Medieval rural settlement research. Jan van Doesburg Bert Groenewoudt. Středověká Evropa v pohybu. K poctě Jana Klápště

In search of the invisible farm

1

Středověká Evropa v pohybu. K poctě Jana Klápště. Praha 2013

In search of the invisible farm. Looking for archaeological evidence of late medieval rural settlement in the sandy landscapes of the Netherlands (1250–1650 A. D.) Pátrání po neviditelné usedlosti. Hledání archeologických dokladů pozdně středověkého venkovského osídlení v písečných typech krajiny v Nizozemsku (1250–1650 n. l.) Jan van Doesburg – Bert Groenewoudt The roots of most modern landscapes in the sandy areas in the North, East and South of the Netherlands are essentially medieval or post-medieval, although their habitation history reaches back deep into prehistory. Unfortunately, research into (post-) medieval settlement patterns is hampered by the fact that – in comparison with preceding periods – the archaeological visibility of farm buildings constructed after ca. 1250 is generally very bad, whereas extant farms are rarely older than ca. 1650. This gap is caused by, on the one hand, the introduction of new building techniques that render farmhouses essentially invisible, and on the other by the destruction of archaeological evidence due to the continuous use of late medieval farmsteads right up to the present. The period of ca. 1250–1650 therefore represents a gap in our archaeological record. In this short paper we will analyze this problem and suggest a few possible answers; there are, however, no easy solutions. Netherlands – the Middle Ages – settlement research – farm houses – archaeological visibility – Ständerbau Moderní typy krajiny v písečných oblastech severního, východního a jižního Nizozemska mají v zásadě středověké či poststředověké kořeny, přestože historie osídlení zde sahá hluboko do prehistorických časů. Výzkum (post)středověkých vzorů osídlení však komplikuje velmi špatná archeologická viditelnost zemědělských stavení postavených přibližně po roce 1250 ve srovnání s předchozími obdobími. Dochované zemědělské usedlosti pak jen zřídka pocházejí z období před polovinou 17. století. Tato mezera je způsobena na jedné straně zavedením nových stavebních technik, které činí zemědělská stavení v zásadě neviditelnými, a na straně druhé tím, že archeologické doklady byly zničeny v důsledku nepřetržitého používání středověkých hospodářství až do dnešních dnů. Období přibližně mezi roky 1250 a 1650 proto představuje mezeru v archeologických záznamech. Cílem tohoto krátkého příspěvku je problém analyzovat a navrhnout možné odpovědi; žádná jednoduchá řešení však neexistují. Nizozemsko – středověk – výzkum osídlení – zemědělská stavení – archeologická viditelnost – Ständerbau

Medieval rural settlement research Dutch archaeology has as a long tradition of settlement research, in comparison with several other north-west European countries. As early as the beginning of the 20th century the first settlements were excavated by archaeologists such as the Nestor of Dutch

2

Jan van Doesburg – Bert Groenewoudt

Fig. 1. Exceptionally well-preserved remains of a farmhouse in the terp of Ezinge, excavation 1930 (after Waterbolk 2009). Obr. 1. Výjimečně dobře zachované pozůstatky zemědělského stavení ve vesnici (terp) Ezinge, archeologický výzkum z roku 1930 (podle Waterbolk 2009).

archaeology A. E. van Giffen (1884–1973). Van Giffen started his career as an archaeologist in the coastal terp1 area, but from 1934 onwards he also conducted excavations in the sandy areas of the Netherlands. The fact that he had previously excavated wellpreserved remains of farm buildings in the terp of Ezinge (fig. 1) enabled him later to identify the ground plans of three-aisled houses in Drenthe. Van Giffen’s work helped to set the course of settlement archaeology for the next forty years. A small number of medieval settlements were investigated in the 1930s and 1940s, but it wasn’t until the late 1950s and 1960s, when several now-famous sites were subjected to large-scale excavations, that medieval settlement archaeology made major advances (see Waterbolk 2009). In Wijster, in the province of Drenthe, excavations begun in 1959 uncovered a large settlement site from the Roman Iron Age and early Middle Ages (van Es 1967; Waterbolk 1995). A few years later excavations at Odoorn, also in Drenthe, unearthed a settlement from the early medieval period (Waterbolk 1973). This work was followed in the 1970s and 1980s by several large-scale excavations of early and late medieval settlements in different parts of the country: Gasselte, Odoorn and Peelo in Drenthe, Kootwijk and Ermelo – Horst on the Veluwe, Oud Leusden in the province of Utrecht and Dommelen, Geldrop and Bladel in the province of NoordBrabant.2 These excavations were fundamental, in that they enabled researchers to get a grip on the development of rural occupation and settlement dynamics in the sandy 1

Terp: artificial dwelling mound in the coastal area. See for Gasselte Waterbolk – Harsema 1979, Odoorn Lanting – Waterbolk 2002, Peelo Kooi 1995, Kootwijk, Ermelo – Horst on the Veluwe, Heidinga 1987, Oud Leusden van Tent 1988, Dommelen Theuws – Verhoeven – van Regteren Altena 1988; van Regteren Altena 1989, Geldrop Theuws 1991; Bazelmans – Theuws eds. 1990, Bladel van Dierendonck 1990.

