The Current State of post-medieval archaeology in Flanders

Post-Medieval Archaeology 47/1 (2013), 83–105

© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2013 DOI: 10.1179/0079423613Z.00000000026

83

The current state of post-medieval archaeology in Flanders

By DAVY HERREMANS and WIM DE CLERCQ

SUMMARY: Post-medieval archaeology in Flanders (Belgium) is a comparatively young archaeo-logical discipline, even in an historically important region with centres such as Antwerp, Bruges and Ghent. Originating in the slipstream of Flemish urban archaeology during the 1970s, the discipline has struggled for recognition ever since. As a result of more than 40 years of fi eldwork, the material record of early-modern and modern history has changed drastically. Yet post-medieval archaeology has not reached its apogee. A framework with its own methods, teaching, research questions and theoretical approaches is still under construction. This paper aims not only at historiographical analysis of the fi eld, but chiefl y at defi ning a clear framework for positioning post-medieval archaeol-ogy in one of the most important regions in early-modern and modern Europe.

INTRODUCTION

Since the growth of urban archaeology in the 1970s, there has been a growing awareness of the signifi cance of post-medieval heritage in Flanders. However, compared to Flemish medieval archae-ology, which fully exploited the new research input from urban archaeology for its development and emergence as an identifi able archaeological disci-pline, post-medieval archaeology has taken only cautious steps. As in many areas of the Continent, post-medieval archaeology in Flanders is still in search of a unique research identity with its own methods and intellectual approaches.1 Moreover, the struggle for basic recognition in heritage man-agement and research is still an ongoing process. While post-medieval archaeology fl ourishes in Britain and across the Atlantic,2 for many Flemish archaeologists early-modern remains are seen as something to be dealt with swiftly whilst digging down to the layers that are perceived as more interesting. Over the past ten years post-medieval archaeology has been treated more carefully in certain cities and regions, although this positive development is not the result of structural changes in heritage management, but rather due to the

personal efforts of some enthusiastic curators and fi eld archaeologists. The history of post-medieval archaeology in Flanders shows that a combination of factors has led to its current doubtful state. Some of the causes are pan-European, such as the absence of theoretical discussion on disciplinarity and subject identity.3 Other reasons are more par-ticular, and related to the very basic organizational structure of Flemish archaeology.

This article aims to contribute to a series of reviews of European post-medieval archaeology,4 in which an in-depth survey of Flemish research has so far been lacking. It is not intended to detract from the advances made by scholars in the past, or to highlight the weaknesses of current Flemish archaeology. Instead, it should be seen as a mani-festo for an archaeological discipline in search of acknowledgement and identity. An analysis of how Flemish post-medieval archaeology is perceived and organized is followed by an overview of the most important trends in past and current fi eldwork. Finally, the most recent advances in interpretative work are highlighted, pointing to the possible way forward in academic research. This contribution will focus on below-ground

84 DAVY HERREMANS AND WIM DE CLERCQ

investigation only, although well aware of advance s made in post-medieval above-ground heritage studies by various disciplines. The historiographi-cal survey of Flemish research is mainly based on published and widely available data. Although this dataset may not be called exhaustive, it can be used to highlight certain trends and evolutions in research.

SOME DEFINITIONS

Analogously with Britain, Flemish archaeology is subdivided mainly on period grounds, for which historical chronology serves as a framework. The post-medieval period is subdivided into early-modern and modern. In Flanders, the end of the Middle Ages is generally fi xed at 1492, with the dis-covery of the New World. In general 1789, the year of the French Revolution, is chosen as the point of transition towards the modern era. Post-medieval archaeology is often bracketed together with urban and medieval archaeology, and often the one cannot be separated from the other.

‘Post-medieval archaeology’ is the most com-monly used term in Flanders. Another concept, the ‘archaeology of modern times’, was introduced at a conference in 1985,5 but has been used less fre-quently since. In this article we will vary between both terms. We shall try to avoid the term ‘histori-cal archaeology’ as much as possible in this context, because in Flanders it usually refers to the study of all archaeologies which combine documentary and material sources. In reality it encompasses Roman, medieval and post-medieval archaeology.

A FRAMEWORK FOR FLEMISH POST-MEDIEVAL ARCHAEOLOGY

EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Three Flemish-speaking universities currently offer a degree in archaeology in Flanders (Ghent University, Catholic University of Leuven, Flem-ish Free University of Brussels).6 In all three universities post-medieval archaeology is taught within broader courses on medieval archaeology and the archaeology of the Low Countries — a pan-European phenomenon, it seems. On the Con-tinent the fi eld scarcely enjoys a separate identity and is seen mostly as little more than a chronologi-cal extension of medieval archaeology, or as a theme in urban archaeology. The entwinement with medieval archaeology is maintained in major universities offering a degree in archaeology in Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Italy

and Spain.7 At the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, however, post-medieval archaeology takes a prominent place in the recently founded research and teaching programme on urban archaeology.

In Flemish universities, the position is that students have little opportunity to specialize in post-medieval archaeology. Field school experi-ence and MA research are the only ways to gain experience in the discipline. The main reason for this is the lack of expertise amongst university staff. Past fi eldwork by academics has been limited and never embedded in a proper research programme on post-medieval archaeology. At the Catholic University of Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven — KUL) little or no research is currently being carried out, although the archaeology departments of the Flemish Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universiteit Brussel — VUB) and Ghent University (Universiteit Gent — UGent) can rely on some recent experience in research through preventive or rescue archaeology on post-medieval sites.

In the past decade defi nite though cautious steps have been taken in both education and research to upgrade the position of post-medieval archaeology. Teachers show an increasing interest in the unreleased potential of the rapidly growing material inventory of early-modern and modern life. At Ghent University and the VUB especially, the archaeology of modern times receives more attention in courses and lectures. More and more students are inspired by the material culture of recent periods, resulting in a steady stream of MA research in the subject.8 The establishment of new research bodies may stimulate further development of the discipline towards a fully independent academic fi eld. At the VUB, scholars have been involved in a cross-disciplinary research project on European table culture and social identity.9 At Ghent University, a recent reorganization of the department led to the foundation of the ‘Historical Archaeology Research Group’ (HARG). This aims to study the historical landscape and material culture from a multidisciplinary and diachronical point of view, bringing together researchers in various historical sub-disciplines and scientifi c fi elds, including post-medieval archaeologists. A ‘bottom-up’ approach promotes the interpretation of an extensive material dataset within the social and historical context. To this end, methodology and theory are treated equally. In spite of these welcome initiatives, the structural anchoring of the discipline in the academic environment by means of an independent professorship remains undiscussed.

POST-MEDIEVAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN FLANDERS 85

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE DIGGERS

The curatorship of archaeological heritage is currently divided; at the communal level archaeol-ogy is treated differently in the three Belgian communities (the Flemish-, French- and German-speaking communities). Furthermore, archaeolog-ical curatorship is organized differently in the Brussels-Capital region. The current legal position of Flemish archaeology is in fact the result of a long and eventful history characterized by several turning points. An important watershed was the federalization of the Belgian National Service for Excavations in 1989, which led to its division into a Flemish and Walloon State Archaeology Service, each with its own view on research and archaeo-logical curatorship. By far the greatest change, however, was brought about by the introduction of so-called ‘Malta archaeology’ in the late 1990s, which resulted in a new focus on heritage manage-ment and a decrease in research from a purely academic perspective. After a long and indecisive period it seems that evolution, or perhaps devolu-tion, towards a full market-archaeology, based on the Dutch or British ‘capitalist’ model is inevita-ble.10 The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) — the Valletta or Malta Convention — has only recently been ratifi ed (8 October 2010) and a new legislation on archaeology in which it will be fully implement-ed is still under construction. Until now, some of the guiding principles of the Convention have been applied with few consequences and in differ-ing interpretations in the heritage policy of local, provincial and Flemish administrative bodies.

Before the introduction of ‘Malta archaeolog y’ most post-medieval archaeologists in the fi eld tended to work in the City Archaeology Services and the National Archaeological Service (later the Flemish Archaeological Service). Occasionally, amateur units and university staff took part in fi eld research. The defi nitive shift towards commercial archaeology led to the reduction of research activi-ties by former key players and the entrance of a host of generalist fi eld practitioners hired by pri-vate companies. Nowadays, commercial excava-tions are led by poorly paid, young, inexperienced archaeologists working in a system that does not allow them to participate in further learning.11 Because they move swiftly from site to site there is hardly time for them to develop any specialism. In Dutch and British archaeology these ‘diggers’ are supported by more experienced archaeologists in various fi elds, and both museums and commercial companies employ specialists. In Flanders, however, there are currently no legal directives that prescribe collaboration between specialists, curators and fi eld archaeologists.

The lack of full-scale archaeological regula-tion and a scientifi c research framework places excavation strategies and research choices completely in the hands of curators. The way archaeological remains are treated is consequently a personal decision rather than a result of research strategies. In the fi ve cities that have a City Archae-ological Service (Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Mech-elen and Maaseik) the assessment of post-medieval sites takes place quite correctly. Although the focus in most of these services is on the medieval period, the early-modern heritage is also recorded. This basic recognition is probably the result of a long tradition of city archaeologists dealing with post-medieval archaeology on multi-period sites.12 However, the way in which early-modern and modern heritage has been treated in the other 57 cities and in rural environments shows a high degree of variability infl uenced by the interest, experience and expertise of the particular curator involved. Since the 1990s in Aalst and Oudenaarde, attention has consistently been paid to post-medieval heritage by local curators of the Flemish government. Their dedication and keenness have improved the outlook for post-medieval archaeol-ogy in the area between the rivers Scheldt and Dender, as demonstrated by recent post-medieval urban excavations in Ninove and Dendermonde. In the rest of Flanders, curatorship is characterized by the rather traditional views of curators involved in the assessment of post-medieval heritage. Research strategies are seldom founded on scien-tifi c grounds or gaps in archaeological and histori-cal knowledge. Choices in curatorship are based mainly on the myopic and antiquarian dictum: the older the better. Such thinking is only gradually coming to assess more recent periods, and rarely in a scientifi c manner. However, the situation is gen-erally precarious as 16th- and 17th-century remains are seen as more important than those of the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries, and as less valuable than material from the medieval period and earlier. In the best-case scenario, fi eld archaeologists are forced to deal properly with modern remains while digging down to earlier levels. In the worst case, little or no attention is given to post-medieval archaeology.13 In the fi eld, the term ‘post-medieval’ is all too often used without any nuance, and as convenient shorthand for clearing away every-thing more recent than 1500 and hence of ‘lower’ scientifi c value.

Time will show the long-term effects of commercially led archaeology on the publication practices of Flemish archaeologists and more specifi cally of researchers on post-medieval sites. However, it is already clear that the move towards


a market archaeology has brought about signifi -cant changes in scientifi c content. Since the intro-duction of ‘Malta archaeology’ more data has been collected, but less has been effectively presented to the scientifi c community. Before heritage offi cers found inspiration in the Valletta Convention, the number of fi nds that reached publication was directly related to the personal interest of the researcher involved. Although analysis was not obligatory, post-medieval artefact assemblages were continuously being studied and published by undergraduate students and interested scholars.14 Time and money were managed differently and urban archaeologists tended to invest a large amount of their time in post-excavation work and the publication of material culture. Follow-up of construction works was less rigorous but more information was brought into the public domain. Resources were used for the assessment of daily life in early-modern and modern times by means of an interdisciplinary approach. Disciplines such as palaeobotany and archaeozoology were intro-duced into post-medieval research during the early 1990s for the study of urban environments and consumption patterns.15 Occasionally these data were evaluated within a broader historical context, making use of the abundantly rich archival records available.16

Today only fi eldwork and basic reporting are taken into account within the legal framework of Flemish commercial fi eld archaeology. Hardly any funding is provided, either by the developer, or by the government, to comply with the complete archaeological trajectory from excavation to full publication as stipulated in the Valletta Conven-tion. Only seldom is an excavation report turned into a peer-reviewed publication. Developer-led archaeology has undoubtedly seen an increase in fi eldwork and hence in data collected. Unfortu-nately, the limited time and resources provided for post-excavation work precludes the transforma-tion of this growing amount of raw data into historical knowledge and a real understanding of the past. However much the value of a more holistic, multidisciplinary study of the fi nds is acknowledged by at least some of the archaeolo-gists involved, in reality, because of lack of time and resources, most reports are reduced to a minimum, consisting of endless descriptive lists of archaeological features and fi nds without any interpretation.17 Furthermore, the superfi ciality and worrying quality of some of these basic reports hampers further study and publication of the fi nds by scholars outside the framework of fi eld archae-ology,18 a problem with which many European market archaeologies are confronted.19 As this changing publication culture stands for Flemish

archaeology in general, it must be noted that the position of post-medieval archaeology in particu-lar is even more precarious. First of all, as stated above, when research choices are made, they seldom favour more recent times. This has also led to an emphasis in post-excavation work on archae-ological remains dating before 1500. Moreover, post-medieval fi nds collections are characterized by their extremely large quantities and variability. This makes fi nds analysis more expensive and time-consuming, while the good state of preservation of organic materials forces post-medieval archaeolo-gists to spend a large part of the excavation budget on the treatment of these fragile remains.

