Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:19:53.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the scale and organisation of Germanic iron production in Heeten, the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Bert J. Groenewoudt  and
Matthijs van Nie
Bert J. Groenewoudt
Affiliation:
State Service for Archaeological Investigations (ROB), Amersfoort, the Netherlands
Matthijs van Nie
Affiliation:
Instituut voor Pre- en Protohistorische Archeologie, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

A Germanic settlement at Heeten, which was only partly excavated, produced evidence for large-scale iron production. Combining several research methods, an attempt was made to gain insight into the operation, scale, and structure of this production. The research was not only focussed on the excavation area itself, but also on the surrounding area. Apart from X-ray combined with sieve-residue analysis of soil-samples (taken primarily for archaeo-botanical purposes), core sampling and geoprospective explorations were carried out. The aims of these investigations were not only of scientific relevance, but can also contribute to the protection and management of the remaining part of the site.

In einer germanischen Siedlung in Heeten, die nur zum Teil ausgegraben wurde, fanden sich Anhaltspunkte für eine groß angelegte Eisenproduktion. Unter Verbindung mehrerer Forschungsmethoden wurde versueht, Einsichten in die Arbeitsweise, den Umfang und die Struktur dieser Produktion zu gewinnen. Die Untersuchung konzentrierte sich nicht nur auf die Ausgrabungsfläche selbst, sondern bezog auch die Umgebung mit ein. Abgesehen von Röntgenuntersuchungen kombiniert mit Siebrückstandsanalysen von Bodenproben (die vor allem für archäobotanische Zwecke entnommen wurden), wurden Kemproben entnommen und Geoprospektionsverfahren zur Anwendung gebraeht. Diese Untersuchungen sind nieht nur von wissenschaftlieher Relevanz, sondern können auch zum Schutz und Management des verbleibenden Teils der Siedlung einen Beitrag leisten.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of European Archaeology , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1995 , pp. 187 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

1 A sunken hut excavated at this spot contained pottery dating to the late second to early third century. This Grubenhaus seems to have been constructed inside the remains of a building. The latter must accordingly be dated to the second half of the second century AD.Google Scholar
2 The dating was carried out by Ms Drs E. Jansma and Ms Drs E. Hanraets (Dutch Centre for Dendrochronology (RING-foundation), Amersfoort).Google Scholar
3 A difference in altitude of about five metres is quite considerable in this predominantly flat area.Google Scholar
4 Heet(en) is a slang word for ‘heath’.Google Scholar
5 This modus operandi is closely related to that of flint micro-debitage performed for the spatial analysis of Stone-Age settlements (Fladmark 1982).Google Scholar
6 In previous investigations the smallest fraction turned out to be very informative (Van Nie forthcoming).Google Scholar
7 It can be argued that the average size as well as the find density in the Netherlands is probably larger than is known from sites in the USA. The Netherlands are dominated by long-term settlements occupied by people who were predominantly sedentary. One could also attribute the positive results to the uncommon size of the auger (20 cm in diametre), which gives a structurally larger core volume, combined with the fact that this volume is sieved and analysed completely. That detection of all the settlement areas present needs a more dense grid is not disputed.Google Scholar
8 The geophysical survey was carried out by Ir J. Orbons (RAAP-foundation, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
9 The other five samples will be examined and consequently interpreted as anomalies.Google Scholar
10 This number is comparable to that found during excavation.Google Scholar
11 Small amounts of material make it impossible to use the method described by Wiemer (in prep). Find categories containing few finds are therefore treated in a traditional way.Google Scholar
12 Cluster 1 must actually be pictured as larger since it continues within the excavated area. Cluster 2, on the other hand, is probably smaller than indicated since the northern boundary is masked by a small amount of larger slags.Google Scholar
13 Only charcoal from ash (Fraxinus) and alder (Alnus) was dated since these species are proven to be used in the furnaces.Google Scholar
14 The use of ash and alder is also noted at other sites in the region (Van Nie and Joosten 1993).Google Scholar
15 The latter is quite unknown from settlements outside the limes. This might point to an influence of Roman building tradition (imported by locals), as is demonstrated at Colmschate (Verlinde 1991).Google Scholar
16 It must be noted that the eastern boundary of the enclosed area is solely based on a very short (fence?) ditch which can equally be interpreted as being part of a subdivision or even not belonging to the enclosed area.Google Scholar
17 This settlement was discovered in 1992 by employees of the RAAP-foundation (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
18 Analyses were carried out by Ms I. Joosten and the second author. It must be noted that these figures are based on the results of just a few corings combined with a test pit in only one of the clusters and on surface finds. If the different clusters represent different activities it is possible that the figures may change. However, the surface finds give no indication for such a diversity.Google Scholar
19 Indications for the presence of such sites have recently been discovered at Linderte (seven kilometres north of Heeten) and Pleegste (some three kilometres north-west of Heeten).Google Scholar
20 Among the food plants, rye is dominant. Since crop processing by-products are lacking it must be assumed that rye was harvested elsewhere in the north of the Netherlands (O. Brinkkemper pers. comm.).Google Scholar
21 Historians will argue against this stressing that the Salian Franks left the area about a century earlier. It can, however, be reasoned that some of them or an otherwise related group occupied the area. It is unknown which Germanic tribes formed the Frankish alliance at a later stage.Google Scholar
22 Among these a perfume bottle of glass and a Germanic gold plated brooch both dating around AD 300 can be mentioned.Google Scholar
23 Archaeozoological research shows that in addition to the usual small native cattle, there is a separate group of much larger cattle at Heeten (Lauwerier et al. in prep.). These large animals are only known from the area south of the Rhine, such as at the villa of Druten and fourth-century Nijmegen (Lauwerier 1988:166–9).Google Scholar

