Bert Groenewoudt
B.J. (Bert) GROENEWOUDT PhD
Studied Prehistory at the University of Amsterdam and works as a senior landscape archaeologist with the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE). Professor by special appointment at the Centre of Landscape Studies of Groningen University.
Doctoral thesis: evaluation of the applicability of non-destructive methods of prospection and assessment of archaeological sites, particularly in the context of archaeological heritage management.
Research: archaeological prospection and assessment, ecological landscape history, man-landscape interaction, long-term processes of landscape change and settlement dynamics.
Supervised and participated in projects on archaeological heritage management and landscape archaeology. Former project manager of the Archaeological Research Agenda of the Netherlands (NOaA 2.0).
Participant of: RURALIA (The Jean-Marie Pesez Conferences on Medieval Rural Archaeology); LAC (International Landscape Archaeology Conference); PECSRL (The Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape). Member of: Advisory Board IALA, Advisory Board (Nature) Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds
Guest lectures: universities of Groningen, Utrecht, Amsterdam, Ghent , International Graduate School at Brandenburgische Technische Universität (BTU) Cottbus, Charles university Prague, University of Luxembourg, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences.
Studied Prehistory at the University of Amsterdam and works as a senior landscape archaeologist with the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE). Professor by special appointment at the Centre of Landscape Studies of Groningen University.
Doctoral thesis: evaluation of the applicability of non-destructive methods of prospection and assessment of archaeological sites, particularly in the context of archaeological heritage management.
Research: archaeological prospection and assessment, ecological landscape history, man-landscape interaction, long-term processes of landscape change and settlement dynamics.
Supervised and participated in projects on archaeological heritage management and landscape archaeology. Former project manager of the Archaeological Research Agenda of the Netherlands (NOaA 2.0).
Participant of: RURALIA (The Jean-Marie Pesez Conferences on Medieval Rural Archaeology); LAC (International Landscape Archaeology Conference); PECSRL (The Permanent European Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape). Member of: Advisory Board IALA, Advisory Board (Nature) Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds
Guest lectures: universities of Groningen, Utrecht, Amsterdam, Ghent , International Graduate School at Brandenburgische Technische Universität (BTU) Cottbus, Charles university Prague, University of Luxembourg, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences.
less
InterestsView All (53)
Uploads
Papers by Bert Groenewoudt
During the ensuing excavation, in addition to more coins and jewelry, dozens of postholes were found that together form an east-west oriented row. Tremisses and sceattas have also been found in the fill of the postholes. Different concentrations of finds can be identified in the site with different dates, which indicates that the cult site has been visited over a longer period of time.
Plans are being developed in the Netherlands for a substantial increase of woodland. But where? And what should new stretches of woodland be like to fulfill their intended functions? Historical information may help answering these questions. However, only for the period after AD 1850 detailed nation-wide cartographic information is available. Initiated by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE) a big data analysis was carried out on a national scale to gain insight in the distribution and character of woodland in the Late Medieval period (AD 1000-1500). Starting point was a database containing all 6284 Dutch place names. Medieval place names that refer to (the use of) woodland in general or to specific types of woodland were selected and mapped. The resulting distribution shows interesting regional differences but is distorted and incomplete. The next step is to supplement it by using national inventories of ‘ancient woodland’, historically known medieval woods, archaeological data on medieval charcoal burning sites and perhaps also known sites of ‘ancient woodland’ plant species. Regional inventories of field names will then be used to validate resulting spatial patterns
During the ensuing excavation, in addition to more coins and jewelry, dozens of postholes were found that together form an east-west oriented row. Tremisses and sceattas have also been found in the fill of the postholes. Different concentrations of finds can be identified in the site with different dates, which indicates that the cult site has been visited over a longer period of time.