2


3

areas during the late Roman and medieval period, and they also led to a vast increase in our understanding of the development of medieval house plans. During the last few decades the number of extensively excavated medieval settlements has increased further, also in regions where until then medieval settlement research had been in its infancy, such as certain parts of Noord-Brabant, Limburg and the central and eastern Netherlands. Key sites in these areas include Lieshout, Someren and Eersel in the province of Noord-Brabant and Horst-Meterik, Venray and Weert in the province of Limburg, Barneveld-Harselaar Zuid and Putten-Husselerveld in the Gelderse Vallei and Bathmen, Borne, Didam, Zelhem and Zutphen in the east of the Netherlands.3 Initially research carried out on medieval settlements focused mainly on house plans. The large number of excavated house plans enabled archaeologists to develop regional typologies and place these in an (inter)national framework.4 Due to the fact that a large number of house plans was excavated and published in the province of Drenthe, archaeologists such as T. J. Waterbolk and O. Harsema were able in the late 1970s to produce a typo chronological sequence of house types on the sandy soils of the north of the Netherlands (Waterbolk – Harsema 1979). In later years this sequence was altered and refined several times on the basis of new evidence (Waterbolk 1980; idem 1982; idem 1985; idem 1991; idem 1995). In 2009 the latest version of the typology was published, which included house types from the east of the Netherlands and from the northern clay district (Waterbolk 2009). For the medieval period twelve different house types are distinguished: type Eursinge (5th–6th century), type Odoorn A (6th century), type Odoorn B (7th century), types Odoorn C Leens and Zelhem (8th century), type Odoorn C’ (9th century), type Gasselte A (10th century) and types Gasselte B, Gasselte B’ and Pesse (11th–14th century) (Waterbolk 2009, 86–101). For other areas in the Netherlands the situation is different. No serious attempts have yet been made to construct regional typologies for the excavated medieval house plans in these areas. There are only some local typologies, of which the ones based on the results of the excavations at Kootwijk on The Veluwe and at Dommelen in Noord-Brabant are the most important. The Kootwijk typo chronology comprises house types from the early (types A1–C2) and late (types D1–D2) medieval period (Heidinga 1987, 45–55). The Kootwijk houses are closely related to those found elsewhere in the Netherlands and in north-western Germany. The Dommelen typology deals only with house plans from the late medieval period; the excavated plans of early medieval buildings were not incorporated in it. The Dommelen typology comprises both large- (types A1–A4) and medium-sized (types B1–B3) buildings dating from the 11th–13th century (Theuws – Verhoeven – van Regteren Altena 1988, 270–300). Later excavations in the provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg have shown that several of the Dommelen-type houses have a wider dating range than was assumed before (see 3 See for Lieshout Hiddink 2005a, Someren Hakvort – Kortlang – Wesdorp 2004, Eersel Lascaris 2011, Horst-Meterik Gheysen – Vanneste – Verbeek 2007, Venray Proos 1997; Schotten in prep.; Spanjer 1997; Stoepker ed. 1997; idem 2000, Weert, among others, Hiddink 2005b; idem 2006; Hiddink – De Boer 2006; Coolen 2008, Barneveld-Harselaar Zuid Brouwer – Veenstra 2003, Putten-Husselerveld Blom – van Walraven 2005, Bathmen Verlinde 2000, Borne Scholte Lubberink 2007; Scholte Lubberink – Willemse 2009, Didam, Zelhem van der Velde – Kenemans 2002, Zutphen Groothedde 1996; Bouwmeester 2000. 4 See for the north and east of the Netherlands Waterbolk 1979; idem 2009. The house types of the south of the Netherlands are discussed in, among others, Theuws – Verhoeven – van Regteren Altena 1988; Theuws 1991; Hiddink 2005b.

4


Hiddink 2005b, 109–117). The number of excavated and published house plans in the south of the Netherlands has increased, to the point where a regional typo chronology of the house plans in the south seems feasible within the near future. The work of Waterbolk and others who study the typo chronological development of house plans in Drenthe allows us, up to a point, to reconstruct the technical and architectural developments. The ‘translation’ by C. Huijts of excavated house plans into three-dimensional reconstructions has proven to be of great value both to archaeologists and to researchers of historical farm buildings (Huijts 1992). The emphasis in settlement research has gradually shifted from the study of house plans and the lay-out and development of settlements to that of settlement dynamics and the environmental, political and socio-economic processes connected with human settlement (see for instance Bloemers 1999). This has been especially successful in the north and south of the Netherlands. The Gasselte excavations mentioned earlier demonstrated that the roots of many present-day villages in Drenthe reach back to ca. the 9th century A. D. Settlement dynamics in the southern Netherlands turned out to be closely linked to political and socio-economic changes in connection with emerging towns (Theuws 1989; Bazelmans – Theuws eds. 1990), and to economical and demographic growth (Verspay 2007). Settlements on the higher sandy plateaus shifted in the 12th–14th century to the flanks and lower areas, probably as a result of agricultural change, including intensification. The internal divisions and functions of the various parts of buildings have also become increasingly objects of research. Initially archaeologists focused mainly on structural elements such as traces of inner walls and other room dividers, and on the location of the hearth and entrances. Other indicators such as the distribution of certain types of finds in the different areas in the house were now also being considered. This led in some areas to reconstructions of the internal organization of houses, such as those dated to the 7th–9th century from the Veluwe area in the central Netherlands (Heidinga 1987, 49). A gender based analysis has recently been published by A. M. J. H. Huijbers (Huijbers 2007).

Farm buildings fading away In many parts of north-western Europe where deep soils are found, roof posts of farm buildings have traditionally been placed in foundation pits since prehistory. Sometimes wedging stones or packing stones were used to secure the posts. Stones or wooden planks were also placed at the bottom of the pits to prevent the posts from subsiding. In English this type of construction is called an ‘earthfast’ post construction; the German term is Ständerbau.5 In Dutch this type of construction has no specific name, although sometimes the description gebouw met aardvaste (Zimmermann 2006, 293) or ingegraven stijlen is used (Zimmermann 1998, 22; Waterbolk 2009, 2). The size of both foundation pits and posts varies through time and displays regional variation. In our area the shape of house plans changed at the beginning of the early Middle Ages form being rectangular to boat-shaped. This development can also be observed in 5

See Zimmermann 1998, 19–24, for a detailed discussion on the German terms Pfosten and Ständer.