Literature

Bachmann, H.-G., 1982. The Identification of Slags from Archaeological Sites. London: Institute of Archaeology (Occasional Publications 6).Google Scholar
Bieleman, J., 1989. Die Verschiedenartigkeit der Landwirtschaftssyteme in den Sandgebiete der Niederlande in der Frühen Neuzeit. Siedlungsforschung; Archäologie-Geschichte-Geographie 7: 119–130.Google Scholar
Bielenin, K., 1983. Der Rennfeuerofen mit eingetieften Herd und seine formen in Polen. Offa 40: 47–62.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. W., Groenewoudt, B. J., and Kvamme, K. L., 1992. An experiment in archaeological site location modelling in the Netherlands using GIS techniques. World Archaeology 24: 268–282.Google Scholar
Buis, J., 1985. Historia förestis; Nederlandse bosgeschiedenis. AAG Bijdragen 28. ().Google Scholar
van Es, W. A., 1967. Wijster, a Native Settlement beyond the Imperial Frontier, 125–425 AD. (Palaeohistoria 11) PhD-thesis Groningen.Google Scholar
van Es, W. A., 1973. Roman-period settlement on the Free-Germanic soil of Drenthe, Overijssel and Gelderland. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 23: 273–280.Google Scholar
van Es, W. A., 1981. De Romeinen in Nederland. 2nd rev. ed., Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoek.Google Scholar
van Es, W. A., 1990. Drenthes plaats in de Romeinse tijd (en de Vroege Middeleeuwen). Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 107: 181–192.Google Scholar
van Es, W. A., 1994. Volksverhuizing en continuïteit, In van Es, W. A. and Hessing, W. A. M. (eds), Romeinen, Friezen en Franken in het hart van Nederland, van Traiectum tot Dorestad 50 v. C. – 900 n.C: 64–81. Utrecht/Amersfoort: Matrijs.Google Scholar
van Es, W. A., Miedema, M., and Wynia, S. L., 1985. Eine Siedlung der römischen Kaiserzeit in Bennekom, Provinz Gelderland, mit einem Beitrag von H. Kars. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 35: 533–652.Google Scholar
van Es, W. A. and Verlinde, A. D., 1977. Overijssel in Roman and early medieval times. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 27: 7–89.Google Scholar
Fladmark, K. R., 1982. Microdebitage analysis: initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 201–219.Google Scholar
van Giffen, A. E., 1938: Omheinde inheemsche nederzettingen, tumuli enz. te Rhee en Zeijen, Gem. Vries (II). Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 56: 5–11.Google Scholar
Groenewoudt, B. J., 1993. Opsporing verzocht: een verkennend booronderzoek naar Bronstijd-boerderijen in Zwolle-Itersumerbroek. In Clevis, H. and de Jong, J. (eds), Archeologie en bouwhistorie in Zwolle, vol. 1: 23–32. Zwolle: Gemeente Zwolle.Google Scholar
Groenewoudt, B. J., 1994. Prospectie, waardering en selectie van archeologische vindplaatsen; een beleidsgerichte verkenning van middelen en mogelijkheden. Amersfoort: ROB (, Universiteit van Amsterdam) (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 17).Google Scholar
Groenewoudt, B. J. and Wiemer, R., 1994. Opsporing vervolgd; nieuw booronderzoek naar de prehistoric van Zwolle-Ittersumerbroek. In Clevis, H. and de Jong, J. (eds), Archeologie en bouwhistorie in Zwolle, vol. 2: 31–39. Zwolle: Gemeente Zwolle.Google Scholar
Heidinga, H. A., 1987. Medieval Settlement and Economy North of the Lower Rhine. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C., 1993. Close-interval core sampling: tests of a method for predicting internal site structure. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 461–473.Google Scholar
Joosten, I. and van Nie, H. J. M., 1996. Experiments with three different types of Dutch iron smelting furnaces. In Magnusson, G. (ed.), The Importance of Iron Making. Technical innovation and social change: 87–94. Stockholm: Jernkontoret.Google Scholar
Krakker, J., Shott, M. J. and Welch, P., 1983. Design and evaluation of shovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 469–480.Google Scholar
Lauwerier, R. C. G. M., 1988: Animals in Roman Times in the Dutch Eastern River Area. Amersfoort: ROB (Nederlandse Oudeheden 12).Google Scholar
Lauwerier, R. C. G., Laarman, F. J., and Groenewoudet, B. J., in preparation. Between ritual and economics: animals in a fourth century native settlement at Heeten, the Netherlands. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.Google Scholar