Plans are being developed in the Netherlands for a substantial increase of woodland. But where? And what should new stretches of woodland be like to fulfill their intended functions? Historical information may help answering these questions. However, only for the period after AD 1850 detailed nation-wide cartographic information is available. Initiated by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE) a big data analysis was carried out on a national scale to gain insight in the distribution and character of woodland in the Late Medieval period (AD 1000-1500). Starting point was a database containing all 6284 Dutch place names. Medieval place names that refer to (the use of) woodland in general or to specific types of woodland were selected and mapped. The resulting distribution shows interesting regional differences but is distorted and incomplete. The next step is to supplement it by using national inventories of ‘ancient woodland’, historically known medieval woods, archaeological data on medieval charcoal burning sites and perhaps also known sites of ‘ancient woodland’ plant species. Regional inventories of field names will then be used to validate resulting spatial patterns
Ecologische Landschapsgeschiedenis richt zich op lange-termijn landschapsprocessen en historisch-ecologische samenhangen op verschillende schaalniveaus. De dynamiek en diversiteit van het historische groen, als onderdeel van het landschap als geheel, staan centraal. Aspecten daarvan zijn de historische realiteit, verklaringsmodellen en drivers achter verandering.
Kennisontwikkeling op dit gebied is niet alleen van belang voor de verdieping van interdisciplinaire dwarsverbanden tussen landschapsgeschiedenis, aardwetenschappen en ecologie, maar vormt ook een belangrijke pijler voor de toepassing van kennis in actuele maatschappelijke vraagstukken met ruimtelijke implicaties.
Ecologisch-landschapshistorische informatie kan helpen iets van historische logica én historische identiteit te geven aan de landschappen van de toekomst. Bijdragen aan het creëren van variatie ook, en het versterken van streekidentiteit. Dit soort onderzoek, en ook de vertaling ervan in beleid, biedt bovendien kansen voor publieksparticipatie en het creëren van draagvlak.
Er zijn grote kansen voor innovatie. Met big data-benaderingen en computermodellering, mogelijk geworden het beschikbaar komen van grote datasets en nieuwe digitale technieken, kan tegenwoordig snel en gemakkelijk een globaal inzicht worden verkregen in grootschalige ruimtelijke patronen en temporele ontwikkelingen, die vervolgens gevalideerd kunnen worden.
Demystificatie is cruciaal, het onderscheiden van feit (de historische realiteit) en fictie. Beleidskeuzes kunnen alle kanten opgaan, vanzelfsprekend, maar als ter inspiratie, of zelfs legitimering, wordt geput uit de groene landschapsgeschiedenis, dan moet de historische feitenbasis wel kloppen.
Het onderzoek bij Hezingen heeft een schat aan informatie opgeleverd, maar roept minstens zoveel vragen op. Parallellen voor de vindplaats zijn tot ver over de grens nauwelijks bekend, of niet als zodanig geïdentificeerd. Aanvullend onderzoek is daarom noodzakelijk. Deze rapportage biedt daarvoor de basis.
- 2017b: R.C.G.M. Lauwerier, M.C. Eerden, B.J. Groenewoudt, M.A. Lascaris, E. Rensink, B.I. Smit, B.P. Speleers & J. van Doesburg (eds.) 2017: Knowledge for informed choices. Tools for more effective and efficient selection of valuable archaeology in the Netherlands, Amersfoort (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 55).
archeologische vindplaatsen), which was initiated with funds from the 'Delta plan for conserving the
cultural heritage' of the Dutch Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs (VWC). Archaeological
assessment cãn be described as the evaluation of the culture-historical information potential and the
conservation prospects of archaeological sites. ln principle, archaeological assessment research
employs non-destructive methods and techniques.
The occasion for this assessment project was the desire, formulated in the 'Memorandum on
Cultural Policy 1993-1996' (Nota Cultuurbeleid 1993-1996, 1992), to arrive at a selective policy as
regards protection and excavation. Selection requires knowledge, criteria and policy choices. The
crùcial questions are by what standards one should measure the importance of conserving an
archaeol'ogical site and what priorities should be applied in the selection. Given these aims, the
present study deals with the following subjects:
- an analysis of the applicability of non-destructive methods of prospection and assessment
- parameters for the assessment of sites, especially settlement sites;
- quality criteria for sites;
- guidelines for assessment research;
- suggested points of departure and priorities for policy-based selection;
- proposals for fundamental research in the service of archaeological heritage management.
