BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 147

Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility: a commentary on the ‘wandering farmstead’ model

von Stijn Arnoldussen

Introduction

In the Low Countries, but also in adjacent areas, the Mid-dle Bronze Age-B (c. 1500-1050 cal BC; hereafter MBA-B) is often seen as representing the culmination of the trajec-tories towards sedentism and true-mixed farming which take place during the final third and second millennium BC (Louwe Kooijmans 1993; Arnoldussen/Fontijn 2006). In this period, settlement sites become much more visible, and are known in much larger numbers, compared to the set-tlement sites of the preceding Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Arnoldussen/Fontijn 2006; Arnoldussen in prep.). The long regular three-aisled longhouses, which are thought to house both cattle and man, are generally ac-companied by several outbuildings and are thought to be situated within an (rectangular) area, defined by ditches or fences. Such a defined area comprising the farmhouse, outbuildings, open areas and possibly features like pits or wells, is usually labelled a ‘farmstead’. Despite the popular-ity of this concept, as is – for instance – evident from picto-rial reconstructions of Bronze Age house-sites (Abb. 1, below), there has been little research aimed directly at assessing the nature and dynamics of such farmsteads. This implies that although an abundance of Bronze Age houses is known from the Low Countries (over 240 published houses), hardly no evaluation of what the direct surroundings of these farms looked like has been undertaken (but see Arnoldussen in prep.).

The substantial nature of the large MBA-B farmhouses is sometimes interpreted as reflecting an increased per-manency of occupation compared to preceding periods, possibly as a consequence of (the time and energy in-vestment required in) crop-cultivation. Yet, regardless of their substantial nature, the location of the MBA domestic sites is thought to have shifted periodically: the farmsteads ‘wandered’ (Roymans/Fokkens 1991; Schinkel 1998). This model of the wandering of the farmsteads was predomi-nantly based on the observations that MBA house-sites generally seem to represent a single phase of occupation.

This means that estimates of the time-period lapsed be-tween such relocations were not based on direct evidence. Rather, speculations on wood-durability, soil-depletion and the length of human generational cycles have led to 25-30 year cycles having been forwarded. Over the last dec-ade, excavations carried out in the Dutch river area have yielded settlement sites where houses have regularly been rebuild on the very same spot (sometimes even three times; Abb. 8; Hielkema, Brokke/Meijlink 2002, 145-150). Such observations are hard to reconcile with the dominant model of the wandering farmstead. Therefore, a critical discussion of the origins, key motives and the applicability of this ‘wandering farmstead’ model is much needed and will be the aim of this paper.

Historical background

The notion that prehistoric farmsteads periodically shifted their location originated from descriptions of native Roman period (e.g. Schindler 1956; Van Es 1967) and late Iron Age period (e.g. Becker 1971) settlement sites (cf. Kos-sack et al. 1984; Haarnagel/Schmidt 1984; Zimmermann 1997, 421; Schinkel 1998, 26). Such observations were generally based on two distinct patterns in the excavation data: either within the same settlement site farmhouses datable to a given period were absent whereas houses from the preceding and ensuing periods were documented (suggesting a ‘period of absence’), or alternatively super-imposed houses could be dated to two non-consecutive phases (suggesting a ‘return’ to that specific location). As such, the ‘Wandersiedlungen/wandering farmstead’ model was thus largely a descriptive, rather than explanatory or predictive model, and was based on Iron Age to Roman period settlement sites.

Nonetheless, the model was quickly adopted to de-scribe the results from excavations of settlement sites from a much wider range of landscapes and chronological pe-

���������� ���������������� �������������������� ��������� !��"�����

���������#��� �������� �������� ��� $����$���������%&�$�'�(�)�*+&,����-���������%�� ���.�������'�/�����!0������)�*�,��$����1���������"2�������%���.������'�0��)�!(������ 3�*+&,����-���������%�1��� �����4����������566����6.%��

���������� ���� $� ����-��������� $����������)� ) �������0 �����7� 33����*�""���5����%� '� � ).�������8������ �������)� ) �������0 �����79 �������*�"""��5����%��6'���� -.%�

Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age

Contemporary farmsteads (filled squares) which periodically(generationally) change location. No fixed funerary site; crosses indicate some isolated barrows. Open squares indicate farmsteads from other phases.

Contemporary farmsteads (filled squares) which periodically(generationally) change location, while the funerary locationremains fixed. Open squares indicate farmsteads from other phases.

Filled grey houses represent farmsteads that shift location after some time. Filled black circles represent a household’s barrow,situated near the farmhouse. Open houses represent farmsteadsfrom earlier phases. Local group territories (enclosing ovals) arerelatively large and weakly defined.

Filled grey houses represent farmsteads that shift location after some time. Open houses represent farmsteads from earlier phases. Filled black circles represent older barrows, the other geometric shapes represent urnfield graves. The urnfield formed the fixed collective cemetery of a local group. Local group territories (enclosing ovals) are smaller and more fixed.

BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 149

riods. In the Netherlands, it has become the dominant model in describing the domestic mobility for Bronze Age settlement sites (e.g. Waterbolk 1987, 203-204; Roy-mans/Fok-kens 1991, 11; Theunissen 1997, 100; Fokkens 1998, 115; cf. Willroth 1996). Over time, the model has been expanded as to incorporate the (locations of) fields and barrows (see Abb. 2, below) and different factors have been forwarded as causing this domestic mobility (Ar-noldussen in prep., chapter 3).

Motives and underlying assumptions Three main arguments have been proposed as steering the periodical relocation of Bronze Age settlement sites, or later prehistoric settlement sites in general. These argu-ments must now be discussed in brief.

The most frequently encountered explanation for the relocation of Bronze Age house-sites is the idea that the durability of the construction wood used would have been a limiting factor. Allowing for different species of wood and

thicknesses of the posts involved, 10 to 40 years seemed to be reasonable estimates (Purslow 1976; Bakels 1978, 79-82; IJzereef/Van Regteren Altena 1991, 74; Brinkkem-per 1993, 43; Schinkel 1998, 27, but see below and Zim-mermann 1998; 2006).

A second motive, previously indicated by Fokkens (2002, 134) is that often implicitly, it has been assumed that Bronze Age crop-cultivation quickly resulted in over-exploitation of the agricultural soils. The houses and fields were consequently both relocated (cf. Butler 1969, 68; Wilhelmi 1983, 62; Haarnagel/Schmid 1984, 216; Bantel-mann et al. 1984, 245; Kortlang 1999, 184; Spek 2004, 131-133; 975).

A third and more recently proposed suggestion (Gerrit-sen 2003, cf. Brück 1999, 149) is that changes in house-hold composition – such as the marriage or death of a household member – may have been the primary force driving farmhouse relocation. Whereas such changes are virtually invisible from an archaeological perspective, both Gerritsen (2003) and Brück (1999) argue that ‘odd’ deposi-tions related to the construction and abandonment of a house may provide some archaeological grip on otherwise elusive processes such as house-household interrelation. Conveniently enough, the assumed length of a human generational cycle, fits reasonably well with the figures suggested for the wood-durability (cf. Gerritsen 2003, 107).

Whereas several other motives for Bronze Age domes-tic mobility may be and have been forwarded (e.g. rodent infestation, landscape drowning, external social causes such as raids, socio-cultural reasons), the are mostly – if not all – characterized by a (very) local validity and low archaeological visibility and are therefore hardly verifiable.

How to test a model for domestic mobility?

The first step in testing the ‘wandering farmstead’ model would be to call for a critical evaluation of its defining con-cepts and underlying assumptions. To start, this would call for a discussion of the farmstead concept, which would take as well beyond the scope of the current paper (but see Roberts 1996, 16-19; Beck/Steuer 1997; Harding 2000, 22; Arnoldussen in prep.). Here, it suffices to state that the prehistoric farmhouse, together with granary-type outbuildings – usually being the archaeologically best visi-ble part of a ‘farmstead’–, defines a prehistoric house-site. Farmsteads are house-sites which display a preferred or recurrent placement of house-sites elements such as out-buildings, pits and fences or ditches in relation to the farm-house. If one accepts that prehistoric farmhouses are han-dles for discussing house-sites, we can confine ourselves to a discussion of the domestic mobility of houses proper below.

In addition, the ‘wandering farmstead’ model can be used to compile testable predictions. The periodical reloca-tion of domestic sites predicts that Bronze Age house-sites are single-phased entities. Put otherwise, the model pre-dicts that excavated Bronze Age house-sites consist of a single house ground plan. Also, it may be expected, that – certainly if the durability of wood played a significant role – rather than undertaking extensive repairs, relocation will have been the dominant strategy. Bronze Age houses can thus be suspected to show few signs of repair or major structural alterations such as extensions. With the exten-sive dataset on Dutch Bronze Age settlement sites and such hypotheses, the model for domestic mobility can actually be tested (see below). But first, let us now take a critical look at the three main motives which have been suggested to generate domestic mobility. I will start with the assumption that soil-depletion necessitated the peri-odic relation of Bronze Age house-sites.

Soil-depletion and its relation to domestic mobility The caveats with this assumption are reasonably obvious. The Netherlands comprise a wide range of geological landscapes, each with distinct benefits and limitations towards specific kinds of agricultural use (Abb. 3, below). Without going into too much detail, it is important to distin-guish between the subsoils of Pleistocene age and those of Holocene genesis. The main Pleistocene areas com-prise the northern parts and the southern parts of the Netherlands, divided by the central river area.

The northern areas were affected by Saale period gla-ciation. There (peri-)glacial phenomena such as the pres-ence of boulder clay, moraine outcrops and ice-transported boulders can be encountered (Waterbolk 1995, 1). The southern boundary of this Saale glaciation is represented by the ice-pushed hills in the central and central-eastern

a b c d e f g h

north-easternboulderclay andcoversand areas

southerncoversand areas

central river areas

West-Frieslandcreek ridge areas

household formation: marriage or birth of first child

household expansion: birth of children, adoption, older generation moves in

household contraction:young adults move out

young adults begin new household, build house in new location

death of householdhead, old generationmoves in with youngerhousehold

deceasedinhabitants as ancestors

choice of location site preparation construction foundation offerings

repairs, renovations, extensions, renewal of

granaries and wells

house left to collapse, demolished, burnt down or kept in repair

return for ritual/feasts, house used secondarily for storage or craftactivities, or site razed andtaken into cultivation

5 m0

BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 152

At Hoogkarpel, two miniature ceramic cups were re-covered from one of the roof-bearing posts of a three-aisled farmhouse. Presumably, this house was rebuilt and from a posthole of the entrance portal of its successor, yet another miniature cup was retrieved (Fig. 5 above; Van den Broeke 2005, 660, cf. Bourgeois, Cherreté/Bourgeois 2003, 179; 268-269).

A house ground plan from Rhenen that presumably dates to the 12th or 11th century BC, yielded a small pegged bronze spearhead (Van Hoof/Meurkens in press; for other examples of bronze weaponry deposited on Bronze Age settlement sites see Nowakowski 2001, 145; Fontijn 2003, 144-147; Ziermann 2004, 408; Gaffrey/Dei- ters 2005). This spearhead was retrieved in a relatively horizontal position from high up in one of the postholes of a roof-bearing post. As it could not be discerned whether the spearhead was situated in the posthole or the post-pipe, the possibility remains that this find represents activities carried out upon abandonment, instead of upon construc-tion.

From a posthole of a wall-post of a Late Bronze Age house at Boxmeer, over 3 kg of secondarily burned ceram-ics were recovered (Van der Velde 1998, 23; Van den Broeke 2002, 52). A similar situation was encountered at Sittard, where the post-pipes of two roof-bearing posts of a Late Bronze Age house yielded over 100 secondarily burned sherds and a fragment of a loom-weight (Tol/ Schabbink 2004, 27). These two examples seem to indi-cate a Late Bronze Age start of an Iron Age pattern of interring secondarily burned ceramics into postholes upon abandonment for which some more (Iron Age) examples have been documented (Van den Broeke 2002).

In addition to the examples presented above, several other ‘odd’ deposits may hint of house-related depositional acts in the Bronze Age (e.g. Jongste 2002b; Meijlink/Kra-nendonk 2002, 197; 252; Fontijn 2003, 144-147; Therkorn in prep.), but these are too inconclusive to discuss here at length. The point I want to make here is that if we accept the examples above as evidence of Bronze Age foundation (three) and abandonment (two) rituals, we are dealing with occurrences with frequencies of slightly above 1 % in both cases. Put otherwise, for the overwhelming majority (> 98 %) of the houses, deposition of inorganic material was not part of the rituals executed at house construction or abandonment.

If we want to use a biographic approach to Bronze Age house(hold) histories as Gerritsen (2003) proposes, it is evident that we are – when discussing foundation- and/or abandonment deposits – dealing with highly particular biographies. In more typical or ordinarily biographies, non-organic depositions associated with key elements of the house(hold) lifecycle seem not to have been of prime im-portance.

On the longevity of wood used on Bronze Age house-sites

In many accounts on later prehistoric settlement dy-namics, the limited durability of the construction wood used has been forwarded as a cause driving domestic mobility. Generally, a 30 year lifespan is assumed for Bronze- and Iron Age houses (for references see above). Some points however need to be kept in mind.

The first is that the experiments, on which estimates for the use-life of construction wood are often based, have usually been conducted ‘out in the open’. This means that the wood was fully exposed to the elements and biotic processes. Construction wood is generally sheltered from rain, thus slowing down moisture-enhanced processes of decay.

Furthermore, the outer parts of posts could and have been protected to slow down rotting by charring (C. Huijts in: Boivin 2003, 32; cf. Draiby 1991, 129; Vallet et al.1997, 85) or other methods of pre-treatment (not yet documented for the Bronze Age) such as reducing the diameter to the inner hardwood proper, or applying a tar or clay plastering (Zimmermann 2006, 298-300).

A final comment is that even complete rotting of roof-bearing posts need not always have caused full-scale structural instability (Reynolds 1995). If the superstructure was adequately rigid (interconnected), rotting of the roof-bearing posts at ground level need not have led to the abandonment of a given building. Zimmerman (2006, 295), however, questions whether this also applies to long rec-tangular houses, as the observation were made on ex-perimentally reconstructed round houses. In addition, re-pairs of posts rotting beyond what was considered acceptable was always an option (see below).

In any case, based on historical data and experiments, life-expectancies for buildings constructed with wooden earthfast posts range from a little as ten years to a century and possibly even longer (Zimmermann 2006, 303). The exact use-life is determined by the complex – and archaeo-logically not disentangleable – interplay of wood species, diameter, removal of soft-wood, types of pre-treatment, soil-type, humidity and types of maintenance applied. Luckily, the good state of organic preservation of Bronze Age settlement site remains from the Dutch river area provides some direct indications.

At the excavation called ‘Eigenblok’ near the hamlet of Rumpt, parts of several MBA-B house-sites have been excavated (Jongste/Van Wijngaarden 2002). At house-site five (Fig. 6, below), most (all alder) post-stumps had been preserved and two roof-bearing posts were radiocarbon dated to c. 1495-1400 cal BC (GrN-23647: 3165±15 BP and GrN-23646: 3155±15 BP; Jongste 2002, 35).

A post-stump from a nearby outbuilding was radio-carbon dated to c. 1410-1270 cal BC (GrN-23838: 3070 ± 20 BP; id.). This means that this outbuilding could be con-

3165 ± 15 BP

3155 ± 15 BP

3070 ± 20 BP

3060 ± 20 BP

3025 ± 25 BP

25 m0

10 m0

3120 ± 30 BP

1421 ± 5 BC

1396 ± 6 BC

3025 ± 30 BP

1483 ± 6 BC

1374 ± 5 BC

3080 ± 30 BP

1345 BC

Total Overbuilt Overbuilt Extended Rebuilt Repaired houses S H

161 12 21 10 17 26

1

10 m0

10 m0

BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 156

References Arnoldussen/Fontijn 2006: S. Arnoldussen/D.R. Fontijn,

Towards familiar landscapes? On the nature and ori-gins of Bronze Age landscapes in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 2006, 289-317.

Arnoldussen 2008: S. Arnoldussen, A Living Landscape: Bronze Age settlements in the Dutch river area (2000-800 BC), Leiden.

Bakels 1978: C.C. Bakels, Four Linearbandkeramik set-tlements and their environment: A paleoecological study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 11 (Leiden 1978).

Bakker/Woltering/Manssen 1968: J.A. Bakker/P.J. Wolte-ring/W.J. Manssen, Opgravingen te Hoogkarspel V. West-Frieslands Oud en Nieuw 35, 1968, 191-244.

Bantelmann/Haarnagel/Harck/Haßler/Hundt/Körber-Groh-ne/Kossack/Kroll/Reichstein/Reichstein/Schmid/Zimmermann 1984: A. Bantelmann/W. Haarnagel O. Harck/H.-J. Haßler/H.-J. Hundt/U. Körber-Grohne/G. Kossack/H. Kroll/H. Reichstein/J. Reichstein/P. Schmid/W.H. Zim-mermann, Kulturverhältnisse. In: G. Kossack/K.-E. Behre/P. Schmid (Hrsg.), Archäologische und natur-wissenschaftlichte Untersuchungen an ländlichen und frühstädtischen Siedlungen im deutschen Küstengebiet vom 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert n.Chr., 1: Ländliche Siedlungen (Weinheim 1984) 245-394.

Beck/Steuer 1997: H. Beck/H. Steuer (Hrsg.), Haus und Hof in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit : Bericht über zwei Kolloquien der Kommission für die Altertumskun-de Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 24. bis 26. Mai 1990 und 20. bis 22. November 1991 (34. und 35. Arbeits-tagung); (Gedenkschrift für Herbert Jankuhn) Abhand-lungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge 218 (Göt-tingen 1997).

Becker 1971: C.J. Becker, Früheisenzeitliche Dörfer bei Grøntoft, Westjütland. 3. Vorbericht: Die Ausgrabun-gen 1967-68. Acta Arch. 42, 1971, 79-110.

Beek, van 2001: R. van Beek, Elp in perspectief. Een eva-luatie en incorporatie van de verschillende aspecten van een bronstijd-cultuur (Leiden [Unpublished MA the-sis] 2001).

Berendsen 2005a (1996): H.J.A. Berendsen, De vorming van het land. Inleiding in de geologie en de geomorfo-logie (Assen 2005a [1996]).

Berendsen 2005b (1997): H.J.A. Berendsen, Landschap-pelijk Nederland. De fysisch-geografische regio's (As-sen 2005b [1997]).

Boivin 2003: B. Boivin, Drents boer-boek : 7000 jaar boer-derij en landschap (Assen 2003).

Bourgeois/Bourgeois/Cheretté 2003: J. Bourgeois/I. Bour-geois/B. Cheretté, Bronze Age and Iron Age communi-ties in north-western Europe (Brussel 2003).

Brinkkemper 1993: O. Brinkkemper, Wetland farming in the area to the south of the Meuse estuary during the Iron Age and Roman period. An environmental and palaeo-economic reconstruction. Analecta Praehistorica Lei-densia 24 (Leiden 1993).

Brinkkemper/van Haaster/van Rijn/Vermeeren 2002: O. Brinkkemper/H. van Haaster/P. van Rijn/C. Vermeeren, Archeobotanie. In: P.F.B Jongste/G.J. van Wijngaarden (Hrsg.), Archeologie in de Betuweroute: Het Erfgoed van Eigenblok. Bewoningssporen uit de Bronstijd te Geldermalsen. Rapportage Archeologische Monumen-tenzorg 86 (Amersfoort 2002) 439-557.

Broeke, van den 2002: P.W. van den Broeke, Een vurig afscheid? Aanwijzingen voor verlatingsrituelen in ijzer-tijdnederzettingen. In: H. Fokkens/R. Jansen (Hrsg.), 2000 Jaar bewoningsdynamiek. Brons- en IJzertijd be-woning in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied (Leiden 2002) 45-61.

Broeke, van den 2005: P.W. van den Broeke, Blacksmiths and potters. Material culture and technology. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans/P.W. van den Broeke/H. Fok-kens/A.L. van Gijn (Hrsg.), The prehistory of the Neth-erlands (II) (Amsterdam 2005) 603-625.

Brück 1999: J. Brück, Houses, Lifecycles and Deposition on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in Southern Eng-land. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 1999, 145-166.

Bulten/van der Heijden/Hamburg 2002: E.E.B. Bulten/ F.J.G. van der Heijden/T. Hamburg, Prehistorische vis-weren en fuiken bij Emmeloord. ADC Rapport 140 (Bunschoten 2002).

Butler 1969: J.J. Butler, Nederland in de Bronstijd. Fibu-lareeks 31 (Bussum 1969).

Carmiggelt 2001: A. Carmiggelt (Hrsg.), Opgespoord ver-leden. Archeologie in de Betuweroute (Abcoude 2001).