PUBLICATION AND DISCUSSION

In contrast to Britain, but in line with other coun-tries on the Continent, there is no research journal devoted exclusively to post-medieval archaeology in Flanders. The fi rst issue of the peer-reviewed journal Medieval and Modern Matters was only published in 2010. This focuses on the archaeology of the Middle Ages and the modern period in the Low Countries (Netherlands and Belgium, includ-ing Flanders). Although the fi rst issue did not con-tain any contribution on Flemish post-medieval archaeology, the journal may offer possibilities in future for the publication of current research. The results of past research, if published, are therefore scattered over a variety of journals, conference proceedings, chronicles and monograph series. Archaeologia Belgica was seen as the most impor-tant national research journal before the federal-ization of Flemish archaeology and contains some contributions on post-medieval archaeology. Following federal reorganization, material could be submitted to Archeologie in Vlaanderen, an annual research journal and monograph series, fi rst published in 1991 and devoted solely to Flemish research. The journal was renamed Relict a, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonder-zoek in Vlaanderen in 2007 and a monograph series was initiated.

The various local monograph series and jour-nals dedicated to urban studies are a high point of post-medieval archaeology. Some are published by City Archaeological Services, as in Antwerp: Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemo-nderzoek en Monumentenzorg (BRABOM) and Rapporten van het stedelijk informatiecentrum Archeologie en monumentenzorg (SIAM). Others are issued by amateur units, as in Mechelen (Opgetekend Verleden), Antwerp (Bulletin van de Antwerpse vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschie-denis) and Ghent (Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent). Amateurs play an important


part in the spread of archaeological information, and not only in an urban context. Throughout rural Flanders, there are numerous local history societies participating in archaeological research. Until the arrival of ‘Malta archaeology’ many of them actively took part in fi eldwork. Nowadays they are limited to bringing archaeology to the public. Most local societies issue a journal or monograph series (e.g. for the area of Kortrijk: Archeologische en historische monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen), including their own earlier fi eldwork, as well as local research from other archaeologists.

Since it started in 1978, the annual conference Archaeologia Mediaevalis has been attended by most of the key players in post-medieval archaeol-ogy. The annual meetings bring together specialists from Flanders and the surrounding areas, to pres-ent their work on an annual basis. The proceedings of conferences held between 1978 and 2012 report on archaeological interventions on about 150 post-medieval sites. Although they offer a realistic overview of archaeological activity on medieval and post-medieval sites since 1978, it must be stressed that the articles included are in most cases little more than a short note or reference on large- and small-scale fi eldwork. More detailed post-medieval presentations are given at the biannual meeting of Belgian and Dutch archaeologists (BNA). However, most of the post-medieval contri-butions are made by Dutch urban archae ologists, and no publication accompanies the conference.

As outlined above, in the past Flemish archaeological evidence was mostly evaluated on a regional or local basis. Results were disseminated, mainly in Dutch or French, through local journals or at regional conferences in neighbouring areas, such as the Netherlands and the north of France. This traditional regional view on ‘international’ output gave Flemish archaeology little visibility in general, and limited accessibility for scholars abroad. It is only from the end of the 1980s that Flemish scholars started to participate in wider international debates. A change in emphasis was marked by the organization of a conference on post-medieval archaeology in Liège in 1985 (Archeologie des temps modernes). The Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology and especially Frans Verhaeghe were the driving forces behind this, aimed at stimulating research on the Continent. Subsequently, two further international confer-ences dealt with post-medieval themes. At the Medieval Archaeology Conference in Bruges in 1995, Flemish post-medieval archaeologists presented the results of recent work. In the same year a conference was held on the production and

consumption of maiolica and façon de Venise glass, industries which fl ourished in Antwerp in the 16th century (Majolica and Glass from Italy to Antwerp and Beyond. The Transfer of Technology in the 16th to Early 17th Century). During the last decade, Flemish research has appeared more frequently in international journals, such as the British journal Post-Medieval Archaeology, or the French journal of archaeology and history Revue du Nord.

PAST AND RECENT TRENDS IN FIELDWORK

THE SETTING OF DAILY LIFE

The input of urban archaeology into the transfor-mation of the material inventory of early-modern and modern life should not be underestimated. Forty years of rescue interventions in the centre of the Renaissance metropolis of Antwerp have led to the construction of an extensive data-set. Next to urban housing,20 there has been intensive excava-tion of several public buildings. When Antwerp took over the role of Bruges as the most important trading port in Europe in the 16th century, the Hanse constructed an impressive trading house in the harbour district of the city.21 After a fi re in the 19th century the building was completely destroye d. Large-scale excavation in 2006 revealed the architectural remains of the former ‘Hanzehuis’. Amongst other sites, the house of the famous Renaissance printer Christoffel Plantijn was recon-structed as a result of interdisciplinary research, including garden archaeology.22 Intensive fi eld-work in several other Flemish cities, such as Tongeren,23 Aalst,24 Ieper,25 Ostend,26 Bruges,27 Ghent,28 Leuven29 and Mechelen,30 has revealed rich household assemblages. Interdisciplinary studies of cesspit contents offer detailed insights into post-medieval bourgeois culture from the 16th to the 18th century. Evidence for daily life in small-er towns is limited,31 and the lifestyle of the urban poor is another underexplored theme.32 It is only in exceptional circumstances that the urban culture of the last 200 years is taken into account. Several cesspits from the late 18th and 19th centuries were excavated in Aalst, Ninove and Oudenaarde,33 while in Turnhout labourers’ cottages for the 19th-century Brepols printing works were uncovered.34

The current material inventory of rural life is biased and shaped by fi eldwork mainly on elite Renaissance castles.35 Well-documented examples are Château d’Ursel in Hingene,36 the reconstructe d medieval residence of the Dukes of Brabant at Tervuren,37 and the 17th-century hof van plaisantie, built on the medieval motte in Londerzeel.38 The


plan of the 16th-century castle of the elite family of Boucheron in Zingem was reconstructed by geo-physical survey.39 Post-medieval farmstead archi-tecture is known through the study of standing structures.40 Below-ground investigation of every-day rural life is confi ned to a few small-scale exca-vations.41 The archaeology of villages is another neglected theme. Many of the medieval and post-medieval settlements lay beneath existing villages.42 A diachronic study of the village of Moorsel, near Aalst, begins with its early medieval development and concludes with the 19th-century brewery.43 Some deserted villages have been studied mainly for their medieval past. Exemplary research has been carried out on the deserted village of Stuivek-enskerke,44 relocated during the 19th century. Fieldwork has shown that parts of these deserted villages remain visible in the landscape. Symbolic structures such as churches and graveyards often stay in use for a long time. Excavation of the village of Sint Margriete, near Roeselare, has demonstrated that although the village was fl ooded during the 14th century, the cemetery stayed in use until the 16th century.45 The parish churches of Roksem,46 Zoutenaaie47 and ‘s Heerwillemskap-pele48 stayed in use until the 19th century, long after the villagers left.

RELIGIOUS LIFE

Churches and religious houses have been signifi -cant themes in post-medieval archaeology. Partic-ular attention has been paid to the study of church architecture. Numerous parish churches have been excavated during the installation of fl oor heating and restoration works,49 and some interdisciplin-ary projects initiated as a result of restoration works. The restoration of St Mary’s parish church in Antwerp during the 1990s is a good example, bringing together leading restorers and specialists in various historical disciplines.50 In recent years there has been a growing interest in burial studies, with human remains, mostly related to parish churches or monastic complexes, analysed by bio-anthropologists.51 Monastic life has been a continuing theme in post-medieval archaeology. Since the 1980s amateur units and professional archaeologists have been inspired by the imposing rural monastic complexes of the Benedictine and Norbertine Orders. Exceptionally, interdisciplin-ary studies have been carried out on rich artefact assemblages, giving an insight into the material culture of monastic life.52 The main focus, however, was on monastic architecture. Thematic large-scale excavations, smaller archaeological rescue inter-ventions and analyses of standing structures give insights into the organization of monastic space in

the post-medieval period.53 Large-scale research on the cloister buildings of the Cistercian abbeys of Boudelo at Klein-Sinaai54 and of the Ten Duinen in Koksijde55 particularly stand out, together with research into the monastic church of the Cistercian abbey of St Bernard at Hemiksem.56 The focus on architecture is even more noticeable in the numer-ous rescue excavations of urban monasteries. Some of these were not ‘urban’ at the time of their foundation, but were absorbed by early-modern or modern town planning: for example, the Abbey of Groeninge in Kortrijk57 and the three major abbey complexes of Ghent, the Cistercian nunnery of the Bijloke58 and the Benedictine Abbeys of St Peter59 and St Bavo.60 There is a strikingly extensive mate-rial inventory of houses of the various mendicant orders61 and secular congregations,62 such as Beguines and Cellites, based mainly in an urban context.

Inside the monastic complex of the Domini-cans in Tongeren a production site for building materials was excavated, probably in use during the construction of the convent in the 17th century.63 There is also evidence for a 17th-century bell-founder at work inside the monastic precinct of the Abbey of St Andrew in Dendermonde.64 Similar workshops were excavated near the parish churches of Oudenaarde65 and Wervik.66 Monastic houses were often involved in the reclamation of land and the processing of raw materials. They were responsible for the development and success of various kinds of large-scale pre-industrial pro-duction, particularly the extraction of clay and manufacture of bricks and other ceramic building materials.67

CRAFTS AND INDUSTRIES

Crafts and industries in general are a popular theme in post-medieval archaeology. From the Middle Ages certain districts in Flemish towns were populated by a variety of craftsmen. Occa-sionally the workshops of these traditional indus-tries are revealed by archaeological fi eldwork. Tanners’ workshops are found in several Flemish historical towns, mostly located just outside the medieval town centres near a source of water.68 There is abundant evidence for the production, trade and consumption of maiolica69 and façon de Venise glass70 in the Renaissance capital of Antwerp. During the 16th century Italian crafts-men set up various production sites for glass and pottery in the city centre. Several of these have been excavated and subject to interdisciplinary study, combining archaeometric techniques such as X-Ray analysis,71 and the rich documentary sources available on these booming industries.72 In


a well organized and structured market facing competition with other production areas in the northern Low Countries and western Germany.77 The availability of suitable clay sources also attracted other craftsmen, such as tile makers.78 Sixteenth- and 18th-century fragments of ceramic sugar-refi ning vessels recovered in the city centre of Antwerp are so far unique in Flanders.79 During the 16th century Antwerp was one of the most import sugar-refi ning cities in Europe. Despite growing sugar consumption in the 17th century, religious and political circumstances ended this fl ourishing industry. The reopening of the Scheldt in 1794 meant a new start for sugar refi ning in Antwerp.

CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY

Confl ict archaeology is another well-established theme in Flemish post-medieval archaeology. The Eighty Years’ War left its traces across the territory. The borderland between the Spanish Netherlands and the Calvinist north Flanders was the theatre for several military contacts. In 1542 Charles V ordered the Italian engineer Donato Boni di Pellizuoli to defend the city of Antwerp with bastions and a citadel (Fig. 2). During recent large-scale construction works several parts of these defences were excavated.80 Rescue archaeol-ogy in the coastal town of Ostend also revealed several bulwarks (‘bolwerck’) of the 16th-century defences.81 The town was the theatre of several fi erce confl icts between Spanish and Calvinist troops. Smaller archaeological interventions have taken place on several of the fortresses around Ostend, which functioned as outposts and the fi rst military buffer. In Ghent the 16th-century citadel has been the subject of several rescue excavations. Built on top of the medieval abbey of St Bavo, the stronghold was meant to control possible urban revolts.82 The archaeology of Middelburg-in-Flanders is exceptionally well documented (Fig. 3). The new town and castle were founded in 1448 by Pieter Bladelin, Treasurer and Councillor of the Dukes of Burgundy. In the 16th century Middel-burg was frequently seized and occupied by Span-ish and Dutch troops; the latter destroyed the town at the end of the century. The contents of several garderobe chutes give an insight into the rich mate-rial culture of the castle during the military occupa-tion in the 16th century.83 During the 17th century the Dutch engineer Menno van Coehoorn and his French colleague Sébastien Le Prestre Vauban introduced a new type of bastioned urban defences in Flanders. Several towns adapted their existing enceinte according to the new defensive principles, and a number of these have been analysed through

the 17th century Amsterdam took over the role of Antwerp as a major trade centre. In other smaller cities, such as Haarlem, Leiden and especially Delft, new pottery production sites were set up producing maiolica, later famous as ‘Delftware’. During the second half of the 17th century, a number of Dutch craftsmen returned to set up new workshops in Flemish cities. A good example is the workshop that specialized in gheleyerswerck or tin-glazed ware that was established in Ghent by Pieter Stocholm around 1654. A decade later another craftsman, Gilles Van de Vijvere, founded another factory producing tin-glazed ware after the fashion of Delft (so-called Hollants porcelain) in buildings of the former Cistercian nunnery of the Bijloke (Fig. 1).73 Production became increas-ingly standardized during the 18th century, fi nally leading to a fully industrial production process making cheap but high-quality ceramics and sev-eral sidelines such as clay tobacco pipes, fi gurines and patacons (medallions for marking bread with the images of saints, etc., on holy days).74 A theme that deserves more attention is the local and regional production and trade of red earthen-wares.75 This lead-glazed pottery for common use was produced in most Flemish cities and in certain rural areas during the post-medieval period.76 Historical sources describe Flemish production as

FIG. 1

Part of a saggar (2) and trivet (4) from the workshop of Gilles Van de Vijvere in Ghent, third quarter of the 17th

century; in their Encyclopédie (1784) Diderot and d’Alembert illustrate how pottery vessels were stacked and fired by using these items (1 and 3) (M.C. Laleman

and G. Stoops © City of Ghent, Urban Archaeology and City Archives).


rescue excavations: for example, in Ghent,84 Oudenaarde,85 Ieper,86 Damme87 and Kortrijk.88 Underwater archaeology has also provided some information on the defensive system of the 18th-century merchant marine. A ship identifi ed as the Bethlehem, which sunk off the Flemish coast, was mapped using geophysical techniques; the varied material culture uncovered gives good insights into life onboard a heavily armed trading ship of the Dutch East India Company.89

Excavations carried out at Fort Monterey in Ghent have uncovered the former 17th-century outpost,90 rebuilt in 1819 at a time when Flanders was subject to the United Kingdom of the Nether-lands. As part of the famous ‘Wellington-barrière’, the new citadel defended the city against France and Napoleon Bonaparte, who ruled the region before his defeat at Waterloo in 1815. Under Napoleon new military harbour facilities had been

built in Antwerp. Part of the docks are still in use (the so-called Bonaparte Dock), whilst other areas were revealed during archaeological research. Highway construction in the neighbourhood of Antwerp has also revealed parts of the so-called Brialmont Line,91 the late 19th-century fortifi ca-tion constructed by the military engineer Henry Alexis Brialmont. A military hospital, built in 1898 as part of the Antwerp stronghold, was recently revealed during fi eldwork.92 Approaching the centenary of the beginning of the confl ict, there has been increasing interest in the archaeology of the First World War.93 Several excavations near Ieper (Ypres) and along the river Yser have revealed the everyday environment of the soldiers at the Western Front. The study of historic landscapes through GIS appears to be increasingly popular with young academics, many of them focusing on the post-medieval military heritage including the

FIG. 2

The so-called Sint-Jorisbastion, which formed a part of the 16th-century bastioned defences of Antwerp, built by Donato Boni di Pellizuoli; parts are still visible in an underground car park (photograph, Karen Minsaer

© City of Antwerp, Department of Archaeology).


FIG. 3

Excavation in the new town of Middelburg-in-Flanders: fieldwork revealed various traces of 17th- and 18th-century habitation above the late medieval town hall (photograph, W. De Clercq).

First World War front line94 and the Vauban Line,95 combining data from aerial photography and his-torical sources with past or current fi eldwork. This may include excavation and survey, fi eld-walking, auguring and non-destructive methods, such as geophysical survey.96 Amongst Second World War features, an underground command bunker has been excavated in Aalst.97

BEYOND THE RAW DATA

Despite the limited structural and legal framework of Flemish post-medieval archaeology, research has generated an extensive and growing material inventory. A large part of this evidence, both old and new, remains poorly studied or even completel y untouched. There are diffi culties in accessing earlier unpublished data, the quality of some of the current fi eld reports is worrying and there are

problems with the quantity, variability and conser-vation of the archaeological fi nds, as mentioned above. However, the data-set offers a unique source for in-depth comparative analysis at a national and international level. The challenges today lie in the exploitation of this largely untapped but extremely valuable reservoir of unreleased and ever-growing research potential. A positive trend seems to be setting in and post-medieval material culture has defi nitely seen a growth in interest from the academic world. More and more government- and university-based scholars are participating in current international debates, acknowledging the true value of the post-medieval heritage as a source for the study of material life and the consumption of commodities.98

There are therefore growing signs that Flem-ish post-medieval archaeology is slowly defi ning itself as an identifi ably interdisciplinary academic fi eld, analysing material culture and landscape by a


variety of methods. Academic interest in the subject opens the way for new (but nevertheless restricted and hardly continuous) fi nancial means to enable interdisciplinary research to take place outside the framework of urban archaeology and Flemish fi eld archaeology in general. In recent decades archaeometry in particular has been boom-ing. Scientifi c techniques are used on ceramic and glass industries for etic analysis, focusing on questions such as typology, dating and production technology. Archaeometry makes it possible to look beneath the surface of objects, into the inter-nal structure of glass, ceramics and other archaeo-logical materials, thus broadening our knowledge of manufacturing techniques.99 For example, chemical analysis of the contents of a 16th-century gallipot has given an insight into the early modern pharmacy,100 while geophysical prospection techniques and methodological tools such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are used by archaeologists to study the human impact on the landscape.101

Until recently interdisciplinary contacts with history have been largely superfi cial. Cooperation in the past was hampered by the limited interest of archaeologists in social interpretation and by mutual underestimation by scholars of both disci-plines.102 If historians were consulted, it was mainly to confi rm or refute archaeological chronology. It is only recently that the theoretical framework of history and the abundant information from docu-mentary records have begun to be fully exploited for archaeological interpretation. The interaction between archaeology and the documentary record is increasingly being used to provide a more holis-tic study of material life and the consumption of commodities.103 Historians have also started to realize that archaeology is more than the ‘hand-maiden of history’.104 Nevertheless, historical stud-ies on material culture are still produced without any actual ‘material’ input.105

For many years, philosophical background and tradition have meant that Flemish archaeolo-gists, like many of their Continental colleagues, have suffered from a deep-rooted aversion to theoretical thinking.106 In Flanders, archaeology has always been very much a methodological activity, excelling in data-gathering in the fi eld and systematized data description. This disregard for theoretical thought and more interpretative archaeologies has resulted in a marked discrepancy between etic and emic analysis. It is only in the last ten years that fashionable ideas from social archaeology have been espoused by Flemish uni-versity-based scholars. Theoretical and interpreta-tive writings from American historical archaeology

and British medieval and post-medieval archaeol-ogy have infl uenced the rather traditional way of looking at material culture and landscape. In particular, interdisciplinary study of the complex relationship between the physical environment (material culture, landscape and space) and all kinds of social identities has recently been well explored.

The work of British scholars such as Matthew Johnson107 and Oliver Creighton108 has introduced a new way of thinking about elite architecture. Functionality and military purpose are examined in a more nuanced light, acknowledging the delib-erate reorganization of architectural space for the construction of social identity. The recent ‘vivre noblement’ discourse illustrates ways in which new social groups tried to connect with traditional nobility from the Burgundian period onwards. Through architectural display and conspicuous consumption these self-made men, mostly high court offi cials, tried to upgrade and legitimize their elite status.109

Recent advances in monastic archaeology show the continual tension between the multiple and layered identities of individuals. Human behaviour and agency within the monastery walls were conditioned by several confl icting social iden-tities. Monastic life and gender-specifi c restrictions often force the religious in a straitjacket of multiple regulations, creating a new habitus for the mainly elite inhabitants.110 Their material culture reveals some repeated particularities contradictory to monastic life. Scratched marks on medieval and modern pottery and glass vessels, mainly from nunneries, may refl ect personal possession and more individual consumption of goods (Fig. 4).111 The presence of high-quality Chinese porcelain tea-sets and the consumption of tea, coffee and chocolate paints an image of women in God’s service but well aware of what is going on in the secular world.112 However, material culture alone is not always a stable referent by which to assess these layered identities.113 A multidisciplinary approach has been proven to give a more trustworthy and accurate view on social life. Research on the con-tents of a 16th-century brick-lined cesspit from an urban house in Aalst has revealed the grinding strain between fi nancial means and social aspira-tions. Architecture and household goods indicate a rich and wealthy life, while archaeozoological evidence shows a totally different picture: that of a poor and diet with little variety, characteristic of the urban underclass.114

The study of consumption patterns may inform on varying and transforming identities dur-ing early-modern and modern times. International scholarship on the ideology and material culture of


FIG. 4

Scratched marks on early 16th-century redware chafing dishes from the Poor Clares

Convent in Petegem-Beaulieu (K. De Groote and J. Moens

© Onroerend Erfgoed).

the European Reformation has encouraged Flem-ish research into daily life during the Eighty Years’ War.115 Ongoing study of the late 16th-century military occupation of the castle of Middelburg-in-Flanders is attempting to understand social life in this moving period. Changes in belief and religious conviction remain hard to determine from an examination of material culture alone.116 However, the numerous undamaged sacrimentillos (religious toys) deliberately thrown into the garderobe chute of Middelburg castle might be an indication of changing religious identities.117 These were used by children to play at conducting the Mass and probably symbolized Catholic ritual practice — play hard to defend during the Reformation.

The same research project also offered an accurate insight into the consumption patterns of one specifi c social group during military occupa-tion. Despite the precarious economic climate and ongoing violence, the military invested in high-quality food and material goods. Evidence for food consumption and material culture, and especially the luxury glass boot beakers, suggest convivial drinking. It seems that conspicuous consumption on the one hand and social bonding through drinking and dining on the other, formed an indispensible part of life in times of war.118

CONCLUSION

It is clear that future advances in post-medieval research are dependent on further legal and struc-tural anchoring of the discipline. The fi rst step, however, is to make the archaeological world aware of the value of their post-medieval heritage. All the different archaeological players need to

shoulder this responsibility together. Archaeolo-gists from administrative bodies, university schol-ars and fi eld practitioners need to initiate debate on disciplinarity and research strategies — a debate that has already been going on for several years in the archaeology of many other European coun-tries. The writers believe that in the long term the problem of recognition of post-medieval archaeol-ogy can only be tackled with a ground-up approac h, inspiring young archaeologists through education. The situation of post-medieval archaeology today is comparable with that of medieval archaeology 20 years ago,119 in which the installation of full independent professorships during the 1990s marked a serious upgrade in both education and research, resulting in the acknowledgement of medieval archaeology as a worthy archaeological sub-discipline.

Hypothetical research agendas should stress the importance of the management and exploita-tion of the post-medieval material inventory. Data from past excavations hides a large research potential. The limited attention given to post-excavation work in the past has meant that much of the excavation data remains untouched or concisely published. One challenge is to handle the growing amount of data from development-led excavations. Most of the results are only published in basic fi eld reports of varying quality and with limited circulation. Both past excavation data-sets and the steady stream of fi eld reports from devel-opment-led archaeology are an undervalued source for more comparative work. Future fi eldwork should pay particular attention to archaeological themes that are rarely if ever present in the current material inventory. There is no escaping the fact


that the data-set is seriously biased. The entwine-ment of the discipline with urban archaeology defi -nitely left its mark. Just as in medieval archaeology, most excavated sites are situated in an urban context, and the study of rural populations is one of these unexploited subjects. The past focus on rural life has been aimed at Renaissance castles and other elite habitation, while information on the daily life of the common farmer is almost non-existent. Even evidence for urban life is hardly acceptable: elite housing culture has been studied to a limited extent, based on only a few data-sets. Knowledge of the consumer habits of middle-class households and the urban poor is lacking. Apart from some information on the manufacture of glass and tin-glazed wares in major cities such as Antwerp and Ghent, hardly anything is known of the production of household goods during the post-medieval period. Indeed, nothing is known on the production and consumption of locally produced common wares such as the ever-present lead-glazed earthenware and 18th-century colour-less glass.

In the last few decades a new generation of scholars has shown the will to stimulate the further development of post-medieval archaeology through research and participation in current international debates. They have initiated dialogue with interna-tional anthropology by introducing several theo-retical approaches familiar to American historical archaeology and British medieval and post-medieval archaeology. This new interpretative framework for material culture and social identity, together with the deep-rooted European tradition of stratigraphic excavation, qualitative data-gathering and interdisciplinary fi nds analysis, offers Flemish post-medieval archaeology a strong and broad base for further development towards a distinctive archaeological sub-discipline with its own methods and research questions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research was carried out within the framework of the PhD project (FNR Luxembourg): ‘The material culture of Clairefontaine Abbey’.

The authors wish to thank Helen Butler for the language corrections and the peer referees for their useful comments. Furthermore, the authors thank Marie-Christine Laleman, G. Stoops and Maarten Berkers for providing the illustrations in Fig. 1. Karen Minsaer of the Department of Archaeology of the City of Antwerp is also thanked for providing the photograph of the Sint-Jorisbastion (Fig. 2), as well as K. De Groote and J. Moens for the drawings in Fig. 4.

NOTES

1 Courtney 2009.2 Egan 2009; Funari et al. 2009; Pykles 2008.3 Gaimster 2009.4 Driscoll 2010; Egan 2009; Ericsson 1995; Gaimster

2009; Milanese 1997.5 Verhaeghe & Otte 1988.6 Since archaeology is federalized, we will limit

ourselves to Flemish education in archaeology. 7 Courtney 2009.8 Since 2006, MA research in archaeology at Flemish

universities has been listed in the Brepols series, Terra Incognita, Annual Review. The list of literature at the end of each issue gives an exhaustive overview of the MA research carried out in that year.

9 Theugels 2010, 235.10 Kristiansen 2009.11 De Clercq et al. 2012.12 Gaimster 2009 ; Laleman 2000.13 De Clercq et al. 2012.14 Verhaeghe 2008.15 Lettany et al. 1992; Veeckman et al. 1992; Veeck-

man & Dumortier 1999; Veeckman et al. 1998.16 Dumortier 1992; Laleman et al. 1996.17 De Clercq et al. 2012.18 De Clercq et al. 2012.19 Beaudry 2009; Creighton 2008; Janssens 2008.20 Bungeneers 1988; 1992; Caluwé 2005; Denissen

1984; 1985a; 1985b; 1986; Derycke et al. 1998; Geys-kens 1983; 1984; Henkes & Veeckman 1999; Lettany et al. 1992; Oost 1984; Schaaf 1992; Teughels 2006; Veeckman 1987; 1996a; 1996b; Veeckman et al. 1992; Veeckman & Dumortier 1999; Veeckman et al. 1998.

21 Van den Bremt 2006.22 Bellens & Vynckier 2008.23 Vanderhoeven et al. 2007; Wouters et al. 1995. 24 De Groote et al. 2001–2.25 Dewilde & Wyffels 2001.26 Pieters et al. 1995; 2005.27 Vandenberghe 1983.28 De Bleser 1988; Desmet 1981; Desmet & Romme-

laere 1989; Raveschot 1991; Reyns 2009; Van Iseghem 2007.

29 Vander Ginst et al. 2011.30 Raffo 1979b; Vandenberghe 1984; Verbeemen

1991.31 Beeckmans & Lambrecht 2007; Heymans 1989;

Hillewaert 1997.32 De Groote et al. 2001–2.33 Bourgeois et al. 1996; Van Nuland 2006; Cleopater

2004; Temmerman 2001; Klinkenborg et al. 2009.34 Bracke & Delaruelle 2010.35 De Decker 2006; Van Bellingen 2006; van den

Konijnenburg 1986; Van Staeyen & Van Impe 1987; Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2007; Verbeemen 1982.

36 Bungeneers & Van Langendonck 1996.


37 De Meulemeester & Dewilde 1986.38 Ervynck 1994.39 Simpson et al. 2009.40 Trefois 1978.41 De Belie 2001; Despriet 1983; Lemay & Roels 2003;

Moens et al. 2011.42 Dewilde et al. 1989.43 Pieters et al. 1996.44 Dewilde et al. 2003.45 Van Doorselaer & Verhaeghe 1974.46 Mertens 1988.47 De Meulemeester & Termote 1983.48 Termote 1987.49 Acke 2009; De Groote & Moens 1999; Despriet

2004; Van den Hove & Vynckier 2003; Van Impe & Creemers 1997; Veeckman 1996c; Vermeiren 1999.

50 Aerts 1993.51 Janssens & Veeckman 1992; Minsaer 2008; Moens

& Quintelier 2010; Van Rechem 2005; Vandenbruane et al. 2003; Vander Ginst & Vandenbruane 2006.

52 Cooremans et al. 1994; De Groote 1993; De Groote & Lemay 1994; Ervynck & Van Neer 1993; Laleman et al. 1985; Lemay 1995.

53 Despriet 1998; Van Bellingen 1993; Wouters & Peersman 1994.

54 De Belie 1997.55 Dewilde & De Meulemeester 1992; 1991.56 Annaert 1993.57 Despriet 1993a.58 Laleman & Stoops 2005.59 Bru & Vermeiren 2009.60 Declercq 1997.61 Bauters et al. 1992; Bellens & Vandenbruane 2006;

Bellens & Veeckman 2005; De Groote et al. 2011; Despriet 1993b; 2001; Gheysen & Reyns 2009; Raffo 1980; Troubleyn et al. 2005.

62 Acke & Trommelmans 2010; Despriet 2001; Raffo 1979a; 1981; Smeets & Vander Ginst 2011; Swinnen 1984.

63 van den Konijnenburg 1987.64 Borremans & Godfroid 1981.65 Ameels et al. 2009.66 Bradt 2009.67 Van Royen 2008; De Wandel & Deschieter 2011.68 Ervynck 2011.69 Dumortier 2002; Dumortier & Oost 1992; Oost

1992; Veeckman 1999; Veeckman & Bellens 2005; Veeckman et al. 2002.

70 Caluwé 2005.71 Janssens et al. 1998; Lemberge et al. 2000.72 Dumortier 1992, 1999.73 Laleman et al. 1996.74 Despriet 1995; Geyskens 2002; Van de Walle 1981;

Van Nuland 2006; De Groote et al. 2002.75 De Groote 2008; Despriet 2005a; Verhaeghe & Van

Hove 1988.

76 Laleman 1997; Deschieter & De Wandel 2009.77 Lievois 1984.78 Geyskens 2011; Swimberghe 1997.79 De Mets & Houtman-De Smedt 1984.80 Minsaer 2010.81 Pieters et al. 1995; 2003; 2005.82 Laleman 2000.83 De Clercq et al. 2007.84 Laleman & Lievois 1991.85 Lemay et al. 1995.86 Dewilde 1994.87 Dewilde & Wyffels 2007.88 Despriet 2005b.89 Zeebroek et al. 2010.90 Antheunis et al. 2010.91 Bogaerts 2005.92 Gheysen 2007.93 Dewilde 2010; Dewilde et al. 2007.94 Stichelbaut 2006.95 Blanchaert & Bourgeois 2010.96 Caljon 2009; Masters & Stichelbaut 2009;

Stichelbaut 2011.97 Verbeke 2005.98 Blondé 2002; Buylaert et al. 2011; Clercq et al.

2007; Dibbits 2010.99 e.g. De Raedt et al. 2002; Herremans et al. 2012;

Lemberge et al. 2000; Meulebroeck et al. 2010; Schalm et al. 2007; Van der Linden et al. 2005; Wouters 2009; Wouters et al. 2008.100 Baeten et al. 2010.101 Blanchaert & Bourgeois 2010; De Clercq et al. 2012; Stichelbaut 2011.102 Verhaeghe 1990.103 Blondé 2002; Buylaert et al. 2011; Clercq et al. 2007; De Groote 2008, 430; Dibbits 2010. 104 Gaimster 2009.105 Blondé 2002; Dibbits 2010.106 Courtney 2009; Verhaeghe 1990.107 Johnson 2000.108 Creighton 2002.109 Buylaert et al. 2011; Clercq et al. 2007.110 Gilchrist 1993.111 De Groote 2005.112 Herremans 2012.113 Grassby 2005.114 De Groote 2008, 438; De Groote et al. 2001–02.115 Creighton 2002.116 Insoll 2004.117 De Clercq et al. 2007.118 De Clercq et al. 2007.119 Verhaeghe & De Meulemeester 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acke, B. 2009, ‘Archeologisch en bouwhistorisch onderzoek van de Sint-Ghislenuskerk te Waarschoot’, Tijdschrift voor het Verbond voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek in Oost-Vlaanderen 63, 2–11.


Acke, B. & Trommelmans, R. 2010, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek site Bogaardeklooster te Diest’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 33, 7–12.

Aerts, W. (ed.) 1993, De Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraa l van Antwerpen, Antwerp: Mercatorfonds.

Ameels, V., Moens, J. & De Groote, K. 2009, ‘Verken-nend onderzoek in de Sint-Walburgastraat te Oudenaarde (O.-Vl.)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 32, 80–1.

Annaert, R. 1993, ‘De kerk van de Cisterciënzer Sint-Bernardusabdij te Hemiksem (prov. Antwer-pen)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 2, 265–78.

Antheunis, G., Laleman, M.C. & Steurbaut, P. 2010, ‘Koning Leopold II-Laan 99-103’, Stadsarche-ologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 4, 56–9.

Arveiller V. & Cabart H. 2012, Le Verre en Lorraine et dans les régions voisins, Monographies Instru-mentum 42, Montangac: Éditions Monqiue Mergoil.

