process-related boundaries such as barrow alignments, post rows and fences (Løvschal 2014, 737).

The visibility of the burial monuments is regularly enhanced even more through the construction of a post circle, which is the case for several burial mounds of Oss as well. The post circle around the longbarrow (mound 6) is a notable example. The ‘shutter effect’ that these posts created not only made this longbarrow a striking element in the landscape, but walking around it was an experience in itself. The post circle formed a permeable boundary around the monument, obstructing view from certain perspectives (Valentijn 2013, 62).

Figure 4.15: Development of the funerary landscapes on the Maashorst (give dates, mark the sites) (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 89, fig. 6.9).

Alignments The oldest barrows of Zevenbergen initiated the formation of an alignment during the Middle Bronze Age. This alignment appeared much later than that of, for example, Epe-Niersen, which started to form in the Late Neolithic. This underlines the ‘time-transgressive’ nature of the general developments that Løvschal and Fontijn (2015, 149) described: Barrow alignments have developed at multiple sites throughout the Low Countries, and their general history are quite comparable. However, some landscapes started to develop in this way many centuries earlier than others.

The row of three barrows at Zevenbergen is oriented northeast-southwestwards. This orientation appears to be the norm in the wider area, following the natural border of the Peelhorst and the sand ridge at Zevenbergen. Over the subsequent centuries, very little activities appear to have taken place on an around the alignment. Nonetheless, it was not forgotten, as two longbarrows were added to the northeast of the alignment at some point during the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron

Age. During these stages of the funerary landscape, the barrow alignment appears to have acted more as a guide along the landscape, rather than a boundary across it, much like the barrow alignment of Epe-Niersen (Løvschal and Fontijn 2019, 152).

A complete reorganization of the Zevenbergen barrow landscape commenced in the Early Iron Age, when impressive rows of posts were constructed to compartmentalize the barrow group. The construction of new burial mounds within the alignment also seems to have been discontinued with the construction of mound 3 and a cluster of urnfield graves. Only mound 7 still followed the tradition of the alignment, as it was added between the two longbarrows.

The appearance of the post alignments also meant that the barrow alignment was partially disrupted, completely altering the way people would have moved through and experienced the cemetery as they walked through it. Post alignments were found at both the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen. However, the types of alignments differed significantly. The post rows found under the Chieftain’s grave were interpreted as an allée by Fokkens (2013, 144), meaning that they could have functioned as a corridor leading up to the Bronze Age barrow that was present before the construction on the Chieftain’s grave. The many post alignments documented at Zevenbergen are, on the other hand, singular post alignments that did not appear to lead up to any older barrows. Instead, they divided the barrow landscape in the Early Iron Age, seemingly ‘separating’ the monuments from each other (Fokkens 2013, 150). Instead of being ‘boundaries along’ the burial landscape, as is likely the case at the Bronze Age barrow under de Chieftain’s grave,

Zevenbergen now seems to be shaped by several ‘boundaries across’ (Løvschal 2015, 259, 266-71). However, it has to be noted here that the alignments are not impenetrable; people could easily see and walk between the posts. While Fokkens (2013, 152) suggests that they could therefore also have been ‘connecting’ lines, it is unclear what exactly these posts connected. I therefore think that the singular post alignments did constitute boundaries. Perhaps they were the manifestations of more symbolic, or mental divisions in the landscape. Likewise, Løvschal (2014, 730) mentioned the post alignments of Oss-Zevenbergen as symbolic, linear markers that are closely associated with the barrow line. The temporality and permanence of the alignments have to be taken in consideration as well (Løvschal 2014, 729).

Unfortunately, the alignments could not be dated, but the thick and deep features they left behind to imply that they were there for the longer term, and not for the sake of a single event.

Ancestry One of the most relevant hypotheses for this thesis is that the presence of older burial mounds in the landscape attracted the construction of more barrows. The people who encountered these monuments likely perceived them as ancestral places, even if they were not aware who was buried here and how old the barrow really was. They most likely interacted with these mounds by referring to them, or ‘re-appropriating’ them.

Older burial mounds were respected and referred to in multiple ways, such as by constructing new barrows in their vicinity and by adding new graves to the older mounds. The re-use of older mounds was a common practice in the Low Countries, especially during the Middle Bronze Age (Bourgeois 2013, 64). In the research area, there appear to be no Late Neolithic mounds that were re-used, but a number of the Middle Bronze Age mounds certainly were, especially during the Early Iron Age.

In terms of burials, three categories could be identified:

1. The creation of a new, monumental burial mound for the dead. 2. The re-use of an older mound for the interment of a cremation grave. 3. The creation of a flat grave, sometimes surrounded by a ring ditch.

Taking into consideration this re-use, re-appropriation and the re-structuring of the barrow landscape in Zevenbergen, as well as how the landscape had developed until that point, it becomes clear how fundamental the Early Iron Age was in the history and formation of this landscape (Fontijn et al. 2013, 307). Even though the mounds, post alignments and ring ditches could not all be dated precisely, the time-depth of the landscape and its structures can still show how the people continued to build new structures in reference to the older ones. The new structures show both continuities with and shifts from former traditions. For instance, the Chieftain’s grave and the two monumental burial mounds of Zevenbergen were significantly larger than any older barrows, by which they clearly break from older tradition. However, their general shape is reminiscent of MBA

burial mounds, and one of them (mound 7) was still included in the alignment that had been formed from the Middle Bronze Age onwards. This action is therefore still a sign of continuity of older practices.

The third category, the ring ditch grave, is an interesting one. They are clustered near the barrow alignment of Zevenbergen, but with some distance from it. A similar cluster of barrows formed near the Chieftain’s grave. The relatively small size of these urnfields are comparable to those recorded at Epe-Niersen, which also seem to have consisted of only between 5 and 30 graves (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 150-152). Still, the ring ditches of Oss are different. Fokkens and Jansen (2007, 86) remark that both this urnfield and the urnfield at Zevenbergen indeed have a remarkable ‘open’ character. Whereas other urnfields consist of graves closely clustered together and surrounded by ring ditches, the urnfields of Oss appear to be structured with more distance, displaying a unique regional variant of the urnfield.

5. The settlements of Oss-Ussen and Oss-North

The city of Oss offers an unique insight into the long-term settlement history between the Middle Bronze Age and the Roman period. A large number of prehistoric settlements was discovered here, situated several kilometres to the north of the barrow landscapes of the Chieftain’s grave and Oss-Zevenbergen. Whereas the landscape to the south of Oss, on the elevated ridges of the Peelrandbreuk, is marked with several barrow groups, there is very little evidence for settlements (see chapter 4.5). Quite the opposite has been encountered in the northern half of the city. Here, the archaeological record harbours a remarkable richness of settlement remains. Between the 1970’s and the present day, much of these areas have been extensively excavated and researched. These campaigns have yielded evidence for farmsteads, outbuildings, pits, wells, fences et cetera. This archaeological record clearly bears witness for the fact that this area was inhabited from the Middle Bronze Age onwards.

It is interesting to note here that no burial mounds have been recorded in this area. For this reason, Oss-Ussen and Oss-North clearly stand out in contrast to the other case studies of this thesis. The lack of any pre-existing burial monuments may have had its own effects on how the people living here structured these settlements. A particularly remarkable observation is that a clearly organized landscape, including fences demarcating certain areas, already emerged in the Middle Bronze Age. This type of boundary-formation seems to have emerged much earlier here than at any of the other case studies. Also intriguing is the discovery of several groups of graves in some of the research areas, seemingly in the context of the farmyards. This pattern is quite unlike that of any of the other case studies. The city of Oss therefore offers an opportunity to view the development of settlement landscapes in an entirely different setting; one without ancestral burial mounds.

The excavations of this research area were carried out in two projects: Oss-Ussen (Schinkel 1998) and Oss-North (Fokkens 2019; see figure 5.1). The research conducted here allows for a detailed analysis on how settlements were structured in the area of Oss. They form a significant contribution to our understanding of this region, as well as the development of Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements in a more general sense.

Figure 5.1: The locations of the (possible) settlement sites (indicated in red), and the sites of Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave (indicated in black; map after openstreetmap.org). 5.1. Research history The excavations of Oss-Ussen and Oss-North were carried out under the Maaskant project, a long-running research campaign in Oss led by Leiden University and ARCHOL (see also subchapter 4.2; Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 11). The settlement sites are situated in the northern parts of the research area, Beyond the wetter fringes of the Peelhorst. Compared with the burial mounds of the Chieftain’s grave and Oss-Zevenbergen, the settlements were located several kilometres to the north and much closer to the Meuse.

An unique opportunity to research the settlements in this area arose in the 1970’s, when Iron Age and Roman features were discovered. This research started at a building site in the IJsselstraat in 1974, yielding finds from a number of dispersed farmsteads and an Iron Age urnfield, on top of which a Roman settlement was built

(Gerritsen 2003, 217). Evidence for occupation from the Late Neolithic until the Early Iron Age were found in a number of pits and wells (Fokkens 2019, 20). In 1976, 200 hectares of agricultural land would be converted into residential areas at Oss-Ussen. This led to the discovery of more features from the Bronze age, Iron Age and Roman times (see figure 5.2; Schinkel 1998, 9).

Figure 5.2: Overview of all settlements found at Oss-Ussen (1: Bronze age, 2: Early Iron Age A, 3: Early Iron Age B, 4: Middle Iron Age, 5: Roman Times? - Schinkel 1998, 181, fig. 160).

More campaigns followed over the decades. Further to the north of Oss-Ussen, a number of districts were excavated between 1986 and 1998 (see figure 5.3). These are all part of the Oss-North project .A third decade of excavations took place between 1997 and 2008 at the Horzak-district in the north-east of Oss, simultaneously with excavations of the burial mounds near the Chieftain’s grave and at Zevenbergen. The excavations of Horzak continued between 2013-2014 (Fokkens 2019, 16).

Figure 5.3: Map of the districts that were excavated in the north of Oss (Drawing by A. van As in Fokkens 2019, 16, fig. 1.2).

The central focus of these campaigns was the organization of the landscape, and the relations between settlements, cemeteries and arable land (Fokkens 2019, 21, 24). These questions are highly relevant to this thesis as well, and the scale and detail of the excavations carried out to the north of Oss offer very valuable insights into the way people structured their settlements in this region.

5.2. The natural landscape As stated in the introduction, the settlements of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen were discovered in the city of Oss, several kilometres to the north of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen. The geomorphological conditions, as well as the landscape itself, were notably different here. The city is located just to the south of the river Meuse. This area, also known as the Maaskant region, is relatively flat, only sloping slightly downwards towards the river (see figure 5.4). It is furthermore a transition zone between the marshy river beds up north, which were likely covered by high, deciduous forests, and the more sandy heathlands to the south (Fokkens 2019, 18, 20).

The Meuse was most likely situated much closer to this area than it is today. This makes sense, since the river must have provided access to transport routes that would lead to southern Germany, the Ardennes and central France. The landscape here must have been attractive places to live in, especially the natural levees and crevasse splays that had formed along the river. From this location, the inhabitants could exploit both the higher, forested coversands and the marshes near the river (Fokkens 2019, 20).

Figure 5.4: The location of the research areas of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen (marked in black; after A. van As in Fokkens 2019, 16, fig. 1.2), as projected on the elevation map of the AHN (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer).

100

5.3. The settlement landscape What makes this region so intriguing is the large scale and high level of spatial organization of the settlements that were recorded. The abundance of house plans and fences seem to indicate that this landscape was inhabited continuously during the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. In this subchapter, the features from the Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age will be discussed in a chronological order. Since Oss-Ussen and Oss-North are situated quite close to one another, they will both be included in the discourse. The development and organization of this territory in the long term can, in this way, be studied in the framework of Løvschal’s (2014) emergence of lines, boundaries and spaces. It is evident from the data from Oss that significant developments took place in line with this general sequence.

5.3.1. Bronze Age settlements In the Bronze Age, there seems to have been no strict or particular ways to organise and structure settlement landscapes. This goes for the Low Countries in general: The occupation density was still low, and if multiple farmsteads were present simultaneously, they were widely dispersed over the area (Fokkens 2019, 206). Still, the Maaskant area was definitely exploited by people, made evident by the pits, wells and outbuildings that were recorded. It most likely concerns a scattered distribution of independent farmsteads, which may have moved around within the area (Fokkens 1991, 107).

A modest Bronze Age assemblage was found at the IJsselstraat, which consisted of a number of postholes and pits filled with pottery. These features are interpreted as settlement refuse, dating to the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age (Wesselingh 1993, 113).

In Oss-Ussen, the archaeological features from the Bronze Age are limited to a house plan, a ditch and a number of wells and pits. These features were found in five small clusters across the research area, but mostly in the northern section (see figure 5.5). This indicates the presence of least three farmsteads, which may or may not have existed at the same time (Schinkel 1998, 36). The northernmost feature was the plan of a three-aisled house, oriented east-westwards and accompanied by four wooden- lined wells and one shallow pit (Schinkel 1998, 31). The four wells that were documented would likely have been part of the farmyard surrounding the house. No

101

fences or other boundaries determining the size and organization of the farmyard could be found. No funerary remains from the Bronze Age were present in the direct vicinity of these features either (Schinkel 1998, 36). Pollen analysis in this district indicated that the settlement area was gradually deforested throughout the Bronze Age, as more land would be used for agriculture (Schinkel 1998, 13).

Figure 5.5: The zones in Oss-Ussen where Bronze Age settlements were found, marked in grey (a). The black dot (b) marks a yard and the white dot (c) marks a possible yard (Schinkel 1998, 35, fig. 26).

102

Several Bronze Age settlements and features were uncovered during the Oss-North excavations. These concern a sparse, but increasingly large number of pits and wells from the Early Bronze Age to the start of the Middle Bronze Age. Later in the Middle Bronze Age, between ca. 1600 and 1100 BC, it is evident that the districts of Oss- North were recurrently settled. This means that people would sometimes leave this area, but after a few decades or centuries, they would settle here again (Fokkens 2019, 202).

Still, only two house plans were found that could be dated to this period, only one of which is absolutely certain. Both were uncovered in the Mikkeldonk area. One of these houses, marked as MD128, is interesting because a new house was built exactly here in the Early Iron Age (Fokkens 2019, 206). Near this house, a number of fences have been recorded, some of which may have been present during the Middle Bronze Age. One of these runs parallel with the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age house nearby (see figure 5.6). This fence was made up of a double row of posts, also known as type 2. This type is often found in Bronze Age contexts. Assuming that the farmstead and the fence were contemporaneous, the fence in question would likely have demarcated the farmstead’s yard. This suggestion is supported by the general lack of finds to the south of the fence, which would have been the space ‘outside’ of the farmyard. The only features here constitute of a series of single post rows. They could have been associated with the double fence, though it is also possible that they were built in the Early Iron Age to demarcate houses MD130 or MD131 (Fokkens 2019, 287).

More fenced clusters have been recorded throughout the research area of Mikkeldonk. Their exact dating is unknown; they could have been built anytime between the Middle Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Fokkens 2019, 284). The clusters of fences will be discussed further later in subchapter 5.3.3.

103

Figure 5.6: The cluster of houses from the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Houses MD128 and MD129 were built in the Middle Bronze Age, whereas MD130 and MD131 were built in the Early Iron Age (After the drawing by Van As and Laan, in Fokkens 2019, 232, fig. 13.7).

House plans from the Late Bronze Age are rarely found in the Netherlands. In fact, Fokkens (2019, 47) even states that no house plans have been found that can be attributed to this period with certainty; especially not the second half of the Late Bronze Age. Likewise, Late Bronze Age features were virtually absent in Oss-Ussen and Oss-North. Only in the Mikkeldonk district, a small number of features, limited to pits and wells, are possibly dated to this period based on radiocarbon dating. One of the house plans mentioned above is furthermore dated to either the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age (see figure 5.6 above). Material finds from the Late Bronze Age, such as pottery, were not found anywhere except in a small complex Horzak, which therefore may have been settled in the Late Bronze Age (Fokkens 2019, 188). Still, it appears that there was a decrease in habitation during the Late Bronze Age, which is mirrored by the lack of urnfields in this region, as well as the areas of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen (see subchapter 4.6; Fokkens 2019, 189).

104

5.3.2. Early Iron Age settlements While remains from the Bronze Age – and especially the Late Bronze Age – were sparse, a much richer archaeological record was left behind from the Early Iron Age. These settlements are located further south than the Bronze Age houses (see figure 5.7), and include at least ten clear house plans.

At Oss-Ussen, the features include three houses and numerous granaries, wells, pits and palisades. A clear difference can be observed between the features from the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. First of all, the house plan from the Bronze Age in Ussen is larger and divided in four aisles. In the Early Iron Age, on the other hand, the farms became smaller and were accompanied by granaries (Schinkel 1998, 36, 42). Interestingly, quite a lot of mortuary features are associated with the settlement remains (Schinkel 1998, 67). These will be discussed in subchapter 5.5.

From the first half of the Early Iron Age (ca. 800 – 650 BC), the remains of three settlements were found close to each other in the northern part of Oss-Ussen, with a distance of about 300 metres between each of them (see figure 5.8). It is estimated,

105

based on the low density of features in this area, that no more than one settlement was present at a time. Within one settlement, several farmhouses could have been in use at the same time, but it could also have been one wandering farmstead. Schinkel (1998, 64) pleads for the latter suggestion, saying that a ‘single, shifting farm may very well be responsible for this pattern’. This would simultaneously imply that a farm was in use for about 25 years, before moving to another settlement. This stands in contrast with the other, more ‘permanent’ features found at Ussen, especially the graves which have been found on and near some of the settlements.

Figure 5.8: The Early Iron Age features of Oss-Ussen. The dotted lines (a) mark Early Iron Age zones, the striped zones (b) mark features from the first half of the Early Iron Age, the dark zones (c) mark features from the second half of the Early Iron Age (Schinkel 1998, 38, fig. 27).

106

Three more settlements at Oss-Ussen are known from the second half of the Early Iron Age (ca. 650-500 BC; see figure 5.8 above).Much like the settlements that were present a few decades or centuries earlier, they were located with a distance of about 300 metres from one another. Each settlement could have consisted of more than one farm at the same time, judging by the density of the other features (Schinkel 1998, 67).

Settlement features from the later Early Iron Age were uncovered at Oss-North as well. Fokkens (2019, 189) suggests that they represent four to six farms that existed contemporaneously. It seems that these farms were present in groups, with a few hundred metres between them. The areas without any remains of houses were not completely empty either. At the district Oss-Almstein, for instance, there may not have been any farms, but there was a group of three granaries. This area was therefore still in use, most likely by the people living in the farmsteads found at Ussen, Mikkeldonk, Mettegeupel and Horzak (Fokkens 2019, 189).

The district of Oss-Mikkeldonk has an especially interesting settlement history for a number of reasons. First of all, features from the Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and beyond have been recorded (see figure 5.9). One house plan was dated to the Middle Bronze Age (MD128), which people returned to several generations later in the Early Iron Age. Indeed, on the exact same spot as this Bronze Age house, a new one was built more than a century later (see figure 5.6 in chapter 5.3.1. and figure 5.9). Only its orientation is slightly different, but it is hard to believe this spot was picked coincidentally. Clearly, even when this area was unoccupied, it was not forgotten. This matches well with Gerritsen’s (2003, 240) description of places in the landscape that had accumulated a visible history, making them known places that people would remember and interact with at later stages.

107

Figure 5.9: The house structures recorded in Oss-Mikkeldonk per period (After the drawing by S. van As in Fokkens 2019, 224, fig. 13.1).