Draiby 1991: B. Draiby, Studier i jernalderens husbygning. Rekonstruktion af et langhus fra ældre romersk jernal-der. Experimentel Arkæologi. Studier i teknologi og kul-tur 1, 1991, 103-133.

Es, van 1967: W.A. van Es, Wijster : a native village bey-ond the imperial frontier, 150-425 A.D. (Groningen 1967).

Fokkens 1998: H. Fokkens, Drowned Landscape. The Occupation of the Western Part of the Frisian-Drenthian Plateau, 4400 BC – AD 500 (Assen 1998).

Fokkens 2002: H. Fokkens, Vee en voorouders: centrale elementen uit het dagelijks leven in de Bronstijd. In: H. Fokkens/R. Jansen (Hrsg.), Brons- en ijzertijdbewoning in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied (Leiden 2002) 125-149.

BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 157

Fontijn 2003: D.R. Fontijn, Sacrificial Landscapes. Cultural biographies of persons, objects and 'natural' places in the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, c. 2300-600 BC. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34 (Lei-den 2003).

Gaffrey/Deiters 2005: J. Gaffrey/S. Deiters, Häuser, Gru-ben und Dolche: Spuren bronzezeitlicher Besiedlung in Rhede. In: H.G. Horn/H. Hellenkemper/G. Isenberg/J. Kunow (Hrsg.), Von Anfang an. Archäologie in Nord-rhein-Westfalen. Schriften zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Nordrhein-Westfalen 8 (Mainz 2005) 340-341.

Gerritsen 1999: F. Gerritsen, To build and abandon. The cultural biography of late prehistoric houses and farm-steads in the southern Netherlands. Archaelogical Dia-logues 6.2, 1999, 78-97.

Gerritsen 2003: F. Gerritsen, Local identities. Landscape and community in the late prehistoric Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region. Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 9 (Amsterdam 2003).

Goody 1990: J. Goody, The oriental, the ancient and the primitive. Systems of marriage and the family in the pre-industrial societies of Eurasia (Cambrigde 1990).

Haarnagel/Schmid 1984: W. Haarnagel/P. Schmid, Sied-lungen. In: G. Kossack/K.-E. Behre/P. Schmid (Hrsg.), Archäologische und naturwissenschaftlichte Untersu-chungen an ländlichen und frühstädtischen Siedlungen im deutschen Küstengebiet vom 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert n.Chr., 1: Ländliche Siedlun-gen (Weinheim 1984) 167-244.

Harding 2000: A.F. Harding, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000).

Hielkema/Brokke/Meijlink 2002: J.B. Hielkema/A.J. Brok-ke/B.H.F.M. Meijlink, Sporen en structuren. In: B.H.F.M. Meijlink/P. Kranendonk (Hrsg.), Archeologie in de Betuweroute: Boeren, erven, graven. De Boeren-gemeenschap van De Bogen bij Meteren (2450-1250 v.Chr.). Rapportage Archeologische Monumen-tenzorg 87 (Amersfoort 2002) 137-291.

Hingh, de 2000: A.E. de Hingh, Food production and food procurement in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (2000-500 BC). Archaeological Studies Leiden Univer-sity 7 (Leiden 2000).

Hogestijn 1992: J.W.H. Hogestijn, Functional differences between some settlements of the Single Grave Culture in the northwestern coastal area of the Netherlands. In: M. Buchvaldek/C. Strahm (Hrsg.), Die kontinentaleuro-päischen Gruppen der Kultur mit Schnurkeramik. Schnurkeramik Symposium 1990. Praehistorica 19 (Praha 1992) 199-205.

Hoof, van/Meurkens in press/2007: L.G.L. van Hoof/L. Meurkens, Vluchtige huisplattegronden. Verslag van een tweede opgravingscampagne te Rhenen-Remmerden. Archol rapport 51 (Leiden in press/2007).

IJzereef 1989: G.F. IJzereef, Andijk (1973) en Boven-karspel (1974-1978). In: H. Fokkens/N. Roymans

(Hrsg.), Nederzettingen uit bronstijd en vroege ijzertijd in de Lage Landen. Symposium in Leiden, 14 en 15 december 1989 (Leiden [unpublished conference booklet] 1989) 22-24.

IJzereef/van Regteren Altena 1991: G.F. IJzereef/J.F. van Regteren Altena, Nederzettingen uit de midden- en late bronstijd te Andijk en Bovenkarspel. In: H. Fok-kens/N. Roymans (Hrsg.), Nederzettingen uit de bronstijd en de vroege ijzertijd in de Lage Landen. Ne-derlandse Archeologische Rapporten 13 (Amersfoort 1991) 61-81.

Jongste/van Wijngaarden 2002: P.F.B. Jongste/G.J. van Wijngaarden (Hrsg.), Archeologie in de Betuwerou-te: Het Erfgoed van Eigenblok. Bewoningssporen uit de Bronstijd te Geldermalsen. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 86 (Amersfoort 2002).

Jongste 2002: P.F.B. Jongste, Inleiding. In: P.F.B. Jongste/G.J. van Wijngaarden (Hrsg.), Archeologie in de Betuweroute: Het Erfgoed van Eigenblok. Bewo-ningssporen uit de Bronstijd te Geldermalsen. Rappor-tage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 86 (Amersfoort 2002) 9-43.