The investigations were carried out both in the office (part l) and in the field (part ll). The office work
was aimed at compiling a survey of current knowledge and experience in prospection and
assessment of achaeological sites. The applicability of methods and techniques was critically
scrutinised. Subsequently this line was extended to ways of selection and policy options.
The fieldwork focussed ón filling in lacunae in our expertise in techniques and methods. Four field
studies were carried out in order to test research strategies in practice.
Chapter I analyses an extensive surface-collection programme, which was carried out to guide
excavations at the site. lt was found that a surface collection programme - if well-designed and
under favourable conditions - can reveal a great deal of information on both the dimensions and the
internal structure of a site. Unfortunately it also became clear that it is a fallacy to assume that a full
impression can be obtained of what archaeological structures the soil contains. Chapter 9 describes
research into possible ways of tracing and assessing Stone Age settlements. A combination of
non-destructive methods was found tobe highly productive. Chapter 10 deals with the problems of
sub-soil archaeology. By means of simulation experiments on the basis of bore sampling, a study
was made of what type of boring grid would be the most cost-etfective for tracing buried sites in
river valleys. Finally, Chapter 11 discusses the problems associated with the archaeologically
important plaggen soils ('essen') of the Pleistocene sandy regions. Also taking into account the
results from Chapters 9 and 10, it presents a strategy for the prospection and assessment of sites
under so-called plaggen soils. Geographical lnformation Systems (GlS) have proved to be very useful in
modelling and interpreting the results of non-destructive assessment research.
The combined results of the investigations in the office and the field include the following general
insights. The study has corroborated the initial impression that applying non-destructive methods of
prospection and alsessment produces no more than a rough estimate of what the soil holds. lt was
found that the Dutch soil is difficult to fathom archaeologically. The Netherlands' genesis as a delta
and the country's long and intensive habitation history are the factors responsible for this. This study demonstrates beyond any doubt that tracing and assessing archaeological phenomena is
significantly more problematical and labour-intensive than, for instance, mapping topographical
features, buildings or bird species.
Most archaeological features are hidden from immediate observation and hence are difficult to
identify. This patchy knowledge of the archaeology of the Dutch soil is a problem for which Dutch
archaeologists can hardly be blamed. Despite notes of optimism from abroad, the usefulness of
especially the more sophisticated, often geophysical, methods of non-destructive prospection and
assessment turns out to be limited in the Dutch situation; this poses an additional problem. on the
whole, more success is to be expected from methods and strategies based on pedological data and the application of comparatively simple pedological techniques. Most settlement sites can be
mapped quite adequately using non-destructive methods, but thís most definitely is not the case
with cemeteries. What kind of solution this problem requires still is not clear.
The main criterion applíed in the assessments has been the quality of the site, in terms of
intactness and state of preservation. This was because there is a direct link between the quality
factor and the information potential of an archaeological site. Other criteria, such as rarity and
archaeological context, were judged to be of secondary importance or as yet insufficienty
measurable in 'objective' terms.
Assessment and selection are two fundamentally different things. Assessment is a form of research.
Selection is based on policy, and therefore requires the formulation of clearly delineated aims and
priorities. General guidelines for performing assessment research cannot be given. Our need of
information will vary, and strongly depends on what prompted the investigation. lf the reason is an
encroachment of a highly destructive nature, then more thorough researõh will be required than if
this is not the case. The motto should be 'Assessment to fit'. To do more than is strictiy necessary
is not only inefficient but in some cases even morally unjustifiable - for instance when money from
private sponsors is involved.
It has clearly emerged that research methods for archaeological prospection are useful not only for
purposes of monument conservation. lt may also benefit academic research. Surface collection and
boring campaigns for instance may be useful for intra-site analysis and may to some extent even
take the place of excavation. There definitely are possible applications in landscape archaeology. lt
is obvious that find distribution and find context are important sources of information. That even
ploughed-out sites may still yield unexpected information is not new either, but this fact is often
'overlooked' for the sake of convenience. An ímportant conclusion of this study is that sacrificing the
ploughsoil in 'the pursuit of soil features' is irresponsible. lt is inconsistent with the aim of distilling a
maximum of information from endangered sites.