Baeten, J., Romanus, K., Degryse, P., De Clercq, W., Poelman, H., Verbeke, K., Liupaerts, A., Wal-ton, M., Jacobs, P.A., De Vos D., & Waelkens M. 2010, ‘Application of a multi-analytical tool-set to a 16th century ointment: identifi cation as lead plaster mixed with beeswax’, Microchemical J. 95:2, 227–34.

Bauters, L., Laleman, M.C., Lievois, D. & Raveschot, P. 1992, ‘Het klooster van de Geschoeide Karme-lieten. Nieuwe archeologische en bouwhisto-rische gegevens’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 16:4, 51–5.

Beaudry, M.C. 2009, ‘Ethical issues in historical archaeology’, in Majewski & Gaimster 2009, 17–30.

Beeckmans, D. & Lambrecht, G. 2007, De Cop door-gespoeld. Een 16de eeuwse beerputvulling anders bekeken, Dendermonde: Zwijvekemuseum.

Bellens, T. & Vandenbruane, M. 2006, ‘Het Allerhei-ligenklooster van de Antwerpse augustijnen (prov. Antwerpen): archeologische en fysisch-antropologische gegevens’, Relicta, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen 2, 197–234.

Bellens, T. & Veeckman, J. 2005, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek naar het voormalig Augustijnenk-looster in de Kammenstraat’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 6, 225–8.

Bellens, T. & Vynckier, G. (eds) 2008, Archeologisch tuinonderzoek in Museum Plantin-Moretus, Rapporten van het Stedelijk Informatiecentrum Archeologie & Monumentenzorg 4.

Berghmans, F., Mignani A.G. & Hoof C.A.V. 2010, Optical Sensing and Detection, Proc. SPIE — The International Society for Optics and Photonics 7726, Brussels.

Biesbrouck, B. 2010, Forten Nu!: actuele omgang met forten, gordels en verdedigingslinies, Antwerp: Provincie Antwerpen.

Blanchaert, H. & Bourgeois, J. 2010, ‘La localisation des lignes françaises du XVIIe siècle entre Ypres et Comines (Belgique): une contribution archéologique et géographique’, Revue Du Nord 92:388, 9–18.

Blondé, B. 2002, ‘Tableware and changing consumer patterns. Dynamics of material culture in Antwerp, 17th–18th centuries’, in Veeckman et al. 2002, 295–312.

Bogaerts, B. 2005, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek naar de Brialmontomwalling (2004–2005)’, Vesting 2005:4, 29–38.

Borremans, E. & Godfroid, S. 1981, ‘De Sint-Adriaansabdij te Geraardsbergen’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 4, 29–30.

Bourgeois, J., Ervynck, A., Rondelez, P. & Gilté, M. 1996, ‘De vuilnisbelt vertelt — Archeologisch onderzoek van modern Gents huishoudelijk afval’, Tijdschrift voor Ecologische Geschiedenis 1, 46–51.

Bracke, M. & Delaruelle, S. 2010, ‘Turnhout-Brepols (Turnova)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 33, 30–1.

Bradt, T. 2009, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek site Pardoen te Wervik: Resten van een klokkengiet-ersatelier (W.-Vl)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 32, 94–6.

Bru, M.-A. & Vermeiren, G. (eds) 2009, Onder het Sint-Pietersplein Gent. Van hoogadellijke be-graafplaats tot parking, Ghent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon.

Bungeneers, J. 1988, ‘De vondsten uit vier afvalputten aan de Nationalestraat nrs 130–132’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1988:1, 39–57.

Bungeneers, J. 1992, ‘Een afvalput in het voormalig bisschoppelijk paleis’, in Veeckman 1992, 13–22.

Bungeneers, J. & Van Langendonck, L. 1996, ‘Provin-ciaal domein kasteel d’Ursel te Hingene: een monument van de 18de eeuwse wooncultuur’, Provinciale Commisie voor Geschiedenis en Volkskunde. Jaarboek 8, 138–41.

Buylaert, F., De Clercq, W. & Dumolyn, J. 2011, ‘Sumptuary legislation, material culture and the semiotics of “vivre noblement” in the county of Flanders (14th–16th centuries)’, Social Hist. 36, 393–417.

Cabart, H. 2011, La Verrerie archéologique. Dieu-louard et l’Est de la France aux XVIe et XVII siècles, Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.

Caljon, L. (ed.) 2009, Geografi e en defensie. Met bijzondere aandacht voor het meest noordelijke deel van de Maginotlinie en de geomorfologische


aspecten, Archeologische en Historische Mono-grafi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 71.

Caluwé, D. 2005, ‘Een glasensemble opgegraven in het Steen te Antwerpen: typologische en chronologische studie’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumen-tenzorg 6, 107–212.

Clercq, W. de., Dumolyn, J. & Haemers, J. 2007, ‘“Vivre noblement”: material culture and elite identity in late medieval Flanders’, J. Interdisci-plinary Hist. 38:1, 1–32.

Cleopater, D. 2004, ‘Techno-, typo-, chronologisch onderzoek en sociaal-economische interpretatie van een 18de-eeuws aardewerkcomplex uit de Site ‘Peperstraat’ te Aalst’, Free University of Brussels MA thesis.

Cooremans, B., Ervynck, A. & Van Neer, W. 1994, ‘De voedselvoorziening in de Sint-Salvatorsabdij te Ename (stad Oudenaarde, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen). 2. De afvalput van de priorij (17de eeuw)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 3, 419–42.

Courtney, P. 2009, ‘The current state and future prospects of theory in European post-medieval archaeology’, in Majewski & Gaimster 2009, 169–89.

Creighton, O.H. 2002, Castles and Landscapes. Power, Community and Fortifi cation in Medieval England, London: Continuum.

Creighton, O.H. 2008, ‘Castle studies and archaeolog y in England: towards a research framework for the future’, in Ettel et al. 2008, 79–90.

De Belie, A. 1997, De Boudelo-abdij archeologisch onderzocht, Belsele: De Culturele Kring Boudelo.

De Belie, A. 2001, Boudelo op Koudenborm te Moer-beke. Opgravingen van 1993 tot 1995, studie van de resultaten van 1996 tot 2001, Sint-Niklaas: De Culturele Kring Boudelo.

De Bleser, C. 1988, ‘Glas uit post-middeleeuwse afvalkuilen in Gent’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 12:3, 2–65.

De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J., Crombé, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J., Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Lombaert, L., Plets, G., Sergant, J. & Stichelbaut, B. 2012, ‘Development-led archae-ology in Flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990–2010’, in Webley et al. 2012, 29–55.

De Clercq, W., Caluwé, D., Cooremans, B., De Buyser, F., De Groote, K., Deforce, K., Ervynck, A., Lentacker, A., Mortier, S., Pype, P., Vanden-berghe, S., Van Neer, W. & Wouters, H. 2007, ‘Living in times of war: waste of c. 1600 from two garderobe chutes in the castle of Middelburg-in-Flanders (Belgium)’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 41:1, 1–63.

De Clercq, W., De Smedt, P., De Reu, J., Herremans, D., Masters, P., Saey, T., Stichelbaut, B. & Van

Meirvenne, M. 2012, ‘Towards an integrated methodology for assesing rural settlement landscapes in the Belgian lowlands’, Archaeol. Prospection 19, 141–5.

De Decker, S. 2006, Het kasteel van Assenede — van opgraving tot historisch landschap, Ghent: Stichting Mens en Kultuur.

De Groote, K. 1993, ‘Het afval van de Rijke Klaren. Noodonderzoek in de voormalige abdij van Beaulieu te Petegem (gem. Wortegem-Petegem, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen)’, Archeologie in Vlaan-deren 2, 335–412.

De Groote, K. 2005, ‘The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries: data from three sites in East Flanders (Belgium)’, Medieval Ceram. 29, 31–43.

De Groote, K. 2008, Middeleeuws aardewerk in Vlaan-deren. Techniek, typologie, chronologie en evolu-tie van het gebruiksgoed in de regio Oudenaarde in de volle en late middeleeuwen (10de–16de eeuw), Relicta Monografi eën 1, Brussels: Vlaams Instituut voor het Onroerend Erfgoed.

De Groote, K., De Maeyer, W., Moens, J., Quintelier, K., Van Cleven, F., Vanden Berghe, I. & Vernaeve, W. 2011, ‘Het karmelietenklooster van Aalst (prov. Oost-Vl.) (1497–1797): het gebouwenbestand, de begravingen en het fysisch-antropologische onderzoek’, Relicta, Archeolo-gie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen 8, 83–250.

De Groote, K. & Lemay, N. 1994, ‘De materiële cul-tuur in de Sint-Salvatorsabdij te Ename (stad Oudenaarde, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen) 1. Twee middeleeuwse latrines uit de westvleugel en een 17de-eeuwse afvalput uit de priorij’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 3, 401–18.

De Groote, K. & Moens, J. 1999, ‘Noodonderzoek in de St-Martinuskerk te Aalst (O.-Vl.)’, Archae-ologia Mediaevalis 22, 56–7.

De Groote, K., Moens, J., Caluwé, D., Cooremans, B., Deforce, K., Ervynck, A., Lentacker, A., Rijmenants, E., Van Neer, W., Vernaeve, W. & Zeebroek, I. 2001–02 ‘De Valcke, de Slotele en de Lelye, burgerwoningen op de Grote Markt te Aalst (prov. Oost-Vlaanderen): onderzoek naar de bewoners, analyse van een vroeg-16de-eeuwse beerputvulling en de evolutie tot stadhuis’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 8, 281–408.

De Groote, K., Moens, J., De Block, A. & Zeebroek, I. 2002, ‘Het afval van een laat 18de eeuwse pata-conbakker in de Peperstraat te Aalst (O.-Vl.)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 25, 49–50.

De Mets, D. & Houtman-De Smedt, H. 1984, ‘Antwerpen: Suikerstad?’, Antwerpen. Tijdschrift der Stad Antwerpen 30, 156–66.


De Meulemeester, J. & Dewilde, M. 1986, ‘Het kasteel van de hertogen van Brabant’, Archaeologia Belgica Nieuwe Reeks 1, 121–6.

De Meulemeester, J. & Termote, J. 1983, De mid-deleeuwse dorpskern van Zoutenaaie (Veurne). Onderzoek van een woonsite en van de kerk, Archaeologia Belgica 254.

De Raedt, I., Janssens, K. & Veeckman, J. 2002, ‘On the distinction between 16th and 17th century Venetian and façon de Venise glass’, in Veeck-man et al. 2002, 95–122.

De Wandel, T. & Deschieter, J. 2011, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek op de Lange Gracht te Ename’, Handelingen van het Zottegemse Genootschap voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde 15, 247–51.

Declercq, G. 1997, Ganda en Blandinium, de gentse abdijan van Sint-Pieters en Sint-Baafs, Ghent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon.

Denissen, S. 1984, ‘De opgravingen Kaasstraat 13/Afvalput 2 te Antwerpen 3: het glas’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1984:1, 25–46.

Denissen, S. 1985a, ‘Een gaaf 16de eeuws glas uit een waterput van huis “Draecke”’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1985:1, 7–18.

Denissen, S. 1985b, ‘De glasvondsten uit de afvalput-ten van het huis “Halmale”, Venusstraat 18 te Antwerpen’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Verenig-ing voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1985:6, 9–44.

Denissen, S. 1986, ‘De glasvondsten uit een afvalput van het Onze-Lieve-Vrouwehuis, Keizerstraat 9 te Antwerpen’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereni-ging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1986:4, 1–32.

Derycke, I., Troupin, G. & Veeckman, J. 1998, ‘De Coninck van Spaignien, alias Pellicaen. Arche-ologisch, bouwhistorisch en historisch onder-zoek van een verdwenen pand in de Oude Beurs’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 2, 57–79.

Deschieter, J. & De Wandel, T. 2009, ‘Heren, burgers en ambachtslui . . .: archeologisch noodonder-zoek in Zuid-Oost-Vlaanderen’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 32, 122–4.

Desmet, G. 1981, ‘Noodopgraving, “Den Bonten Mantele”, Vrijdagmarkt 45’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 5, 31–2.