5

Fig. 2. Excellent visibility. The plan of a 12th-century farmhouse from Colmschate (after Waterbolk 2009). Obr. 2. Zřetelně viditelné. Plán zemědělského stavení z 12. století z lokality Colmschate (podle Waterbolk 2009).

other areas of north-western Europe (see for instance Waterbolk 1999). The archaeological visibility of such boat-shaped houses is usually excellent, especially those from the high medieval period (10th–13th century). In most cases these plans essentially consist of two to four rows of very large and deep rectangular foundation pits (fig. 2). After that period farm buildings seem to disappear almost completely from the archaeological record, not only in the Netherlands but also in the surrounding countries. A striking example of a late-medieval rural settlement ‘without houses’ is the former hamlet of Woensel-Beekstraat (province of Noord-Brabant). In Woensel-Beekstraat the archaeological features mainly consist of wells (16th–19th century) and ditches (14th–19th century) (Arts 1995). In Dutch literature this ‘disappearance’ of settlement traces on the sandy soils is generally dated to the 12th to early 14th century with an emphasis on the second quarter of the 13th century.6 It is generally thought that buildings with earthfast posts disappeared at that time in favour of timber-framed buildings with posts on pad stones (German Ständer), or with foundation walls in brick or stone, or wooden foundation beams.7 The foundation elements were placed on top of the surface or in shallow pits or trenches which left no traces in the soil, or only faint ones. These traces were often obliterated by later soil disturbance. Moreover, pad stones and stones and bricks from foundation trenches were often reused and are therefore only incidentally found in situ during excavations.8 The use of pad stones and beams as a construction technique goes back to prehistory but was not widely practised until the late medieval period (Zimmermann 1998, 79–146). It constituted a fundamental change in building technique, and timber farming is generally seen as the main reason.9 This construction method made the embedding of posts in the soil redundant. The use of posts on pad stones had several advantages. It prevented the posts from rotting, especially the part close to the surface, which prolonged the lifespan of buildings.10 Another advantage of this method is that is it much easier to disassemble the building and rebuilt it somewhere else (Zimmermann 1998). 6

See Theuws 1989, 182; idem 1990, 56; Arts 1994; Hiddink 2005a, 30; Verspay 2007, 28. This subject is extensively discussed in Klápště ed. 2002. 8 See for instance Zimmermann 1998; Hiddink 2009, 97, fig. 12.1; Waterbolk 2009, 101. 9 de Vries 1983; Zimmermann 1998; Verspay 2007, 29; Waterbolk 2009, 101. 10 See for a discussion on the subject Zimmermann 1998, 50–63; idem 2006. 7

6


Fig. 3. The Olthof farm near Deventer (back ground) and traces of one of its 12th-century predecessors (photo Archaeology Deventer). Obr. 3. Usedlost Olthof poblíž Deventeru (zázemí) a pozůstatky jednoho z jejích předchůdců z 12. století (foto Archaeology Deventer).

Fig. 4. Plan of a 17th-century farmhouse at Beek en Donk (indicated in black) largely destroyed by later habitation phases (after Hiddink 2009). Obr. 4. Plán zemědělského stavení ze 17. století ve vesnici Beek en Donk (označeno černě), převážně zničeného v pozdějších fázích osídlení (podle Hiddink 2009).

7


Another important reason why house plans from the late medieval period have disappeared from the archaeological record is that the custom of periodically shifting settlements to other locations ended around that time, after which the location of farmsteads remained fixed. Many of the oldest farms in the research area have hardly moved since the 13th–14th century (fig. 3), For this the excavations of the recently demolished historical farms ‘Bettinck’, ‘Tankinck’ and ‘Garwerdinck’ belonging to the former hamlet of Eme near Zuthphen have provided clear evidence (Groothedde 1996, 77–104). Evidently periodic rebuilding has done much damage to any remains of previous building phases (fig. 4; Groothedde 2008a, 319). Especially the transition to brick-built farmhouses in the 18th–19th century and the introduction of stables with sunken floors and slurry cellars have been very destructive from a preservation point of view. Furthermore in many cases standing farms impede the archaeological accessibility of farm sites.

Later earthfast constructions In general, excavations that yielded late- or postmedieval house plans are very scarce, but there are exceptions. A recent analysis by W. Verspay shows that earthfast constructions were still being used in the 14th and 15th century in the south of the Netherlands (Verspay 2007). They seem to have been very rare, however, and in some cases it is not clear whether the traces belong to a farmhouse or to a barn. Earthfast constructions are known to have been used for simple outbuildings such as haystacks up until the 19th century. That it was also still being used for farmhouses was demonstrated by research carried out by H. A. Heidinga on the site of a small 18th-century farmhouse at Kootwijk. The roof posts had been placed in pits (Heidinga 1987, 63). Perhaps the survival of earthfast constructions (in some areas) was restricted to the simple houses of smallholders, who from the late Middle Ages onwards increasingly settled on ‘marginal’ land (Groenewoudt 2009). The most recent ‘archaeological’ farmhouses described by Verspay (see also Hiddink 2009, 47–52), and in the north-east of the Netherlands by Waterbolk (the tentative ‘type Pesse’ – Waterbolk 2009, 101, 104), have a simple, rectangular plan (fig. 5) that resembles Fig. 5. a – Excavated plan of a late medieval farmhouse (1250–1350) from Nederweert; b – Plan of a farm of the second half of the 15th century from Vessem. Reconstruction based on building historical evidence (after Verspay 2007). Obr. 5. a – Plán odkryvu pozdně středověkého zemědělského stavení (1250–1350) z města Nederweert; b – Plán usedlosti z druhé poloviny 15. století z městečka Vessem. Rekonstrukce založena na stavebněhistorických dokladech (podle Verspay 2007).

a 0

10 m

b

8


the (reconstructed) ground plans of the earliest extant farms.11 So after all there is some evidence suggesting that a link, both chronological and morphological, possibly exists between the most recent archaeological ground plans and the earliest extant buildings, but for the moment any such a link is tentative.12