5.3.3. Fences from the Bronze Age and Iron Age Another reason why Mikkeldonk offered such interesting finds is the large number of fences that were recorded. This contrasts with Oss-Ussen, where features of fences were sparse, though this may in part be because Mikkeldonk was the first district where the researchers started to attentively look for them. What became apparent is that the fences enclosed dense clusters of features, such as pits and wells. A total of eight fence clusters have been recognized in the district (see figure 5.10). Most of them seemed to enclose farmsteads or wells. The fences around farmsteads likely demarcated the yards, whereas fences around wells were probably added to prevent animals from trying to get in. Outside of the zones demarcated by fences, finds and features were much more sparse. Fokkens (2019, 284) suggests that the fences found here demarcated both Middle Bronze Age and Early Iron Age farmsteads and other features, creating zones that were visibly separated from others, such as farmyards.

108

Figure 5.10: The eight fence clusters recorded in Oss-Mikkeldonk (Drawing by H. Fokkens and S. van As in Fokkens 2019, 284, Fig 13.50).

Throughout the Early Iron Age, it appears that the density and organization of the settlements remained relatively stable. It concerns a pattern where a number of contemporaneous farms were dispersed with a distance of a few hundreds of metres between them (Fokkens 2019, 189). What happened in the wider surroundings of these settlements is less clear (Schinkel 1998, 67). No traces of agricultural fields have been found, but the hypothesis is that Celtic Field systems were present to the south of the farmsteads at least since the Early Iron Age. This will be discussed further in the following subchapter.

5.4. Possible Celtic fields? Schinkel (1998, 180) considers it likely that the people inhabiting the settlements discussed above also built and exploited Celtic fields. No clear archaeological evidence of this attests to this statement, unfortunately, though this may be because any remains of such a system were removed by ploughing activities in Roman times, or the deposition of refuse and sods in the Middle Ages. Despite this, the good quality of the soil and the orientations of the houses that were recorded could give us some clues. After all, the houses at other Iron Age sites with Celtic Fields were generally (with notable exceptions) oriented accordingly with the earthen banks of

109

the field systems. A similar matching orientation was observed between the farmstead and Celtic field of Vaassen; (Brongers 1976, 52; see subchapter 3.5.3). This concerned only one house plan, however. A clearer parallel can be found at Hijken (Drenthe, north-eastern Netherlands), where the houses from the Iron Age were all oriented roughly the same way (ENE-WSW), which seems to have corresponded with the parcelling system which they are thought to have been part of (Arnoldussen and de Vries 2014, 100).

However, at Oss-Ussen, the orientations of the farmsteads throughout the research area are not as uniform. There is more variety in the orientation of the houses at some places in the research area: They could differ with up to 50 degrees. It is therefore difficult to hypothesize about the layout and orientation of any possibly Celtic Field banks, and whether the plots were shifted over time. On top of that, other factors could have determined the orientation of these farmsteads; perhaps fences were originally present here, too, for instance. Still, considering the fact that the houses from specifically the Early Iron Age seem to be fairly consistent in their south-eastern orientation, it remains possible that one or more Celtic fields were nearby at the time, with similarly oriented banks (Schinkel 1998, 180-182). Fokkens (2019, 187) proposed that, if the clusters of Early Iron Age farms that were recorded had exploited one Celtic Field complex, then there would have been a few hectares of arable land around them. Schinkel (1998, 180) hypothesised that they would have been present to the south of the farms of Oss- Ussen. Perhaps these Celtic fields were not as long-lived at others recorded in the Netherlands, which may be why they did not leave clear marks in the soil. This issue, together with the comparison between Oss and Hijken will be elaborated upon in the general discussion of this thesis (see chapter 7.3.2).

5.5. Burials in the settlement landscape An essential part of this thesis is to investigate the spatial association between settlements and burials through time. The discovery of graves near the prehistoric farmsteads of Oss are therefore an intriguing find. They are quite different from the burial mounds and urnfield that were recorded at the other case studies. How were these burials imbedded in this settlement landscape?

110

5.5.1. Middle Bronze Age The oldest burial in the entire research area was discovered in the north-east of the Schalkskamp region in Oss-North. This Middle Bronze Age burial was most likely not a burial mound, and it appears to be entirely isolated from any other structures. In fact, it was not immediately recognized as a burial. Between the large amounts of charcoal, two fragments of cremated human bones were found in the sieve. Interestingly, the shards of a typical Middle Iron Age dish were present in the ditch (Van As and Fokkens 2019, 353). No other graves from this period were found in the research area.

5.5.2. Early Iron Age Already during the excavations of 1974 at the IJsselstraat, a small urnfield of 25 graves was discovered (see figure 5.11; Wesselingh 1993, 113). Since only a part of this urnfield was excavated, its true size could have been bigger. Urn remains were discovered in four of the burials. They could be dated to the Early and Middle Iron Age (Wesselingh 1993, 113).

Figure 5.11: Features of the Iron Age urnfield found at IJsselstraat (Wesselingh 1993, 118, fig. 7).

111

The researchers initially expected to find urnfields such as that of the IJsselstraat at the other districts as well. However, only a small number of scattered and incidental burials were uncovered near the settlements (Van As and Fokkens 2019, 297). This presents a remarkable contrast between burial rituals at the settlements: The urnfield tradition appears to have been practiced by the inhabitants of (presumably) only one farmstead, while something entirely different happened at others, such as those at Mikkeldonk and Ussen, less than a kilometre to the west.

In the Mikkeldonk district, a peculiar pit filled with cremation remains was found. The feature itself by no means looks like a burial monument, which is why it was puzzling to find human cremation remains and charcoal remains inside. It seems to concern the leftovers of a pyre. The charcoal was sampled for radiocarbon dating, which resulted in a date around the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. This is remarkable, since the researchers rather expected to find urnfields associated with the settlement (Van As and Fokkens 2019, 297). It remains possible such urnfields were present more up north.

Near the settlements from the Early Iron Age in Oss-Ussen, another very intriguing discovery was made: Twelve graves, surrounded by their own ring ditches of varying diameters and one by an oval post circle. Most of these were simple cremation burials – seemingly flat graves - none of which included the remains of an urn. It is therefore unclear when exactly these burials were created, but it must have been at some point during the Early Iron Age. They do not appear to form an urnfield, since they are not clustered like urnfield burials typically are (Gerritsen 2003, 218; Van der Sanden 1987, 104). The graves were instead distributed in several groups. Each group was found in association with a farmstead. The fact that burials were present on settlement grounds is quite unusual, since the typically Early Iron Age urnfields would where majority of the population was buried. The settled landscapes and the landscapes of the dead were generally separated in this way, something that is apparently not the case in Oss-Ussen. It is important to note here that the burials at the settlements are unlikely to represent the entire burial ritual of the people living here; they are special cases as it concerns only a handful of people (Schinkel 1998, 67). Another observation here is that the burials were

112

scattered among the settlements; they do not appear to have followed any rules in terms of structures and alignments.

5.6. Discussion The settlement sites of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen not only provide a clearer view on the settlement landscape of the Oss region, but also on the emergence of boundaries in a completely different context than at the other case studies. After all, this is the only region discussed in this thesis where no older burial mounds marked the landscape before people started occupying the area intensively. In contrary to the barrow landscapes found at the other case studies, the people living at Oss-North and Oss-Ussen most likely did not encounter a landscape with such ancestral places to take into account, re-appropriate, or otherwise refer to. It is therefore especially interesting to take into consideration how this may have affected the long-term development and organization of the settlement landscape, and to compare them with the regions where old burial mounds were present. In this sense, Boxmeer- Sterckwijck is a suitable counterpart to Oss, since a clearly structured settlement landscape developed there in close association with a barrow landscape (see chapter 6).

Oss-North and Oss-Ussen in relation with Oss-Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave At the same time, a local perspective is important as well, as the barrow landscape of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen are situated only a few kilometres to the south (see chapter 4). While there is much to be said about the development, organization and emergence of lines and boundaries in this southern barrow landscape, very little evidence for settlements was present. Indeed, the only indications of settlements were found in in the form of surface finds. There are no remains or farmsteads or agricultural fields that can tell us anything about how settlements and burial mounds are associated with each other. An excellent opportunity to analyse prehistoric settlement organizations in the region is therefore offered by the sites of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen. These settlement sites have been excavated extensively over the past 50 years, and yielded much information on the house plans, outbuildings, pits, wells and fences that were built over time. Since the distance between the city of Oss and the barrows to the south may be too vast to say that the two were closely associated, this would most

113

likely not have concerned the settlements of the barrow-builders. On top of that, the landscapes were very different. In the northern parts of Oss, the terrain appears to have been relatively flat. Further towards the south, on the Peelrandbreuk, the area fairly suddenly slopes upwards to the high ridges in the landscape. It is intriguing to see how the two areas saw significantly distinctive developments. The settlements of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen can therefore offer some significant insights into the way settlements were organized in the wider region.

General development from the Middle Bronze Age until the Early Iron Age In the northern districts of Oss, settlements appear to have emerged from the start of the Middle Bronze Age onwards. They were sparse and dispersed, though more settlements could possibly have been present closer to the Meuse. The surrounding land was most likely gradually deforested as it became in use as farmland (Fokkens 2019, 197; Schinkel 1998, 13, 31). Clusters of fences were recorded, of which some remains could be associated with certain Middle Bronze Age types and houses from the same period. This suggests that the farmyards and other features were demarcated, and a general organization of the larger settlement territory started to develop. This relatively early formation of organized and demarcated farmsteads is remarkable when compared with other Middle Bronze Age sites. At Boxmeer- Sterckwijck, for instance, the Middle Bronze Age farmsteads were organized in reference to the burial mounds that were located nearby. There, no clear patterns or signs of organization have been observed apart from the fact that the farmsteads had similar orientations (see subchapter 6.5). The Middle Bronze Age settlements in Oss-North instead appear to have been part of a landscape that consisted of clearly demarcated areas, already carefully organized through the creation of lines, boundaries and divisions in the form of fences. It can be argued here that the absence of older, ancestral burial mounds have been a main causal factor for this difference. In the absence of older barrows, the people seemed to have used this open-ness to create a settlement system from a ‘clean slate’.

A gap of occupation during the Late Bronze Age is apparent at both the settlement sites and the funerary zones to the south Oss. Only a small number of possible settlement remains date to this period, much like fact that only two longbarrows were (possibly) built at Oss-Zevenbergen in the south.

114

Returning to old settlement locations in the Early Iron Age Early Iron Age settlements appeared in much greater numbers and densities, though some may not have been present contemporaneously. They were generally located further south than their predecessors. This could support the idea that part of the Middle Bronze Age settlements were possibly located further north, as the settlements appear to have gradually moved away from the Meuse over time. However, it has to be noted that some settlement locations from the Middle Bronze Age were re-settled, as evident by house plans that overlap with much older ones. The house plans found at Oss-Mikkeldonk are a case in point, as an Early Iron Age farm was built on the exact location of a Bronze Age house. Even the orientation of the house was nearly identical, indicating that people sometimes chose to follow, or anchor onto, earlier established lines and structures when resettling an area. The locations of previous farmsteads had apparently not been forgotten, even centuries after their abandonment. The location in question may not have become an ordinary open space, but a visible and known former settlement location (Gerritsen 2003, 240). A very interesting parallel is drawn by Fokkens (2019, 206), who mentions the Chieftain’s grave of Oss, located several kilometres to the south of the settlements. A Bronze Age mound, which must have been visibly present, was chosen as the location of the large Early Iron Age Chieftain’s grave (see subchapter 4.6.3). Bourgeois (2013, 11) took on a similar narrative for burial mounds, describing them as monuments that would transform a vacant space into a memorable, meaningful place.

Articulated and process-related fences The construction of a new house or mound on a place where older structures were already present may have contributed to the articulation and, eventually, the formalization and fixation of the structures, as well as the large-scale lines and boundaries that they are part of (Løvschal 2014, 735). The increasingly dense clusters of outbuildings, pits, wells and fences appear to have formed several demarcated zones. Those of the Mikkeldonk district have been highlighted in this chapter. These forms of clear spatial organization have been associated with the Middle Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age alike.

115

The clusters of fences are especially notable. They seem to demarcate the farmyards around the houses and watering places. Unfortunately, the fences themselves could not be dated, but their association with farmsteads and wells from different periods suggest that the fences have been built repeatedly on the same locations as centuries went by. As mentioned above, the appearance of fenced spaces emerged relatively early in this region (Løvschal 2014, 737). Considering the fact that the landscape at the time was relatively flat and devoid of any pre-existing structures, the emergence of such boundaries makes sense. These fences were most likely constructed to divide and organise this open area, and perhaps to make claims to certain spaces that were previously unmarked (Løvschal 2014, 733).

The materials used to build the fences were most likely quite perishable, which may have prompted their repeated rebuilding, re-arrangement and re-negotiation. They did not match the permanence and stability of the earthen banks of Celtic field such as at Epe-Niersen, though they may have been repaired at some points to maintain them for the longer term (Løvschal 2014, 736). The fences sometimes transgressed previous boundaries, and as the settlements end their enclosures became more dense, the claims on the land became more actively pronounced (Løvschal 2014, 733). Therefore, the rebuilding and re-negotiation of the fenced spaces may have involved a combination of articulated and process-related boundaries: Those fences that appear to have been re-built to make an already enclosed area more explicitly demarcated can be considered to be articulated boundaries (Roymans and Theuws 1999, 15). This is commonly observed at expanding settlements. On the other hand, some fences appear to have deliberately overridden any previous divisions, for instance by building them in much different orientations. Such ‘process-related’ boundaries would have created new spaces and organizations (Løvschal 2014, 733).

The fences not only affected the movement of people and animals around the farms and wells, as was their apparent physical function, but they could also have provided a material anchor onto the social division of these zones within and between settlements. Perhaps the farmyards were the properties of particular persons, which had to be expressed by creating these material boundaries (Løvschal 2014, 727). This is an important conceptual aspect to the physical divisions of spaces that were articulated and negotiated throughout the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age.

116

Burials on the farmyards? Especially intriguing where the groups of burials that were found at several places in the settlement landscape of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen. The most extensive group is an urnfield of ca. 25 graves found at the IJsselstraat. Furthermore, a group of twelve (flat?) graves were found at Oss-Ussen. The latter does not seem to have been an urnfield, however, since the graves were more scattered in smaller groups among the settlements (Gerritsen 2003, 218). This is quite unusual, as settlements and funerary zones were usually separated from one another by burying the dead in urnfields. Apparently, a select few individuals were buried in the farmyard in Oss.

More burials were found at more scattered locations throughout the settlement landscape of Oss-North, most of which appeared to have been flat graves. No clear pattern or alignment could be recognized amongst them either. This may have been the case because these graves were constructed in a significantly different context than the burial mounds and urnfields of the other case studies. In Oss-North and Oss-Ussen, the graves were already present within an assigned and organized landscape, demarcated by fences. The construction of new lines and spaces through barrows was, perhaps, no longer warranted.

Because no urnfields were found in the near vicinity of the settlements, the question remains where the people living here buried most of the dead. After all, the graves found on the settlements could not represent the entire population.

117

6. Boxmeer-Sterckwijck

6.1. Introduction In the municipality of Boxmeer, situated in the south-eastern Netherlands (Noord- Brabant; see figure 6.1), the archaeological record harbours an abundance of settlement remains from both prehistoric and historical times. Opbroek and Blom (2015, 33) remark that an exceptional occupation history has been uncovered here. This concerns both settlements and cemeteries, which appear to have developed in close relationship to each other (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 21).

The large-scale excavations that haven taken place here uncovered both a funerary and a settlement landscape. These appear to have been distributed over two elongated zones on the river terraces, oriented south-northwestwards (see figure 6.2). Indeed, the research area is divided into an eastern excavation pit, where most burial mounds were discovered, and a western excavation pit where most settlements were situated (Vermue et al. 2015, 189). The presence of both types of occupation is what makes Boxmeer-Sterckwijck an especially valuable case study for this thesis in particular.

Figure 6.1: Location of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck in the Netherlands (map from openstreetmap.org)

118

Figure 6.2: The two research areas of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck; Most settlements were found in the west, and several clusters of graves in the east (After Vermue et al. 2015, 168, fig. 3.33).

119

Amongst all case studies, this is the only site where both burial mounds and settlements were present in close association with each other. Furthermore, both appear to have been organized in distinctive ways. These developments are suggested to have been greatly influenced by the natural landscape (most notably the river terrace along the Meuse), and the presence of a barrow alignment from the Middle Bronze Age. The latter is oriented in parallel with the river terrace. Therefore, the main focus of this chapter is to investigate the relationship between the landscape, settlements, cemeteries and the ways these were structured at the site of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck.

6.2. Research history Very little was known about the long-term prehistoric settlement history of this region until recent excavations. What was already known before is that a Late Bronze Age and Iron Age cemetery is present in the area. This knowledge was attributed to descriptions from the 19th century, as well as more recent findings of regional amateur archaeologists and a brief excavation campaign in 1997-1998 (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 255; Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 22).

The incidental discovery of more archaeological remains during the construction of a new business park (named Sterckwijck) led to the first explorative archaeological field campaigns in 2001. The excavations that followed between 2007 and 2009 are among the largest that have ever taken place in the Netherlands. The most striking find here was the enormous urnfield consisting of 421 graves (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 13). Radiocarbon dating and the typology of pottery indicated that this cemetery was in use for a long time: From the Middle Bronze Age until the Roman period (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 188).

120

6.3. The natural landscape Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is situated to the west of the Meuse valley (see figure 6.3). Notable in this landscape are the river terraces, which formed due to climatic fluctuations throughout the Pleistocene. A few kilometres westward from the river Meuse, the elongated ridge of the river terrace shapes the landscape (see figure 6.4). In prehistory, the ridge must have been higher, and the river would have been much closer to it. A similar, albeit lower ridge may have been present at the western side of the research area (Vermue et al., 2015, 187). At the Maasbroekse Blokken, a neighbourhood to the south of the research area, the ridge in the landscape lightly curves towards the south-east (Vermue et al. 2015, 189).

Figure 6.3: Geomorphological map of Boxmeer, with the research area marked with a red star (After Kragten in Past2Present 2008, 12).

121

Figure 6.4: Elevation map of the region of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The research area is marked with the black box (map after https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer).

The river deposited fluviatile sediments, mainly consisting of loam. Loamy soils stay fertile for a long time, in contrast to the sandy soils of the Pleistocene in most other areas in the southern and eastern Netherlands, directly surrounding the region of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. Although loamy soil is more difficult to practice agriculture on, the benefit of longer fertility most likely outweighed this disadvantage. It can be expected that these differences have greatly impacted the way people chose to occupy and exploit this area (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 13). Indeed, the settlement patterns observed on the river terraces of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck differ from those on the sandy soils elsewhere (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 258). This will be elaborated upon later in this chapter. Directly to the west of the Maasbroekse Blokken, a layer of Pleistocene sand has been deposited by the wind, covering an older river terrace (Van der Velde and Blom 2015, 625).

6.4. The cultural landscape The landscape of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck gradually changed from a ‘natural’ to a ‘cultural’ landscape during the Early Neolithic, as is indicated by changes in the vegetation and finds associated with the Linearbandkeramik culture. These people would already have adopted agriculture, whilst also practicing hunting and gathering (broad spectrum economy; Fokkens 2019, 187). The area they settled

122

would still have been quite forested at the time, with deciduous trees in the lower areas and some pine trees on the higher river terraces. Zuidhoff et al. (2015, 82) indicate that these first farmers may have started the deforestation of the landscape indirectly by using tree branches as cattle fodder. The trees could produce less pollen in this way, gradually shrinking the number of trees over time. The overall impact of the first farming communities on the landscape would have stayed very limited, however.

The first clear signs of human impact in the archaeological record have been observed from the Middle Neolithic onwards, when farmers started to settle the area more intensively, creating more settlements and agricultural fields. Especially the higher areas and the eastern ridges were chosen by the new settlers. (Van der Velde and Blom 2015, 625, 627). Though it was not until the Middle Bronze Age that the people appear to have used, structured and changed the landscape in more lasting ways, according to their own needs and views. In fact, almost all features and finds that were recorded dated to this period (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 14).

