David Fontijn

The significance of Invisible' places

Abstract This paper argues that invisible places could have been just as important in ritual landscapes as the visible monuments that we usually study. It does so by means of a case study on the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, where I contrast the two most widespread ‘ritual’ places: barrows and deposition sites. Barrows were meant to be visible, lasting places with lengthy histories and an important structuring role in the landscape. Deposition sites were ‘invisible’ sites, lacking lasting man-made markers. They nevertheless had use histories and landscape-structuring roles comparable to those of visible monuments. The contrasts between barrows and depositions are discussed to find out why these coexisting practices had such different results.

Towards familiar landscapes? On the nature and origin of middle bronze age landscapes in the Netherlands

In many regions in north-west Europe, the Middle Bronze Age is seen as the first period in which a ‘humanly-ordered’ agrarian landscape took shape that has resonance with rural landscapes of historical periods. But what did this ‘ordering’ actually involve? Basing ourselves on a survey of the rich evidence from the Netherlands – including the evidence on everyday settlement sites as well as the use of the non-everyday ‘ritual’ zones in the land – we argue that from c. 1500 cal BC onwards the landscape was organised and structured by specific, ideological concepts of regularity and categorisation that are distinct from those of the preceding Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age. We will show that elaborate three-aisled farmhouses of very regular layout emerged here around c. 1500 cal BC and argue that this profound architectural change cannot simply be explained by assuming agricultural intensification combined with indoor stalling of cattle, as conventional theories would have it. Also, we will argue that the way in which the settled land was used from this period onwards was also different than before. Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlements, far from being ‘ephemeral’, seem to have been organised along different lines than those of the Middle Bronze Age-B (MBA-B: 1500–1050 cal BC). The same holds true for the way in which barrows structured the land. Although they were significant elements in the organisation of the landscape from the Late Neolithic onwards and do hardly change in outer form, we will show that MBA barrows played a different role in the structuring of landscape, adhering to long-term categorisation and zoning therein. A similar attitude can also be discerned in patterns of object deposition in ‘natural’ places. Practices of selective deposition existed long before the MBA-B but, because of different subsistence bases of the pre-MBA-B communities, their interpretations of unaltered ‘natural’ places will have differed significantly. The presence of multiple deposition zones in the MBA-B also must have relied on a unprecedented way of persistent categorisation of the ‘natural’ environment. Finally, the evidence from ‘domestic, funerary and ritual’ sites is recombined in order to typify what the Dutch Middle Bronze Age landscape was about.

Meaningful but beyond words? Interpreting material culture patterning

Duncan Garrows article is a thought-provoking review of the concept of structured deposition and I agree with several of the points he makes. Thinking along the same lines, I would like to make a few additional remarks on structured deposition.

Directionality and axiality in the Bronze Age: cross-regional landscape perspectives on ‘fire pit lines’ and other pitted connections

ABSTRACT A fireplace represents one of the most fundamental and time-transgressive gathering points for humans. However, when situated in pits that are organized in lines running sometimes hundreds of metres, fire pits represent a significant challenge in terms of interpretation, and may evidence a particular perception of space. This paper argues that in a Bronze Age context, pits associated with fire remains marked out directionality and axiality in the landscape as part of ceremonial events of a temporary nature. Adopting a landscape approach and going beyond regional and chronological borders, the authors argue that in northwestern Europe such events took place in relation to unbounded barrow landscapes in open spaces and could often be linked to the orchestration of funerary events. In some regions, the depositional activities evident in relation to these aligned pits have added significance. Furthermore, the authors argue that the aligning of fire pits is incompatible with divided or parcelled landscapes, thus challenging interpretations of pitted lines as territorial and field boundaries.

Ann Woodward & John Hunter (ed.). Ritual in Early Bronze Age grave goods: an examination of ritual and dress equipment from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age graves in England . 2015. xiii+578 pages, numerous colour and bw 978-1-78297-694-3 hardback £80.

conventional and traditional reconstructions of the history of Egyptology, Derricourt demonstrates that theories not supported in academic scholarship are still worthy of discussion. Noting how alternative understandings of ancient Egypt “exist to inspire, or to distract, to entertain or fascinate” (p. 71), the author structures his historical survey with key chapters on the imaginative ways in which the pyramids have been explained, on the way mummies have featured in literature and film, and on the ‘use’ of Egypt in theories of race.

The luxury of abundance : Syntheses of Irish prehistory

The last decade has witnessed a significant increase in the number of comprehensive syntheses on Irish prehistory, both in terms of academic texbooks and popular accounts. The present review essay finds that these syntheses are highly convergent in terms of theme, scope, and theoretical underpinnings. Although large-scale migrations are rejected as explanations for culture change, Ireland is still perceived as the receptacle for foreign ideas and overseas inventions, whereby imports are not just introduced but also perfected in Ireland. We argue that a similar attitude can be noted in the perception of the history of Irish prehistory. This convergence and absence of overt polemics are explained by referring to the small size of the Irish archaeological community. The increase in syntheses is accounted for by a number of empirical preconditions, the theoretical climate of opinion, the institutional expansion of the discipline, the public impact of rapidly changing natural and political lanscape and the notion of an Irish identity.