Jongste 2002b: P.F.B. Jongste, De verlaten erven van Eigenblok. Deposities van metalen voorwerpen op twee erven uit de Midden-Bronstijd in de Betuweroute. In: H. Fokkens/R. Jansen (Hrsg.), Brons- en ijzertijdbewoning in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied (Leiden 2002b) 95-108.

Knippenberg/Jongste 2005: S. Knippenberg/P.F.B. Jong-ste (Hrsg.), Terug naar Zijderveld. Archeologische opgravingen van een bronstijdnederzetting langs de A2. Archol Rapport 36 (Leiden 2005).

Kooi 1991: P.B. Kooi, Een nederzetting uit de midden-bronstijd op het Huidbergsveld bij Dalen. Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 108, 1991, 104-117.

Kooi in prep.: P.B. Kooi, Bronze Age settlements in Dren-the. In: S. Arnoldussen/H. Fokkens (Hrsg.), Bronze Age settlement sites in the Low Countries (Oxford in prep./2007)

Kooistra 1996: L.I. Kooistra, Borderland Farming. Possibili-ties and limitations of farming in the Roman Period and Early Middle Ages between the Rhine and Meuse (As-sen 1996).

Kopytoff 1986: I. Kopytoff, The cultural biography of things: commodization as a process. In: A. Appadurai (Hrsg.), The social life of things (Cambridge 1986) 64-91.

Kortlang 1999: F. Kortlang, The Iron Age urnfield and set-tlement from Someren-'Waterdael'. In: F. Theuws/N. Roymans (Hrsg.), Land and Ancestors. Cultural dynam-ics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands. Amsterdam Archaeological Stu-dies 4 (Amsterdam 1999) 133-198.

Kossack/Behre/Schmid 1984: G. Kossack/K.-E. Behre/P. Schmid (Hrsg.), Archäologische und naturwissenschaft-lichte Untersuchungen an ländlichen und frühstädti-

BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 158

schen Siedlungen im deutschen Küstengebiet vom 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert n. Chr., 1: Ländliche Siedlungen (Weinheim 1984).

Louwe Kooijmans 1993: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans, Wetland exploitation and upland relations of prehistoric commu-nities in the Netherlands. In: J. Gardiner (Hrsg.), Flat-lands and wetlands: current themes in East Anglian ar-chaeology. East Anglian Archaeology Report 50 (Norwich 1993) 71-116.

Meijlink/Kranendonk 2002: B.H.F.M. Meijlink/P. Kranen-donk (Hrsg.), Archeologie in de Betuweroute: Boeren, erven, graven. De Boerengemeenschap van De Bogen bij Meteren (2450-1250 v.Chr.). Rapportage Archeolo-gische Monumentenzorg 87 (Amersfoort 2002).

Mulder, de/Geluk/Ritsema/Westerhoff/Wong 2003: E.F.J. de Mulder/M.C. Geluk/I.L. Ritsema/W.E. Westerhoff/ T.E. Wong, De ondergrond van Nederland (Groningen 2003).

Nowakowski 2001: J.A. Nowakowski, Leaving home in the Cornish Bronze Age: insights into planned abandon-ment processes. In: J. Brück (Hrsg.), Bronze Age Land-scapes. Tradition and Transformation (Exeter 2001) 139-148.

Prindle 1984: P.H. Prindle, Part-Time Farming: A Japa-nese Example. Journal of Anthropological Re-search 40.2, 1984, 293-305.

Purslow 1976: D.F. Purslow, Results of Field Tests on the Natural Durability of Timber (1932-1975). Building Re-search Establishment Current Paper 78 (Aylesbury 1976).

Reynolds 1995: P. Reynolds, The Life and Death of a Post-Hole. Butser ancient farm Occasional papers 1 (Waterlooville 1995).

Roberts 1996: B.K. Roberts, Landscapes of settlement. Prehistory to the present (London/New York 1996).

Roymans/Fokkens 1991: N. Roymans/H. Fokkens, Een overzicht van veertig jaar nederzettingsonderzoek in de Lage Landen. In: H. Fokkens/N. Roymans (Hrsg.), Ne-derzettingen uit de bronstijd en de vroege ijzertijd in de Lage Landen (Amersfoort 1991) 1-19.

Roymans/Kortlang 1999: N. Roymans/F. Kortlang, Urnfield symbolism, ancestors and the land in the Lower Rhine Region. In: F. Theuws/N. Roymans (Hrsg.), Land and Ancestors. Cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands. Amster-dam Archaeological Studies 4 (Amsterdam 1999) 33-62.

Roymans/Theuws 1999: N. Roymans/F. Theuws, Long-term perspectives on man and landscape in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region (1100 BC-1500 AD). An intro-duction. In: F. Theuws/N. Roymans (Hrsg.), Land and Ancestors. Cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands. Amster-dam Archaeological Studies 4 (Amsterdam 1999) 1-32.

Schindler 1956: R. Schindler, Siedlungsprobleme in Stor-marngau im Anschluß an die Ausgrabungen in Ham-burg-Farmsen. Archaeologia Geographica 5, 1956, 25-32.

Schinkel 1998: K. Schinkel, Unsettled settlement, occupa-tion remains from the Bronze Age and the Iron Age at Oss-Ussen. The 1976-1986 excavations. Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia 30, 1998, 5-306.