This area was an especially favourable settlement location due to the river, which allowed communication, trade and exchange over vast distances, as well as places for ritual depositions (Arnoldussen and Fokkens 2008 in Opbroek et al. 2015, 107). The higher areas seem to have been the preferred area of occupation (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 33). The shape of the river terrace and its north-southern ridge appears to have significantly impacted the way people organized this landscape. This is evident from the distribution of graves; A north-southern alignment of grave clusters which accumulated from the Middle Bronze Age until the Middle Iron Age. A similar development is observed in Oss and Epe-Niersen (see chapters 3 and 4), though it is important to note here that this region is quite different from the Pleistocene sand landscapes in the south-eastern Netherlands, where many sites from the Bronze Age and Iron Age have been recorded. Culturally speaking, the site at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck generally shows a lot of similarities with these sites. However, the significantly different soils on which these people lived undoubtedly had its effects on the continuity of occupation, as well as the choices that these people made while interacting with and making use of their surrounding landscape (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 255).

123

6.5. The settlement landscape The research area of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is known to have been inhabited in prehistory, as is attested by the discovery of numerous house plans, pits, wells and other settlement remains. This habitation appears to have already started during the Bronze Age. A particularly striking settlement landscape appears to have emerged during the Iron Age. The long-term development of the prehistoric settlement landscape will be discussed below.

6.5.1. Bronze Age settlements Little is known about the settlements of the Early Bronze Age and the first half of the Middle Bronze Age (Middle Bronze Age A; ca. 1800-1500 BC). This is not only the case in this particular research area, but in the Netherlands in general (Arnoldussen and Fontijn 2006, 301). More often than not, a small number of pits, post markings and house plans are the only features that can be identified for this period (Opbroek et al. 2015, 108).

Later into the Middle Bronze Age, otherwise known as the Middle Bronze Age B (ca. 1500-1100 BC), a much more extensive and clear archaeological record offers us house plans and settlement structures that can tell us about how the settlements were organized (Opbroek et al. 2015, 108). A total of 11 house plans were recorded and dated to the Middle Bronze Age B. Eight of these were found in roughly the same habitation zone (see figure 6.5). Two house plans partially overlap each other. Unfortunately, the features could not be dated to much detail, and a chronology of the presence of these structures could not be reconstructed. What immediately stands out it the fact that each of these house plans had a practically identical orientation: northwest-southeast. The houses are furthermore spaced with distances between ca. 25 and 100 metres from one another. This pattern seems to suggest that the farmsteads were oriented in line with other features in the landscape, such as fields and fences. The latter two have not been found directly during the excavations, but the spacing and orientation of the houses appear to give us some clues on how the landscape was organized.

124

Figure 6.5: Overview of all Middle Bronze Age B house plans, and the burial mound recorded within this zone (After Opbroek et al. 2015, 170 figure 3.34 and Vermue et al. 2015, 198 figure 4.12).

Within the habitation zone of 8 houses from the Middle Bronze Age B, one burial mound was recorded which was most likely already present at the time (see figure 6.5 above). Unfortunately, there are no precise dates for both the settlement remains and the burial mounds. Therefore, whether the burial mounds and settlements existed contemporarily cannot be stated for certain. However, Vermue et al. (2015, 239) suggest that these finds do strongly support the idea that the people chose to live close to a pre-existing burial mound. This idea seems plausible, and fits with the current discourse about the relationship between settlements and

125

burial mounds (Bourgeois 2013, 174). While it was previously thought that the locations of burial mounds heavily depended on the changing locations of farmsteads (Roymans and Fokkens 1991, 12), new insights have implied that it was rather the other way around (Bourgeois and Arnoldussen 2006, 13; Van Beek 2011, 31). Most of the house-plans that were taken into consideration for this model are dated to 1500 BC or later (after the Middle Bronze Age A). Since the construction of new burial mounds had drastically declined by then, it seems more plausible that these farmsteads were deliberately built close to the older burial mounds (Bourgeois and Arnoldussen 2006, 13; Van Beek 2011, 31). This may have been due to the ancestral value of these places.

Much like the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age A, very little is known about settlements from the Late Bronze Age in the Netherlands (ca. 1100-800 BC; Bourgeois and Arndoldussen 2006, 15). In the area of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, traces of settlements are, likewise, sparse. While the lack of structures does not necessarily mean that this area was abandoned, it must be noted that throughout the Netherlands no house plans have been found yet that can be attributed to this period with certainty; especially not the second half of the Late Bronze Age (Fokkens 2019, 189). Still, two farmsteads could be distinguished, which were likely occupied during the Late Bronze Age based on the pottery that was uncovered from the post holes (Opbroek et al. 2015, 111). Some other possible remains of houses, i.e. post holes and pits, could point to the presence of two other farmsteads (Opbroek et al. 2015, 110). This seemingly Late Bronze Age ‘habitational zone’ is located a few hundred metres to the south-west of the Middle Bronze Age farmsteads (see figure 6.6). This is slightly outside of the main excavation areas, and it appears that the house plans were uncovered within narrow test trenches. What the surrounding area looked like is, for this reason, left in the dark.

126

Figure 6.6: The settlement structures from the Bronze Age in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck (Blue: activity zone; orange: end Early Bronze Age – Start Middle Bronze Age; red: Middle Bronze Age, green: Late Bronze Age; Opbroek et al. 2015, 112, fig. 3.1).

127

6.5.2. Iron Age settlements Settlement remains turned out to be sparse for the Early Iron Age and the start of the Middle Iron Age as well. In fact, for these two periods altogether, only a few buildings (possibly sheds) and wells have been uncovered, most of which were located to the north of the research area in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. This is remarkably different from the general discourse about Early Iron Age settlements. In the Meuse- Demer-Scheldt-region (southern Netherlands), the Early Iron Age is considered a period of demographic expansion. This is accompanied with the emergence of Celtic field systems reflecting agricultural intensification, within which dispersed farmsteads would have shifted over time (Roymans and Theuws 1999, 13). At the case study of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen, discussed in chapter 5, an intensification of settlement density is clearly observed. It is therefore striking that such evidence is completely lacking at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck.

The sparse settlement remains from this period that were recorded are generally situated in the central and northern parts of the research area. The houses that consisted of features and pottery that are typical for the Early Iron Age, could simultaneously be dated to the start of the Middle Iron Age as well (Blom 2015, 86- 143). These structures may therefore have been initially built at the end of the Early Iron Age, but their use continued more extensively into the Middle Iron Age. This had led to some discussions about what the true boundaries of the settlement landscape were during the Early Iron Age. Perhaps the places that were settled during this period were not excavated (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 251). Indeed, the presence of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age graves does suggest that this landscape was actively occupied, and thus, settlements could not have been far away during this time. On top of that, landscape reconstructions indicate that this area was already a heath landscape, which could only have been maintained by humans. Kodde and van der Velde (2015, 356) therefore suggest that the higher areas on the eastern ridge may have been a more suitable place to settle during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, because the climate was presumably wetter than in the subsequent periods.

What followed in the Middle Iron Age was an influx of a large number of farmsteads, which were clearly organized in association with each other (see figure 6.7). Indeed,

128

almost all house plans are oriented west-eastwards; exactly perpendicular to the Middle Bronze Age houses documented to the east. The Iron Age houses formed an elongated and slightly curved line from north to south. This pattern heavily implies that the houses were constructed within a highly organized landscape, where a multitude of farmsteads were present contemporaneously. Although none have been recorded, there is a high likelihood that the farmsteads were demarcated with fences or another type of visible boundaries. It is also notable how a large number of outbuildings was found, many of which seem to have been situated to the west of the house plans (see figure 6.8). However, this cannot be stated for certain everywhere, since the spaces to the west of the farmsteads are mostly situated outside of the excavation area. Most of the outbuildings were interpreted as granaries by Kodde and van der Velde (2015, 267).

Yet, based on the sporadic finds of amateur archaeologists alone, it could already be stated that the region of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck must have been densely populated in the Iron Age (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 255). Now, archaeological research has pointed out that this influx of people and the development of many farmsteads in a row did not take off before the Middle Iron Age, when more and more contemporary farmsteads appeared in an north-southern oriented line. Van der Velde and Blom (2015, 630) remark that such an arrangement of the settled landscape is very reminiscent of Late Medieval settlement patterns. This north-southern prehistoric route, along which dense clusters of settlements and cemeteries formed, could be the result of the loamy soils that stay fertile for long periods of time. Archaeobotanical research indicated that crops were cultivated on and/or nearby the settlements. The exact locations of agricultural fields could, however, not be detected (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 357-358).

129

Figure 6.7: All Iron Age houses found in the research area, The house plans in red are associated with a number of Early Iron Age features. Whether the house plans themselves were present since the Early Iron Age is unknown (After Kodde and Van der Velde 2015, 259, fig. 5.6).

130

Figure 6.8: Detail of the settlement row excavated in the western part of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The house plans are marked in dark green, and the outbuildings in light green (after Blom and van der Velde 2015, 48, Blad West 21).

Settlement clusters from the Early to Middle Iron Age A few clusters of settlement features were documented which could possibly have been occupied during the Early Iron Age. Here, these clusters will be discussed.

Settlement cluster 1 at the northern edge of the research area consists of a house plan (H4001), two wells, five ditches, a silo and nine other buildings (see figure 6.9). It is possible that more structures were present to the north, but this area was not excavated. Most of the features, in particular the wells, the silo and one ditch, could be dated to the start of the Middle Iron Age. However, the oldest well might have been in use already during the Early Iron Age, so it is possible that occupation of this settlement started during this period. Furthermore, the house plan shows similarities with the Early Iron Age houses in Oss-Ussen (2B), though combined with building traditions from the Middle Iron Age (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 275),

131

Figure 6.9: Settlement cluster 1 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 276, fig. 5.29).

Likewise, at settlement cluster 2, most features are dated to the Middle Iron Age, besides one pit that could have been already in use in the Early Iron Age. The pottery sherds found here confirm that this settlement was in use during the transition between the Early Iron Age and the Middle Iron Age. The presence of three house plans may therefore indicate a long-term habitation (see figure 6.10). The fact that two of these houses overlap with five other buildings also points out that the third house, H4002, was the only house present for most of this habitation period (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 275-276).

Settlement cluster 4 may also have been inhabited during the last phase of the Early Iron Age. Three house plans, of which two overlap, indicate several occupation phases (see figure 6.11). Two ditches contain pottery that can be dated to the transition from the Early Iron Age to the Middle Iron age (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 279).

132

Figure 6.10: Settlement cluster 2 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 276, fig. 5.29).

133

Figure 6.11: Settlement cluster 4 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 278, fig. 5.30).

134

Settlement cluster 11 is especially intriguing. It consists of a large cluster of features, closely associated with a Bronze Age mound and a cluster of more than 30 urnfield graves (Grave cluster 5; see chapter 6.6.2). Most of the graves are dated to the Middle Iron Age, though a number of them were probably built in the Early Iron Age. There are five house plans amongst the settlement features; three to the north of the burial mound, and two to the south (see figure 6.12). This pattern implies that there were two settlements that were organized in a way that respected the burial mound present between them. At both sides, the houses appear to have been rebuilt over time, with the outbuildings generally located to the west. In one of the three northern houses (H4032), pottery sherds from the late Early Iron age was found. This seems to be the oldest house in this group. Most of the other structures are dated to the Middle Iron Age, and a few more to the Late Iron Age. The beginnings of the occupation in this area are therefore likely rooted in the Early Iron Age, but most structures and buildings were built and used during the Middle Iron Age (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 289).

Finally, settlement cluster 13 is situated on the southern border of the research area (see figure 6.13). Possibly, this settlement was not excavated in its entirety, as more features may have been present to the south. The oldest features – a ditch and a number of smaller buildings – are dated to the Early Iron Age. Another ditch from this period was found further to the south, judging from the Early Iron Age pottery sherds found in this feature. Four postholes found nearby also contained pottery from this period. It is therefore evident that there must have been a farmstead in this area already during the Early Iron Age (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 294, 296). A total of nine houses were identified – the largest number amongst all clusters. These houses plan form a remarkably large group, which were constructed in the same orientation in a north-southern row. Indeed, a high level of settlement organization is immediately clear; the west-eastern oriented houses were clearly tied to this territory, where they were sometimes rebuilt. The outbuildings are clearly arranged to the western side. Each of these houses are dated to the Middle Iron Age. If these are the remains of a wandering farmstead, each house would have been in use for ca. 27 years. However, two farmsteads could have been present as well, with a small distance of ca. 13 metres between them. In this case, the houses must have been in use for 50 years at a time (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 293).

135

Figure 6.12: Settlement cluster 11 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 290, fig. 5.38).

136

Figure 6.13: Settlement cluster 13 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 295, fig. 5.40).

All Iron Age houses were uncovered in the western excavation pit, which indicates that they were clearly spatially separated from the funerary landscape on the river terrace to the east. The relationship between the settlements and the burial mounds therefore appear to have become less evident in the Iron Age than in the Middle Bronze Age, during which a number of houses were located in the east of the research area, where the earliest burial mounds were found as well (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 251). Still, Van der Velde and Blom (2015, 629) argue that the Early Iron Age settlements must have been located close to the cemeteries, albeit not

137

within the research area itself. Based on research elsewhere, namely on the Pleistocene sands of the southern Netherlands, researchers pointed out that the settlements and farmsteads of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age became smaller and less long-lived those of the periods before (Roymans and Fokkens 1991, 9). In case they were situated closely to the urnfields, it could be that they were regularly abandoned and rebuilt elsewhere, like wandering farmsteads. This may be a reason for the fact that evidence for these settlements are now sparse. Of course, this is only a hypothesis. Thus far, no data is available that could offer a decisive answer.

6.6. The funerary landscape The relative scarcity of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age farmsteads in the research area is contrasted with a great richness in the funerary archaeology of the late prehistoric period. The excavations have yielded a great number of graves and burial monuments, the oldest of which are dated to the Middle Bronze Age. From then until the Roman period, this landscape appears to have been a ‘landscape of the dead’; a place for burials. By far, most graves are dated between the Late Bronze Age and the Late Iron Age (Vermue et al. 2015, 179). The cemetery is spread over a vast, elongated area. Within this area, the clear clustering of burials is remarkable (see figure 6.14). The Middle Bronze Age burial mounds, some of which were surrounded by post circles, seem to have been given a central position amongst these graves. Vermue et al. (2015, 187) suggest that the burial mounds may have been especially important for the location of the urnfield as a whole. They are likely the oldest graves of the cemetery, and they may have had a form of ‘ancestral’ role in the structuring of this funerary landscape. This is all in line with the general discourse on urnfields, which have been found to have accumulated around or nearby older graves (Fontijn 1996, 79).

138

Figure 6.14: The clusters of graves found in the research area (Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21).

139

6.6.1. The funerary landscape before the Urnfield period As discussed above, the funerary landscape in this region appears to be rooted in the Middle Bronze Age, when the first burial mounds were constructed. The burials that could be dated to this period with certainty are distributed along nearly the entire research area (see figure 6.15). It concerns the remaining features of six burials, five of which appear to be part of a linear alignment, oriented north-southwards (Vermue et al. 2015, 198). This funerary alignment appears to have developed along the natural, north-southern terrace ridge in the eastern part of the research area.

It is important to note here that not each of these burials is clearly determined to have been covered by a burial mound. In fact, only four clear grave structures were distinguished; Three in on the eastern terrace of the research area, and one to the south-west. The ring ditches surrounding these structures are, according to Vermue et al. (2015, 180), indications that they were originally covered by barrows. However, by now, the burial mounds themselves have visually disappeared from the picture in the landscape. The other Middle Bronze Age graves have only been documented as ‘cremation graves’ from the Middle Bronze Age, and one was suggested to be a ‘flat grave’ (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 33). Yet, since flat graves were relatively rare during the Middle Bronze Age (Fokkens 2005, 361; Lohof 1994, 100), the possibility remains that this and the other graves were originally covered by burial mounds. Unfortunately, no documentation is available that could confirm nor deny this hypothesis. In the context of the barrow alignment, however, it seems most plausible to suggest that both burials were visibly present in the form of barrows. Barrow alignments that have been documented at other sites in the Netherlands, including Oss-Zevenbergen and Epe-Niersen, attest to this.

The largest barrow structure was recorded in the south-west of the research area, outside of the barrow alignment (GRS022 in zone e on figure 6.15). This must have been a highly visible mound, as it was marked with a double post circle consisting of 110 posts with a diameter of between 16,8 and 18,2 metres. At its north-eastern side, there was a 2-metres-wide opening. This also happens to be the only grave structure in which no cremation remains were found. The features of the burial mound in question were dated based on pottery fragments that were found within them (Vermue et al. 2015, 197).

140

Figure 6.15: Distribution of burial mounds which are dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Vermue et al. 2015, 198, fig. 4.12)

141

The two southernmost burial mounds in the alignment to the east are situated within a few metres of each other (see zone d on figure 6.15). Both were surrounded by a ring ditch (Vermue et al. 2015, 199). Several cremation graves were recorded in each of them, suggesting that these burial mounds have been re-used multiple times. These graves could only be dated based on the typologies of the urns that were found. These indicated that the mounds were actively used during the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age (Blom and van der Velde 2015b, 332, 469, 320, 362).

Around 250 metres to the north is another burial surrounded by a double ring ditch. Though figure 6.15 above has indicated that this grave was present in the Middle Bronze Age, it is unclear what this was based on. Opbroek et al. (2015, 145) claim that this mound must already have been present when the Middle Bronze Age houses recorded nearby were built. Since Middle Bronze Age settlements and burial mounds are often found in association with each other, this seems like a plausible interpretation. In many instances, the barrows have been found to pre-date the houses, sometimes by several centuries (Bourgeois and Fontijn 2008, 41; Van Beek and Louwen 2012, 57). It is important to keep in mind, however, that this grave could be younger than presumed. After all, no radiocarbon dating has been applied to this mound.

For the remaining burials at the northern end of the research area (zones a and b on figure 6.15), unclear interpretations are expressed in the excavation reports. One of the urns is was suggested to be from a flat grave, and contained the cremated remains of a child (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 29, 33). Unfortunately, the authors have not specified which of the marked Middle Bronze Age structures was perceived as a flat grave. Judging from figure 6.15 (zone b), it appears that cremation AAC-03 is the burial in question. This cremation is unfortunately absent in the catalogue of the excavation. As iterated above, it seems more logical to assume that a burial mound was originally present, marking a visible place which was part of the barrow alignment.

The northernmost grave is a double burial. Two urns, typologically dated to the Middle Bronze Age B, were uncovered within the same ditch. They were placed right

142

next to each other, which implies that they were interred at the same time (Blom and van der Velde 2015, 418).

Though it appears that no clear grave structures were associated with either the ‘flat grave’ and the double grave, there is no full disclosure on the nature of these graves. The double grave is not described as a flat grave, but any possibility that this was a burial mound remained undiscussed. On the other hand, the grave to the south was assumedly determined to be a flat grave, but there was no further specification on the nature of this burial. Therefore, I believe that it is possible that at least one of the northernmost burials was originally a burial mound. Most probably, both were burial mounds, since flat graves from the Middle Bronze Age are rare, especially in the context of a barrow alignment (Fokkens 2005, 361; Lohof 1994, 100). Furthermore, the other burial mounds were no longer physically present in the research area either, and could only be found due to their surrounding structures.

Perhaps even more graves or barrows were present to the north and/or south of the alignment. The barrows discussed above are only known because this particular area was excavated so extensively. In any case, the Middle Bronze Age alignment of graves in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck seems quite reminiscent of those recorded Epe- Niersen and especially Oss-Zevenbergen, both of which have been central elements in the funerary landscape for many centuries as well (see chapters 3 and 4). The Middle Bronze Age burial mounds of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck could have played a major role in the further structuring of the cemetery over the following centuries, although the long-term development of this funerary landscape took a significantly different turn from that of Epe-Niersen and Oss.