The age of extant farms The study of historical buildings in the Netherlands has always been strongly influenced by art history. This is one of the reasons why our knowledge of ‘monumental’ townhouses greatly exceeds that of farm buildings. Nonetheless since the first half of the 20th century several scholars have studied the construction and typological development of farms. Pioneers in this field include K. Uilkema, O. Postma, S. J. van der Molen and – slightly later – R. C. Hekker and J. Jans.13 Especially publications by German scholars such as Lindner and Schepers were a source of inspiration to them (Lindner 1912; Schepers 1960). None of the later techniques to date (construction phases of) farms in absolute terms were yet available to these researchers. A solid framework for reconstructions and chronological developments was therefore impossible. Thanks to the arrival of dendrochronology as a dating technique more information on the ages of (elements of) extant farms has become available during the last twenty years. Nonetheless, the number of farms in the Netherlands for which tree-ring dates are available is still very small, compared to other types of buildings. The oldest known Dutch farmhouse that is still standing is situated in the village of Anderen (prov. of Drenthe).14 The oldest part of this farmhouse was probably built around 1376–1380, which makes it the only extant Dutch farmhouse from the 14th century, but also one of the oldest timber-framed farmhouses in north-western Europe (van der Waard 1999). The 14th-century Anderen farmhouse turned out to be a new foundation; no archaeological evidence for earlier habitation was found on the site (Tuinstra 2005, 12). Parts of an extant farmhouse in Witten, also in Drenthe, also date from the late medieval period (ca. 1481). Information in the database of the Netherlands Centre for Dendrochronology (RING foundation) suggests that 15th-century farmhouses are also extremely rare but that 16th-century dates are slightly more common. The smaller number of 17th-century dates is probably in part caused by the fact especially farms that are suspected to be older than the 17th century are being singled out for treering dating. However, stylistic arguments suggest that (partially) extant farms from the 17th century may be relatively common (hence 1650 as the final date in the title to this paper). The gap between the 15th and the 17th century is probably in part the result of the widespread devastation of the countryside on several occasions during the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). 11

E. g. Uilkema 1933; van der Waard 1999; Verspay 2007; Hiddink 2009, 47–52. See van der Waard 1996a and idem 1996b for the associated architectural developments. 13 See Uilkema 1933; Postma 1934; van der Molen 1941; idem 1943; Hekker 1957, 252–254, 291–293; Jans 1967. 14 This article was submitted in Sept. 2009. In 2011 part of the timber frame of a farm house in Best (prov. of Noord-Brabant) turned out to be 13th century (C. 1261, tree-ring date). 12


9

Targeted archaeological research has also occasionally provided answers to questions concerning the age and history of extant farms. A farm in Vessem (prov. of Noord-Brabant) that could not be dated by dendrochronology turned out to have developed from a 15th-century core (Arts 1999), a date suggested by that of the oldest archaeological material found beneath its floor.

A blind spot The tendency displayed by many archaeologists to derive the final date for an excavated settlement from that of the latest excavated house plan may easily introduce a bias into the archaeological dataset. Such a bias may in turn lead to incorrect interpretations in terms of spatial-chronological developments. This problem is particularly apparent in the results of the recent inventory by R. van Beek of archaeological research carried out on medieval settlements in the east of the Netherlands (van Beek 2009, 455–466). For many of these settlements (almost all Einzelhöfe) the final date proposed by the excavator falls within the range of 1250–1300, but upon closer inspection there turn out to be several instances in which there are indications for longer habitation.15 This uncertainty about the actual final dates led van Beek to mark the period after 1300 in grey (fig. 6). Indicators for longer habitation than the house plans suggest are mainly wells, as well as ditches that contain such an abundance of finds that a house or houses must have been situated nearby (fig. 7). Dense concentrations of stray finds suggest the presence of a former farmstead in the vicinity. There may obviously be historical sources that also suggest a longer habitation, but identification is often problematical: does the information in those sources refer to the same farm as the archaeological data? R. van Beek and L. Keunen defined a series of criteria on the basis of which ‘archaeological’ farms may be linked to ‘historical’ ones (van Beek – Keunen 2006a). Traces of brick constructions may also contribute to the identification of habitation after the 13th century. In the Netherlands, the presence of brick fragments in the infill of features by definition indicates a post-13th-century date. Usually such fragments represent reused bricks, for example from a hearth floor. Farms built completely of bricks as a rule first appear in the 18th century, manorial farms excluded (Voskuil 1979; Hagens 1992). Farms with a partial brick construction are found around certain towns from the 15th century onwards. The ground plan of a 15th century farm near Zutphen (prov. of Gelderland) could be reconstructed solely on the basis of the brick foundations of the living quarters, in part still in situ (Groothedde 2008a). Also in other situations we must consider the possibility that the construction of the living quarters of late medieval farms may be fundamentally different from that of the stable. Therefore also the visibility of both parts of the farm house may also be very different. Exceptionally short house plans may well be partial house plans.

15

See Ostkamp 1998 for similar observations with regard to the southern Netherlands (Geldrop).

10


Fig. 6. Overview of the date range of archaeologically investigated settlements in the eastern Netherlands (after van Beek 2009); many final dates are doubtful (see text). Obr. 6. Přehled rozsahu dat archeologicky zkoumaných sídlišť ve východním Nizozemsku (podle van Beek 2009); některá koncová data jsou nejistá (viz text).

Testing Models Virtual all attempts at a reconstruction of regional settlement patterns are being hampered by the fact that reliable archaeological information, i. e. solid facts with regard to foundation dates and duration of habitation, is available for only a tiny fraction of all (presumed) farm locations. This makes any reconstruction of settlement patterns and population dynamics to some extent hypothetical, and often very much so. Exceptions are those situations where extensive and targeted archaeological investigations have been carried out, and where good-quality historical information is both available and has been checked.

11


Fig. 7. Bathmen-Enklaan; the date range of its house plans and other settlement indicators. Obr. 7. Bathmen-Enklaan; rozsah dat uspořádání domu a dalších znaků osídlení.

