Palaeohistoria
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PALAEOHISTORIA ACTA ET COMMUNICATIONES INSTITUTI ARCHAEOLOGICI UNIVERSITATIS GRONINGANAE 61/62 (2019/2020) University of Groningen / Groningen Institute of Archaeology & Barkhuis Groningen 2021 Editorial staff P.A.J. Attema, E. Bolhuis, R.T.J. Cappers, P.D. Jordan, F. Kramer (Editorial Coordinator), M.A. Los-Weijns, S. Needs-Howarth (Copy Editor), D.C.M. Raemaekers, S. Voutsaki Drawing office S.E. Boersma, E. Bolhuis (Coordinator), M.A. Los-Weijns, S. Tiebackx Address University of Groningen Groningen Institute of Archaeology Poststraat 6 9712 ER Groningen The Netherlands [email protected] Website www.palaeohistoria.nl DOI: https://doi.org/10.21827/5beaafbcc2bf2 Publisher’s address Barkhuis Kooiweg 38 9761 GL Eelde The Netherlands [email protected] www.barkhuis.nl Typesetting Hannie Steegstra Cover design S.E. Boersma Cover A decorated Late Postclassic Mixtec human skull from Teotitlán del Camino, Oaxaca, Mexico, possibly dating to c.1400–1520 CE. The type of adhesive used to affix the mosaic to the skull raised some doubts about the authenticity of the object. Photo P. Erdil. (Collection Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen. Coll.No. RV-4007-1.) ISSN 0552-9344 ISBN 9789493194298 Copyright © 2021 Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronical, mechanical, by photocopying, record- ing or otherwise, without prior written permission from the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen. Although all care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and the information herein, no reponsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the authors for any damage to property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein. Contents In memoriam Piet Kooi W.A.B. van der Sanden ........................................................................................................... 1 Bibliography of Piet Kooi Kirsten van der Ploeg ............................................................................................................... 5 In memoriam Harm Tjalling Waterbolk Archaeologist with a passion for nature and landscape J. Bazelmans & J. Kolen ............................................................................................................9 Bibliography of H.T. Waterbolk .............................................................................................. 16 Super interesting black hole? The micromorphology of organic materials in a Mesolithic hearth pit feature from the site of Soest-Staringlaan (the Netherlands) D.J. Huisman & L.A. Tebbens .................................................................................................. 27 Fossilized fashion and social sparkle Dutch Bronze Age bracelets in context S. Arnoldussen & H. Steegstra ................................................................................................43 A pilot study on coarse ware ceramic fabrics from the Ayios Vasileios Survey Project (Greece) G.J.M. van Oortmerssen & C.W. Wiersma ............................................................................... 111 Tracing the Final Bronze Age–Early Iron Age transition Groningen Institute of Archaeology settlement excavations in the Sibaritide, 2018-2019 P.M. van Leusen & F. Ippolito ............................................................................................... 141 Grave goods from Sveta Lucija (Slovenia) in Groningen (the Netherlands) Contextualising old study collections Albert J. Nijboer .................................................................................................................. 169 Terra sigillata in southern Latium The evidence from the Pontine Region Project, 1987-2014 G.W. Tol, T.C.A. de Haas & P.A.J. Attema .............................................................................. 203 Isolated and backward Westerwolde (Groningen, the Netherlands)? A confrontation of archaeological and historical data from the Middle Ages in a wider geographical context Henny A. Groenendijk & Remi van Schaïk ............................................................................273 Radiocarbon-based investigations into the authenticity of Mesoamerican artefacts in museum contexts P. Erdil, M. Kuitems, M. Berger & M.W. Dee .......................................................................... 