2007/03/01 by David Fontijn · 34 citations
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Social Sciences · #Anthropology #Archaeology #Archaeology and Rock Art Studies #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Art #Art history #Bourgeoisie #Ethnology #Genealogy #History #Law #Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies #Political science #Politics #Sociology #Structuring
paper · doi:10.1080/00438240601136462
published in World Archaeology 39(1), 70-83 (Routledge)
openalex publication_date 2007/03/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
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.