Still, the potential importance of the Middle Bronze Age burial mounds in the long term cannot be overlooked. First of all, some of them were used for the internment of new cremation graves during later periods. This is a common practice amongst barrow landscapes, especially from the Middle Bronze Age onwards (Bourgeois 2013, 64). Furthermore, directly around the existing mounds, many new burials were created as well. These are all interpreted as acts of re-use and re-appropriation of the older monuments. As a result, the ‘landscape of the dead’ on the eastern river terrace of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck has undergone a development of almost 2000 years (Blom and van der Velde 2015, 14). Considering the fact that the clusters of graves

143

all included at least one Middle Bronze Age grave, it appears that these places were not forgotten. The clusters that developed throughout the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age will be discussed in the section below.

6.6.2. The funerary landscape of the Urnfield period By far, most graves and grave structures that have been excavated in Boxmeer- Sterckwijck date from the Urnfield period; between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 29, 33). They cover practically the entirety of the excavated area on the eastern river terrace, as well as the south-western corner of the western excavation area (see figure 6.16). This large urnfield did, of course, not appear out of thin air. As suggested in the previous section, the Middle Bronze Age burial mounds seem to have attracted further mortuary activities on these exact places. These zones of accumulating small barrows would have been visible markers in the landscape. By burying the dead here, these people possibly laid claim to the older burials, and the ‘ancestral landscape’ in which they were present (Vermue et al. 2015, 239). The Middle Bronze Age barrows would then have been important factors in the formation of the enormous urnfield as we find it today.

144

Figure 6.16: The grave clusters in the research area (Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21).

145

In the research area of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, 286 cremation graves have been dated to approximately the Urnfield period (Late Bronze Age - Early Iron Age). By far, most of them are dated to the Early Iron Age. In the Middle Iron Age, the cemetery was still in use (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 29, 33). The graves were mostly dated based on the material finds, such as pottery shards and the remains of urns. These finds have indicated that this location was used as an urnfield from 1100 BC, the Late Bronze Age, until 250 BC, the end of the Middle Iron Age. This funerary zone has therefore been in use continuously for at least 500, but quite possibly over a thousand years (Vermue et al. 2015, 205). Even in Roman times, this cemetery was not forgotten, nor was it ignored: The southern parts were still in use as a cemetery (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 29). Over time, the grave clusters would have merged together as they grew, creating an elongated zone of burials.

Another smaller grave cluster is found in the western part of the research area, near the settlements. This is also where the largest older burial mound from the Middle Bronze Age was recorded (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 15). The settlement in question (settlement cluster 11) was discussed in subchapter 6.5.2, and the grave cluster (grave cluster 5) will be further elaborated on in in the following subchapter.

Clustering graves The distribution of the graves across the urnfield is quite remarkable. While the cemetery’s layout has a scattered appearance, a number of denser concentrations can be distinguished. The clusters of graves appear to have formed around the old burials over the course of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Subsequently, five clear grave clusters developed over a zone of ca. 2 kilometres (see figure 6.16 above; Van der Velde and Blom 2015, 629). These clusters will be discussed in more detail in this section.

At the northernmost end of the research area, a dense cluster of graves includes two larger barrow structures, one of which was surrounded by a double ring ditch (grave cluster 3; see figure 6.17). The ages of these grave structures are unknown, but estimated to be around the Early Iron Age based on the surrounding features (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 475). The oldest known graves in this cluster are two Middle Bronze Age urns, found together in the same ditch a few metres to the west of the barrow structures. Although no grave structure has been uncovered, the

146

possibility remains that the location of this double grave was still a known, and perhaps meaningful place. The cremation graves appear to have accumulated closer to each other near the Middle Bronze Age grave and the larger, Early Iron Age structures. The density of the graves is especially apparent at the western side. It appears that, the closer one gets to the ring ditches and Middle Bronze Age grave, the denser the clustering of graves becomes. It is therefore not entirely clear whether it was the Middle Bronze Age grave or the younger, larger barrow structures that played a determining role in the formation of this cluster. Still, it is notable that the Middle Bronze Age double grave is incorporated in the group. Towards the south, the density of graves appears to decrease (Vermue et al. 2015, 208).

Figure 6.17: Cluster 3 at the northernmost end of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial is marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21).

Another notable, albeit less dense cluster formed more southwards, near the middle of the research area (grave cluster 2; see figure 6.18). Three graves, surrounded by ring ditches, stand out amongst the others. Based on the urns found within these features, the three largest graves were added in the Late Bronze Age (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 438, 473). Like at cluster 3, the oldest grave is a Middle Bronze Age grave without any surrounding features. Although it was suggested to have been a

147

flat grave, it seems more plausible that this burial, too, was a visible marker in the landscape. This grave is located more to the ‘edge’ of the cluster, since no more features were recorded further to the west (see figure 6.19). The three Late Bronze Age burial mounds seem to be located more centrally, in the densest area of this cluster. More smaller graves are scattered towards the south in what looks like a zig- zagging fashion. It therefore seems more plausible that the accumulation of smaller cremation graves in this zone was sparked by the presence of these Late Bronze Age burial mounds. Still, it is remarkable that a Middle Bronze Age grave is present within this cluster, much like all other clusters.

Figure 6.18: Detail of the features found in cluster 2. The cremation grave, which was determined to be a Middle Bronze Age flat grave, is circled in red (after Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 14; Blad Oost 11).

148

Figure 6.19: Cluster 2 of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial is marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209).

The most complex grave cluster was recorded at the southernmost end of the research area (grave cluster 1; see figure 6.20). The oldest burials are located in the south-east of this cluster. It concerns the remains of a smaller and a larger burial mound, surrounded by ring ditches. Throughout the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, a great density of cremation burials accumulated, some of which were surrounded by their own, small ring ditches as well. To the north of this cluster are the remains of two larger burial mounds, also accompanied by ring ditches. They are assumed to have been constructed in the Early Iron Age, based on pottery fragments found inside of the burial and ring ditch of the southern grave structure (Opbroek and Blom 2015, 469). These two mounds seem to have remained relatively isolated from the cluster of graves that accumulated further southwards. In fact, no Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age graves have been found directly around the presumed Early Iron Age barrows; an empty zone separates them from the others. Despite this, Vermue et al. (2015, 209) still considered them part of this cluster. The dates of the graves in this cluster range from the Middle Bronze Age until the end of the Iron Age. Ultimately, this location would later become a Roman cemetery. Therefore the usage of this location for burial has been long-lived (Vermue et al. 2015, 240).

149

Figure 6.20: Cluster 1 of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age barrows are marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209).

Between grave clusters 1 and 2, several graves are scattered over the area, some of which appear to have been created in small alignments. However, the graves do not seem to have formed a cohesive ‘group’ or ‘cluster’ as the distance between the graves is considerably larger (see figure 6.21; Vermue et al., 2015, 244).

Figure 6.21: The burial mounds between cluster 1 to the south and cluster 2 to the north of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial mounds are marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209).

150

Separated from the main alignment, at the southernmost end of the western research area, is a group of 28 graves accompanying a Middle Bronze Age burial mound (grave cluster 5; see figure 6.22). The barrow was surrounded by a post circle. Over time, it was re-used for the internment of several new graves. Two of these graves overlap with the post circle. This must have happened no earlier than around 800 BC (in the Early Iron Age), several centuries after the initial construction of the mound. The post circle would not have been present anymore by that time (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 291).

After the construction of the Middle Bronze Age mound, several centuries would have passed before the addition of new graves commenced at this location. Indeed, it is remarkable that no graves from this cluster have been dated to the Late Bronze Age. There are a number of graves among them without any datable finds, however, so there is a possibility that a number of graves were constructed in the meantime. Kodde and van der Velde (2015, 292) stated that, based on the cremation graves that could be dated, the oldest urnfield graves are situated directly next to the Middle Bronze Age burial mound, especially at its northern and north-western side. Further away, the graves are argued to have become younger; probably from the later Middle Iron Age (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 292; Vermue et al. 2015, 244). These estimated are most likely based on typo-chronological considerations of any urns and grave structures that were found. The time-depths and chronological development of the clusters are therefore not certain.

151

Figure 6.22: Cluster 5 of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial mounds are marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209).

As stated above, cluster 5 is not part of the funerary alignment to the east. Instead it is located on the settlement terrain in the western part of the research area. Two farmsteads were identified nearby, of which most buildings are dated to the Middle Iron Age, much like most graves in this cluster. The settlement and cemetery therefore appear to have been in use simultaneously (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 291).

This begs the question which of the two started first: The urnfield or the settlement? Kodde and van der Velde (2015, 292) wonder if it makes sense to think that an urnfield could have been created on already settled terrain. Considering the fact that by far most settlement features area can be dated to the Middle Iron Age, it seems that occupation started no earlier than at the very end of the Early Iron Age. Assuming that this is true, a number of burial mounds was most probably already present. It is nonetheless remarkable that the people decided to live right next to an urnfield or barrow group. There appears to have been no strict division between the settlement and the barrows, which is unusual (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 292).

152

However, this is not a completely unique situation for the Netherlands. Something similar was encountered at Someren in the south-east of Noord-Brabant. There, several dozens of Early Iron Age settlements were found in close association with the nearby urnfield (Kortlang 1999, 171). Furthermore, like at Someren, the largest part of funerary landscape of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck appears to be spatially separated from the settlement zone. Cluster 5 is therefore an outlier from the funerary area, since it was uncovered on settled terrain. This could also mean that the individuals buried in the Middle Iron Age graves of this particular cluster were inhabitants of the farmsteads right next to them.

6.6.3. Chronology and continuity The very origins of the clusters and, ultimately, the urnfield in its entirety, can be found at the Middle Bronze Age graves and barrows which appear to be incorporated into each cluster. The old graves, which were originally marked with burial mounds, may have been attributed a central position in the accumulating grave clusters. Over time, the clusters grew and eventually formed a larger funerary zone, or urnfield, altogether.

Vermue et al. (2015, 210) suggested that cremations in urns would be interred around these monuments during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, presumably followed by cremation graves without urns later in the Iron Age. Unfortunately, testing this idea has been difficult, since most graves could not be dated with much detail and certainty due to the lack of radiocarbon dating. Nonetheless, careful estimations of the dates and interpretations thereof suggest that the Urnfield was generally formed with a southward direction; the first Urnfield graves would have been created in cluster 3 at the northern end of the research area. After this, cluster 2 and then cluster 1 were formed through the creation of new graves. After 800 B.C., in the Early Iron Age, cluster 5 also became a location for new graves (Vermue et al. 2015, 211).

Vermue et al. (2015, 245) propose two main interpretations for the possible development of this urnfield. The first possible scenario is that the individual clusters would have grown to such an extent that they started to merge together into a large cemetery, which still consisted of five distinguishable clusters. This scenario implies a continuous use of the cemeteries. The second scenario is that

153

there was a ‘gap’ during the Early Iron Age, and that it was only in the Middle Iron Age that multiple local families started to collectively add to the clusters of graves again. Evidence of nearby settlements indicate that these people lived in the close vicinity of the cemetery.

The main difference between the two scenarios is that the second one implies a development of the urnfield in two phases, instead of the continuous development implied by the first scenario (Vermue et al. 2015, 245). Both scenarios imply a significantly different development from that of other Urnfields in the southern Netherlands. On the Pleistocene sand landscapes, urnfields were generally abandoned as people moved away, and they would create new cemeteries elsewhere. In Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, the people clearly chose to continue to bury the dead in this place, be it continuously from the Middle Bronze age to the Middle Iron Age, or in two separate phases in the Middle Bronze Age and Middle Iron Age. This could have been a conscious choice, yet the differences of the physical landscape of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck and that of the other Pleistocene landscapes of the southern Netherlands could have played a role here as well (Vermue et al. 2015, 245). Since there was a remarkable decrease in settlements that are dated to the Early Iron Age, the idea that the urnfields were in use in separate phases as well seems plausible. Though it remains possible that settlements from this period were nearby, in areas that have not yet been excavated.

6.7. Discussion The prehistoric occupation of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is now known to have had a long-term, continuous occupation, especially concerning the funerary landscape. The results from the excavations conducted here could therefore offer new insights into the relationship between farmsteads, burials and the landscape. The research area itself was divided into two distinct zones: An eastern excavation area, where the majority of the burial mounds were uncovered, and a western, much more narrow area which harboured evidence for an intensively settled zone during the Iron Age.

It is important to note here that, for the periods of interest (Middle Bronze Age – Early Iron Age), the excavations and reports of this site yielded limited information on features that could have functioned as lines along or lines across the landscape.

154

No clear remains of moats, fences, agricultural fields or any other demarcating or symbolic lines are mentioned. This is not to say that they were never present, but either taphonomic processes or the limits of the excavation pits themselves could have prevented the researchers to encounter such features. A second relevant point that must be raised is that very little radiocarbon dating has been applied to either the cremation graves or the house plans. The time-depth and chronology of the landscape development can therefore only be roughly determined; Most of which was based on the typology of associated pottery sherds.

Nonetheless, the site of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is arguably a very interesting case study on how the funerary and settlement landscapes were organized. As argued by Fokkens (2014, 740) in his commentary on Mette Løvschal’s (2014) study on emerging boundaries, settlements tend to be neglected since evidence for them is often quite fragmented. Such is the case in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. However, it is all the more important to take this site into account. After all, Boxmeer-Sterckwijck and Oss-North are the two case studies that provide evidence for an intensive settlement organization. On top of that, Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is the only one of the two that show both a settlement landscape and a funerary landscape in close association with each other. Despite its limitations, the relationship between the two zones is highly intriguing. Two main reasons for this can be iterated here: The unique development of the Middle Bronze Age barrow alignment into a large zone of barrow clusters, and the long line of Iron Age settlements that appears to have mirrored the orientation of the barrow zone.

The Middle Bronze Age barrow alignment The funerary landscape itself shows a continuous use from the Middle Bronze Age until the Roman period. The way in which it developed heavily implies that the people structured the funerary landscape in reference to the old, Middle Bronze Age burials. Some of them are known to have been burial mounds, surrounded by ring ditches or post circles. They must have formed striking markers in the landscape, and they arguably strongly influenced the development of the extensive urnfield over the centuries that followed. Two of the graves, situated at the northern half of the research area, were not associated with any surrounding feature. Because none

155

of the burial mounds physically survived until the present day, it is hard to say what they originally looked like. Judging from how clusters developed around each of the Middle Bronze Age graves, it seems most plausible that each of them were originally visible places, representing an ancestral meaning. During subsequent periods, the people would have interacted with these graves when re-using the barrows and/or creating new burials around them.

Therefore, the funerary landscape started to take form as the Middle Bronze Age burial mounds were constructed in a north-to-south alignment. They were generally built a few hundred metres from each other. One burial mound was built outside of the alignment, more towards the west, where dense settlements would appear much later. The situation during the Middle Bronze Age can thus best be described as an open landscape, on top of an elevated river terrace, which was marked with an alignment of visible burial mounds. This alignment formed in parallel with the ridge of the river terrace along the Meuse. Lines such as this barrow alignment are indeed commonly observed to have been structured in reference to the natural landscape, especially ridges (Løvschal 2014, 730). This description seems remarkably similar to that of the Middle Bronze Age at Oss-Zevenbergen (see subchapter 4.6.1). There, too, an alignment of visible burial mounds was initiated during the Middle Bronze Age. However, the main difference between Oss-Zevenbergen and Boxmeer- Sterckwijck is the way the funerary landscape developed over the subsequent centuries. Whereas a small, dispersed group of urnfield graves accompanied the burial alignment of Oss-Zevenbergen, along with a few large, monumental burial mounds, Boxmeer-Sterckwijck saw the development of several dense clusters of urnfield graves of varying sizes.

Towards barrow clusters The emphasis on the barrow alignment appears to have shifted during the Urnfield period. Instead of continuing to expand the burial alignment itself, new burials and barrows also accumulated in a scattered fashion near the older barrows. As Løvschal (2014, 730) notes, barrow alignments often developed over multiple centuries or even millennia, in combination with barrow clusters and other groups outside of the alignment. In the case of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, no long-term genesis seems to be apparent in the alignment itself, but all the more in the clusters that accumulated

156

around each Middle Bronze Age barrow. The older mounds were also re-used, as is evident from the multiple after-interments found inside of them (Blom and van der Velde 2015, 332, 469, 320, 362).

Amongst each of the five clusters that were distinguished, at least one Middle Bronze Age burial was present. This strongly implies that the Middle Bronze Age mounds and their ancestral meaning were an important reason why these clusters of burial mounds had formed over time (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 251). The closer to the old mounds, the older the urnfield burials seem to be. However, apart from this, a clear structure or organisation in the placement of the urnfield burials seem to be lacking completely. Instead, they are scattered accumulations of graves, sometimes completely surrounding the old burial mound, but often only at one side. Perhaps the presence of a pre-existing structure, namely the barrow alignment from the Middle Bronze Age, was something that the people anchored onto when organizing this funerary landscape. This could have been a dynamic process of ‘filling in’ an already structured space (Løvschal 2014, 736). As long as the new burials would be a part of this ancestral structure, there was no need to organise it further into alignments or sections. Over time, the sense of an alignment became less obvious, however.

Yet, the most striking cluster of graves (cluster 3) was located in the most south- western point of the research area. This structure developed completely outside of the alignment, on the western terrain that would later become densely settled. The cluster surrounded an old Middle Bronze Age mound, and Iron Age farmsteads were recorded on both its northern and southern side. Possibly, each cluster of graves was no longer seen as a collective burial ground during the Iron Age, but they would rather become associated with one family or clan and their farmstead. Such a pattern is also common on the Pleistocene sand landscapes of the southern Netherlands (Van der Velde and Blom 2015, 630). The only difference is that in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, there is a strong notion of continuity over more than a thousand years, something that appears to have been a conscious decision made by the people who were settled here. This is illustrated by their decision to the their dead nearby a Middle Bronze Age mound and hereby eventually creating cluster 3.

157

Settlements on fertile and ancestral territory In contrast to sites on the Pleistocene sands of the southern and eastern Netherlands (such as at Oss-North), there is evidence for settlement continuity throughout many centuries after the Early Iron Age. This difference could at least partially be explained by the geomorphological situation at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck; whereas the sandy soils became infertile much quicker, the loamy soils of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck remained suitable for settlement for much longer. Therefore, it was simply not necessary to move away (Roymans and Gerritsen 2002 in Van der Velde and Blom 2015, 630). Indeed, the continuity of the farmsteads, which had developed into a dense, organized line of settlements, could very well have been aided by the long- term workability of the land. In contrast to the Pleistocene sand, loam stays fertile for long periods of time without exhaustion (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 13).

But not unimportant is the alignment of Middle Bronze Age burials on the river terrace. The earliest settlements in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck were possibly the remains of one (or more) wandering farmstead(s). This was likely due to the presence of the barrows, which seems to underline the idea that the families, their ancestors and their territories were closely linked with each other (Van der Velde and Blom 2015, 628; Vermue et al. 2015, 180). One of the Middle Bronze Age burial mounds, which appears to have been the largest, was found to the south-west of the alignment. This place later developed into a densely settled area. The presence of this particular mound seems to have been pivotal for the people who chose to settle here during the Iron Age. A pattern wherein settlements appeared in landscapes marked by pre- existing burial mounds is observed repeatedly in the Netherlands (Van Beek and Louwen 2012, 57).