1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900

(o

th

er

ho

)p

us

e

pl

w

an

s

e os l l s an tho d le pi s t di s tc he s

800

An example of such an exception is the – schematic – reconstruction by M. Groothedde of medieval population dynamics in the marke Leesten near Zutphen (prov. of Gelderland). It proved to be possible to demonstrate that this area was colonised in the course of at least seven separate episodes, originating from a small number of early medieval settlement nuclei (fig. 8; Groothedde 2008b). This reconstruction, which to a large extent is evidence-based, is the result of 15 years of research in the fields of archaeology, historical-geography and toponymy. Yet another product of many years of research, especially historical, is the detailed reconstruction by H. Scholte Lubberink of medieval settlement expansion in a certain area of Twente, prov. of Overijssel (Groenewoudt – Scholte Lubberink 2007, 63–70). The scarcity of archaeological evidence has lead several scholars to explore other methods that might enable them to establish the age of farmsteads with some degree of confidence. The results of an approach based on historical-geographical data look promising in this regard. It turns out to be possible to use criteria such as the earliest historical references, historical ownership and the situation within the landscape to make reliable predictions on the period within which a particular farm should be placed. In the Dutch situation the precise moment of foundation of medieval farmsteads can only on rare occasions be derived from historical sources. Medieval landownership however, was relatively stable. Farms that belonged to an old manorial institution are likely to have been established during the early or high Middle Ages (Noomen 1991; idem 1993). This discovery subsequently was a powerful stimulus for the development of a range of settlement models based on analysis of historical and historical-geographical data.16 Not only issues of ownership but also chronological variability in the situation within the landscape were important elements of such analyses. However, such models need to be tested against the archaeological facts. This 16

See e. g. van der Velde 2005; Spek – van Exter 2007; Keunen 2009.

12


0

1

2 km

Fig. 8. Model of reconstructed medieval and post-medieval population dynamics in the Leesten area near Zutphen (after Groothedde 2008b). Obr. 8. Model rekonstruované středověké a poststředověké populační dynamiky v oblasti Leesten poblíž města Zutphen (podle Groothedde 2008b).

once again raises the problem that the available archaeological data are inadequate in many areas, and that collecting sufficient data by means of excavation is both time consuming and costly. In the context of a research project on ‘the’ landscape biography of the Eastern Netherlands (van Beek – Keunen 2006b) an alternative method was therefore developed, one that is based on the results of an historical-geographical study by L. Keunen of the development of the medieval and post-medieval cultural landscape in an area north of the town of Deventer, prov. of Overijssel (Keunen 2009). The method uses targeted, small-scale archaeological research in order to test to what extent Keunen’s predictions with regard to the age of particular farmsteads are correct, and if ‘expansion phases

13

Number of funds


18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15 Dating

16

17

18

19

20 century

Fig. 9. Farm Lingeveen (municipality of Deventer): dates of pottery from test pit 1. Vertical: number of finds; horizontal: dates. The farm was established in the 9th–10th century; probably around the 14th century it shifted to a new location close to the original one (after van Beek 2009). Obr. 9. Usedlost Lingeveen (obec Deventer): data keramiky z testovací jámy 1. Svisle: počet nálezů; vodorovně: data (století). Usedlost vznikla v 9. nebo 10. století. Nejspíše kolem 14. století byla přemístěna do nové lokality nedaleko původní (podle van Beek 2009).

(‘time layers’) can indeed be distinguished (van Beek – Keunen – Groenewoudt 2008; van Beek 2009). Thirteen farmsteads with a wide range of expected ages were selected for testing in the field. In the course of only one week all of these sites were evaluated using archaeological exploratory techniques.17 One or two small test pits, measuring two by three metres, were dug as close to each farm as possible, preferably on the edge of the fields historically belonging to it. Most of the top layer, consisting of a plaggen soil, was removed mechanically.18 The explicit goal was not to find features but dateable settlement debris, especially pottery (fig. 9). In situations where a plaggen soil was lacking also small scale field surveys were carried out. This strategy was based on the assumption that rural homesteads are primarily producers of concentrations of waste, at least from an archaeological surveying point of view (Groenewoudt 1994, 20–21 and fig. 3). The results of the project were promising. In most locations sufficient debris was found to establish a reliable date for the site, and whenever this was the case the archaeological results seemed largely to support the predictions based on the historical-geographical sources. In some cases these predicted dates could be refined.

Conclusion The lack of sufficient archaeological information in the Netherlands often precludes an evidence-based reconstruction of medieval settlement patterns on a regional scale. The archaeological invisibility, at least at present, of the period between ca. 1250 and ca. 1650 is an extra complication. However, promising results have been obtained 17 18

A comparable strategy was employed by Jones – Page 2003, especially 77–81. Pape 1970. A plaggen soil consists largely of soil brought in from elsewhere.

14


using a reverse approach, in which systematical historical-geographical analyses, and predictions based upon the results with regard to the age of farmsteads, are used as a starting point. Important stages in the formulation of such hypothetical models are analyses of the medieval contexts with regard to ownership, and of the specific landscape setting of farms of different periods. Such models prove to be relatively easy to test with archaeological exploratory techniques.

