Page 609 - Het middeleeuwse kastelenlandschap van het Oversticht - Diana Spiekhout

these studies. We first reconstructed the physical landscape and we then compared this data with the development of the power landscape. Finally, this resulted in a sketch of the long- term development of the castle landscape of sub-areas of study.
For the case of Hunenborg, we were able to do a lot of fieldwork in cooperation with historical ecologist H. Smeenge and archaeologist H. Scholte Lubberink. The resulting information was used for the reconstruction of the local castle landscape of the Middle Ages. Fieldwork focused on collecting data on the age, term of use, use and commissioner of the castle and the surrounding area. In this case, we first discussed the results from the archaeological study. These demonstrated that Hunenborg was built sometime between 1050 to 1075 and 1100 and was abandoned around 1200. Next, the surrounding landscape before and during the construction of the castle was reconstructed. Smeenge determined that the landscape was subject to change at the time of Hunenborg. The commissioner of the construction of the castle wanted it built on a coversand ridge in the middle of a mostly uninhabitated and large forest area. In the thirteenth century, when Hunenborg was deserted, this landscape became wetter as a result of the cultivations upstream. It is likely that locals then raised the access route to the castle. By creating a detailed reconstruction of the power landscape (including ownership rights) and comparing the results to those of the territorial castle landscape, we have shown that it can be reasonably assumed that Hunenborg castle belonged to the bishop of Utrecht.
In chapter five, we provide an in-depth case study of the cluster of southwest Twente. This allowed us to carefully track the reciprocal influence between castle and landscape on a regional level throughout time. This way, we aimed to gain more insight into the dynamics of these types of clusters. In this case study, we were able to uncover various mechanisms behind the development of the castle landscape, for example the emergence of the castle landscape of free nobles, the changes to which the landscape was subject as a result of interference by the bishop and the construction of fourteenth and fifteenth-century residences of nobles, and those of borgmannen in particular.
Diepenheim castle turned out to be an excellent example of the development of a castle landscape around an ancestral castle. Here, we observe that free nobles built a castle on their own land, which then served as the residence for the Van Diepenheim and later Van Dale-Diepenheim family. In this specific case, the owner moved the castle (after it had been destroyed) to a location in the landscape that was suitable for him. Nevertheless, the first and second castle formed the beating heart of the territorial power of the Van Diepenheim and Van Dale-Diepenheim lords. The patrimonial property of the lords of Diepenheim laid the foundation for the castle. As time went on, this family was able to acquire many goods and rights around Diepenheim. Those who entered the seigneury around 1300 found themselves in an area where the power of the Van Dale-Diepenheim family was expressed both in the social and the mental landscape. The family also possessed many goods beyond their borders; however, there they would have to deal with competing rulers and they would have had less influence.
The situation in the Goor area is more complex because this castle was probably built as an episcopal castle and its construction should be viewed in light of the twelfth-century territorial
politics of the bishop of Utrecht. The castle, constructed at an episcopal manor, was located
near the Oversticht border at the time; after all, the south-lying Diepenheim castle did not S belong to the Sticht until 1331. The free noble burgrave retained his inherited position that
was granted in fealty. He used it in the same way as his neighbour in Diepenheim did, as an ancestral castle. He also tried to acquire as many goods and rights as he could. Few sources remain about this phase of the development of the castle landscape around Goor, but the Goor family must have possessed a considerable number of goods. In addition to his colleagues in Coevorden and Kuinre, the burgrave of Goor wanted autonomy. The King ousted him in the mid-thirteenth century, giving the bishop control over the castle once again. This act also ended the formation of the above-mentioned castle landscape model of free nobles, considering that Goor was no longer functioning as an ancestral seat. In the case
Summary
607