The influence of the older burial mounds on the development of settlements can also be illustrated by a comparison with the only other case study were extensive settlements were recorded: Oss-North. Both sites are located near the river Meuse, though besides this, they are quite different from one another. As discussed in chapter 5, the landscape of Oss-North was not marked by any burial mounds by the time this area was settled. What followed was a long-term occupation of carefully and densely organized farmsteads, wherein a number of small graves were created within the farmyards themselves. In Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, quite the opposite

158

appears to be true. This area was already marked by a row of burial mounds on the higher ridge of the river terrace.

The earliest traces of settlements were discovered near the middle of the known alignment, which appears to have consisted of one or more wandering farmsteads from the Middle Bronze Age; around the same time as the construction of the mounds themselves. Over the subsequent centuries, the farmsteads seem to have been established elsewhere. Some hints of Late Bronze Age habitation were found to the south-west of the research area. Clear settlement remains from the Late Bronze Age, and most notably house plans, indeed turn out to be a rare find in the Netherlands (Fokkens 2019, 47).

What followed in the Early Iron Age was a period of little habitation: Only sparse signs of activities from this period were documented. This suggests that there was a ’gap’ in the occupation continuity of this area (Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 14). This is remarkable, because the Early Iron Age is generally characterized as a period of settlement expansion and demographic growth (Roymans and Theuws 1999, 13). It was only in the Middle Iron Age that the most extensive occupation period appears to have commenced in the form of a long, curved alignment of farmsteads from north to south. It seems that this development of settlements was initiated towards the end of the Early Iron Age, judging from a small number of finds in ditches and wells. This took place to the west of the river terrace, a few hundred metres away from the funerary landscape which was, by that time, marked with dense clusters of burial mounds of varying sizes. The extensive alignment of farmsteads only truly formed in the Middle Bronze Age. This is in line with Løvschal‘s (2014, 726) description of settlement development during the first millennium BC: Houses would become more aggregated, forming small, more permanent communities that are tied to their territories.

Most of the farmsteads in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck were oriented approximately east- westwards. This suggests that effort was put into the organization of this settlement zone, though in much different ways than was observed in Oss-North. Unfortunately, in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, no remains of fences or other demarcating structures were found, though it is possible that they were originally present and no longer observable. It also seems plausible that the organization of the farmsteads was

159

dependant on the elongated line of burial mounds towards the east. After all, the row of settlements seems to mirror the distribution of grave clusters.

Formalization of settlements? In the Middle Iron Age, the relationship between settlements, cemeteries and graves appears to undergo a transformation of sorts. Before this period, settlements were more sparsely found on and around the funerary zone, but seemingly not on any fixed places or territories. The Middle Bronze Age settlements were found in the funerary zone itself, whereas occupation in the Late Bronze Age must have been present elsewhere; possibly to the south-west. As iterated above, the end of the Early Iron Age most likely saw the beginnings of settlements to the west of the elongated burial zone, especially in the north and the south of the western research area. It appears that the two territories were clearly separated from one another, though concrete evidence for boundaries, such as moats and fences, are lacking. Because the area between the western and eastern excavation trenches was not investigated, it is not known what this intermediate zone would have looked like. Thus far, it therefore appears that a sense of conceptual boundaries was established in the landscape between the settlements and burials (Løvschal 2014, 728), though whether any functional boundaries were built to represent and perhaps anchor onto these ideas remains unknown.

At the same time, the burial mounds and settlements were not strictly separated from one another, as indicated by two clusters of graves in the western excavation area as well. Furthermore, the ‘line’ of clusters and the row of farmsteads are oriented relatively parallel to each other. It could be possible that the orientation of the funerary zone became a line of reference in the organization of the settlement landscape to the west (Løvschal 2014, 730).

The line of settlements developed into a remarkably densely inhabited zone during the Middle Iron Age. Although Celtic fields and fences have not been found, there still appears to have been a sense of ‘formalization’ in the way farmsteads were distributed across the land. Perhaps the north-southern row of farmsteads, which started to appear in the Early Iron Age, became increasingly stabilized as people rebuilt the houses on the same locations. The houses were all oriented east- westwards, which is interestingly exactly perpendicular to the Middle Bronze Age

160

houses found to the east. This pattern may have developed in accordance to visible boundaries – perhaps in the form of fences – which have not left any features in the soil. As people chose to rebuild the houses on the exact same place over time, they anchored themselves into this landscape, and the line of clearly settlements would have become increasingly formalized. This approach would match Løvschal’s (2014, 236-237) discourse on the formalization of boundaries, though this theory was mostly based on the formalization of earthen banks and fence systems. The farmsteads are more like the fences in this scenario; perishable and impermanent, but formalized through the rebuilding and restructuring of farmsteads over a long period of time. This transformed the settlement zone from dispersed farmsteads into a structural alignment of similarly oriented settlements.

161

Part III - Discussion and conclusion

162

7. Discussion

At four late prehistoric sites in the Netherlands, the long-term development of the landscapes, and the emergence of lines, boundaries and spatial organizations in the context of older visual markers have been investigated. The most notable observations at these sites have been discussed in their respective chapters. All of these observations will come together, with the main research questions and the theoretical framework in mind (see chapters 1 and 2).

First, the landscapes that had developed before the Urnfield period will be discussed. This mainly concerns the natural landscape and the long-term genesis of ancient burial mounds, as well as their role in the formation of funerary landscapes and settlements up until the Urnfield period. The way in which people interacted with or referred to natural and/or older markers, lines and boundaries in the landscape will be highlighted, as well as the how this affected the further organization of the landscape. Secondly, the focus will shift to what exactly happened in the funerary landscapes during the Urnfield period, especially in the context of the visual, monumental landscapes that had formed up until that point. The articulated- and process-related boundaries identified at Celtic fields and settlement landscapes are examined as well. A comparison on the long-term development all case studies is made in this final discussion, as well as the ‘time-transgressive’ nature of the sequences of developments that have been observed (Løvschal and Fontijn 2015, 149). Finally, the discussion will be wrapped up with a reflection on how the landscapes developed in reference to the past during the Urnfield period and beyond.

7.1. Linear markers in a natural landscape: The effect of the of visual pre-Urnfield landscapes It is generally hypothesized that monumental burial mounds, built between the Late Neolithic and Middle Bronze Age, had a significant impact on the people who inhabited the same area over subsequent centuries (Bourgeois 2013, 20). The burial mounds were highly visible places, and stayed visible in the long term. They likely marked places that were perceived as special and ancestral by the people who

163

encountered them over the subsequent decades, centuries and even millennia (Bourgeois 2013, 15). It has been shown at many sites, including the case studies of this thesis, that this prompted people to interact with these mounds by adding graves to them, near them and generally structuring entire funerary landscapes around them. In this way, the barrows would seemingly be incorporated (or re- appropriated) in the world of the generations that followed, or even people who would arrive into this landscape much later. This could mean that these barrows attracted the construction of more burial mounds, leading to the formation of barrow clusters and barrow alignments. This is attested at the sites of Oss- Zevenbergen, Oss-Vorstengraf, Epe-Niersen and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck alike. This section will focus on the way both the natural and ‘ancestral’ markers in the landscape appear to have influenced the formation of urnfields.

7.1.1. Barrow lines along the natural landscape The natural landscape appears to have had a significant effect on the formation of barrow lines. This is especially pronounced at Oss-Zevenbergen, where the burial mounds from the Middle Bronze Age formed along the higher ridges in the landscape, surrounded by lower, wetter areas (Van der Linde and Fokkens 2009, 52). These locations would have ensured the prominent, visible location of these monuments. Furthermore, on top of this ridge, a number of natural elevations were already present, formed by the accumulation of sand. Some of the recorded burial mounds were built on top of these elevations (Fontijn et al. 2013, 283). It is therefore hardly deniable that this natural landscape prompted the formation and organization of this barrow line. The elevations on top of the ridge could have been utilized to create high, visible monuments, or they may even have been perceived as ‘ancestral’ barrows themselves. The latter could also have prompted the ‘re-use’ of what were believed to have been older burial mounds. A similar barrow line formed on top of the higher border of the Peelrandbreuk at Oss-Vorstengraf, although this is slightly less pronounced than at Zevenbergen (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 24, 50-51).

At Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, a barrow line appears to have formed as well. This line runs parallel with the ridge of the river terrace, on top of which the barrows are situated. This suggests that this terrace may have been the main point of reference when oldest the barrows were constructed (Vermue et al., 2015, 187).

164

However, the largest and most notable barrow alignment was recorded at Epe- Niersen. Since this alignment was situated on a plateau near the ice-pushed ridges of the Veluwe (Bourgeois 2013, 54), the natural relief does not appear to have been significant in the formation of the barrow line itself. The development of the funerary landscape of Epe-Niersen was perhaps for this reason quite different from the others. Here, the burial mounds that emerged between the Late Neolithic and the Middle Bronze Age marked the landscape. Over the centuries, people kept returning to this clearly visible row of burials. The older barrows were re-used, pottery was deposited on top of them and the alignment was expanded with new barrows. It was this barrow line, created across a relatively flat area, that seems to have played a major role in the further organization of this area.

Barrow alignments, above all, created a distinct experience for the people who moved through the landscape - in fact, this is still the case several millennia later. However, in the open heath landscapes that were maintained in prehistory (Doorenbosch 2013b, 31), the burial monuments stood out even more. They clearly created a line of markers through the landscape, but instead of separating or demarcating spaces, they rather seem to have formed guides along the area. This distinction between ‘boundaries across’ and ‘boundaries along’ landscapes was investigated by Løvschal (2015, 259, 266-71), who likewise regarded barrow alignments to belong to the latter category. Barrow alignments were most likely not built to divide land and communities. After all, it was possible - and perhaps even more inviting - to surpass them and move along them. Instead of a boundary, they may have served as lines of orientation and/or transition, which would have connected two areas rather than separating them (Løvschal 2014, 730). This seems to be especially the case at the alignment of Epe-Niersen; cart-tracks from both prehistoric and historic times can attest to this (Bourgeois 2013, 189).

Barrow lines were furthermore quite permanent and visual in nature. By the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, they would have still been present in the landscape, undoubtedly influencing the further choices people made while organizing their funerary and settlement landscapes. In the following section, the long-term effects of the burial mounds on the formation of urnfields will be discussed.

165

7.1.2. The effect of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds With the recorded formation of barrow lines at each of the research areas discussed above, it appears that the pre-Urnfield funerary landscapes were all quite similar during the Middle Bronze Age. In the theory of Løvschal (2014, 726), barrow lines constitute ‘lines as markers’; visual elements in the landscape that were repeatedly interacted with through time. However, each of the barrow lines discussed in this thesis developed quite differently over time. Whereas a long, monumental barrow alignment formed over the course of several centuries in Epe-Niersen, the alignments at Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck started to develop later in time and became less striking in size. The different pre-Urnfield landscapes of every case study led to differently organized Urnfield landscapes by the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. For instance, it is interesting to see how the relatively small barrow alignment of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck led to the formation of a large urnfield, whereas those of Oss and Epe-Niersen did not.

More intriguing differences have been noted at the two funerary sites of Oss. The barrow group of Zevenbergen developed into a clear barrow alignment during the Middle Bronze Age. These barrows were re-visited over time for the interment of new burials. This may be the first indication of people referring to the older ‘ancestral’ barrows that visibly marked the landscape they encountered. Possibly, the Late Bronze Age saw the addition of two longbarrows, extending the alignment (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 118). While the two longbarrows appeared to have been built to ‘respect’ the pre-existing alignment, something entirely different commenced during the Early Iron Age. New burials were added both in the older mounds and in new, enormous burial mounds that matched the size of the Chieftain’s grave to the west. This signifies that older barrows were still relevant for re-use, but also that older traditions and organizations were ‘transgressed’ by the construction of entirely new structures (Fontijn et al. 2013, 307). One of the enormous burial mounds of Zevenbergen (mound 3) was constructed outside of the alignment, and a number of small graves surrounded by ring ditches were scattered around it (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 86). Yet, the most dramatic changes were perhaps caused by the appearance of sturdy, single post alignments, which be ‘divided’ the old barrow alignment in several compartments (see figure 7.1; Fontijn et al. 2013, 305-307). This is quite intriguing, as it shows that the barrow line that the people

166

used to refer to and expand was now clearly interrupted or transgressed. In fact, much effort was put into this ‘new’ organization of the barrow group, judging from the size and depth of the posts that formed these new ‘boundaries across’ the landscape. Indeed, though the post alignments were not impermeable boundaries, it does not seem that they functioned in the same way as allées like the Bronze age alignment found under de Chieftain’s grave (Fontijn et al. 2013, 109). Whereas this allée seems to have guided people towards the barrow, it does not seem that the Iron Age alignments at Zevenbergen were built as ‘boundaries’ along the landscape. They did not lead to certain features, nor did they parallel any other natural or man- made lines. Instead, they may have established ‘symbolic’ divisions of the ancestral, funerary landscape.

Such developments were not recorded at the Chieftain’s grave. The barrow alignment seems to have been limited to three burials, and no post alignments quite like those of Zevenbergen were recorded (see figure 7.1). Still, both funerary sites of Oss saw the initial appearance of monumental burial mounds that were later accompanied by clusters of much smaller graves surrounded by ring ditches. Therefore, during the Middle Bronze Age, the two zones appeared to have been similar, and it was not until the Urnfield period that the two developed in strikingly different ways. The two barrow groups were therefore likely separate, yet still closely related funerary zones.

Figure 7.1: Left: The barrow group of Oss-Zevenbergen and its post-alignments (After Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, fig. 1.13). Right: Overview of the cemetery surrounding the chieftain’s grave in Oss. 1: Bell beaker grave, 2-3: burial mounds from the Bronze Age, 4: Remains of the chieftain’s grave and the urnfield, 5: ring ditches (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 25, fig. 2.6).

167

The barrow alignment of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck was interacted with in a completely different way during the Urnfield period. Whereas the river terrace was likely marked with a line of Middle Bronze Age barrows before the Iron Age, the accumulation of countless smaller urnfield graves around each of the Middle Bronze Age barrows completely transformed this visual landscape (Vermue et al. 2015, 179). At the time when only a barrow alignment was present, the situation may still have been comparable to of Epe-Niersen and Oss. However, as the clusters of urnfield graves grew, this barrow line would have become more and more blurry (see figure 7.2). It must have become much less obvious that this was originally an alignment, and instead a ‘zone’ dotted by smaller and larger barrows started to form.

The oldest, Middle Bronze Age barrows appear to have been given a central position in these urnfields, supporting the idea that they were important factors in the formation of this funerary zone (Vermue et al. 2015, 187). Furthermore, no monumental burial mounds from the Urnfield period, such as that of the Chieftain’s grave and Oss-Zevenbergen, were found at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The ring ditches found near the barrows of Oss may have been slightly similar to the clusters of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, but the latter consisted of many more graves of varying sizes. In fact, Fokkens and Jansen (2007, 86) mentioned that the ring ditches of Oss- Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave did not clearly form an ‘urnfield’, but rather a scatter of Iron age graves. On the contrary, it seems that Boxmeer-Sterckwijck may have seen the formation of several urnfields around each of the Middle Bronze Age burial mounds, which over time merged into one extended funerary zone dotted with countless graves and mounds.

168

Figure 7.2: Left: Schematic depiction of locations of the Middle Bronze age barrows recorded at Boxmeer- Sterckwijck (Vermue et al. 2015, 198, fig. 4.12), Right: All graves found in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, from the Middle Bronze Age until the Middle Iron Age (Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21).

169

As stated in the previous section, Epe-Niersen is an intriguing case study. The formation of the long (ca. 6 kilometres) barrow alignment attests to the fact that the presence of burial mounds prompted people to interact with them. The older mounds were re-used and new barrows were constructed in the alignment from the Late Neolithic until the Middle Bronze Age (Bourgeois 2013, 51). The construction of burial mounds was not limited to the alignment alone, however; already during the Late Neolithic and Middle Bronze Age, a number of barrow groups had formed. It was even argued that some of these groups could have formed alignments of their own (Bakker 1976 and Klok 1982 in Bourgeois 2013, 59), although these are much less convincing lines than the main one.

But whereas people kept returning to the main alignment to re-use older barrows or to construct new ones up until the Middle Bronze Age, it appears that this practice abruptly halted by the start of the Urnfield period. Just one barrow was recorded that could possibly have dated to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age (Bourgeois 2013, 66). Indeed, it is interesting to note that the barrow alignment that had formed over the previous centuries appear to have been left alone, or perhaps even avoided, from the Late Bronze Age onwards (see figure 7.3). In contrary to the sites of Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, no new graves were constructed nearby the alignment. Nonetheless, small urnfields were constructed in this area, but they generally appeared at locations outside of the alignment. It is important to note here that each of the recorded urnfields had formed in close association with at least one older barrow (Bourgeois 2013, 66). Only one of these barrows could be considered as part of the alignment, though this one was also situated at the most northern end, with some distance from the other barrows to the south. It is therefore imaginable that these small urnfields were created by separate communities or households, who may have felt an ancestral belonging to these particular locations. This is expressed in the re-appropriation of a burial mound, by incorporating it into a new urnfield cemetery.

170

Figure 7.3: Overview of all burial mounds, urnfields and Celtic fields recorded in the region of Epe, Niersen and Vaassen from the Late Neolithic until the Early Iron Age (after Bourgeois 2013, 52, fig. 5.1). 7.2. Formalizing cemeteries: Urnfields Urnfields have been recorded at each of the funerary sites of Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. However, and as had been noted in the previous section, they developed in significantly different ways. Whereas the urnfield of Boxmeer- Sterckwijck developed in the exact area where a barrow alignment was present, quite the opposite happened in Epe-Niersen. At Oss-Vorstengraf and Oss- Zevenbergen, ring ditches with cremation graves appeared near the old alignment as well, but these burials were so dispersed and small in numbers that Fokkens and Jansen (2007, 86) suggest that they may not have been “urnfields”, but rather groups of small graves from the Urnfield period.

171

The emergence of urnfields in the Low Countries has not been elaborated upon by Løvschal (2014) in her theory on emerging boundaries. This can be explained by the fact that urnfields are virtually absent in Denmark – one of the main research areas on which this theory was based – with the exception of a number of “mini mound cemeteries”, as described by Thrane (2013, 753). Including the phenomenon of urnfields into Løvschal’s (2014) model has proven to be quite interesting, however. They could have played a crucial role in the developing organization of the landscapes in question. They may also be understood in the framework of articulating, processing and formalizing boundaries. The fixed nature of urnfields, where they appear to be anchored onto a specific location (usually in the presence of an older burial mound), appear to fit best with the phase of formalizing boundaries. They embody the continuous use and re-use of burial monuments and zones over the course of several centuries, leaving lasting, visible marks.

This stage of ‘formalization’ and ‘fixation’ in urnfields is shown to have occurred at places where older markers were already present in the form of pre-Urnfield barrows. Indeed, the significance of Late Neolithic and Middle Bronze Age burial mounds has been attested and discussed in the previous section. What has also become clear is the fact that the fixed and formalized urnfields developed in quite diverse ways amongst the research area. The fact that urnfield graves clustered around older barrows, by which the older monuments are clearly respected and incorporated into the younger cemeteries, may be the main ‘rule’ that appears to have been followed at all sites. In the general sense, it therefore seems true that there was a sense of ‘lawfulness’ behind the formation of urnfields, since this appears to have always relied on the presence of older barrows. But the varying ways in which these older barrows and barrow lines were treated nonetheless resulted in the development of completely different Urnfield landscapes; from dispersed, small urnfields in Epe-Niersen to a large zone of urnfield clusters in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck.

172

7.3. Boundaries across: The formation of settlements and Celtic Fields during the Urnfield period Besides the emergence of barrow lines and urnfields, another important element in the organization of landscapes is the development of settlements and Celtic fields. These will be discussed and compared in the following sections.

