No abstract

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research finances a research programme directed towards a new synthesis of the transition to farming in the Netherlands, viewed in its wider geographical context, profiting from the new wealth of data made available by modern large-scale field research. The programme encompasses various projects: a critical approach to the sitebound evidence by Luc Amkreutz, a regional approach by Bart Vanmontfort (Leuven), the first physical anthropological and isotopic study of the area by Liesbeth Smits, the acquisition and distribution of raw materials and prestigious items by Leo Verhart, and a re-evaluation of the various sources of palaeobotanical evidence from the delta district by Welmoed Out. This chapter serves as a short interim report, anticipating the synthetic volume planned for the year 2008. Comments are made especially on the seemingly parallel developments at the other end of the North German Plain in the Baltic coastal area.

Barrows near Arnhem; excavations on the Warnsborn estate, 1947-’48.In 1947 and 1948 six barrows were excavated on the Warnsborn estate, to the west of Arnhem. Although seemingly initiated for purely scientific purposes, no report was ever published, only some very short notes. This paper gives an account of the organization, the procedures followed and a critical (re)interpretation of the findings, on the basis of the field drawings and the field journal. The conclusion differs in many respects from the excavators’ original interpretations. It may be viewed as a cautionary tale for those relying on records of earlier investigations of this kind. The research was initiated and supervised by prof. Van Giffen, but in fact executed rather independently by his experienced field technician and draughtsman, assisted by two students, who some years later were to be appointed university professors and as such shaped post-war archaeology in the Netherlands. It was the period in which the State Service (ROB, now RCE) was founded, which, headed by Van Giffen, ultimately must have been the responsible institution. The barrows to be excavated were an arbitrary selection from the numerous mounds in the shallow valleys of the Heelsum and Wolfheze brooks: four dating to the Bronze Age, along the valley floor, and two from the Beaker period, slightly apart. All six appear to be part of a long row, as found in many regions across the country, comprising19 barrows. One of the Beaker burials (IV) had a characteristic early Single Grave inventory and was surrounded by a narrow palisaded ditch. The reliability of the observation of a corpse silhouette must however be doubted. The other Beaker barrow (V) was dated only on the basis of its appearance and the fossil soil conditions. It only shows some features that are hard to interpret. The group of four Bronze Age burials offers us a glimpse of the changing burial customs among a small local community. They are characterized by the absence of cremations and the exclusive practice of inhumation in all 27 burials documented. All recorded bodies were supine, with only one exception, a slightly flexed burial. None of these were equipped with any imperishable grave goods. It is remarkable that this small community in the interaction zone of the southern and northern burial traditions had exclusively followed the northern practice of extended inhumation. In the absence of radiocarbon dates and artifacts, dating had to be based purely on circumstantial evidence; with Middle Bronze Age A as the result, with a possible extension into MBA-B, i.e. 1800-1400 cal BC. Two of the Bronze Age barrows (I and II) are relatively small, simple and one-phased, with a single, supine central inhumation, one of these accompanied by a subsequent child burial. The two others (III and the large, so-called ‘Meelworstenberg’) had started similarly, but had grown to larger dimensions, up to 15 and 18 m in diameter, by the addition of new construction phases linked with new central graves. The larger one incorporated a small and low sand dune already present. The barrows became more complex and significantly different also by the introduction of secondary burials, in the form of 6 and 15 shaft graves respectively, orientated tangentially all along the barrows’ margins, and the raising of surrounding post circles. In one case this circle was only partially preserved and documented, but it was of quite impressive dimensions around the larger barrow, and seemingly not connected with a central burial, but with the secondary burials only. In both cases we observe a fundamental shift from a function as an exclusive tomb for selected individuals from the local community, as customary in earlier times, to a communal cemetery for numerous members of the community. This change in burial custom may serve as an argument for the contemporaneity of the last phase of both barrows, the simple barrows representing the earlier stage only.

But the Situation in Europe is now gradually changing äs people's relationship to history is transformed. In the post-modern world, people's relationship to 'their' past is less connected and more obviously constructed The issue of ownership of the past is less self-evident in increasingly multi-racial and ethmcally diverse states. The presentation of the past is linked to all forms of image consciousness and mampulation. New institutions exist for the rethmkmg of history -whether they be EuroDisney or femimst movements. Particularly in museums and hentage parks, the major question is 'what message shall we wnte?' and the social imphcations of reconstructions of the past are cntically evaluated. It is m this context that a distmct archaeological theory cornes to have relevance.It is thus in my view entirely to be expected that the current nse in theoretical debate in the Netherlands should be linked (a) to the nse of'institutions' (in a loose sense of the word) such äs a TAG -like Organisation, and (b) to debate about representation of the past, management and protection of the archaeological heritage I would differ from Slofstra in that I would suggest that the most important current Stimulus for theoretical debate in the Netherlands will not be the intellectual advances of an histoncal-anthropological approach, but the new set of theoretical practices surrounding the whole issue of cultural pohcy and hentage management. It is in this 'cntical' area that a role for reflective theory may be found.In many ways, New and processual archaeology were pnmanly about method They were concerned with field and analytical procedures, hypothetico-deductive methods and samplmg strategies It is post-processual archaeology which has focussed on theory and identified the theoretical madequacies of its predecessor I would argue, despite Slofstra's claims, that both the trends identifiable in current Dutch theory are post-processual. Certamly, the commitment to history in the histoncal-anthropological approach is part of the wider re-integration of history found in all the social sciences and is readily identifiable äs one of the key attnbutes of a post-processual approach. Equally, the embrace by young Dutch archaeologists of 'critical archaeology' is parallel with the cntical stance which is the hallmark of post-processual debates. Slofstra may be nght that these two aspects of Dutch archaeology do not denve from the Anglo-Saxon discussion, but they are none-the-less post-processual. I would suggest that their basis is the nse of a fully theoretical debate, itself made possible by a new set of practices which generate reflexivity.

A group of extraordinary features, excavated at Mariënberg and interpreted as a small Late Mesolithic cemetery has been debated ever since their fi rst publication. It is the combination of pit shapes, profuse red staining by ochre (?) and exceptional 'grave gi s' such as sha polishers that has so far found no parallel anywhere in the Mesolithic record. This paper is intended to critically scrutinize all of the fi eld data and related arguments. It comes to new views on quite a number of aspects of the features, especially their precise age, their relation to longterm domestic activities at the site, the formation processes of the red staining and the issue of the pit shapes. A new view on their European context is given in reference to the overviews of Mesolithic burial customs by Judith Grünberg. The fi nal conclusion is that these features must indeed have been burial pits, particularly in the absence of any more convincing alternative explanation. The equally exceptional cemeteries of Téviec and Hoëdic in Bri any off er some distant parallels.