2007/03/01 by David Fontijn
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Social Sciences · #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies #Archaeology and Rock Art Studies
paper · doi:10.1080/00438240601136462
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. Keywords: Barrowsdepositioninvisible placesBronze Agethe Netherlands Acknowledgements Many thanks are due to Medy Oberendorff (Leiden) who created the figures, with the exception of Figure 2 which is by Quentin Bourgeois. Quentin, Stijn Arnoldussen, Alice Samson and Roosje de Leeuwe (all Leiden University) kindly provided useful critiques on a previous draft.