7.3.1. The settlements of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, Oss-Ussen and Oss-North Especially intriguing are the settlement remains Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, Oss-North and Oss-Ussen. Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is an interesting addition to the discussion due to the presence of both a settlement landscape and a funerary landscape close to each other. The situation is completely different at Oss-North and Oss-Ussen, as no ancestral, visual and/or funerary markers would have been present in this relatively flat landscape. Comparing the two could therefore shed light on how the pre- Urnfield landscape could affect the emergence and organization of settlements.

For Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, it has been argued that the presence of the monumental burials from the Middle Bronze Age not only prompted the accumulation of more graves in the Urnfield period, but they also attracted habitation. The earliest settlements were situated in the presence of one of the burial mounds. This mound could have been contemporaneous with these settlements, or perhaps slightly older. Perhaps the burial mounds were re-used during this occupation period. This is observed at other sites in the Netherlands as well, for instance at the site Hijken in Drenthe (Harsema 1991, in Bourgeois and Fontijn 2008, 45). However, it was not until the transition between the Early Iron Age and the Middle Iron Age that the area became densely settled. The settlement locations shifted towards the west, where a north-southern line of settlements formed. This resulted in a landscape with an elongated, clustered barrow zone to the east, and a densely occupied and organized settlement zone to the west (see figure 7.4). The two appear to have developed in parallel to each other, indicating that the funerary zone that already existed since the Bronze Age had a significant impact on the way people chose to settle and organize this area. The people who lived near the urnfields might have started to feel a link with the funerary landscape as a whole, instead of only one cluster. This is, of course, only a theory, but it could explain the fairly unique long-term development of this urnfield.

173

Figure 7.4: Combined overview of all settlements and burial mounds recorded in Boxmeer- Sterckwijck (After Kodde and Van der Velde 2015, 259, fig. 5.6 and Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21).

174

The settlements of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen show a completely different situation altogether. The landscape itself seems fairly comparable at first sight, as both are situated on a relatively flat terrain, close to the river Meuse. However, the landscape at Oss is relatively flat, as it only slightly slopes down northwards towards the river (Fokkens 2019, 18, 20). This already makes it quite different from Boxmeer- Sterckwijck, since at the latter site, there is a higher ridge of the river terrace, which appears to have influenced the orientation of the barrow zone and, subsequently, the settlement zone as well (Vermue et al., 2015, 187).

Yet, the most important difference here is that the landscapes of Oss-North and Oss- Ussen appear to have been completely devoid of any burial mounds before the construction of settlements. These people were therefore not ‘attracted’ to ancestral places like they must have been at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. This open landscape was a place where people could build, restructure and organize the landscape without dealing with, referring to and/or re-appropriating any burial mounds. Interestingly, a carefully organized settlement landscape was uncovered at several districts in the city of Oss, which already started to develop in the Middle Bronze Age (Fokkens 2019, 206; Schinkel 1998, 31; Wesselingh 1993, 113).

During the same period at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, it seems that only a sparse number of farmsteads were present near the barrow alignment. While they seem to have been structured in a particular way as well, considering how they were all oriented north-southwards, it must also be noted that they were not re-settled during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. In Oss, on the other hand, the settlement locations chosen in the Middle Bronze Age were clearly re-settled, and the fences and demarcations were built on approximately the same places. This is evident by the overlapping house plans from both periods, and the dense clusters of post-holes left behind by the fences over time (Van As and Fokkens 2019, 284; Fokkens 2019, 206).

The absence of pre-Urnfield features and structures may have been the reason why the first settlements were be organized in this way; enclosed, meaningful spaces had to be created from the ground up. The fences around these farmsteads are prime examples of boundaries as articulations and process-related boundaries (Løvschal 2014, 733). They were created in previously open, unmarked places. Over time,

175

some of the fences were rebuilt, though they sometimes transgressed the older ones (see figures 7.5 and 7.6). They were therefore relatively flexible boundaries around the farmsteads, which nonetheless clearly divided social spaces, their functions and, perhaps, their owners or tenants. As seen at Oss-North, this led to the re-structuring and re-orientation of the fences, but the clusters indicate that they were largely re- negotiated in roughly the same places (Fokkens 2019, 206).

Figure 7.5: Detail of the settlements found at Oss-Mikkeldonk, where several clusters of fences were found (after the drawing by S. van As and H. Fokkens in Van As and Fokkens 2019, 286, fig. 13.52).

176

Figure 7.6: Detail of the settlements found at Oss-Mikkeldonk, where several clusters of fences were found (after the drawing by S. van As and H. Fokkens in Van As and Fokkens 2019, 285, fig. 13.51).

Both Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck harbour settlement landscapes with farmsteads that were clearly oriented a certain way – most likely in reference to lines in the landscape. In Oss, such lines are still present in the form of the fence clusters discussed above, which seem to have demarcated the farmyards and other spaces, such as wells and, perhaps, arable plots (Van As and Fokkens 2019, 284-286). At Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, no such demarcations, lines or plots have remained visible. However, it seems more plausible to assume that they were originally present, especially considering the overwhelmingly similar orientations of the farmsteads, which furthermore were constructed in a row. They were clearly anchored onto something, and even though this can only be hypothesized about, the possible presence of Celtic fields could explain a such settlement patterns. This will be discussed in the following section.

177

7.3.2. Celtic Fields: Lines across funerary landscapes and settlements? The only case study where a Celtic field complex was recorded is Vaassen, just to the south-east of the Epe-Niersen barrow alignment. Unfortunately, no settlements were discovered nearby, with the exception of a single farmstead that was presumably present right before or during the beginning phases of the Celtic field (in the Late Bronze Age; Brongers 1976, 51-52). Furthermore, the Celtic field at Vaassen formed on a terrain where older burial mounds were present. These barrows were not part of the barrow alignment. Still, the link between the ancestral barrows and the rectangular earthen banks of the fields is undeniable. A number of these mounds seem to pre-date the Urnfield period, which may have led to the accumulation of a small urnfield (Brongers 1976, 57).

The earthen banks of the Celtic field divided this barrow group. However, while these new boundaries may have transgressed the older organization of the funerary zone, it is interesting to note that the barrows were not disturbed (Brongers 1976, 56). What seems to have happened here is a complete re-organization of a landscape with a new, agricultural purpose. On top of that, a striking shift from an open landscape dotted with round barrows towards rectangular, stricter organizations of space commenced (Groenewoudt 2011, 6-9). Yet, it seems that the burial mounds and urnfield maintained their special funerary and ancestral meanings, as they were respected and preserved. According to Løvschal (2015, 271), Celtic fields often emerged in areas where one or more small groups of burial mounds were present. These visual, monumental features may have attracted these activities, just as was argued for the appearance of settlements near older burial mounds.

To put this into perspective; a very similar pattern was observed at Hijken in the province of Drenthe (north-eastern Netherlands), where burial mounds from the Bronze Age later became part of a Celtic Field complex. The earthen banks appear to have been built around the monuments, most likely to respect and preserved them (Harsema 1991, 21; see figure 7.7).

178

Figure 7.7: The Celtic field complex and the burial mounds recorded at Hijken (Harsema 1991, 22, fig. 1).

At the sites of Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, no traces of Celtic Fields were recorded. However, it has been speculated that they must have been nearby, mainly based on the similar orientations of the houses that were likely present contemporaneously. In the absence of Celtic field remains, this organization of the settlement may reflect the presence of arable plots that used to be associated with these houses (Schinkel 1998, 180).

Again, a helpful insight can be offered by the site of Hijken mentioned above. Hijken is an interesting site for comparison, since house plans and Celtic fields have been found together. The oldest house plans are dated to the Middle Bronze Age, which were already found in a highly organized manner. The houses were all oriented NNW-SSE, and they were accompanied by a (albeit sparse) number of fences and pits. In the Iron Age, the houses were built on the same terrain, but with an exactly perpendicular orientation (ENE-WSW) to that of their predecessors (Arnoldussen and de Vries 2014, 92). This is interesting, because something similar was observed at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The only notable difference is that at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck,

179

the Bronze Age and Iron Age houses were present at different locations, and no traces of fences or Celtic Fields have been documented (Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 357-358).

At Hijken, it is assumed that the farmsteads were divided by the picketed fences that have been found, which divided the settlement landscape into parcels. Some of these parcels included a farmstead. Furthermore, indications for the presence of Celtic fields were found across the research area, including the settlement territory (see figures 7.8 and 7.9). It has been suggested that the placement and orientation of the fences align with the banks of the Celtic fields, and the two are clearly associated with each other. However, Arnoldussen and de Vries (2014, 100) remark that the presence of Celtic fields on the settled territories remains contested, and the exact chronology of the features are unknown as well. The earliest phases of the Celtic field may have originated in the Late Bronze Age, as some of its axes run parallel with the Bronze Age houses that were recorded here. Due to the continuity of occupation that is observed from the Middle Bronze Age until the Middle Iron Age, it seems plausible to say that the Bronze Age settlement patterns heavily influenced the organization of the Celtic fields and settlements of the Early Iron Age (Arnoldussen and de Vries 2014, 100). On top of that, two barrow groups were recorded with a time-depth between the Late Neolithic and the Late Bronze Age (see figures 7.7 above and 7.9A). This sense of continuity, and the fact that the barrows were both incorporated and preserved in the Celtic Fields, is quite similar to what was observed at Epe-Niersen.

The reason why this description of the Hijken settlements and Celtic fields is relevant for this discussion is the fact that both were clearly present close to one another. The earthen banks of the Celtic fields were marked by slight elevations and grey discolorations in the soil (Arnoldussen and de Vries 2014, 100). If these features would no longer have been visible here, then the house plans would most likely have left behind similar patterns to that of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck and Oss- North – namely that of farmsteads that were oriented quite similarly. Considering the fact that the possible location of any Celtic fields can only be guessed about for the two latter sites, it could be suggested that they may have been present close to the settlements based on what was observed at Hijken.

180

Figure 7.9: The Celtic field banks recorded at Hijken (in brown), with the fences indicated as dark grey lines. The Iron Age house plans are marked in dark grey lines as well. Two barrow groups, with burials dating from the Late Neolithic – Late Iron Age, are marked with red dots (After Arnoldussen and De Vries 2014, 101, fig. 12A-D).

181

7.4. The ‘time-transgressive’ nature of the emergence of boundaries As Løvschal and Fontijn (2015, 149) remarked in their article on the pit-zone alignment in West-Jutland, Denmark, the emergence of lines and boundaries and the development of highly organized and demarcated landscapes is time-transgressive in nature. This means that the processes, articulations, and formalizations of lines and boundaries can occur at different points in time per area, but the general sequence of these developments remain similar. This is not only the case on an international scale, as was observed by comparing the Netherlands, Wessex and West-Jutland (Løvschal 2014, 238). Indeed, within the Netherlands alone, different time-depths were observed in the development of sites that were occupied during the Bronze Age and Iron Age. This is clearly evident at the case studies of this thesis. Across the Netherlands, there are significant differences in how and when the barrow landscapes developed into alignments and settlements started to become clearly demarcated and organized. The different sequences of developments in each case study are displayed schematically in figure 7.10. Additionally, the ways in which people interacted with these landscapes are described at each stage.

Nonetheless, each region did go through very similar processes, albeit at different points in time and in quite varied ways. Here, it becomes clear that some regions saw the emergence of linear landscape markers and carefully organized settlements centuries or even millennia earlier than others, but there was still a sense of ‘lawfulness’ and ‘irreversibility’ to the emergence of organized landscapes by the emergence of lines and boundaries.

182

Figure 7.10: Schematic depiction of the emergence of lines and boundaries at the case studies of this thesis. Orange = Late Neolithic, blue = Middle Bronze Age, green = Late Bronze Age, red = Early Iron Age, purple = Middle Iron Age. Farmsteads are indicated by rectangles, burial mounds with dots and ring ditches with circles. The shape of the natural relief is schematically indicated in grey at sites where this is relevant (own figure; after the drawing by Van As and Laan, in Fokkens 2019, 232, fig. 13.7; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 132, fig. 6.44 and Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 25, fig. 2.6).

183

7.4.1. Barrow alignments The two sites that best demonstrate the fact that similar sequences of developments occurred at different points in time are perhaps the funerary landscape of Epe- Niersen and the settlement landscape of Oss-North.

At Epe-Niersen, a barrow alignment formed already during the Late Neolithic. Additionally, barrow groups appeared in the surrounding landscape. As argued earlier in this chapter, the long row of barrows did not divide the landscape quite like boundaries such as Celtic fields or settlement fences would. It seems that this alignment prompted the subsequent re-use, re-appropriation and reference to this established linear landscape during the following periods. Most significantly, it appears that these burial mounds put into motion a sequence of events where the barrow line was referred to and re-used, and urnfields and Celtic fields developed near the old barrow groups spread across the landscape. In Epe-Niersen, it seems that these first steps in the formation of organized, demarcated landscapes took off much earlier than in the other research areas. Indeed, the case studies that are also known for their barrow alignments (especially Oss-Zevenbergen and Boxmeer- Sterckwijck) only saw the appearance of a barrow line during the Middle Bronze Age. Before this, the area was either devoid of any Late Neolithic mounds, or they were only found in isolation (Such as at Zevenbergen; Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 26).

Indeed, burial mounds from the Late Neolithic seem to have appeared in more isolated locations at sites where no barrow alignments had been established. The barrow landscape at the Chieftain’s grave of Oss is a case in point: A solitary Bell Beaker grave seems to have been the only visible ‘ancestral’ grave from the Late Neolithic (Bourgeois 2013 186). The presence of this barrow may have been important, but it did not lead to the formation of barrow groups or alignments until the Middle Bronze Age several centuries later.

As suggested earlier in this discussion, a pivotal difference between Epe-Niersen and the other funerary sites is the lack of natural ridges or lines that shaped the landscape of the former region. Perhaps this open, flat landscape, devoid of any pre- existing lines and boundaries, prompted people to create a ‘line across’ this landscape from scratch. This alignment truly stood out in this way, as it still does. At Oss-Zevenbergen, Oss-Vorstengraf and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, the barrows were

184

constructed on top of natural ridges, which resulted in shorter barrow lines that were nonetheless highly visible due to their prominent locations.

7.4.2. Settlements In terms of the formation and organization of settlement landscapes, figure 7.10 shows the different sequence of events at Oss-North and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. In the absence of clear natural or ancestral features and boundaries, creating division, boundaries and lines appears to have been warranted at Oss-North and Oss-Ussen. Over time, it appears that these divisions of space were re-used at some places, and re-negotiated at others. Some of the farmsteads have been re-settled, as evident from the Iron Age house plan on the same location of an older, Middle Bronze Age farmstead. On the other hand, clusters of post features indicate that the orientations and locations of fences could shift through time, indicating that they were, above all, process-related boundaries that sometimes transgressed older ones (Løvschal 2014, 735). With the absence of a funerary landscape in the close vicinity (Oss- Zevenbergen and Oss-Vorstengraf were located several kilometres to the south), it is interesting to note that a number of graves were recorded in this settlement context. This includes two small urnfields and a number of small, dispersed barrow groups. No Middle Bronze Age mounds were present, which might explain the fact that these small ‘cemeteries’ were quite different from, for example, the urnfields of Boxmeer- Sterckwijck. These graves appear to have rather been created in close association with the farmsteads near which they were found. The urnfields may have been in use by multiple households, but the smaller clusters of ring ditches seem to rather represent the burials of selected individuals living nearby.

The landscape of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, on the other hand, already consisted of a natural ridge, as well as a barrow alignment which people seem to have referred to and respected as they settled the landscape to the west. The organization of settlements appears to have mirrored both the natural ridge and the barrow line, and throughout the Middle Iron Age, the house plans were re-built in the same place. Although no remains of fences or other demarcating structures were recorded, they may have been originally present. This is suggested by the fact that all house plans had a very similar orientation, and most outbuildings that were recorded were located to the west of the house plans.

185

7.5. Towards a ‘tipping point’ and beyond Going back to the introduction to this thesis, two polarizing hypothesis were formulated (see chapter 1.2.2). On the one hand, older, visual features in the landscape could have always been respected and incorporated through time, meaning that new landscape organizations formed in close association with visual features from the past at all times. On the other hand, people could also have done the opposite; older features created by people who dwelt here in the past could have been ignored or even erased as people organized and utilized the landscape.

Having studied four different sites, it has become clear that the truth lies closer to the first hypothesis. Older, visual features in the landscape were not ignored or erased, but incorporated into new landscape organizations in varied ways. In every case, this led to the development of highly organized landscapes, made up of lines and boundaries in the shape of barrow alignments, urnfields, fences, farmsteads and Celtic fields. In this way, every region developed towards highly organized landscapes in the Urnfield period in one way or another – there must have been a ‘tipping’ point where the creation of such structured landscapes became more or less inevitable. This point in time would have changed the way people dealt with past landscapes for good. The past appears to have been unavoidable in this. This is evident in historical times as well. To name some examples amongst the case studies themselves: The barrow line of Epe-Niersen remained a ‘guide’ through the landscape for millennia on end, as is evident from the cart tracks that can still be seen on the elevation maps. These cart tracks are most certainly of both prehistoric and historic origin (Bourgeois 2013, 189). Furthermore, burial mounds are known to have been referred to, re-used and re-purposed Medieval and post-Medieval times as well. Several more recent after-interments were recorded large mound 2 in Oss-Zevenbergen, for instance (See chapter 4.6.2; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 74).

This is most likely not limited to the case studies alone, either. Memory and the past remain important concepts when dealing with landscapes. This approach is, for instance, described by Tim Ingold (2000, 189): “Landscape is constituted as an enduring record of – and testimony to – the lives and works of past generations, who have dwelt within it, and in so doing, have left there something of themselves”.

186

8. Conclusion

In this thesis, four micro-regions in the Netherlands have been investigated in detail, with a special focus on the long-term development of their funerary- and settlement landscapes leading up to the Urnfield period. Central to this discussion was Mette Løvschal’s (2014) theory on the general succession of lines and boundaries that appears to have occurred in North-Western Europe towards the end of prehistory, and especially the first millennium BC. This thesis aimed to ‘zoom into’ the Netherlands and compare the developing landscapes of these micro-regions. This comparative approach allowed for both a detailed and nuanced understanding of how the landscapes of the Netherlands developed towards the organized landscapes that we are familiar with today; where certain places are marked, demarcated and given meaning through the construction of physical lines and boundaries.

A distinction between the visual, monumental markers that were constructed in the periods before the Urnfield period, and the organization of these landscapes during the Urnfield period was made. With this distinction, the ways in which the older, visual features of the landscape could have influenced the organization of the landscape in the urnfield period could be observed. This methodology was applied 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?

The four case studies that were investigated in this thesis show that, if present, older visual monuments were re-used, referred to and respected during subsequent periods, including the Urnfield period. No instances were observed where older features were deliberately ignored or even removed. It can therefore be stated that older, visual and monumental features in the landscape, both natural and man- made, had a significant impact on how the landscapes developed during the Urnfield period.

The re-use and re-appropriation of such features happened in varying degrees at each site and over time, however; and this seems to have much to do with the presence or absence of pre-Urnfield features and lines in the landscape. On the other hand, the emergence of highly organized landscapes, consisting of lines and

187

boundaries, did not exclusively take place in landscapes with such visible features. This is evident at Oss-North, which is known for its settlements that were recorded from the Middle Bronze Age onwards, densely organized and demarcated by fences.

8.1. A “lawfulness” in the emergence of lines and boundaries The formation of landscapes organized by lines, boundaries and other physical features was attested at every case study. The general succession in which the funerary and settlement zones developed appears to display some inter-regional similarities as well.