Desmet, G. & Rommelaere, J. 1989, ‘Opgravingen aan van een beerput in Oudburg 21’, Stadsarche-ologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 13, 11–15.

Despriet, P. 1983, ‘Oost-Rozebeke: het goed te Priems’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 6, 69.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 1993a, De Kortrijkse Groeningenab-dij, Archeologische en Historische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 28.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 1993b, Noodopgraving in het klooster van de Kortrijkse Minderbroeders, Archeolo-gische en Historische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 22.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 1995, Pijpen- en pottenbakkerij in kortrijk/Overleie (1860–1950). De noodopgrav-ing van 1994–1995, Archeologische en Histo-rische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 33.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 1998, Noodopgraving in de Gulden-bergabdij in wevelgem (1997), Archeologische en Historische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 38.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 2001, Onstaan en ontwikkeling van het Kortrijks Begijnhof, Archeologische en Histo-rische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 45.

Despriet, P. 2004, ‘Kortrijk (W. Vl.): Verder onder-zoek collegiale O.L.Vrouwkerk’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 27, 68.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 2005a, Gestempeld. 16de eeuws aarden vaatwerk uit Kortrijkse opgravingen, Archeologische en Historische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 59.

Despriet, P. (ed.) 2005b, Nieuw licht op de moderne vesting Kortrijk, Archeologische en Historische Monografi eën van Zuid-West-Vlaanderen 60.

Dewilde, M. 1994, ‘In de put te Damme’, Archaeolo-gia Mediaevalis 17, 21–2.

Dewilde, M. 2010, ‘Het onroerend erfgoed van de “Groote Oorlog” in de Westhoek: Verleden en toekomst’, in Biesbrouck 2010, 50–61.

Dewilde, M. & De Meulemeester, J. 1991, ‘De opgravingscampagnes van 1987 en 1988 in de Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Ten Duinenabdij Koksijde’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 1, 213–30.

Dewilde, M. & De Meulemeester, J. 1992 ‘Van abtswoning tot monnikenverblijf. Een bouwhis-torische en archeologische benadering van de abtswoning van de O.L.V. Ten Duinenabdij te Koksijde (prov. West-Vlaanderen)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 2, 297–314.

Dewilde, M., De Meyer, M. & Saunders, N.J. 2007, ‘Archeologie van de “Groote Oorlog”. De Vlaamse situatie’, Monumenten, Landschappen en Archeologie 26, 37–54.

Dewilde, M., Geeroms, D. & Vandenberghe, S. 1989, ‘Onderzoek van een zestiende eeuws woonhuis in Londerzeel’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 12, 65–6.

Dewilde, M., Vanhoutte, S. & Wyffels, F. 2003, ‘De motte van Oud-Stuivekenskerke’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 26, 36–7.

Dewilde, M. & Wyffels, F. 2001, ‘Archeologisch noodonderzoek aan de Sint-Jacobsstraat en het Guido Gezelleplein te Ieper (W.-Vl.)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 25, 86–7.


Dewilde, M. & Wyffels, F. 2007, ‘Vauban in Ieper’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 30, 56–8.

Dibbits, H. 2010, ‘Pronken as practice. Material culture in the Netherlands, 1650–1800’, in Rittersma 2010, 37–158.

Dobres, M.-A. & Robb, J. 2000, Agency in Archaeol-ogy, London: Routledge.

Driscoll, T. 2010, ‘Scottish historical archaeology: international agendas and local politics’, Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 14, 442–62.

Dumortier, C. 1992, ‘De “geleyerspotbackers” in de Schoytestraat te Antwerpen’, in Veeckman 1992, 109–11.

Dumortier, C. 1999, ‘Majolica production in Ant-werp: the documentary evidence’, in Gaimster 1999, 107–13.

Dumortier, C. 2002, Céramique de la Renaissance à Anvers. De Venise à Delft, Brussels: Racine.

Dumortier, C. & Oost, T. 1992, ‘Antwerpse majolicat-egels uit het voormalige refugiehuis van de abdij van Hemiksem’, in Veeckman 1992, 23–30.

Duvosquel, J.M. 1990, La Génèse et les premiers siècles des villes médievales dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux. Un problème archéologique et histo-rique. Actes – Ontstaan en vroegste geschiedenis van de Middeleeuwse steden in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden. Een archeologisch en historisch probleem. Handelingen. Historische Uitgaven 8:83, Brussels: Gemeentekrediet.

Egan, G. 2009, ‘The development of post-medieval archaeology in Britain: a historical perspective’, in Majewski & Gaimster 2009, 549–63.

Ericsson, I. 1995, ‘Archäologie der Neuzeit. Ziele unde Abgrenzung einer jungen Disziplin der archäologischen Wissenschaft’, Ausgrabungen und Funde 40:1, 7–13.

Ervynck, A. (ed.) 1994, De “Burcht” te Londerzeel. Bewoningsgeschiedenis van een motte en een bakstenen kasteel, Archeologie in Vlaanderen Monografi e 1, Brussels: Vlaams Instituut voor het Onroerend Erfgoed.

Ervynck, A. 2011, ‘Everything but the leather. The search for tanneries in Flemish archaeology’, in Thomson & Mould 2011, 103–15.

Ervynck, A. & Van Neer, W. 1993, ‘De voedselvoorz-iening in de Sint-Salvatorsabdij te Ename (stad Oudenaarde, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen) I. Been-deren onder een keukenvloer (1450–1550 AD)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 2, 419–34.

Ettel, P., Flambard Héricher, A-M. & McNeil, T.E. 2008, Bilan des recherches en castellologie. Actes du colloque international de Houffalize (Belgique). 4–10 septembre 2006, Château Gaillard 23, Caen.

Funari, P., Zarankin, A. & Salerno M.A. 2009, ‘Historical archaeology in South America’, in Majewski & Gaimster 2009, 399–407.

Gaimster, D. (ed.) 1999, Maiolica in the North. The archaeology of Tin-glazed Earthenware in North-West Europe c. 1500–1600. Proceedings of a Col-loquium Hosted by the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities on 6–7 March 1997, British Museum Occ. Pap. 122.

Gaimster, D. 2009, ‘An embarrasment of riches? Post-medieval archaeology in Northern and Central Europe’, in Majewski & Gaimster 2009, 525–48.

Geyskens, L. 1983, ‘Opgravingen Kaasstraat 13/Afvalput 2 te Antwerpen: majolica’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1983:5, 154–65.

Geyskens, L. 1984, ‘Majolicavondsten uit opgravin-gen te Antwerpen: de zalfpotten’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1984:6, 13–30.

Geyskens, L. 2002, ‘Beelden en plaketten uit pijpaarde te Antwerpen’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 5, 9–114.

Geyskens, L. (ed.) 2011, Antwerpse inlegtegels in een Europese context, Rapporten van het Stedelijk Informatiecentrum Archeologie & Monumen-tenzorg 7.

Gheysen, K. (ed.) 2007, Archeologisch onderzoek op het Militair Hospitaal, Rapporten van het Stedelijk Informatiecentrum Archeologie en Monumentenzorg 2.

Gheysen, K. & Reyns, N. (eds) 2009, Archeologisch onderzoek naar het Falcontinnenklooster, Rapporten van het Stedelijk Informatiecentrum Archeologie en Monumentenzorg 5.

Gilchrist, R. 1993, Gender and Material Culture. The Archaeology of Religious Women, Londen: Routledge.

Grassby, R. 2005, ‘Material culture and cultural history’, J. Interdisciplinary Hist. 35, 591–603.

Henkes, H. & Veeckman, J. 1999, ‘Schitterende scher-ven. Het glas uit een afvalput op de Antwerpse Eieremarkt’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 3, 11–87.

Herremans, D. 2012, ‘Glass from an 18th century latrine at the Cistercian nunnery of Clairefon-taine (Belgium)’, in Arveiller & Cabart 2012, 303–6.

Herremans, D., Cagno, S., Vincke, A., De Clercq, W. & Janssens, K. 2012, ‘Composition and state of alteration of 18th century glass from the Cistercian nunnery of Clairefontaine (Belgium)’, Integrated Approaches to the Study of Historical Glass, Proc. SPIE — The International Society for Optics and Photonics 8422, 842206/1–842206/11.


Heymans, H. 1989, Van put naar kluis. Historisch, bouwhistorisch en archeologisch onderzoek van “Den Prince van Luyck” en “De Stadt Amster-dam” te Maaseik. Tentoonstelling Maaseik 14 april–14 mei 1989, Maaseik: Museuactron.

Hillewaert, B. 1997, ‘Stadskernonderzoek in Heist’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 20.

Insoll, T. 2004, Archaeology, Ritual, Religion, London: Routledge.

Janssens, H. 2008, ‘Medieval castle research in the Netherlands’, in Ettel et al. 2008, 237–50.

Janssens, K.H., Deraedt, I., Schalm, O. & Veeckman, J. 1998, ‘Composition of 15th–17th century archaeological glass vessels excavated in Antwerp, Belgium’, Mikrochimica Acta, 253–67.

Janssens, P. & Veeckman, J. 1992, ‘Doden uit de kathedraalbodem: antropologisch en paleo-pathologisch onderzoek’, in Veeckman 1992, 113–20.

Johnson, M. 2000, ‘Self-made men and the staging of agency’, in Dobres & Robb 2000, 213–31.

Klinkenborg, S., De Maeyer, W. Clement, C. & Cher-etté, B. 2009, ‘Ninove Graanmarkt. Archeolo-gisch onderzoek, SOLVA Archeologie-Rapport 6.

Kristiansen, K. 2009, ‘Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity’, World Archaeol. 54, 641–8.

Laleman, M.C. 1997, ‘Strijd tegen concurrentie. Over aardewerk in het 17de eeuwse Vlaanderen’, in Meulemeester 1997, 38–43.

Laleman, M.C. 2000, ‘“Recent” en toch ook archeol-ogie. Enkele aspecten van het onderzoek in Oost-Vlaanderen’, Tijdschrift voor het Verbond voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek in Oost-Vlaanderen 52, 64–71.

Laleman, M.C. & Lievois, G. 1991, ‘Een 17de eeuws bastion buiten de Kortrijkse Poort’, Stadsarche-ologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 15:1, 5–33.

Laleman, M.C., Lievois, D., Stoops, G. & Swimber-ghe, P. 1996, ‘Hollands Porselein uit Gent’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 20:3, 5–55.

Laleman, M.C., Raveschot, P. & Van de Walle, R. (eds) 1985, De Sint-Pietersabdij te Gent. Het rijke leven van zieke monniken. Twee afvalputten uit de infi rmerie (1600–1780), Ghent: Dienst Monumentenzorg en Stadsarcheologie, Afdeling Stadsarcheologie.

Laleman, M.C. & Stoops, G. 2005, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek in de Gentse Bijloke’, Tijdschrift voor het Verbond voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonder-zoek in Oost-Vlaanderen 62, 38–45.

Lemay, N. 1995, ‘De materiële cultuur in de Sint-Salvatorsabdij te Ename (stad Oudenaarde, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen). Deel 2. Een afvalput uit

de keuken’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 4, 291–310.

Lemay, N., Callebaut, D. & Bauters, L. 1995, ‘Noodopgraving aan de muziekschool te Oude-naarde (O.-Vl.)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 18, 12–13.

Lemay, N. & Roels, E. 2003, ‘De toren van het Torregoed in Heurne (gem. Oudenaarde, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 7, 115–30.

Lemberge, P., De Raedt, I., Janssens, K., Wei, F. & Van Espen, P.J. 2000, ‘Qualitative analysis of 16-17th century archaeological glass vessels using PLS regression of EPXMA and µ-XRF data’, J. Chemometrics 14, 751–63.

Lettany, L., Ervynck, A. & Veeckman, J. 1992, ‘Sluikbegraving en huishoudelijk afval. De opgraving aan de Schoytestraat’, in Veeckman 1992, 77–91.

Lievois, G. 1984, ‘De Gentse pottenbakkers in de 17de eeuw’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 8, 39–55.

Lombaerde, P. (ed.) 2010, Antwerpen versterkt, Brussels: Academic & Scientifi c Publishers.

Majewski, T. & Gaimster, D. 2009, International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, New York: Springer.

Masters, R. & Stichelbaut, B. 2009, ‘From the air to beneath the soil — revealing and mapping Great War trenches at Ploegsteert (Comines-Warneton), Belgium’, Archaeol. Prospection 16, 279–85.

Mertens, J. 1988, ‘De verdwenen kerk van Roksem’, in Meulemeester 1988, 45–56.

Meulebroeck, W., Wouters, H., Baert, K., Ceglia, A., Terryn, H., Nys, K. & Thienpont, H. 2010, ‘Optical spectroscopy applied to the analysis of medieval and post-medieval plain fl at glass fragments excavated in Belgium’, in Berghmans et al. 2010, 77261E.

Meulemeester, J.-L. (ed.) 1988; Kerkschatten uit Oudenburg. Tentoonstellingscatalogus, Ouden-burg: Stadsbestuur.

Meulemeester, J.-L. (ed.) 1997, Uit aarde en vuur. Keramiek in Vlaanderen, Tielt: Lannoo.

Milanese, M. 1997, ‘Archaeologia postmedievale: Questioni generali per defi nizione disciplinare’, in Milanese 1997, 13–18.

Milanese, M. (ed.) 1997, Archeologia postmedievale 1: Società – ambiente – produzione. L’esperienza Europe e l’Italia, Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.

Minsaer, K. 2008, ‘Collectieve begraving aan Tabaksvest (Antw.)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 31, 66–8.


Minsaer, K. 2010, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek van de Spaanse omwalling’, in Lombaerde 2010, 146–79.

Moens, J., Ameels, V. & De Groote K. 2011, ‘Arche-ologisch noodonderzoek naar het voormalige Hof van Peene in Baasrode (prov. Oost-Vl.)’, Relicta, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landsc-hapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen 8, 47–82.

Moens, J. & Quintelier, K. 2010, ‘De voorlopers van de Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Hemelvaartskerk te Hofstade (Aalst, prov. Oost-Vlaanderen). Archeologisch noodonderzoek en fysisch-antropologische studie’, Relicta, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen 6, 41–67.

Oost, T. 1984, ‘Antwerpen, Groenplaats nr. 35: arche-ologische vondsten’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1984:2, 11–15.

Oost, T. 1992, ‘Halfproducten, steunstukken en misbaksels: afval van een majolicawerkplaats’, in Veeckman 1992, 99–108.

Pieters, M., De Groote, K., Ervynck, A. & Callebaut, D. 1996, ‘Tussen kapel en kerk: een archeolo-gische kijk op de evolutie van de dorpskern van Moorsel (10de–20ste eeuw)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 5, 131–57.

Pieters, M., Dewilde, M., Impens, Y. & Tratsaert, B. 1995, ‘Zes eeuwen bewoningsgeschiedenis op het Mijnplein te Oostende (prov. West-Vlaanderen) Interimverslag’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 4, 187–203.

Pieters, M., Schiettekatte, L., Ervynck, A., Van Neer, W. & Caluwé, D. 2003, ‘De Visserskaai te Oostende (prov. West-Vlaanderen): archeologie van een in de 17de eeuw zwaar geteisterde stad’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 7, 231–76.

Pieters, M., Schiettekatte, L., Zeebroek, I., Van Neer, W., Caluwé, D., Cooremans, B., Deforce, K., Demerre, I., Eeckhout, J., Ervynck, A., Gevaert, G., Hollevoet, Y., Kightly, C., Tijs, D., Vanden-bruane, M., Vanhoutte, S. & Van Neer, W. 2005, Oostende: Stadsvernieuwing en archeologie. Een balans van 10 jaar archeologisch onderzoek van het Oostendse bodemarchief, Brussels: Vlaams Instituut voor het Onroerend Erfgoed.

Pykles, B.J. 2008, ‘The recent past: a brief history of historical archaeology in the United States’, SAA Archaeol. Rec. 8, 32–4.

Raffo, P. 1979a, ‘Beschouwingen bij onze opgravin-gen in het voormalige Bethaniëklooster in Mech-elen’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 1, 3–16.

Raffo, P. 1979b, ‘Verslag van de opgraving te Mech-elen in het huis “Den Swerten Pot”’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 1, 2–15.

Raffo, P. 1980, ‘De Dominicanen te Mechelen’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 2, 25–51.

Raffo, P. 1981, ‘Opgravingsverslag Dansijnsconvent Mechelen’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Verenig-ing voor Archeologie 3, 106–17.

Raveschot, P. 1991, ‘De beerput in de Schepenhuis-straat’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 15:3, 5–7.

Reyns, N. 2009, ‘Gent: Consumptiepatronen in drinkglas (16de-18de eeuw)’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 3, 180–7.

Rittersma, R.C. 2010, Luxury in the Low Countries, Brussels: Pharo.

Schaaf, A. 1992, ‘Een afvalput op de Guldenberg’, in Veeckman 1992, 63–72.

Schalm, O., Janssens, K., Wouters, H. & Caluwé, D. 2007, ‘Composition of 12–18(th) century win-dow glass in Belgium: non-fi gurative windows in secular buildings and stained-glass windows in religious buildings’, Spectrochimica Acta Part B-Atomic Spectroscopy 62, 663–8.

Simpson, D., Lehouck, A., Verdonck, L., Vermeersch, H., Van Meirvenne, M., Bourgeois, J., Thoen, E. & Docter, R. 2009, ‘Comparison between elec-tromagnetic induction and fl uxgate gradiometer measurements on the buried remains of a 17th century castle’, J. Applied Geophysics 68, 294–300.

Smeets, M. & Vander Ginst, V. 2011, ‘Opgravingen in het begijnhof van Tienen’, Archeologie 2011. Recent Archeologisch onderzoek in Vlaams-Brabant, 28–9.

Stichelbaut, B. 2006, ‘The application of First World War aerial photography to archaeology: the Belgian images’, Antiquity 80, 161–72.

Stichelbaut, B. 2011, ‘The fi rst thirty kilometres of the Western Front 1914–1918: an aerial archaeologi-cal approach with historical remote sensing data’, Archaeol. Prospection 18, 57–66.

Swimberghe, P. 1997, ‘Vlaamse tegels’, in Meule-meester 1997, 51–3.

Swinnen, M. 1984, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek van het Oud Begijnhof buiten de muren te Mechelen. 1ste campagne 1981. Deel V (slot)’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 5, 23–36.

Temmerman, S. 2001, ‘De site Oud Kasteel in Oudenaarde, een archeologisch analyse van de ceramiek en het glas uit een 19de eeuwse context’, Free University Brussels MA Thesis.

Termote, J. 1987, ‘De verdwenen dorpskern van S’Heerwillemskapelle (Veurne)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 10, 69–70.

Teughels, N. 2006, ‘Analyse en interpretatie van de laat 18de- tot 19de eeuwse ceramiek uit een afvalcontext in het centrum Elzenveld (Oud


gasthuis Sint Elisabeth), Antwerpen’, Terra Incognita. Annual Review 1, 201–15.

Teughels, N. 2010, ‘Marketing food, marketing a necessity? Belgian food retailing and the concept of luxury in advertising, 1870–1940’, in Rittersm a 2010, 213–38.

Thomson, R. & Mould, Q. (eds) 2011, Leather Tanneries. The Archaeological Evidence, Lon-don: Archetype.

Trefois, C.V. 1978, De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis van onze landelijke architectuur, Sint-Niklaas: Danthe.

Troubleyn, L., Ribbens, R. & Robberechts, B. 2005, Het archeologisch onderzoek op de sites Minder-broedersklooster en Begijnenstraat, Mechelen: Stad Mechelen Dienst Archeologie.

Van Bellingen, S. 1993, ‘De crypte van de voormalige abdijkerk te Sint-Truiden (prov. Limburg)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 2, 279–96.

Van Bellingen, S. 2006, ‘Het kasteel van Gaasbeek (gem. Lennik, prov. Vlaams-Brabant): de oosteli-jke sector. Interimverslag 1996–2000’, Relicta, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonder-zoek in Vlaanderen 2, 153–96.

Van de Walle, A.L.J. 1981, ‘19de eeuwse pijpenhandel te Gent’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 5, 5–16.

Van den Bremt, A. (ed.) 2006, Archeologisch onder-zoek op de Hanzestedenplaats, Rapporten van het Stedelijk Informatiecentrum Archeologie en Monumentenzorg 1, Antwerp.

Van den Hove, P. & Vynckier, G. 2003, ‘Noodonder-zoek in de Sint-Jan-De-Doperkerk van Tongeren (Limb.)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 26, 134–7.

van den Konijnenburg, R. 1986, ‘Het kasteel d’Aspremont-Lynden te Rekem (gem. Lanaken)’, Archaeologia Belgica Nieuwe Reeks 2, 117–20.

van den Konijnenburg, R. 1987, ‘Een baksteenoven in Tongeren’, Archaeologia Belgica Nieuwe Reeks 3, 277–80.

Van der Linden, V., Bultinck, E., De Ruytter, J., Schalm, O., Janssens, K., Devos, W. & Tiri, W. 2005, ‘Compositional analysis of 17–18th centu-ry archaeological glass fragments, excavated in Mechelen, Belgium: comparison with data from neighbouring cities in the Low Countries’, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 239, 100–6.

Van Doorselaer, A. & Verhaeghe, F. (eds) 1974, Excavations at the 14th Century Village of Roeslare (Sint Margriete), Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 15, Bruges.

Van Impe, L. & Creemers, G. 1997, ‘Sint-Quintinuskathedraal te Hasselt’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 20, 24–6.

Van Iseghem, K. 2007, ‘Sint-Baafsplein: Het vondst-materiaal uit een afvalput’, Stadsarcheologie. Bodem en Monument in Gent 1, 121–52.

Van Nuland, E. 2006, ‘Patacons: verbeelding in de Aalsterse volkscultuur. Archeologisch en icono-grafi sch onderzoek van productieafval uit de Peperstraat te Aalst’, Van mensen en dingen. Tijdschrift voor volkskunde in Vlaanderen 44, 331–50.

Van Rechem, A. 2005, ‘Begraving in het Agnetenk-looster (tongeren, Limb.). Voorlopige resultate n’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 28, 159–60.

Van Royen, H. (ed.) 2008, Medieval Brick Architec-ture in Flanders and Northern Europe: the Ques-tion of the Cistercian Origin, Novi Monasterii 7.

Van Staeyen, G. & Van Impe, L. 1987, ‘Het archeolo-gisch onderzoek in het kasteel de Renesse te Oostmalle (gem. Malle)’, Archaeologia Belgica Nieuwe Reeks 3, 251–6.

Van Vaerenbergh, J., Van Roeyen, J.-P. & Van Hove, R. 2007, ‘Recent archeologisch onderzoek in het Waasland (2004–2006)’, Annalen van de koninklijke oudheidkundige kring van het land van Waas 110, 381–454.

Vandenberghe, S. 1983, Het hof van Watervliet in de Oude Burg te Brugge, Bruges.

Vandenberghe, S. 1984, ‘Middeleeuws en post-middeleeuws glaswerk uit Mechelen’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 6, 1–55.

Vandenbruane, M., Pieters, M., Ervynck, A., Van Strydonck, M., Schiettekatte, L. & Maes, A. 2003, ‘Fysisch-antropologisch onderzoek van postmiddeleeuwse menselijke skeletten aanget-roffen te Oostende (prov. West-Vlaanderen) buiten reguliere begraafplaatsen’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 7, 277–318.

Vander Ginst, V., De Rue, Y. & Smeets, M. 2011, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek op het Fochplein. Graven naar het verleden van Leuven’, Archeol-ogie 2011. Recent Archeologisch onderzoek in Vlaams-Brabant, 7–20.

Vander Ginst, V. & Vandenbruane, M. 2006, ‘De Sint-Ermelindiskerk in Meldert (Hoegaarden, prov. Vlaams-Brabant). Archeologisch noodon-derzoek en fysisch-antropologisch onderzoek’, Relicta, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landsc-hapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen 2, 119–52.

Vanderhoeven, A., Vynckier, G., Cooremans, B., Ervynck, A., Lentacker, A., Van Neer, W. & De Groote, K. 2007, ‘Het oudheidkundig bodemo-nderzoek aan de Mombersstraat te Tongeren (prov. Limburg). Eindverslag 2005’, Relicta, Archeologie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonder-zoek in Vlaanderen 3, 68–92.


Veeckman, J. 1987, ‘De pijpenvondsten uit een afvalput van de Suikerrui 17–19, voorheen Dienst van Toerisme’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1987:2, 19–39.

Veeckman, J. 1992, Blik in de bodem. Recent stadsar-cheologisch onderzoek in Antwerpen, Antwerp: H. Nieuwdorp.

Veeckman, J. 1996a, ‘Een waterput in het Groot Sarazijnshoofd in de Antwerpse Hoogstraat’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 1, 47–86.

Veeckman, J. 1996b, ‘Uit zand en as . . . Een uitzonderlijke glasvondst uit de Zwartezuster-straat’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 1, 11–38.

Veeckman, J. 1996c, ‘Onderzoek in de Antwerpse Sint-Pauluskerk (Antw.)’, Archaeologia Mediae-valis 19, 81–92.

Veeckman, J. 1999, ‘Majolica in sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Antwerp: the archaeologi-cal evidence’, in Gaimster 1999, 113–24.

Veeckman, J. & Bellens, T. 2005, ‘Een majolicabakker in de Aalmoezenierstraat’, Berichten en Rap-porten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 6, 213–14.

Veeckman, J., Denissen, S., Geyskens, L., Ervynck, A. & Van Neer, W. 1992, ‘De materiële leef-wereld van onze voorouders. Opgraving aan de Zwartezusterstraat’, in Veeckman 1992, 31–47.

Veeckman, J. & Dumortier, C. 1999, ‘De voorwerpen in majolica uit een afvalput in het steen te Antwerpen’, Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 3, 193–246.

Veeckman, J., Jennings, S., Dumortier, C., Verhae-ghe, F. & Whitehouse, D. (eds) 2002, Majolica and Glass from Italy to Antwerp and beyond: the Transfer of Technology in the 16th-Early 17th Century, Antwerp : Stad Antwerpen.

Veeckman, J., Van Hoof, W., Cooremans, B., Ervynck, A. & Van Neer, W. 1998, ‘De inhoud van de afvalput van de Groote Schalie Loove: speuren naar de 17 de eeuwse bewoners’, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bouwhistorie en Geschiedenis 1998:1–4, 115–90.

Verbeemen, J.M.F. 1982, ‘Men rookte de pijp op de Bemoortel te Sint-Katelijne-Waver’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 3, 7–12.

Verbeemen, J.M.F. 1991, ‘Het huishouden van Heylwich van den Nieuwenhuyse – Eerste helft van de 16de eeuw’, Tijdschrift van de Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie 12, 14–44.

Verbeke, J. 2005, ‘Die Befehlstelle auf dem Hopmarkt: bommen op Aalst 1940–1945’, Aalst: Erfgoedcel Aalst.

Verhaeghe, F. 1990, ‘Twee zijden van één verleden. Geschiedenis en archeologie: beschouwingen omtrent theorie, methode en praktijk’, in Duvosquel 1990, 501–60.

Verhaeghe, F. 2008, ‘Voorwoord’, in De Groote 2008, 15–18.

Verhaeghe, F. & De Meulemeester, J. 1988, ‘Groei en organisatie van de middeleeuwse archeologie in België en Vlaanderen in het bijzonder’, Archaeologia Medievalis 11, 2–9.

Verhaeghe, F. & Otte, M. (eds) 1988, Archeologie des temps modernes. Actes du colloque international de Liège (23–26 avril 1985), Études et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 26.

Verhaeghe, F. & Van Hove, R. 1988, ‘Post-medieval pottery research in Flanders and in the Waas-land’, in Verhaeghe & Otte 1988, 227–326.

Vermeiren, G. 1999, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek in de Sint-Hermeskerk te Ronse (O.-Vl.)’, Archaeolo-gia Mediaevalis 24, 134.

Webley, L., Vander Linden, M., Haselgrove, C. & Bradley, R. (eds) 2012, Development-Led Archaeology in Northwest Europe. Frameworks, Practices and Outcomes, Oxford: Oxbow.

Wouters, H. 2009, ‘Het kasteel van Middelburg (O.-Vl.). Een materiaalstudie van het vlakglas en het lood (campagnes 2002-2004)’, Terra Incognita 3, 105–16.

Wouters, H., Van Royen, H. & Nys, K. 2008, ‘Archaeological window glass from Cistercian Abbeys: developing a new method from a selec-tion of relevant excavations throughout Europe’, J. Cult. Herit. 9, 101–6.

Wouters, W., Ervynck, A., Cooremans, B., Van Neer, W. & Van Bulck, G. 1995, ‘Een postmiddeleeu-wse beerput aan de Hasseltse Poort te Tongeren (prov. Limburg)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 4, 323–63.

Wouters, W. & Peersman, J. 1994, ‘Een opgraving heropgegraven. Norbertijnen in Ninove (prov. Oost-Vlaanderen). Interimverslag’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen 3, 339–57.

Zeebroek, I., Pieters, M., Andres-Lacueva, C., Caluwé, D., David, J., Haneca, K., Lamuela-Raventos, R., Lenaerts, T., Medina Rémon, A., Mees, F., Missiaen, T., Muylaert, L., Op de Beeck, E., Streel, M., Van Den Haute, P., Van Hees, M. & Wauters, E. 2010, ‘Een 18de-eeuwse wraksite op de Buiten Ratel-zandbank (Belgische territoriale wateren) (I): multidisciplinair onder-zoek van het vondstenmateriaal’, Relicta, Arche-ologie, Monumenten- en Landschapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen 6, 237–327.


SUMMARY IN DUTCH, FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN AND SPANISH

wie Antwerpen, Brügge und Gent. Nach Anfängen im Schwemmstromland der fl ämisch-städtischen Archäologie während der 1970er Jahre, hat die Disziplin sich ständig um Anerkennung bemühen müssen. Als Resultat von mehr als 40 Jahren Feldarbeit haben die aufgezeichneten Fakten der Frühmoderne und moderner Historie sich drast-isch verändert. Jedoch hat die nach-mittelalterliche Archäologie noch nicht ihren Gipfel erreicht. Die Grundstruktur der eigenen Methoden, Lehren, Forschungsfragen, und theoretischer Annäherung ist immer noch in Vorbereitung. Diese Studie befasst sich mit der historischen Analyse der Feldarbeiten, ist aber hauptsächlich darum bemüht, ein klares Rahmenprogramm für die Posi-tion der post-mittelalterlichen Archäologie in einer der wichtigsten Gegenden im früh-modernen und modernen Europa zu defi nieren.

RIASSUNTOStato attuale dell’archeologia post-medievale nelle FiandreL’archeologia post-medievale nelle Fiandre (Bel-gio) è una disciplina archeologica relativamente giovane, anche in una regione storicamente impor-tante con centri come Anversa, Bruges e Ghent. Nata come corrente collaterale dell’archeologia urbana fi amminga durante gli anni ’70 del XX secolo, questa disciplina ha dovuto lottare fi n da quel momento per trovare un riconoscimento. Come risultato di oltre 40 anni di ricerca sul camp o, la documentazione materiale di epoca moderna e della prima età moderna, è cambiata drastica-mente. Tuttavia, l’archeologia post-medievale non ha ancora raggiunto il suo apogeo. Sono ancora in fase di defi nizione i parametri di riferimento che prevedano l’adozione di metodi propri, insegna-menti, quesiti di ricerca e approcci teoretici. Questo contributo non ha come unico scopo l’analisi storiografi ca di questo settore, ma mira a defi nire dei criteri per inquadrare l’archeologia post-medievale in una delle più importanti regioni dell’Europa moderna e della prima età moderna.

RESUMENEl estado actual de la arqueología post-medieval en FlandesLa arqueología medieval en Flandes (Bélgica) es una disciplina arqueológica relativamente joven, incluso en una región históricamente tan impor-tante que cuenta con centros como Amberes, Brujas y Gante. Con origen en la arqueología urbana fl amenca de la década de los años 1970, la

SAMENVATTINGPost-middeleeuwse archeologie: een stand van zakenDe archeologie van de moderne tijd is een relatief jonge tak binnen de Vlaamse archeologie. Door de ontwikkeling van de stadsarcheologie tijdens de jaren ’70 van de vorige eeuw werden archeologen voor het eerst geconfronteerd met de rijkdom van het recente ondergronds erfgoed. Hoewel sindsdien postmiddeleeuwse archeologie niet meer uit beeld verdween en er ondertussen een indrukwekkend materieel gegevensbestand werd verzameld, moet de discipline nog steeds vechten voor wetens-chappelijke erkenning. Niet iedere archeoloog beschouw t moderne archeologie als waardevol. Bovendien, ontbreekt een volwaardig onderzoeks-kader met eigen doelstellingen en methoden. Ook, heeft de post-middeleeuwse archeologie nog steeds geen duidelijk plaats in het academisch onderwijs. Dit artikel geeft een overzicht van de enorme ontwikkeling die de discipline heeft doorgemaakt sinds de jaren ’70, maar duidt ook aan dat post-middeleeuwse archeologie in Vlaanderen nog een lange weg voor de boeg heeft.

RÉSUMÉL’état actuel de l’archéologie postmédiévale en Flan-dre. L’archéologie postmédiévale en Flandre (Belgique) est une discipline archéologique relativement jeune, malgré l’importance historique de la région avec des centres tels qu’Anvers, Bruges et Gand. Issu du sillage de l’archéologie urbaine fl amande au cours des années 1970, la discipline est encore diffi cile-ment reconnue. La documentation du matériel d’époque moderne, issu de plus de 40 années de travail de terrain, a changé de manière drastique. L’archéologie postmédiévale n’a quant à elle pas encore atteint son apogée. Un programme de recherche avec ses propres méthodes, enseigne-ments, problématiques et approches théoriques est en construction. Cet article vise non seulement à établir une analyse historiographique de la disci-pline, mais surtout à défi nir un cadre de travail clair afi n de situer l’archéologie postmédiévale dans une des régions les plus importantes de l’Europe moderne.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGDer augenblickliche Zustand der post-mittelalterliche n Archäologie in FlandernDie nach-mittelalterliche Archäologie ist eine ver-gleichsweise junge Disziplin in Flandern (Belgien), sogar in historisch wichtigen Regionen mit Zentren


disciplina ha luchado por su reconocimiento desde entonces. Los más de 40 años de trabajo de campo han permitido cambiar el registro material de la historia temprana-moderna y moderna, aunque la disciplina todavía no ha llegado a su apogeo. Todavía se está defi niendo su marco de trabajo con sus propios métodos, su enseñanza, objetivos de

investigación y enfoques teóricos. Este artículo tiene como objetivo tanto en el análisis historiográ-fi co de la disciplina como la defi nición de un marco claro para el posicionamiento de la arqueología post-medieval en una de las regiones más importantes de la Europa temprano-moderna y moderna.

Ghent University, Historical Archaeology Research Group (HARG) – Ghent University – Department of Archaeology, Sint-Pietersnieuwsstraat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

[[email protected]][[email protected]]

The Current State of post-medieval archaeology in Flanders

Documents

Transcript of The Current State of post-medieval archaeology in Flanders