Article contents
Continental Bell- or Disc-Barrows in Holland with special reference to Tumulus I at Rielsch Hoefke
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 May 2014
Extract
There are half a dozen barrows, now restored, on the heath called ‘Rechte Heide’ belonging to the municipality of the village of Goirle in the province of North Brabant, Holland, about 5 km. south-west of the town of Tilburg (fig. 1). The barrows stand on the east bank of the brook called ‘Oude Lei’ a little north of the ‘Rielsch Hoefke’ farm. Although their popular name is ‘De Vijfberg’ (The Five Mounds) in reality they number seven; six of these form a curve with the open side looking east, the seventh one lying a little further south. The height of the surrounding heath is about 20 m. above sea-level. It consists of Rhine-Meuse diluvium, belonging to the so-called high terrace, and it is fairly level.
Although more than once disturbed in the past the importance of this group was only perceived by W. J. A. and J. Willems during an excursion in 1935, when they observed that one of them (fig. 1, no. 1) was surrounded by a bank and ditch. The peculiar-form, recognisable at once from the outside (pl. XLIXa), is in my opinion that of a typical bell-barrow which made it at that time unique in Holland and, as far as I know, in the whole of the European Continent.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1938
References
page 258 note 1 ‘Rechte Heide’ means heath where formerly justice was administered.
page 258 note 2 ‘Rielsche Hoefke’ means a small farm in the village of Riel.
page 260 note 1 Kendrick, T. D. and Hawkes, C. F. C., Archaeology in England and Wales, 1914–1931, London, 1932, 108Google Scholar; Crawford, O. G. S. and Keiller, A., Wessex from the Air, 12–15, Oxford, 1928Google Scholar; Thurnam, J., Archaeologia, XLIII, 1871, 291–2 and 298Google Scholar.
page 260 note 2 N. Dr. Volksalm, 1935, 94, Afb. 3, 4a and 9.
page 260 note 3 N. Dr. Volksalm, 1935, 102.
page 260 note 4 So far we have used the term ‘bowl-barrow’ incorrectly since these, with the exception of the ‘ditched bowl-barrows,’ do not possess a surrounding ditch.
page 262 note 1 Jackson, H. and Boyd, Dawkins W., Trans. Lancs, and Cheshire Ant. Soc., XVIII (1900), 114–24Google Scholar; Varley, W. J., Ann. Arch, and Anthrop. Univ. Liverpool, xx (1933), 187–94Google Scholar; Clark, J. G. D., Proc. Preh. Soc., II, 33–6 and fig. 19Google Scholar.
page 262 note 2 Crawford and Keiller, op. cit., 213; Clark, op. cit., 30.
page 262 note 3 Cunnington, M. E. and Cunnington, B.H.Woodhenge, Devizes (1929)Google Scholar
page 262 note 4 Kendrick and Hawkes, op. cit., 60 and 83.
page 262 note 5 ibid., 110.
page 262 note 6 N. Dr. Volksalmanak, 1935, 94, Afb. 3.
page 263 note 1 van Giffen, A. E., Die Bauart der Einzelgräber, Mannusbibl., 44-45, Leipzig, 1930Google Scholar.
page 263 note 2 Zotz, L., ‘Der Aufbau bronzez. Grabhügel ein Kriterium zur Alterbestimm. d. Ortsteins u. s. w.,’ Mitt, d.flor.—soziol. Arbeitsgem. in Neidersachsen, Hft. 2, 1930, 93Google Scholar; and Tuxen, R. (a), ‘Vegetationsstud. im nordd. Flachlande l u. s. w,’ Jahrb. geogr. Gesellsch. Hannover, 1928, 71Google Scholar, and (b) ‘Über einige nordwestd. Waldassoz. v. reg. Verbreit.,’ ibid.
page 265 note 1 Schuchhardt, C., Vorgesch. von Deutschland, 2 Aufl., 1934, 175Google Scholar.
page 265 note 2 van Giffen, A. E., ‘Tumuli-opgrav. in Gelderland 1935–6,’ Bijdr. en Meded. d. Ver. Gelre, Dl. XL (Tumulus3)Google Scholar.
page 265 note 3 Götze, Höfer, and Zschiesche, , Die vor- u.frühgesch. Altert. Thuringens (1909), XXVIIGoogle Scholar; Engle, C., Vorz. a. d. Mittelelbe, 1930, 211–215Google Scholar.
page 265 note 4 Reinerth, H., ‘Die schnurkeram. Totenhäuser von Sarmensdorf,’ Mannus, Ergänzungsbund VI, 1928, 202Google Scholar.
page 265 note 5 N. Dr. Volksaml., 1935, 31–32. After all I think it more probable that the remains of the square posts of the exterior palisade belong to the secondary mound 2b and not to the disc barrow 2a. Please read ‘bell’ barrow instead of ‘bowl’ barrow in the above publication.
page 265 note 6 Clark, J. G. D., op. cit., figs. 18 and 19, also figs. 20–26.
page 266 note 1 Holwerda, J. H., ‘Bericht über Holland, 1907,’ Ber. über die Fortschr. d. röm. Germ. Forschungen, III 1906–1907Google Scholar; ‘Tumuli bij Nierssen,’ Oudh. Med. R. Mus. v. Oudh. Leiden, II (1908), 1–17Google Scholar; ‘De Huneschans bij het Uddelermeer,’ op. cit., III (1909), 39–52.
page 266 note 2 van Giffen, A. E., Die Bauart …, op. cit., 99, 107 and 115.
page 266 note 3 Clark, op. cit., 31.
page 266 note 4 ibid., 26 and 39.
page 266 note 5 ibid., 26, 27, 48, and 49.
page 266 note 6 ibid., 30 and 42.
page 266 note 7 Mortimer, J. R., Forty Years' Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire, London 1905. p. 156, pl. 40Google Scholar.
page 266 note 8 van Giffen, A. E., op. cit., 50 and 115.
page 267 note 1 Clark, J. G. D., ‘The timber monument at Arminghall and its affinities,’ Proc. Preh. Soc., II, 1936, 23Google Scholar.
page 267 note 2 Clark, op. cit., 32 and 36.
page 268 note 1 van Giffen, op. cit., 50, 115, and 120.
page 268 note 2 Clark, op. cit., 31.
page 269 note 1 Clark; op. cit., 36; Callander, Graham, Archaeologia, LXXVII, 97Google Scholar.
page 269 note 2 Elgee, Frank, Early man in N.E. Yorkshire, Gloucester 1930, 102Google Scholar.
page 269 note 3 Cunnington, M. E., Antiquity, 1927, 92Google Scholar, and Woodhenge, Devizes, 1929Google Scholar.
page 269 note 4 van Giffen, A. E., op. cit., 72, abb. 61–64.
page 269 note 5 Willems, W. J. A.: Een Bydrage tot de kennis der vor-Romeinsche urnenvelden in Nederland, 1935 pp. 132Google Scholar; and van Giffen, A. E.; ‘Bouwsteenen Brabantsche,’ Oergesch., I, 1937Google Scholar.
page 271 note 1 Beaske, W.: Die Religion der Germanen in Quellenzeugnisse, 1937, 89Google Scholar; Heyne, M.: Beouwulf, 2. Aufl 1913, p. 95, lines 3157–3163Google Scholar.
- 7
- Cited by