References Arts, N. 1994: Sporen onder de Kempische stad. Archeologie, ecologie en vroegste geschiedenis van Eindhoven 1225–1500. Eindhoven. — 1995: Een dorp zonder huizen. Opgravingen aan de Beekstraat te Woensel. Brabants Heem 47, 24–30. — 1999: Archeologie en de laatmiddeleeuwse boerderij Maaskant 5 te Vessum. In: J. Bieleman et al. eds., De Noord-Brabantse Kempen. Landschap en landbouw; een laatmiddeleeuwse boererij te Vessem; hypothesen en onderzoeksvragen, Arnhem, 55–61 (SHBO Jaarverslag 1998). Bazelmans, J. – Theuws, F. eds. 1990: Tussen zes gehuchten. De Laat-Romeinse en middeleeuwse bewoning van Geldrop ’t Zand. Amsterdam. Beek, R. van 2009: Reliëf in tijd en Ruimte. Interdisciplinair onderzoek naar mens en landschap in Oost-Nederland, 13.000 v. Chr. – 1200 na Chr. Wageningen (PhD Thesis Wageningen University and Research Centre). Beek, R. van – Keunen, L. 2006a: Van huisplattegronden en historische erven. In: H. Clevis – S. Wentink eds., Overijssels Erfgoed. Archeologische en Bouwhistorische Kroniek 2005, 83–111. — 2006b: A cultural biography of the coversand landscapes in the Salland and Achterhoek regions. The aims and methods of the Eastern Netherlands Project. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 46, 355–375. Beek, R. van – Keunen, L. – Groenewoudt, B. 2008: Erven testen in Oost-Nederland. Archeobrief 12, nr. 1, 36–40. Bloemers, J. H. F. 1999: Regional Research Approach in the Netherlands since the Early 70s. A Fundamental Decision with Long-term Effects. In: H. Sarfatij – W. J. H. Verwers – P. J. Woltering eds., In Discussion with the Past. Archaeological studies presented to W. A. van Es, Zwolle – Amersfoort, 317–327. Blom, M. C. – Walraven, A. M. I. van 2005: Nederzettingssporen uit de IJzertijd tot in de Volle Middeleeuwen. Een archeologische opgraving op het Husselerveld te Putten, gemeente Putten (Gld.) Met bijdragen van K. L. B. Bosma – H. Halici – M. A. Huisman – G. J. de Roller – A. Ufkus – J. R. Veldhuizen. Groningen (ARC-Publicaties 121). Bouwmeester, H. M. P. 2000: Eme in de Romeinse en Frankische tijd. Archeologisch onderzoek naar de nederzetting en het grafveld op de terreinen van het Laaksche veld en de Laaksche tuin in de Ooyerhoek, gemeente Zutphen, ’s-Hertogenbosch/Deventer (BAAC-Rapport 98-045). Brouwer, M. – Veenstra, M. 2003: Puin geruimd van Barnevelds verleden. Rapportage veldwerk Barneveld Harselaar-Zuid. Amsterdam (unpublished Master’s thesis AIVU Amsterdam). Coolen, J. 2008: Onderzoeksgebied WML- terrein, gemeente Weert archeologisch vooronderzoek: een definitieve opgraving. Amsterdam (RAAP-rapport 1729). Dierendonck, R. M. van 1990: Archeologie en historie van een ontginningshoeve: de Kriekeschoor bij Bladel. In: A. Verhoeven – F. Theuws eds., Het Kempenprojekt 3: De middeleeuwen centraal. Waalre (Bijdragen tot de studie van het Brabantse heem, 33), 15–25. Es, W. A. van 1967: Wijster. A native village beyond the imperial frontier 150–425 A. D. Groningen. Gheysen, K. – Vanneste, H. – Verbeek, C. 2007: Horst aan de Maas – Meterik (L), Kempweg Inventariserend archeologisch onderzoek, waarderende fase door middel van proefsleuven. Tilburg (BILAN-rapport 2007/119).


15

Groenewoudt, B. J. 1994: Prospectie, waardering en selectie van archeologische vindplaatsen: een beleidsgerichte verkenning van middelen en mogelijkheden. Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 17, PhD thesis University of Amsterdam). — 2009: An exhausted landscape. Medieval use of moors, mires and commons in the Eastern Netherlands. In: J. Klápště ed., Medieval Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes. Turnhout. (Proceedings Ruralia VII, 8–14 September 2007, Cardiff Wales). Groenewoudt, B. J. – Scholte Lubberink, H. 2007: Essen en plaggendekken in Oost-Nederland vanuit een archeologisch perspectief. In: J. van Doesburg et al. eds., Essen in zicht. Essen en plaggendekken in Nederland: onderzoek en beleid. Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 34, 53–77). Groothedde, M. 1996: Leesten en Eme. Archeologisch, historisch en historisch geografisch onderzoek naar verdwenen buurschappen bij Zutphen. Kampen. — 2008a: Boerderij ’t Loo. In: H. M. P. Bouwmeester – H. A. C. Fermin – M. Groothedde eds., Geschapen Landschap. Tienduizend jaar bewoning en ontwikkeling van het cultuurlandschap op de Looërenk in Zutphen, ’s-Hertogenbosch/Deventer (BAAC Rapport 00.0068), 2008, 313–327. — 2008b: De middeleeuwse bewoningsdynamiek: een hypothese. In: H. M. P. Bouwmeester – H. A. C. Fermin – M. Groothedde eds., Geschapen Landschap. Tienduizend jaar bewoning en ontwikkeling van het cultuurlandschap op de Looërenk in Zutphen, ’s-Hertogenbosch/Deventer (BAAC Rapport 00.0068), 2008, 371–381. Hagens, H. 1992: Boerderijen in Twente. Utrecht. Hakvort, S. – Kortlang, F. – Wesdorp, M. 2004: Archeologisch onderzoek op de Hoge Akkers en de Ripsvelden bij Someren bewoning uit de IJzertijd en de Romeinse Tijd. Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 15). Heidinga, H. A. 1987: Medieval settlement and economy north of the Lower Rhine. Archaeology and history of Kootwijk and the Veluwe (the Netherlands). Amsterdam (Cingula 9). Hekker, R. C. 1957: De ontwikkeling van de boerderijvormen in Nederland. In: S. J. Fockema Andreae – E. H. ter Kuile – R. C. Hekker, Duizend jaar Bouwen. Amsterdam. Hiddink, H. A. 2005a: Archeologisch onderzoek aan de Beekseweg te Lieshout (gemeente Laarbeek, Noord-Brabant). Met bijdragen van L. van Beurden et al. Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 18). — 2005b: Opgravingen op het Rosveld bij Nederweert 1. Landschap en bewoning in de Ijzertijd, Romeinse tijd en Middeleeuwen. Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 22). — 2006: Inventariserend veldonderzoek door middel van proefsleuven in het plangebied Weert-Kampershoek Noord. Proefsleuf 1–75. Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Notities 59). — 2009: Bewoningssporen uit de Volle Middeleeuwen en de Nieuwe Tijd op de Beekse Akkers bij Beek en Donk, gemeente Laarbeek. Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 36). Hiddink, H. – Boer, E. de 2006: Inventariserend veldonderzoek door middel van proefsleuven in het plangebied Weert-Laarveld proefsleuf 1–146. Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Notities 68). Huijbers, A. M. J. H. 2007: Metaforiseringen in beweging: boeren en hun gebouwde omgeving in de volle Middeleeuwen in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied. Amsterdam (PhD thesis Amsterdam University). Huijts, C. S. T. J. 1992: De voor-historische boerderijbouw in Drenthe. Reconstuctiemodellen van 1300 voor tot 1300 na Chr. Arnhem. Jans, J. 1967: Landelijke Bouwkunst in Oost Nederland. Enschede. Jones, R. – Page, M. 2003: Characterising Rural Settlement and Landscape: Wittlewood Forest in the Middle Ages. Medieval Archaeology XLVII, 53–83. Keunen, L. J. 2009: Eeuwig grensland. Een historisch-geografische studie van Salland en de Achterhoek. Wageningen (PhD Thesis Wageningen University and Research Centre). Klápště, J. ed. 2002: The Rural House from the Migration Period to the Oldest Still Standing Buildings. Ruralia IV, Památky archeologické – Supplementum 15. Praha. Kooi, P. B. 1995: Het project Peelo; het onderzoek van de jaren 1981, 1982, 1986, 1987 en 1988. Palaeohistoria 35/36, 169–306. Lanting, J. N. – Waterbolk, H. T. 2002: Odoorn. In: H. Beck (Hrsg.), Reallexicon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, begr. von J. Hoops, 2. Aufl. Band. 21, 562–572.