It has, for instance, been noted that the case studies appeared to be somewhat similar during the initial phases of these developments, most notably the Middle Bronze Age. Where barrow landscapes were present, they generally started off as barrow alignments, mostly formed in reference to lines in the natural landscape. These developments were time-transgressive in nature. In Epe-Niersen, such a barrow alignment developed much earlier in the absence of clear natural lines and ridges. The relatively flat and open heath landscape may have been an important factor, warranting the creation of lines and structures earlier in time than at the sites of Oss-Zevenbergen, Oss-Vorstengraf and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The same idea may apply to the settlement landscape of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen, which was not marked with visible boundaries either – be it natural or funerary.

Every case study saw strikingly different developments during subsequent periods, and especially during the Urnfield period. These differences are likely rooted in the way people chose to deal with the older, visual monuments in the landscape, as well as the presence of other elements such as settlements and Celtic fields.

Especially barrow lines appear to have been referred to and anchored onto in varied ways at every site, up until the Urnfield period (and beyond). The monumental barrow line at Epe-Niersen has developed into a landscape with scattered, small urnfields, which must have been deliberately constructed at old barrows whilst avoiding the main alignment. At the smaller alignment of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, quite the opposite happened: The Middle Bronze Age barrow line became a location of fixation, with the formation of dense urnfields at each older barrow. The barrow lines at the Oss-Zevenbergen and Oss-Vorstengraf continued to be referred to in the

188

Urnfield period as well, but interestingly, only small scatters of urnfield graves appeared in combination with large, monumental burial mounds such as the Chieftain’s grave.

On the other hand, in landscapes where older, visual and monumental features were absent, it turned out that visual lines and demarcations were created nonetheless. They seem to have affected the subsequent developments as well, which was evident at the settlement sites of Oss-North. Here, the relatively flat landscape was instead divided and structured by fences, in a way to define spaces and places that belonged to the settlements and farmsteads. Such an open landscape, devoid of lines, boundaries and other marks, seems to have warranted the creation of such structures. In Epe-Niersen, the open landscape saw the early development of a barrow alignment (a ‘line across’). Such barrow alignments appeared at Boxmeer- Sterckwijck, Oss-Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave as well, albeit much later in time and to a lesser extent. This may have been a regional difference, but it is also possible that the presence of natural lines and ridges at these sites could have affected this as well. A linear structure was already present, after all, and they appear to have ‘guided’ the formation of barrow alignments along them.

8.2. Complete reorganizations of the Urnfield landscapes Some of the sites, and most notably Oss-Zevenbergen and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, saw a complete re-organization of the ‘ancestral’ barrow landscape in the Early Iron Age. It is clear that these areas became places that stood out not only physically, but were given new conceptual and symbolic meanings as well. Yet, the new features that seemed to completely alter the landscape were nonetheless created in reference to older, visual lines and features; especially the Bronze Age barrow alignments. Sometimes these older structures were transgressed or avoided, but this seemed to have been just another way of interacting with them. The post alignments of Oss- Zevenbergen compartmentalized the Bronze Age barrow alignment, altering the landscape completely. At Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, the barrow line transformed into a zone of Urnfield graves, which may have been influenced by the fact that a dense settlement zone appeared in parallel to this line. The people living here may have started burying their dead near these ancestral mounds for many generations, leading to the formation of several grave clusters that ended up ‘merging’ into one.

189

The urnfields of Epe-Niersen, on the other hand, appear to have been deliberately created in such a way that they did not disrupt the ancestral barrow alignment.

Based on all these observations, it can be said that the past was unavoidable when organizing and structuring the landscape. This has become especially apparent during the Urnfield period, when places for settlements and urnfields became increasingly formalized. It seems that the general succession of lines and boundaries, articulating and formalizing in reference to older features, became inevitable. The visible, monumental features that were left behind from the past clearly impacted how people chose to organize these spaces.

8.3. Evaluation and suggestions for further research The case studies picked out for this thesis - Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer- Sterckwijck – have all been excavated and studied with the landscape as a whole in mind. This has facilitated a detailed study on how people interacted with these landscapes, even in the long term, and with both natural and cultural factors in mind. At the same time, zooming in on one area (the Netherlands) while still implementing a multi-regional approach was very helpful in picking up the various similarities, differences and nuances that existed on a wider scale. This has also facilitated new insights on how the different landscapes transformed in the long term.

The application of Mette Løvschal (2014) and Fokke Gerritsen’s (2003) theories on the emergence of organized landscapes, lines and boundaries in this approach has led to new insights to how the past influenced the way people organized the funerary and settlement landscapes in the Urnfield period. Furthermore, the phenomenon of urnfields clearly fits well with the abovementioned theories, as they appeared in reference to older, visual features in the landscape in every case study. This is an insight that was not yet mentioned by Løvschal (2014), most likely due to the fact that Urnfields are largely absent in Denmark.

There were a few perils to overcome while researching the case studies, however. Though every site has been subject to research on quite large scales, with the context of the landscape in mind, a number of elements had to be taken out of the equation. Firstly, not much is known about the small urnfields of Epe-Niersen.

190

Further research into the time-depth of these barrow groups, as well as the nature of the graves themselves, could lead to a better grasp on why and how these urnfields developed into the small, scattered cemeteries across the landscape. Secondly, very little radiocarbon dating has been applied to the finds of Boxmeer- Sterckwijck. Most graves were dated based on the typology of the pottery found in and around them, or even their association with other features. The exact chronology and time-depth of the urnfields and settlements is therefore quite uncertain. Further research at this site, including radiocarbon dating on the cremated remains that are available, is certain to be very useful.

What was not included in this research is the possibility that the results differ throughout the Netherlands based on where the sites are located. Perhaps more overarching similarities and differences exist between, for instance, sites in the northern and southern Netherlands. The majority of the current case studies are situated in Noord-Brabant, in the southern Netherlands. Only Epe-Niersen is located more centrally, in the province of Gelderland.

The observations made in this thesis are most certainly not limited to these sites. Other archaeological sites in the Netherlands were eligible as case studies as well, including Hoogkarspel (Noord-Holland), Mierlo-Hout (Noord-Brabant), Baarlo- Venlo (Limburg), Lunteren (Gelderland), Zeijen (Drenthe) and Hijken (Drenthe). These sites are all known for the burial mounds, urnfields, settlements and/or Celtic fields that have been recorded here, which all make for intriguing prehistoric landscapes. These could, of course, not all be included in this thesis, so a selection had be made based on the elements that were present at the sites, and the extent to which they have already been studied. It would be intriguing to see how the landscapes at these sites developed, especially in comparison to each other and the case studies of the current thesis.

191

Abstract

Towards the end of prehistory, the landscapes of Northwestern Europe developed into carefully organized places that feel more akin to those of historical and modern times. According to Mette Løvschal (2014), these landscapes saw the emergence of lines and boundaries with specific functions and meanings, especially in the Urnfield period (Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age). This thesis focuses on a number of micro- regions in the Netherlands: Epe-Niersen, Oss and Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The aim of this study is to gain a nuanced, inter-regional understanding on how these organized landscapes developed in the long term, and what influence older, visual features from the past had on the way people dealt with them in the Urnfield period.

Especially barrow alignments are notable. They clearly impacted the way people dealt with these ‘ancestral landscapes’, but in significantly different ways. At Epe- Niersen, the urnfields and Celtic field emerged solely near ancestral mounds outside of the barrow alignment. At Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, the opposite happened: The barrow line itself transformed into a dense urnfield. Thirdly, the barrow line of Oss- Zevenbergen was completely re-structured with the construction of large, monumental burial mounds, scattered urnfield-graves and post alignments.

A close association between the funerary landscape and settlements is observed at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. On the other hand, Oss-North and Oss-Ussen are a striking example of a landscape that lacked any older, visual features before the emergence of settlements in the Middle Bronze Age. Therefore, in the absence of pre-existing lines and boundaries, people ended up creating them themselves, after which they were referred to in similar ways during subsequent occupation phases.

This study demonstrates that the past was unavoidable in the organization of landscapes in the Urnfield period. Furthermore, the general succession in which barrow lines, urnfields, Celtic fields and organized settlements emerged was time- transgressive in nature, meaning that they developed at different point in time at each site. Nonetheless, is seems that each region reached a certain ‘tipping point’ were the landscapes inevitably developed into highly organized areas in line with the past.

192

Samenvatting

Tegen het einde van de prehistorie begonnen de landschappen in Noordwest- Europa steeds meer te lijken op de gestructureerde landschappen uit historische en moderne tijden. Volgens Mette Løvschal (2014) begonnen lijnen en begrenzingen te ontstaan, die bepaalde plekken hun eigen functies en betekenissen gaven. Dit gebeurde vooral tijdens de Urnenveldenperiode (Late Bronstijd – Vroege IJzertijd). In deze scriptie worden drie micro-regio’s van Nederland onderzocht: Epe-Niersen, Oss en Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. Het doel hiervan is om een genuanceerd en interregionaal begrip te krijgen van hoe deze landschappen zich vormden in de lange termijn, en wat het effect van oude, fysieke elementen was in de Urnenveldenperiode.

Grafheuvellijnen bleken zeer interessant te zijn. Deze beïnvloedden de manier waarop men met zulke ‘voorouderlijke landschappen’ omging, maar op verschillende manieren per regio. In Epe-Niersen ontstonden de urnenvelden en het Celtic field alleen bij oude grafheuvels buiten de grafheuvellijn. In Boxmeer- Sterckwijck gebeurde het tegenovergestelde: De grafheuvellijn zelf veranderde in een urnenveld. De grafheuvellijn van Oss-Zevenbergen werd compleet geherstructureerd door middel van grafheuvels van monumentale formaten, een verspreiding van kleine graven en palenrijen.

In Boxmeer-Sterckwijck is de funeraire zone ontstaan in samenhang met nederzettingen. Dit is niet het geval in Oss-Noord en Oss-Ussen, waar oude, fysieke elementen zoals grafheuvels compleet ontbraken voordat de eerste nederzettingen ontstonden in de Middenbronstijd. Het lijkt erop dat, als zulke voorouderlijke structuren niet aanwezig zijn, men zelf lijnen en begrenzingen gingen creëren die ook invloed hadden op de organisatie van het landschap in latere periodes.

Deze studie demonstreert dat het verleden onvermijdelijk was in de landschappen van de Urnenveldenperiode. De opeenvolging en ontwikkeling van grafheuvellijnen, urnenvelden, Celtic fields en nederzettingen namen ook in verschillende perioden plaats per regio; dit is een tijd-overschrijdend fenomeen. Hoe dan ook leek er in elk gebied een omslagpunt geweest te zijn waar ze allemaal veranderden in de georganiseerde en gestructureerde landschappen die wij nu kennen.

193

Bibliography

Arnoldussen, S and D.R. Fontijn 2006. Towards Familiar Landscapes? On the Nature and Origin of Middle Bronze Age Landscapes in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 289-317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000864

Arnoldussen, S. and K.M. de Vries, 2014. Of Farms and Fields: The Bronze Age and Iron Age Settlement and Celtic Field at Hijken – Hijkerveld. Palaohistorica 55/56, 85- 104.

Bakels, C., Y. Achterkamp and P. van Rijn, 2013. The local vegetation at the time of the construction of the Oss-Zevenbergen mounds 7 and 6. In: D.R. Fontijn, S. van der Vaart and R. Jansen (eds). Transformation through Destruction: a Monumental and Extraordinary Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Barrow from the Ritual Landscape of Oss- Zevenbergen. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 239-255.

Bakker, J.A., 1982. TRB Settlement Patterns on the Dutch Sandy Soils. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia XV, 87-124.

Beek, van R., 2011. Diversity Rules. On Late Prehistoric Settlement of the Eastern Netherlands and the Need for Regionally Specific Models. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 77, 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X0000061X

Beek, van R., and A. Louwen, 2012. Urnfields on the move: Testing burial-site settlement relations in the eastern Netherlands, c. 1100-500 BC. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 42, 41-60. https://doi.org/10.11588/ak.2012.1.18564

Blom, E., 2015. Structuurcatalogus. In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 71-479.

Bourgeois, Q.P.J., 2013. Monuments on the Horizon: The formation of the Barrow Landscape throughout the 3rd and 2nd Millennium BC. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Bourgeois, Q.P.J. and S. Arnoldussen, 2006. Expressing monumentality: some observations on the dating of Dutch Bronze Age barrows and houses. Lunula Archeologia Protohistorica XIV, 13-25.

194

Bourgeois, Q.P.J., and D.R. Fontijn 2008. Houses and barrows in the Low Countries. In: Fokkens, H. and S. Arnoldussen (eds). Houses and Barrows in the Low Countries. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 41-57.

Bradley, R., 1998. The Significance of Monuments: On the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London: Routledge.

Brinkkemper, O and L. van Wijngaarden-Bakker, 2005. All-round farming: Food production in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. In: Kooijmans, L.P., P.W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens and A.L. van Gijn (eds). The Prehistory of the Netherlands Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 491-512.

Brongers, J.A., 1976. Air photography and Celtic field research in the Netherlands. Nederlandse Oudheden 6. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort.

Doorenbosch, M., 2013a. A History of Open Space: Barrow landscapes and the significance of heaths – the case of Echoput barrows. In: Fontijn, D.R., A.J. Louwen, S. van der Vaart, and K. Wentink (eds). Beyond Barrows: Current Research on the Structuration and Perception of the Prehistoric Landscape through Monuments. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 197-224.

Doorenbosch, M. 2013b. Ancestral Heaths: Reconstructing the Barrow Landscape in the Central and Southern Netherlands. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Drenth, E., O. Brinkkemper and R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, 2008. Single Grave Culture in the Netherlands: the state of affairs anno 2006. In: Dörfer, W. and J. Müller (eds), Umwelt – Wirtschaft – Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens. Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag, 149-181.

Drenth, E., and W.J. Hogestijn, 2014. A cremation grave with AOO pottery at Vaassen (Epe, prov of Gelderland, NL). Notae Prehistoricae 34, 105-113.

Drenth, E. and E. Lohof. 2005. Heuvels voor de doden. In Kooijmans, L. P. L.., P. W. van der Broeke, H. Fokkens and A. van Gijn (eds), Nederland in de Prehistorie. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 433-358.

195

Fokkens, H., 1991. Nederzettingssporen uit de bronstijd en de vroege ijzertijd in Oss-Ussen, wijk Mikkeldonk. In: H. Fokkens and N. Roymans (eds), Nederzettingen uit de bronstijd en de vroege ijzertijd in de Lage Landen. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 13. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort, 93-109.

Fokkens, H., 2001. The Periodisation of the Dutch Bronze Age: a critical review. In W.H. Metz, B.L. Beel and H.van Steegstra (eds). Patina. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Butler on the occasion of his 80th birthday. SPA uitgevers, Zwolle, 241-262.

Fokkens, H., 2003. The longhouse as a central element in Bronze Age daily life. In: J. Bourgeois and B. Cherretté (eds). Bronze Age and Iron Age Communities in North- western Europe. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, 9-38.

Fokkens, H., 2005, Late Neolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age: introduction. In: Kooijmans, L.P.L., P.W. van den Boeke, H. Fokkens and A.L. van Gijn (eds). The Prehistory of the Netherlands Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 357-369.

Fokkens, H., 2019. Introduction to the project. In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 15-26.

Fokkens, H., 2019, Excavations in the Mikkeldonk district. In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 61-88.

Fokkens, H., 2019. Excavations in the Schalkskamp district (1990-1992). In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 89-102.

Fokkens, H., 2019. Excavations in the Mettegeupel district (1993-1995). In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 103-118.

196

Fokkens, H., 2019. Excavations in the Almstein district (1995). In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 119-126.

Fokkens, H., 2019. Oss-North: the second decade of excavations at Oss: a synthesis. In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 183- 211.

Fokkens, H. and S. van As, 2019. Features in the Mikkeldonk quarter. In: H. Fokkens, S. van As and R. Jansen (eds). The Oss-Noord Project: The Second Decade of Excavations at Oss 1986-1996. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 48, 223-300.

Fokkens H. and R. Jansen, 2007. Het vorstengraf van Oss re-considered: Archeologisch onderzoek Oss-Vorstengrafdonk 1997-2005. ARCHOL-rapport 49. Archol, Leiden.

Fokkens, H., R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk, 2009. Inleiding. In: H. Fokkens, R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk (eds). Oss-Zevenbergen: de langetermijn-geschiedenis van een prehistorisch grafveld. ARCHOL-Rapport 50. Archol, Leiden, 11-18.

Fokkens, H. and R. Jansen, 2009. De voorgeschiedenis van het onderzoek ‘Oss- Zevenbergen’. In: H. Fokkens, R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk (eds). Oss-Zevenbergen: de langetermijn-geschiedenis van een prehistorisch grafveld. ARCHOL-Rapport 50. Archol, Leiden, 19-26.

Fokkens, H., R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk, 2009. Monumenten en herinnering: het grafveld Oss-Zevenbergen in samenhang. In: H. Fokkens, R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk (eds). Oss-Zevenbergen: de langetermijn-geschiedenis van een prehistorisch grafveld. ARCHOL-Rapport 50. Archol, Leiden, 209-224.

Fokkens, H., S.A. van der Vaart, D.R. Fontijn, S.A.M. Lemmers, R. Jansen, I.M. van Wijk and P.J.C. Valentijn, 2012. Hallstatt burials of Oss in context. Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia 43/44, 183-204.

Fontijn, D.R., 1996., Socializing Landscape: Second thoughts about the cultural biography of urnfields. Archaeological dialogues 1, 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203800000611

197

Fontijn, D.R., 2011. Barrow excavations at the Echoput – Problem, research aims and methods of the 2007 fieldwork campaign. In: Fontijn, D.R., Q. Bourgeois and A. Louwen (eds). Iron Age Echoes: Prehistoric Land Management and the Creation of a Funerary Landscape – The “Twin Barrows” at the Echoput in Apeldoorn. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 13-32.

Fontijn, D.R. and R. Jansen, 2013. The last mound(s) of Zevenbergen – cause, aims, and methods of the 2007 fieldwork campaign. In: D.R. Fontijn, S. van der Vaart and R. Jansen (eds). Transformation through Destruction: a Monumental and Extraordinary Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Barrow from the Ritual Landscape of Oss- Zevenbergen. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 15-33.

Fontijn, D.R., R. Jansen, Q.P.J. Bourgeois and C. van der Linde, 2013. Excavating the seventh mound. In: D.R. Fontijn, S. van der Vaart and R. Jansen (eds). Transformation through Destruction: a Monumental and Extraordinary Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Barrow from the Ritual Landscape of Oss-Zevenbergen. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 69- 117.

Fontijn, D.R., R. Jansen, S. van der Vaart, H. Fokkens and I. van Wijk, 2013. Conclusion: the seventh mound of seven mounds – long-term history of the Zevenbergen barrow landscape. In: D.R. Fontijn, S. van der Vaart and R. Jansen (eds). Transformation through Destruction: a Monumental and Extraordinary Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Barrow from the Ritual Landscape of Oss-Zevenbergen. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 281-315.

Gerritsen, F., 2003. Local Identities: Landscape and Community in the Late Prehistoric Meuse-Demer-Scheldt Region. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Groenewoudt, B., 2011. Curves turning into squares. Late Prehistoric landscape change and the changing morphology of ritual structures: Causality? An assessment of the evidence. Landscape History 32, 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01433768.2011.10594656

Harsema, O.H., 1991. De bronstijd-bewoning op het Hijkerveld bij Hijken. In: H. Fokkens and N. Roymans (eds). Nederzettingen uit de Bronstijd en de Vroege IJzertijd. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 13. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort, 21-29.

198

Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception o the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.

Jansen, R. and E.N.A. Heibaut, 2009. Resultaten van het proefsleuvenonderzoek. In: H. Fokkens, R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk (eds). Oss-Zevenbergen: de langetermijn- geschiedenis van een prehistorisch grafveld. ARCHOL-Rapport 50. Archol, Leiden, 53-68.