345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21827/602fcb460bb9b Fossilized fashion and social sparkle Dutch Bronze Age bracelets in context S. Arnoldussen & H. Steegstra Groningen Institute of Archaeology, University of Groningen Abstract: This contribution deals with the bronze bracelets found in the Netherlands that are datable between the Late Neolithic and the Middle Iron Age (n=176). We study their context (hoards, funerary contexts, settlements and stray finds), and we relate the specifics of their form and decoration to regional and supraregional traditions. First, we study their role as social signifiers (in recon- structions) of prehistoric identities across those scales, discussing how particular Bronze Age ‘costumes’ or ‘ornament sets’ may have been kept from graves and deposited in alternate ways. Then, we study later prehistoric arm-rings for their potential to indicate the scale, orientation and longevity of supraregional contact networks into which the later prehistoric communities of the Netherlands were integrated. Keywords: bracelets, arm-rings, costume, Bronze Age, Iron Age, contact networks. 1. Introduction: Why arm-rings? already brings us somewhat closer to particular Bronze Age personae and the social implications of bronze In previous recent articles that showcased parts of the artefacts. Yet, the often all-too-simple equating of such Netherlands Bronze Age Catalogue (NBAC; started by grooming tools with male warrior identities1 could sig- J.J. Butler) of bronze artefacts, we have published tools, nal that, again, a large part of prehistoric communities such as socketed knives (Butler et al. 2011/2012) or sick- is left undiscussed. If we wish to target the role of bronze les (Arnoldussen & Steegstra 2016), and toilet sets, com- artefacts in the construction of female Bronze Age iden- prising razors or tweezers (Arnoldussen & Steegstra tities2 in what is now the Netherlands, ornaments, such 2018). Whereas such studies have proven their merit as arm-rings (or bracelets), can play an important role. in terms of the typological and technical properties of In a series of articles on Bronze Age dress, costume these sets of artefacts, particularly for the tools (knives, and identity, Sørensen (1997, 2010, 2013) has argued how sickles), we feel that understanding those objects in bronze ornaments (in tandem with fabrics and gar- relation to Bronze Age persons – gauging their salience ment additions) (Sørensen 2010: 57, Fig. 6.1) were used in social praxis rather than in functional terms – was to map narratives of the social body onto physical bod- difficult. For razors and tweezers, for example, their ies, accentuating bodily form, function3 and social cues usage in creating and changing (particular type(s) of) (Sørensen 2010: 55-6; Nordez 2017: 12, 2019). The fact that bodily appearance (Arnoldussen & Steegstra 2018) many ornaments, among which arm-rings, are worn on 1 See, for example, Sørensen 1989: 459; Jockenhövel 2003: 138; Steuer 2003: 13; Harding 2008: 192; Rebay-Salisbury 2017: 41; Arnoldus- sen & Steegstra 2018: 13. 2 As with the razors and tweezers discussed above, the number of Dutch inhumations with assigned biological sex that have been found with such ornaments is insufficient to fully warrant the gender binary suggested (cf. Sørensen 1997: 101), but their exclu- siveness is clear, and research elsewhere (e.g. Laux 1971: 173; 2015: 4-9; 2017: 30, 384; Pászthory 1985: 2; Wels-Weyrauch 1989; Neu- gebauer 1991; cf. Sørensen 1997: 100) has shown the strength of the association between arm- and leg-ring ornaments and female identity (but see Sørensen 2010: 59; Laux 2015: 9-11). 3 This is explicitly also taken to include limited bodily movement, such as with big neck ornaments (cf. Sørensen 2010: 56) or chained-linked leg-rings (cf. Pirling 1980: Taf. 53; Paszthory 1985: 31; Sørensen 1997: 109, Fig. 6, 2010: 58, Fig. 6.4). Palaeohistoria 61/62 (2019/2020), 43-110 44 S. Arnoldussen & H. Steegstra the lower extremities, renders them easily visible and audience of onlookers (Roberts 2007: 150). Regionally suitable media for social messaging. The visibility of restricted types of ornaments (e.g. Haarknoten fibu- arm-rings – even without removing clothing – can sig- lae or Sussex loops; Sørensen 1997: 104; Roberts 2007: nal their importance in sending various social cues (cf. 143; Laux 2017: 34; Nordez 2017: 272-5, 471, Fig. 301), as Sørensen 1997: 104, 110; Roberts 2007: 146, 149; Nordez well as regionally distinct patterns in ornament place- 2017: 19-20). Nordez (2017: 20) aptly characterized this ment in graves (Wels-Weyrauch 1989), suggest that as an interpersonal, cultural, corporeal language4: locality could be expressed in this way. Yet, it prob- ably was not limited to this. Social stages or standing Les parures véhiculent donc, dans de nombreux cas, une (e.g. menarche, (openness to) romantic partnerships, quantité importante d’informations au sujet de l’indivi- supraregional or elite affiliations), could as easily be du paré.