16


Lascaris, M. A. 2011: Opgravingen in Eersel-Kerkebogten. Landschap en bewoning in de Bronstijd, IJzertijd, Romeinse tijd, Middeleeuwen en Nieuwe Tijd. Amsterdam (ZAR). Lindner, W. 1912: Das Niedersächsische Bauernhaus in Deutschland und Holland: ein Beitrag zu seiner Erkundung. Hannover. Molen, S. J. van der 1941: Het Saksische Boerenhuis in Zuidoost-Friesland. Groningen. — 1943: Het Friese boerenhuis in twintig eeuwen. Assen. Noomen, P. N. 1991: Koningsgoed in Groningen. Het domaniale verleden van de stad. In: J. W Boersma et al. red., Groningen 1040. Archeologie en oudste geschiedenis van de stad Groningen, Bedum – Groningen, 97–144, 279–288. — 1993: Middeleeuwse ontwikkelingen in Rolder dingspel. In: J. G. Borgesius – P. Brood – M. A. W. Gerding et al. eds., Geschiedenis van Rolde, Meppel, 83–111. Ostkamp, S. 1998: Van nederzettingslocatie tot akkercomplex. Plattelandsnederzettingen uit de Volle Middeleeuwen bij Geldrop-’t Zand. Amsterdam (Master’s thesis University of Amsterdam). Pape, J. C. 1970: Plaggen soils in the Netherlands. Geoderma 4, 229–255. Postma, O. 1934: De Friesche kleihoeve. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van den cultuurgrond vooral in Friesland en Groningen. Leeuwarden (Friesch Genootschap van Geschied-, Oudheid- en Taalkunden). Proos, R. 1997: Venray- ‘t Brukske, an early medieval settlement on the sandy soil of Limburg. In: G. De Boe – F. Verhaeghe eds., Rural Settlements in Medieval Europe (Papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge 1997 Conference, Volume 6), Zellik, 149–156. Regteren Altena, H. H. van 1989: Opgravingen te Dommelen 1982–1984. Schepers, J. 1960: Haus und Hof deutscher Bauern. Zweiter Band: Westfalen-Lippe. Münster. Scholte Lubberink, H. B. G. 2007: Bornse Maten – Zuid Esch, gemeente Borne. Een nederzetting uit de Late-ijzertijd en Vroeg Romeinse tijd. Amsterdam (RAAP-rapport 1432). Scholte Lubberink, H. B. G. – Willemse, N. W. 2009: Bornse Maten – Grutterskamp, gemeente Borne. Een nederzetting uit de ijzertijd en vroeg-Romeinse tijd. Amsterdam (RAAP-rapport 1937). Schotten, J. in prep.: Een middeleeuwse nederzetting op het Sint Antoniusveld te Venray. Spanjer, M. 1997: Bewoning op het Sint Antoniusveld. In: H. Stoepker ed., De weg terug. Archeologische ontdekkingen langs de A73 bij Venray, Abcoude/Amersfoort, 57–61. Spek, T. – Exter, L. van 2007: Bewonings- en ontginningsgeschiedenis van het kerspel Raalte tijdens de Middeleeuwen en Vroege Nieuwe Tijd. Een historisch-geografisch onderzoek ten behoeve van de archeologie. In: H. M. van der Velde ed., Germanen, Franken en Saksen in Salland. Archeologisch en landschappelijk onderzoek naar de geschiedenis van het landschap en nederzettingsresten uit de Romeinse tijd en Vroege Middeleeuwen in Centraal Salland, Amersfoort (ADC-monografie 1), 2007, 399–530. Stoepker, H. ed. 1997: De weg terug. Archeologische ontdekkingen langs de A73 bij Venray. Abcoude/ Amersfoort. — 2000: Venray-Hoogriebroek en Venray-Loobeek. Nederzettingen uit de prehistorie, Romeinse tijd en late Middeleeuwen. Amersfoort (RAM-rapport 46). Tent, W. J. van 1988: Leusden, Archeologische Kroniek provincie Utrecht 1980–1984, 18–33. Theuws, F. 1989: Middeleeuwse parochiecentra in de Kempen 1000–1350. In: A. Verhoeven – F. Theuws eds., Het Kempenproject 3. De Middeleeuwen centraal, Waalre, 97–216. — 1990: Het laatmiddeleeuwse cultuurlandschap. In: J. Bazelmans – F. Theuws eds., Tussen zes gehuchten. De Laat-Romeinse en middeleeuwse bewoning van Geldrop ’t Zand, Amsterdam, 52–57. — 1991: Landed property and manorial organisation in Northern Austrasia: some considerations and a Case study. In: N. Roymans – F. Theuws eds., Images of the Past. Studies of Ancient Societies in Northwestern Europe, Amsterdam (Studies in Pre- and Protohistorie 7), 299–407. Theuws, F. – Verhoeven, A. – Regteren Altena, H. H. van 1988: Medieval Settlement at Dommelen. Parts I, II, Berichten Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38, 231–430. Tuinstra, S. J. 2005: Een archeologische begeleiding (AB) in de boerderij Hagenend 3, te Anderen, gemeente Aa en Hunze (Dr.). Groningen (ARC-Rapporten 2005-37). Uilkema, K. 1933: Het ontstaan van huistypen in Nederland: I. Limburg, Noord-Brabant, Noord-Holland. Leeuwarden.