It is also clear that effective archaeological heritage management not only requires clearly defined
aims, but also a certain minimum of 'strategic' information. Unfortunately, much of this necessary
information is not yet available. Filling in these lacunae, in terms of methodology as well as the distribution and content of sites
deserves high príority.
This thesis concludes with recommendations regarding policy and further research. As for the aim
of vulnerable sites, it is argued that policy should push towards the
protection of entire areas. ln this context one should be aware of both the risks and the potential
benefits of carrying out 'nature development' projects.
Most Dutch archaeologists would agree that a) not all archaeological sites are (equally) worth excavating and b) it is an illusion to think that while excavating it is possible to identify all potential sources of information, and to explore them all thoroughly. Making choices is inevitable. Furthermore, archaeological fieldwork is not a craft but research and research requires focus, focus based on the ambition to contribute to answering important and explicit research questions.
More than ten years after publication of the first edition, the new version of the National Archaeological Research Agenda (NOaA 2.0) was launched in April 2016. The NOaA 2.0 , like its predecessor, is a joint product of the entire archaeological community in the Netherlands, and is designed to feed and guide development-led archaeology, providing topical and relevant research questions. This is believed to be essential in order to maximise the benefits – both to science and to society – of archaeological research. And to raise the transparency of archaeological decision-making.
The NOaA 2.0 is a user-friendly online search engine. It centres on (at the moment) 117 specific research questions that highlight the (from a national perspective) most pressing issues of the day. These questions are meant to inspire, rather than to dictate (Using the NOaA 2.0 is not mandatory, it success depends on its authority). The NOaA 2.0 both feeds excavation designs and regional and local research agendas. It will be updated every year. Practical guidelines associated with each question make it easier to address them in the field, bringing us closer to answers.
• geographical position
• proximity of towns
• socio-economic position settlers
• local social network settlers
• agricultural potential
• (other) economic options.
landscape, economy, demography and also possibly climate.
Archaeological evidence throughout north-western Europe, including
the Netherlands, indicates severe demographic decline
and changing settlement patterns in the late-Roman and post-
Roman periods. To what extent the inhabitants of the earlymedieval
Lowlands adapted to the increasingly changing landndscapes
and how this is reflected in large-scale patterns is generally
unknown. Historical route networks provide a key to -
understanding large-scale settlement patterns as well as demography
and land use.
We developed a network-friction model (NFM) which combines data on past environments with archaeological data in order to model historical-route networks. Network friction is the variable that determines potential regional accessibility based on the comparison of local and surrounding landscape factors (Van Lanen et al. submitted).
ENGLISH: This dataset contains a new national overview of the occurrence of drift-sand activity in the Netherlands from ca. 5000 BC to AD 1700. The dataset has been compiled from overview studies, field studies and new data. It was compiled for the PhD thesis of Harm Jan Pierik (Pierik, 2017) for ‘The Dark Ages in an interdisciplinary light’ project (www.darkagesproject.com; Jansma et al., 2014) funded by NWO (project nr. 360-60-110).
---------
NEDERLANDS: Deze dataset bevat een nieuw landelijk overzicht van stuifzandvoorkomen en activiteit voor de periode ca. 5000 voor Chr tot ca. 1700 na Chr in Nederland. De dataset is gebaseerd op diverse overzichtsstudies, losse veldstudies en nieuwe gegevens. Omdat de mens een belangrijke rol speelde bij het ontstaan van stuifzanden in deze periode in Nederland, is dit nieuwe overzicht nuttig om het samenspel tussen mens en landschap in het verleden beter te begrijpen. De dataset bevat up-to-date informatie waaruit afgeleid kan worden wanneer en waar de mens het stuifzand zou hebben kunnen veroorzaakt en wanneer het stuifzand mogelijk een bedreiging vormde voor de landbouw of nederzettingen. Daarnaast kan deze dataset fungeren als historische context bij huidige stuifzanden die als waardevolle natuurgebieden worden beschouwd. De dataset is geproduceerd voor het proefschrift van Harm Jan Pierik (Pierik, 2017) in het kader van het project ‘The Dark Ages in an interdisciplinary light’ (www.darkagesproject.com; Jansma et al., 2014) gefinancierd door NWO Geesteswetenschappen (project nr. 360-60-110).