Jansen, R. and C. van der Linde, 2009. The physical and archaeological landscape of the Oss-Zevenbergen barrow group. In: D.R. Fontijn, S. van der Vaart and R. Jansen (eds). Transformation through Destruction: a Monumental and Extraordinary Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Barrow from the Ritual Landscape of Oss-Zevenbergen. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 35-46.

Kodde, S.W. and H.M. van der Velde, 2015. Lintbebouwing in de IJzertijd. In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 251-358.

Kortlang, F., 1999. The Iron Age urnfield and settlement of Someren-‘Waterdael’. In: Theuws, F. and N. Roymans (eds). Land and Ancestors: Cultural Dynamics in the Urnfield Period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 133-197.

Linde, C. van der and H. Fokkens. 2009. Het landschappelijk kader van De Zevenbergen. In: H. Fokkens, R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk (eds). Oss-Zevenbergen: de langetermijn-geschiedenis van een prehistorisch grafveld. ARCHOL-Rapport 50. Archol, Leiden, 37-52.

Lohof, E., 1994., Tradition and change: Burial practices in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age in the north-eastern Netherlands. Archaeological dialogues 1, 98- 118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203800000167

Løvschal, M., 2014. Emerging Boundaries: Social Embedment of Landscape and Settlement Divisions in Northwestern Europe during the First Millennium BC. Current Anthropology 55, 725-750. https://doi.org/10.1086/678692

199

Løvschal, M., 2015. Lines of Landscape Organization. Skovbjerg Moraine (Denmark) in the First Millennium BC. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34, 259-278.

Olerud, S.L., A. Porreij-Lyklema, I.M. van Wijk, T.S. Beck and Q.P.J. Bourgeois, in prep. Archeologisch onderzoek op de grafheuvelrij van Epe-Niersen. Waarderende grondboringen en inventariserend onderzoek door middel van proefsleuven te Vaassen-Emst Galgenberg. ARCHOL-rapport 503, Archol, Leiden.

Opbroek, M., and E. Blom, 2015. Inleiding. In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort.

Opbroek, M., H.M. van der Velde and E. Blom. Bewoning in de Bronstijd. In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 107-178.

Past2Present, 2008. Archeologische verwachtingskaart Gemeente Boxmeer. Past2Present/Archeologic rapport 560, Woerden.

Robb, J.G., 1998. The ‘ritual landscape’ concept in archaeology: a heritage construction. Landscape Research 23, 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399808706533

Robb, J. G., 2013. Material Culture, Landscapes of Action, and Emergent Causation: A New Model for the Origins of the European Neolithic. Current Anthropology 54, 657- 683. https://doi.org/10.1086/673859

Roymans, N.G.A.M. and H. Fokkens, 1991. Een overzicht van veertig jaar nederzettingsonderzoek in de Lage Landen. In: N.G.A.M. Roymans and H. Fokkens (eds). Nederzettingen in de Bronstijd en de Vroege IJzertijd in de Lage Landen. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 13, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort, 1-19.

Roymans, N.G.A.M. and Theuws, F., 1999. Long-term perspectives on man and landscape in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region. In: F. Theuws and N.G.A.M. Roymans (eds). Land and Ancestors: Cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1-33.

200

Sanden, W. van der, 1987. The Ussen project: large-scape settlement archaeology of the period 700 BC-AD 250, a preliminary report. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 20, 95–123. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-z2z-6bbj

Schinkel, K., 1998. Unsettled settlement, occupation remains from the Bronze Age and the Iron Age at Oss-Ussen. The 1976-1986 excavations. In: H. Fokkens (ed). The Ussen Project: The first decade of excavations at Oss. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 30, 5-306. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-z32-keq5

Thrane, H., 2013. Scandinavia. In: A. Harding and H. Fokkens (eds). The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Valentijn, P., 2013. “Mound” 6: a post and ditch aligned long barrow. In: D.R. Fontijn, S. van der Vaart and R. Jansen (eds). Transformation through Destruction: a Monumental and Extraordinary Early Iron Age Hallstatt C Barrow from the Ritual Landscape of Oss-Zevenbergen. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 47-68.

Velde, H.M. van der and E. Blom. Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 13-20.

Verlinde, A.D. and R.S. Hulst, 2010. De grafvelden en grafvondsten op en rond de Veluwe van de Late Bronstijd tot in de Midden-IJzertijd. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 39, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Amersfoort.

Vermue, F., M. Opbroek, E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde. Grafritueel en grafheuvels: het landschap van de doden gedurende de metaaltijden. In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 179- 250.

Werff, van der M.M. 1999. De bodemgesteldheid van het landinrichtingsgebied Epe- Vaassen: Resultaten van een bodemgeografisch onderzoek. Staring Centrum Rapport 669. Staring Centrum, Wageningen.

201

Wesselingh, D., 1993. Oss-IJsselstraat: Iron Age graves and a native Roman settlement. Analecta Praehistoria Leidensia 26, 111-138. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xcs-5yf5

Wijk, I.M. van, H. Fokkens, D. Fontijn, R. de Leeuwe, L. Meurkens, A. van Hilst and C. Vermeeren, 2009. Resultaten van het definitieve onderzoek. In: H. Fokkens, R. Jansen and I.M. van Wijk (eds). Oss-Zevenbergen: de langetermijn-geschiedenis van een prehistorisch grafveld. Archol Rapport 50. Archol, Leiden.

Zuidhoff, F.S., J.A.A. Bos and M. Opbroek, 2015. De vorming van het landschap en haar Bewoners. In: E. Blom and H.M. van der Velde (eds). De archeologie van Boxmeer-Sterckwijck: 4500 jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs de Maas. ADC Monografie 18. ADC ArcheoProjecten, Amersfoort, 77-106.

202

Lists of tables and figures

Tables

Table 3.1: 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...... 14 Table 1.4: The two polarizing hypotheses that were formulated to empirically study the way people dealt with older, visual landscapes during the Urnfield period……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..16 Table 4.1: Overview of the burial mounds documented in the cemetery of Oss (after Fokkens et al. 2009, 212)………………………………………………………70

Figures

Figure 1.1: The three main research areas in the Netherlands (map from openstreetmap.org) ...... 9 Figure 2.1: The generalized sequence of the emergence of boundaries in the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands (Løvschal 2014, 738, fig. 8)...... 22 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)...... 27 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)...... 31 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)...... 33 Figure 3.4: Overview of all LN-A burial mounds recorded in Epe-Niersen (Bourgeois 2013, 60, fig. 5.5)...... 35 Figure 3.5: Overview of all (possible) LN-A LN-B burial mounds recorded in Epe- Niersen (Bourgeois 2013, 61, fig. 5.6)...... 36 Figure 3.6: Overview of all Middle Bronze Age barrows recorded in Epe-Niersen (Bourgeois 2013, 64, fig. 5.8)...... 39 Figure 3.7: Overview of all Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age barrows and urnfields recorded in Epe-Niersen and Vaassen, with the urnfields indicated by toponym (After Bourgeois 2013, 66, fig. 5.10)...... 41 Figure 3.8: Part of the urnfield at Vaassen-Veenweg (ROB in Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 24, fig. 6)...... 43 Figure 3.9: Schematic depiction of the urnfield Vaassen-Elspeterweg. The dotted features are older burial mounds (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 150, fig. 54)...... 45

203

Figure 3.10: Schematic depiction of the urnfield Vaassen-Rollekootse Veld- Gortelseweg. The dotted features are older burial mounds (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 151, fig. 55)...... 46 Figure 3.11: Schematic depiction of the urnfield Emst-Laarstraat. The dotted features are older burial mounds (Verlinde and Hulst 2010, 152, fig. 56) ...... 47 Figure 3.12: The Celtic Field discovered near Vaassen, plotted on a modern map of the area. The burial mounds are marked with yellow dots, including barrows 273, 274 and 275 as indicated by Bourgeois (2013, 60-61). The presumed urnfield graves (Vaassen - Rollekootse veld – Gortelse weg) are marked with orange dots (map after openstreetmap.org, depiction of the Celtic field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)...... 48 Figure 3.13: The Celtic Field complex as projected on a height map. The burial mounds and urnfield graves (Vaassen - Rollekootse veld – Gortelse weg) are marked with circles (map after https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer, depiction of the Celtic field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)...... 48 Figure 3.14: The Celtic field system to the west of Vaassen, with the presumed ‘dominating linear axes’ made bold (after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)...... 50 Figure 3.15: Left: Detail of the urnfield Vaassen-Rollekootse Veld-Gortelseweg situated in the Celtic field system, as depicted on the hillshade map of the AHN (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer). Right: Overview of the Celtic Field (Map after openstreetmap.org, depiction of the Celtic Field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)...... 52 Figure 3.16: Detail of the urnfield Vaassen-Rollekootse Veld-Gortelsewe situated in the Celtic field system. Two of the urnfield graves appear to be missing (After Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)...... 52 Figure 3.17: Left: Detail of barrows 273, 274 and 275, as depicted on the hillshade map of the AHN (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer). Right: Overview of the Celtic Field and surrounding area, (Map after openstreetmap.org, depiction of the Celtic Field after Brinkkemper and Wijngaarden-Bakker 2005, 508, fig. 22)...... 53 Figure 4.1: The location of the barrow landscape of the Chieftain’s grave and Oss-Zevenbergen (After S. van der Vaart in Fokkens et al. 2012, 184, fig. 2). .... 61 Figure 4.2: The locations of the barrow group of the Chieftain’s grave and Zevenbergen on the elevation map (image after https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer)...... 64 Figure 4.3: Elevation map of the research area, with the barrow groups of the Chieftain’s grave (I), a Bell beaker mound (II), Vorssel (III) and Zevenbergen (IV) marked on the map (Figure by Jansen and Van der Linde 2013, 42, fig. 2.8., after De Kort 2007)...... 65 Figure 4.4: The locations of the (possible) settlement sites (indicated in red), and the sites of Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave (indicated in black; map from openstreetmap.org)...... 67 Figure 4.5: Development of the barrow group at Zevenbergen between the Middle Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (After Fokkens et al. 2009, 211-214, figures 13.01a-d)...... 69

204

Figure 4.6: The Middle Bronze Age mounds 2, 4 and 8 on the research map of Oss-Zevenbergen (After Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, figure 13.01a)...... 71 Figure 4.7: The Middle Bronze Age mounds and the possible Late Bronze Age barrows on the research map of Oss-Zevenbergen (Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, fig. 1.13)...... 74 Figure 4.8: The ground-plan of mound 6 and the postholes (Valentijn 2013, 50, fig. 3.3)...... 75 Figure 4.9: The Early Iron Age structures on the research map of Oss- Zevenbergen (After Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, fig. 1.13)...... 77 Figure 4.10: The post circle around mound 3 (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 97, fig. 6.17)...... 78 Figure 4.11: Detail of the barrow group in Zevenbergen. Features H9-12 mark the ring ditches that were found to the south of mound 3 (After Van Wijk et al. 2009, 132, fig. 6.44)...... 81 Figure 4.12: Overview of the rows of post found in Zevenbergen (Van Wijk et al. 2009, 132, fig. 6.44)...... 82 Figure 4.13: Excavation plan of the Chieftain’s grave and the post alignment that was found underneath (Drawing by H. Fokkens and J. van Donkersgoed in Fokkens 2013, 143, fig. 2)...... 86 Figure 4.14: Overview of the cemetery surrounding the chieftain’s grave in Oss. 1: Bell beaker grave, 2-3: burial mounds from the Bronze Age, 4: Remains of the chieftain’s grave and the urnfield, 5: ring ditches (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 25, fig. 2.6)...... 87 Figure 4.15: Development of the funerary landscapes on the Maashorst (give dates, mark the sites) (Fokkens and Jansen 2007, 89, fig. 6.9)...... 92 Figure 5.1: The locations of the (possible) settlement sites (indicated in red), and the sites of Zevenbergen and the Chieftain’s grave (indicated in black; map after openstreetmap.org)...... 97 Figure 5.2: Overview of all settlements found at Oss-Ussen (1: Bronze age, 2: Early Iron Age A, 3: Early Iron Age B, 4: Middle Iron Age, 5: Roman Times? - Schinkel 1998, 181, fig. 160)...... 98 Figure 5.3: Map of the districts that were excavated in the north of Oss (Drawing by A. van As in Fokkens 2019, 16, fig. 1.2)...... 99 Figure 5.4: The location of the research areas of Oss-North and Oss-Ussen (marked in black; after A. van As in Fokkens 2019, 16, fig. 1.2), as projected on the elevation map of the AHN (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer)...... 100 Figure 5.5: The zones in Oss-Ussen where Bronze Age settlements were found, marked in grey (a). The black dot (b) marks a yard and the white dot (c) marks a possible yard (Schinkel 1998, 35, fig. 26)...... 102 Figure 5.6: The cluster of houses from the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Houses MD128 and MD129 were built in the Middle Bronze Age, whereas MD130 and MD131 were built in the Early Iron Age (After the drawing by Van As and Laan, in Fokkens 2019, 232, fig. 13.7)...... 104

205

Figure 5.7: Features from the Late Bronze Age (light blue) and Early Iron Age (dark blue squares) in Oss-North. The oval, dark blue feature represents possible graves from this period (Drawing by H. Fokkens in Fokkens 2019, 188, fig. 11.5)...... 105 Figure 5.8: The Early Iron Age features of Oss-Ussen. The dotted lines (a) mark Early Iron Age zones, the striped zones (b) mark features from the first half of the Early Iron Age, the dark zones (c) mark features from the second half of the Early Iron Age (Schinkel 1998, 38, fig. 27)...... 106 Figure 5.9: The house structures recorded in Oss-Mikkeldonk per period (After the drawing by S. van As in Fokkens 2019, 224, fig. 13.1)...... 108 Figure 5.10: The eight fence clusters recorded in Oss-Mikkeldonk (Drawing by H. Fokkens and S. van As in Fokkens 2019, 284, Fig 13.50)...... 109 Figure 5.11: Features of the Iron Age urnfield found at IJsselstraat (Wesselingh 1993, 118, fig. 7)...... 111 Figure 6.1: Location of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck in the Netherlands (map from openstreetmap.org) ...... 118 Figure 6.2: The two research areas of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck; Most settlements were found in the west, and several clusters of graves in the east (After Vermue et al. 2015, 168, fig. 3.33)...... 119 Figure 6.3: Geomorphological map of Boxmeer, with the research area marked with a red star (After Kragten in Past2Present 2008, 12)...... 121 Figure 6.4: Elevation map of the region of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The research area is marked with the black box (map after https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer). . 122 Figure 6.5: Overview of all Middle Bronze Age B house plans, and the burial mound recorded within this zone (After Opbroek et al. 2015, 170 figure 3.34 and Vermue et al. 2015, 198 figure 4.12)...... 125 Figure 6.6: The settlement structures from the Bronze Age in Boxmeer- Sterckwijck (Blue: activity zone; orange: end Early Bronze Age – Start Middle Bronze Age; red: Middle Bronze Age, green: Late Bronze Age; Opbroek et al. 2015, 112, fig. 3.1)...... 127 Figure 6.7: All Iron Age houses found in the research area, The house plans in red are associated with a number of Early Iron Age features. Whether the house plans themselves were present since the Early Iron Age is unknown (After Kodde and Van der Velde 2015, 259, fig. 5.6)...... 130 Figure 6.8: Detail of the settlement row excavated in the western part of Boxmeer-Sterckwijck. The house plans are marked in dark green, and the outbuildings in light green (after Blom and van der Velde 2015, 48, Blad West 21)...... 131 Figure 6.9: Settlement cluster 1 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 276, fig. 5.29)...... 132 Figure 6.10: Settlement cluster 2 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 276, fig. 5.29)...... 133 Figure 6.11: Settlement cluster 4 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 278, fig. 5.30)...... 134 Figure 6.12: Settlement cluster 11 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 290, fig. 5.38)...... 136

206

Figure 6.13: Settlement cluster 13 (after Kodde and van der Velde 2015, 295, fig. 5.40)...... 137 Figure 6.14: The clusters of graves found in the research area (Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21)...... 139 Figure 6.15: Distribution of burial mounds which are dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Vermue et al. 2015, 198, fig. 4.12) ...... 141 Figure 6.16: The grave clusters in the research area (Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21)...... 145 Figure 6.17: Cluster 3 at the northernmost end of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial is marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21). .. 147 Figure 6.18: Detail of the features found in cluster 2. The cremation grave, which was determined to be a Middle Bronze Age flat grave, is circled in red (after Blom and Van der Velde 2015, 14; Blad Oost 11)...... 148 Figure 6.19: Cluster 2 of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial is marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209)...... 149 Figure 6.20: Cluster 1 of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age barrows are marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209)...... 150 Figure 6.21: The burial mounds between cluster 1 to the south and cluster 2 to the north of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial mounds are marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209)...... 150 Figure 6.22: Cluster 5 of the urnfield. The Middle Bronze Age burial mounds are marked in red (After Vermue et al. 2015, 209)...... 152 Figure 7.1: Left: The barrow group of Oss-Zevenbergen and its post-alignments (After Fokkens et al. 2009 in Fontijn and Jansen 2013, 26, fig. 1.13). Right: Overview of the cemetery surrounding the chieftain’s grave in Oss. 1: Bell beaker grave, 2-3: burial mounds from the Bronze Age, 4: Remains of the chieftain’s grave and the urnfield, 5: ring ditches (Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 25, fig. 2.6)...... 167 Figure 7.2: Left: Schematic depiction of locations of the Middle Bronze age barrows recorded at Boxmeer-Sterckwijck (Vermue et al. 2015, 198, fig. 4.12), Right: All graves found in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck, from the Middle Bronze Age until the Middle Iron Age (Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21)...... 169 Figure 7.3: Overview of all burial mounds, urnfields and Celtic fields recorded in the region of Epe, Niersen and Vaassen from the Late Neolithic until the Early Iron Age (after Bourgeois 2013, 52, fig. 5.1)...... 171 Figure 7.4: Combined overview of all settlements and burial mounds recorded in Boxmeer-Sterckwijck (After Kodde and Van der Velde 2015, 259, fig. 5.6 and Vermue et al. 2015, 209, fig. 4.21)...... 174 Figure 7.5: Detail of the settlements found at Oss-Mikkeldonk, where several clusters of fences were found (after the drawing by S. van As and H. Fokkens in Van As and Fokkens 2019, 286, fig. 13.52)...... 176 Figure 7.6: Detail of the settlements found at Oss-Mikkeldonk, where several clusters of fences were found (after the drawing by S. van As and H. Fokkens in Van As and Fokkens 2019, 285, fig. 13.51)...... 177 Figure 7.7: The Celtic field complex and the burial mounds recorded at Hijken (Harsema 1991, 22, fig. 1)...... 179

207

Figure 7.8: The Early and Middle Iron Age house plans found at Hijken (in yellow), surrounded by fences. The grey house plans are dated to the Middle Bronze Age (After Arnoldussen and De Vries 2014, 93, fig. 7 B and C)...... 181 Figure 7.9: The Celtic field banks recorded at Hijken (in brown), with the fences indicated as dark grey lines. The Iron Age house plans are marked in dark grey lines as well. Two barrow groups, with burials dating from the Late Neolithic – Late Iron Age, are marked with red dots (After Arnoldussen and De Vries 2014, 101, fig. 12A-D)...... 181 Figure 7.10: Schematic depiction of the emergence of lines and boundaries at the case studies of this thesis. Orange = Late Neolithic, blue = Middle Bronze Age, green = Late Bronze Age, red = Early Iron Age, purple = Middle Iron Age. Farmsteads are indicated by rectangles, burial mounds with dots and ring ditches with circles. The shape of the natural relief is schematically indicated in grey at sites where this is relevant (own figure; after the drawing by Van As and Laan, in Fokkens 2019, 232, fig. 13.7; Van Wijk et al. 2009, 132, fig. 6.44 and Fokkens and Jansen 2009, 25, fig. 2.6)...... 183

208