17

Velde, H. M. van der 2005: Een middeleeuws erf op de Noordachteres te Markelo. Amersfoort (ADC-Rapport 320). Velde, H. M. van der – Kenemans, M. 2002: Archeologisch onderzoek op de Zelhemse Enk, de aanleg van de provinciale weg N315. Bunschoten (ADC-rapport 120). Verlinde, A. D. 2000: Archeologische Kroniek van Overijssel over 1999. Overijsselse Historische Bijdragen 115, 147–174. Verspay, J. P. W. 2007: Onzichtbare Erven. Het Brabantse platteland in de Late Middeleeuwen. Amsterdam (Master’s thesis Amsterdam University). Voskuil, J. J. 1979: Van vlechtwerk tot baksteen. Geschiedenis van de wanden van het boerenhuis in Nederland. Arnhem. Vries, D. J. de 1983: Middeleeuwse boerderijplattegronden en de oudste dakconstructies. Vraagtekens bij het onderzoek naar vroege draagconstructies. Jaarverslag Stichting Historisch Boerderijonderzoek, 45–61. Waard, F. van der 1996a: ‘Oplecht Wark’, de oudste boerderijconstructies in Oost-Nederland. Jaarboek Monumentenzorg, 8–18. — 1996b: ‘Oplecht warck’ und ‘Slotengebinten’. Die Ältesten Bauernhauskonstruktionen der östlichen Niederlande. Berichte zur Haus- und Bauforschung, Band 4: Ländlicher Hausbau in Norddeutschland und den Niederlanden. Marburg. — 1999: Hagenend 3 Anderen. Bouwhistorisch onderzoek en waardebepaling. Groningen (Report IBID-Noord). Waterbolk, H. T. 1973: Odoorn im frühen Mittelalter. Bericht der Grabun 1966. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 8, 25–89. — 1979: Siedlungskontinuität im Küstengebiet der Nordsee zwischen Rhein und Elbe. Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet, Band 13, 1–22. — 1980: Hoe oud zijn de Drentse dorpen? Problemen van de nederzettingscontinuďteit in Drenthe van de Bronstijd tot in de middeleeuwen. Westerheem 19, 129–212. — 1982: Mobilität von Dorf, Ackerflur und Gräberfeld in Drenthe seit der Latčnezeit: Archäologische Siedlungsforschungen aus der nordniederländischen Geest. Offa 39, 97–137. — 1985: Archeologie. In: J. Heringa et al. eds., De geschiedenis van Drenthe, Meppel, 15–90. — 1991: Das Mittelalterliche Siedlungswesen in Drenthe. Versuch einer Synthese aus archäologischer Sicht. In: H. W. Böhme ed., Die Salier, Siedungen und Landesbau zur Salierzeit, Teil 1: In den Nordlichen Landschaften des Reiches, Sigmaringen, 47–108. — 1995: Patterns of the Peasant Landscape. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 1–36. — 1999: From Wijster to Dorestad and Beyond. In: H. Sarfatij – W. J. H. Verwers – P. J. Woltering eds., In Discussion with the Past. Archaeological studies presented tot W. A. van Es, Amersfoort, 107–118. — 2009: Getimmerd verleden. Sporen van voor- en vroeghistorische houtbouw op de zand- en kleigronden tussen Eems en IJssel. Groningen. Waterbolk, H. T. – Harsema, O. H. 1979: Medieval farmsteads in Gasselte (prov. of Drenthe). Paleohistoria XXI, 227–265. Zimmermann, W. H. 1998: Pfosten, Ständer und Schwelle und der Ubergang von Pfosten- zur Ständerbau. Eine Studie zu Innovation und Beharrung im Hausbau. Probleme der Küstenforschung 25, 9–241. — 2006: De levensduur van gebouwen met aardvaste stijlen. In: O. Brinkkemper et al. red., Vakken in vlakken. Archeologische kennis in lagen, Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 32), 293–306.

18


Pátrání po neviditelné usedlosti. Hledání archeologických dokladů pozdně středověkého venkovského osídlení v písečných typech krajiny v Nizozemsku (1250–1650 n. l.) Autoři předložili krátký historický nástin výzkumu středověkého osídlení v Nizozemsku a zaměřili se na problém archeologické „neviditelnosti“ sídlištních areálů a jednotlivých hospodářských stavení z doby mezi lety 1250 a 1650. Tento problém brzdí studium typových a chronologických trendů a dynamiky regionálního osídlení. Pečlivější analýza vykopaných sídel (zaměřená na jiné doklady než na kůlové jámy) kombinovaná s častější dendrochronologickou datací dosud existujících staveb a aplikací nové prospekční strategie může pomoci překlenout onu mezeru.

JAN VAN DOESBURG, Cultural Heritage Agency (RCE), the Netherlands; SmallePad 5, 3811 MG Amersfoort, The Netherlands; [email protected] BERT GROENEWOUDT, Cultural Heritage Agency (RCE), the Netherlands; SmallePad 5, 3811 MG Amersfoort, The Netherlands; [email protected]

Medieval rural settlement research. Jan van Doesburg Bert Groenewoudt. Středověká Evropa v pohybu. K poctě Jana Klápště

Recommend Documents