Lück, A., 1979. Zur vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Eisenverhüttung in Siegerland. In Eisen und Archäologie, Eisenbergbau und Verhüttung im 2000 Jahren in den VR Polen: 59–62. Bochum: Museum Bochum.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., 1980. Site artifact density and the effectiveness of shovel probes. Current Anthropology 21: 516–517.Google Scholar
van Nie, H. J. M., 1990. Ertswinning en ijzerproductie op de Veluwe; aanzet tot nader onderzoek. Universiteit van Amsterdam (unpublished dissertation).Google Scholar
van Nie, H. J. M., 1994: Nederlands moerasijzererts kende vele toepassingen. Geographie 1994 (4): 36–38.Google Scholar
van Nie, H. J. M., forthcoming. Early historical iron production in The Netherlands, an integrated archaeological/technological study. The archaeologically based results. (provisional title).Google Scholar
van Nie, H. J. M., and Elburg, M., 1992. Inheems-romeinse ijzerproduktie längs de Vecht. Oud materiaal opnieuw bekeken. Overijsselse Historische Bijdragen 107: 196–198.Google Scholar
van Nie, H. J. M., and Joosten, I., 1993. Inheems-Romeinse ijzerproduktie. Een proe-fonderzoek te Ooster-Dalfsen. Overijsselse Historische Bijdragen 108: 145–147.Google Scholar
van Nie, H. J. M., and Joosten, I., 1995. Introducing the early iron production in The Netherlands. University of Copenhagen. Arkeologiske Skrifter 7 (in press).Google Scholar
Pape, J. C., 1970: Plaggen soils in the Netherlands. Geoderma 4: 229–255.Google Scholar
von Petrikovits, Harald, 1938. Reichs-Macht und Volkstumsgrenze am linken Niederrhein im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. In von Petrikovits, H. and Steeger, A. (eds), Festschrift für August Oxé: 220–240. Darmstadt: Wittich.Google Scholar
Scott, B. G., 1990. Early Irish Ironworking. Dublin: Ulster Museum.Google Scholar
Serning, I., 1979. Prehistoric iron production. In Clarke, H. (ed.), Iron and Man in Prehistoric Sweden: 50–89. Stockholm: Yernkontoret.Google Scholar
Spek, T., 1992. The age of plaggen soils. An evaluation of dating methods for plaggen soils in the Netherlands and northern Germany. Wageningen Studies in Historical Geography 1: 35–54.Google Scholar
Spek, T., in press. Het natuurlandschap van Salland. Ontstaan en opbouw van reliuf, bodem en vegetatie van Westelijk Overijssel. In Geschiedenis van het Waterschap Salland. Kampen: IJsselakademie.Google Scholar
Sperl, G., 1980. Über die Typologie urzeitlicher, frühgeschichtlicher und mittelalterlicher Eisenhüttenschlacken. Wien: Österreichische Akademie für Wissenschaften. (Studien zur Industrie-Archäologie 7).Google Scholar
Stein, J. K., 1986. Coring archaeological sites. American Antiquity 56: 138–142.Google Scholar
Stone, G. D., 1981. On artefact density and shovel probes. Current Anthropology 22: 182–183.Google Scholar
Tylecote, R. F., 1987. The Early History of Metallurgy in Europe. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Verlinde, A. D., 1991. Colmschate, gem. Deventer, Overijsselse Historische Bijdragen 106: 172–177.Google Scholar
Verlinde, A. D., Erdrich, M. and van Nie, M., in preparation. Eine jüngkaiserzeitliche Siedlung mit einer umfangreichen Eisenindustrie und Keramikherstellung in Heeten, Prov. Overijssel,– Ein Vorbericht. Germania.Google Scholar
Verlinde, A. D., van Haaf, G., Koudijs, W., et al., in press. Raalte Heeten. In Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Jaarverslag 1994.Google Scholar
Waterbolk, H. T., 1977. Walled enclosures of the Iron Age in the north of the Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 19: 97–172.Google Scholar
Wiemer, R., 1995. Another way to deal with maps in archaeological GIS. In Lock, G. and Stancic, Z. (eds), Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective: 301–311. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Willems, Willem J.H., 1984. Romans and Batavians. A regional study in the Dutch Eastern River area II. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 34: 39 (199) – 331 (491).Google Scholar
Wobst, Martin, 1983: We can't see the forest for the trees: sampling and the shapes of archaeological distributions. In Moore, J. and Keene, A. (eds), Archaeological Hammers and Theories: 37–85. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar