Vossenberg

Viewpoint

"The mystery is sweeter than the explanation" (Father Ladislas)

According to archaeologist Rica Annaert of the Flemish Institute for Immovable Heritage (V.I.O.E.), the secret of the Vossenberg is more complex than initially suspected. The hill will forever keep its secret. What happened in the past may never be revealed. The hypothesis of a burial mound can be ruled out given the swampy subsoil. There would be a possible combination of three explanations.

First of all, there is the legend of the Norman Gelmel from the 9th and 10th centuries, a fun story that will certainly appeal to the locals! According to historical sources, the Normans caused a lot of destruction in the Kempen via the river system of the Scheldt, the Schijn, the Aa, the Mark, and so on. It is impossible to prove a relationship between this destruction and the establishment of a fortification at Ginhoven. From the perspective of archaeological research in other parts of Flanders and the Netherlands, this option seems very premature.

A second possible explanation is that the Vossenberg was a castral motte: an artificially raised mound from the 11th or 12th century with the wooden residential tower of a local lord on top. At the foot of this upper court there was usually also a courtyard, where daily life and economic activities took place. Both the upper court and the lower court were surrounded by a moat and demarcated by a fence of poles or stakes. Traces of a possible neerhof are not known. Local toponyms such as Vossenberg, Wijthof (fenced courtyard) and Staakheuvel can confirm this story, as well as old map material. On soil maps and on the copy of the Popp land register, a circular elevation is clearly recognizable in the alluvial area of the Mark: the Vossenberg.

Soil drilling carried out on 16 March 2005 shows that the filling of the canal of the Vossenberg has been preserved, at a depth of approximately 60 to 100 cm. The canal ran between the two dark bands visible on the aerial photograph (see middle page) and was several meters wide. It is capped by sixty centimetres of raised soil of mixed composition, probably soil from the levelled motte body.

There are burnt wood residues in the canal and under the canal there is alluvial material with peat residues. The subsoil consisted of a swamp: an alluvial area. Its location in an alluvial plain, very typically, indicates a castral motte. The canals were filled with water. The moth body itself may have been completely destroyed.

After the castral motte, there may have been a moated site, the third option. Such a moated site was a farm surrounded by a moat that was built in the 13th to 14th century by a peasant family following the example of the earlier mottes, in order to show the wealth. It may have been an Einzelhof, a company that was responsible for the reclamation and exploitation of the surrounding, relatively low-lying area. Leenders describes in his book "Van Turnhoutervoorde tot Strienemonde" a good Ter Borch in Zondereigen, mentioned since 1350. Presumably this is the moated site? Soil maps and the copy of the Popp cadastre also show a more oval structure on the higher fields. This is also mentioned on the Vandermaelen map (1846) and on the topographical map of 1937. At that time, part of this canal was still visible.

Réactions Statistiques

| | Publique | Néerlandais