Schinkel 2005: K. Schinkel, Hamlets on the move. Settle-ments in the southern and central parts of the Nether-lands. In: L.P. Louwe Kooijmans/P.W. van den Broeke/ H. Fokkens/A.L. van Gijn (Hrsg.), The prehistory of the Netherlands (II) (Amsterdam 2005) 519-542.

Spek 1993: T. Spek, Milieudynamiek en locatiekeuze op het Drents Plateau (3400 v.Chr.-1850 n.Chr.). In: J.N.H. Elerie (Hrsg.), Landschapsgeschiedenis van De Strubben/Kniphorstbos. Archeologische en his-torisch-ecologische studies van een natuurgebied op de Hondsrug. Regio- en landschapsstudies 1 (Gronin-gen 1993) 167-232.

Spek 2004: T. Spek, Het Drentse esdorpenlandschap: een historisch-geografische studie (Amersfoort 2004).

Stouthamer 2001: E. Stouthamer, Sedimentary products of avulsions in the Holocene Rhine-Meuse Delta, The Netherlands. Sedimentary Geology 145, 2001, 73-92.

Therkorn in prep.: L.L. Therkorn, Marking while taking land into use: some indications for long-term traditions from the Early Bronze Age onwards within the Oer-IJ estua-rine region (Province of Noord-Holland). In: S. Ar-noldussen/H. Fokkens (Hrsg.), Bronze Age settlement sites in the Low Countries (Oxford in prep./2007).

Theunissen 1999: E.M. Theunissen, Midden-bronstijds-amenlevingen in het zuiden van de Lage Landen. Een evaluatie van het begrip 'Hilversum-cultuur' (Leiden 1999).

Theunissen/Hulst 1999: E.M. Theunissen/R.S. Hulst, De opgraving te Zijderveld. In: E.M. Theunissen (Hrsg.), Midden-bronstijdsamenlevingen in het zuiden van de Lage Landen. Een evaluatie van het begrip 'Hilversum-cultuur' (Leiden 1999) 156- 180.

Tol/Schabbink 2004: A. Tol/M. Schabbink, Opgravingen op vindplaatsen uit de Bronstijd, IJzertijd, Romeinse tijd en Volle Middeleeuwen op het Hoogveld te Sittard. Zuid-nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 14 (Amster-dam 2004).

Vallet/Vallet/Vigier/Chevillot 1997: C. Vallet/D. Vallet/M. Vigier/C. Chevillot, Construction dún atelier "Chasse-Pêche" au Parc de Beynac. In: C. Chevillot (Hrsg.), Journées d'Archéologie Expérimentale. Parc Archéolo-gique de Beynac. Bilan des Années 1996-1997 1 (Beynac-et-Cazenac 1997) 80-92.

Velde, van der 1998 : H. M. van der Velde, Archeologisch onderzoek in de Maasbroeksche Blokken te Boxmeer. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 64 (Am-ersfoort 1998).

BUFM 53, Arnoldussen, Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility, 147-159 159

Vellinga 2000: M. Vellinga, Constituting unity and differ-ence. The meaning of vernacular houses in a Minang-kabau village (Leiden 2000).

Waterbolk 1985: H.T. Waterbolk, Archeologie. In: J. Herin-ga/D.P. Blok/M.G. Buist/H.T. Waterbolk (Hrsg.), Ge-schiedenis van Drenthe (Meppel 1985) 15-90.

Waterbolk 1987: H.T. Waterbolk, Terug naar Elp. In: F.C.J. Ketelaar (Hrsg.), De historie herzien; vijfde bundel 'His-torische Avonden' (Hilversum 1987) 183-215.

Waterbolk 1995: H.T. Waterbolk, Patterns of the peasant landscape. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 1995, 1-36.

Weerts 2003: H.J.T. Weerts, Beschrijving lithostratigraf-ische eenheid: Formatie van Naaldwijk (Utrecht 2003).

Wilhelmi 1983: K. Wilhelmi, Die Jüngere Bronzezeit zwi-schen Niederrhein und Mittelweser. Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg 15 (Marburg 1983).

Willroth 1996: K.-H. Willroth, Landschaft, Besiedlung und Siedlung. In: G. Wegner (Hrsg.), Leben-Glauben-Sterben vor 3000 Jahren. Bronzezeit in Niedersachsen. Eine niedersächsische Austellung zur Bronzezeit-Kampagne des Europarates (Oldenburg 1996) 37-54.

Ziermann 2004: D. Ziermann, Siedlungsspuren der ausge-henden Bronzezeit. In: M. Fansa/F. Both/H. Haßmann (Hrsg.), Archäologie Land Niedersachsen. 400000 Jahre Geschichte (Bad Langensalza 2004) 406-408.

Zimmermann 1997: W.H. Zimmermann, Haus, Hof und Siedlungsstruktur auf der Geest vom Neolithikum bis in das Mittelalter im Elbe-Weser-Dreieck. In: H. Beck/H. Steuer (Hrsg.), Haus und Hof in ur- und frühgeschichtli-cher Zeit : Bericht über zwei Kolloquien der Kommissi-on für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 24. bis 26. Mai 1990 und 20. bis 22. November 1991 (34. und 35. Arbeitstagung) ; (Gedenkschrift für Herbert Jankuhn) Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissen-schaften zu Göttingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge 218 (Göttingen 1997) 414-416.

Zimmermann 1998: W.H. Zimmermann, Pfosten, Ständer und Schwelle und der Übergang vom Pfosten- zum Ständerbau. Eine Studie zu Innovation und Beharrung im Hausbau. Zu Konstruktion und Haltbarkeit prähisto-rischer bis neuzeitlicher Holzbauten von den Nord- und Ostseeländern bis zu den Alpen. Probleme der Küsten-forschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 25, 1998, 9-242.

Zimmermann 2006: W.H. Zimmermann, De levensduur van gebouwen met aardvaste stijlen. In: O. Brinkkemper/J. Deeben/J. van Doesburg/D.P. Hallewas/E.M. Theunis-sen/A.D. Verlinde (Hrsg.), Vakken in vlakken. Archeo-logische kennis in lagen. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 32 (Amersfoort 2006) 293-306.

Anschrift

Stijn Arnoldussen Groningen Institute of Archaeology Groningen University Poststraat 6 NL - 9712 ER Groningen s.arnoldussen@rug.nl

Sonderdruck aus:

Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 53

Varia neolithica V

Mobilität, Migration und

Kommunikation in Europa während des

Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit

Beiträge der Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaften

Neolithikum und Bronzezeit während der Jahrestagung

des West- und Süddeutschen Verbandes für

Altertumsforschung e. V. in Xanten, 6. – 8. Juni 2006

Herausgegeben von

Alexandra Krenn-Leeb, Hans-Jürgen Beier, Erich Claßen Frank Falkenstein und Stefan Schwenzer

BEIER & BERAN. ARCHÄOLOGISCHE FACHLITERATUR LANGENWEISSBACH 2009

Inhalt

Vorwort

1 – 2

Hans-Jürgen Beier Überlegungen „Wandern oder nicht Wandern – das ist hier die Frage“. Einige theoretische Über-legungen zur Möglichkeit des Nachweises eines archäologischen Wunschtraumes

3 – 5

Stefan Schwenzer Kommunikationskonzepte in der prähistorischen Archäologie

7 – 19

Peter J. Suter & Albert Hafner Lenk, Schnidejoch. Funde aus dem Eis – ein vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Passübergang im Berner Oberland, Schweiz

21 – 30

Roland Prien Variationen eines Themas: Die Ausbreitung der ältesten linienbandkeramischen Kultur in Mittel-europa als Beispiel für eine neolithische Wanderungsbewegung

31 – 37

Valeska Becker Idole des südosteuropäischen Frühneolithikums und der Linienbandkeramik. Wanderung einer Glaubensvorstellung

39 – 48

Joanna Pyzel Migration und Kontakte in der Bandkeramik Kujawiens

49 – 52

Corinna Knipper & T. Douglas Price Individuelle Mobilität in der Linearbandkeramik: Strontiumisotopenanalysen vom Gräberfeld Stuttgart-Mühlhausen „Viesenhäuser Hof“

53 – 63

Ute Seidel Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn – Kultort oder Fluchtburg?

65 – 72

Jonas Beran Trichterbecherkultur und donauländische Restgruppen. Populationsdynamik zwischen nord-deutscher Tiefebene und Mittelgebirgszone im Lichte neuer paläogenetischer Untersuchungen

73 – 87

Renata Zych The Funnel Beaker Culture Settlement of the Sandomierz Valley

89 – 94

Thomas Link Das Ende der spätneolithischen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken – der Beginn einer mobile-ren Lebensweise?

95 –101

Agatha Reingruber Mobilität an der Unteren Donau in der Kupferzeit: Pietrele im Netz des Warenverkehrs

103 – 111

Daniela Kern Überlegungen zu Mobilität und Migration im Endneolithikum Ostösterreichs am Beispiel des Unteren Traisentales

113 – 119

Eric Drenth & Eric Lohof Mobilität während des Endneolithikums und der Bronzezeit. Eine allgemeine Übersicht für die Niederlande

121 – 132

Tobias Kienlin Anmerkungen zu Gesellschaft und Metallhandwerk der Frühbronzezeit

133 – 146

Stijn Arnoldussen Dutch Bronze Age residential mobility: a commentary on the ‘wandering farmstead’ model

147 – 159

David Fontijn Mittelbronzezeitliche Kriegergräber und Waffendeponierungen in Nordbelgien und den Niederlanden

161 – 169

Immo Heske Kultpersonal in einer fremden Welt. Deponierungen mit gegossenen Bronzebecken an der Peripherie der Nordischen Bronzezeit

171 – 179

Marianne Mödlinger Herstellung und Verwendung bronzezeitlicher Schwerter in Österreich

181 – 188

Claudia Pankau Das Wagengrab von Königsbronn, Kr. Heidenheim – Spätbronzezeitliche Verkehrs- und Kom-munikationswege in Süddeutschland

189 – 195

Barbara Horjes Alltagskulturen und Eliten zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ägäis. Verschiedene Kommunikati-onsmodelle?

197 – 207

Julia Katharina Koch Zwischen Diplomatie und Abenteuer? Möglichkeiten der Auswertung mediterraner Schriftquellen des 2. Jt. v.Chr. aus der Sicht der mitteleuropäischen Archäologie

209 – 216

Tobias Mühlenbruch Die Burg von Tiryns im Rahmen postpalatialer mykenischer Mobilität

217 – 225