This paper argues that most applications of political economies risk focusing too one-sidedly on individual power. However, political economies are also about collectively accepted notions on order... Show moreThis paper argues that most applications of political economies risk focusing too one-sidedly on individual power. However, political economies are also about collectively accepted notions on order, symbols and positions that can only exist by virtue of them being socially recognized (Searle 1995). Two examples from Europe's deep past are used to illustrate this. The first is on the role of 'commons' in Bronze Age and Iron Age landscape use. The second is on how collective conventions shape elite burials from the Early Iron Age. Both demonstrate that, in a way, 'power' may come 'from below' (cf. Searle 1995) Show less
The deep influence Ancient Egypt has on the modern world is a well-rehearsed topic. The Bible, Greek and Roman sources, and in general a particular modern conceptualizations of the so-called ... Show moreThe deep influence Ancient Egypt has on the modern world is a well-rehearsed topic. The Bible, Greek and Roman sources, and in general a particular modern conceptualizations of the so-called 'western world' have all been identified as key to this. But could it also be that the agency of ancient Egyptian objects themselves played a decisive role? Reflecting on a new book on this theme, attention is given to the question what we actually mean by stating that 'things have agency'. Is this a useful subject at all, and if so, how could it be studied? Show less
In the summer of 2013 and 2014 the Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University has carried out archaeological fieldwork in a rather exceptional environment. Where since the implementation of the... Show moreIn the summer of 2013 and 2014 the Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University has carried out archaeological fieldwork in a rather exceptional environment. Where since the implementation of the Valetta Treaty most excavations are aimed at ex-situ preservation of archaeological sites threatened by building activities, the site that was under investigation in 2013 and 2014 found itself in a nature reserve. As nature reserves are aimed at the very purpose of preservation, why then investigate an archaeological site that could easily profit from such a protected status? The recent access to high resolution LIDAR data for the entire surface of the present day Netherlands is only just beginning to reveal the richness of archaeological sites hidden beneath the foliage and undergrowth of the forests and heaths crammed in between the vast field systems of the Dutch countryside. From late prehistoric barrow landscapes and celtic fields to Medieval cart tracks, all these features still find themselves at the very surface in these nature reserves. These sites of various age can provide a unique glimpse into the past but their location at the very surface also makes these sites vulnerable and, as is becoming more clear in recent years, are threatened by nature itself. Tree roots, burrowing animals and ongoing podzolization are all examples of natural processes that gradually obscure these sites from sight. To map both the state as well as the research potential of such an archaeological ‘palimpsest’ an archaeological field experiment was carried out in one of the largest nature reserves of the Netherlands at a site called ‘Apeldoorn – Uddeler Heegde’. This article reports on the most important new insights of the fieldwork in the form of a landscape biography. Show less
One of the biggest challenges for students of the European Bronze Age is to understand the reason behind the massive deposition of large amounts of recyclable metal in non‐metalliferous regions....Show moreOne of the biggest challenges for students of the European Bronze Age is to understand the reason behind the massive deposition of large amounts of recyclable metal in non‐metalliferous regions. Such depositions are particularly puzzling when material was buried in a manner which directly seems to denote trade itself, in so‐called ‘trade hoards’. Based on observations on a recent find of such a hoard, in Hoogeloon (NL), we move to an overview of Bronze Age metalwork economy in general and the deposition of trade stock in particular. We argue that Middle Bronze Age metalwork circulation in North‐west Europe may be understood as an aes formatum system, with the serially produced axes in hoards displaying a koiné having a particular social evaluation: a ‘brand’. We suggest that objects were selected by brands for their deposition in the landscape and that this ‘ritual’ act was integral to the ‘practical’ economy of circulation . Show less
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... Show moreA 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. Show less
In the natural reserves of the Veluwe in the centre of the Netherlands, there are hundreds of mounds that are registered as ‘prehistoric burial mounds’ (Fontijn 2011, table 1.1). Some are protected... Show moreIn the natural reserves of the Veluwe in the centre of the Netherlands, there are hundreds of mounds that are registered as ‘prehistoric burial mounds’ (Fontijn 2011, table 1.1). Some are protected as National Heritage, but many are not. Only a small part has ever seen professional archaeological investigation, and there are many for which no more is known than that they are likely to represent ‘prehistoric burial sites’. This applies particularly to mounds in the municipality of Apeldoorn, where large numbers are known to exist and fortunately protected as heritage, but where in most cases not much is known on their dating, nature or potential significance as source of knowledge on the past. This article presents the results of a fieldwork campaign where three newly discovered, small barrows were investigated that are part of a much larger barrow landscape on which so far nothing was known. In spite of their small size and the fact that some were heavily damaged by forest ploughing, the research yielded detailed information on their use history and the social and ritual significance that they had in the Bronze Age. Even the most inconspicuous mound, of which it was initially seriously doubted whether it was a prehistoric monument, appears to contain the remains of many special prehistoric features. It is argued that this small group of three barrows dates to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, the period between the 18th and 15th centuries BC and probably represents what was perceived as one ‘community of ancestors’ among a larger ancestral whole. There are indications that it originated around a location that had an older – Late Neolithic – history. It is suggested that this monument had a special role and was the focus of ceremonial activities the likes of which have so far not been detected in the Netherlands: the deposition of loads of stones and pottery in a pit row directed at the location where a barrow would eventually be constructed. Deceased were buried at two locations nearby, both of whom were also covered by mounds. These were collective graves, in which many deceased of both sexes and all ages were buried and no clear distinctions between deceased were emphasized in the burial rituals. There are similarities in the mode of interment in both mounds, and we suggest these barrows are each other’s successors. The fieldwork at the Wieselseweg shows the high potential small-scale research of inconspicuous and damaged burial mounds can have to further our knowledge on the prehistoric legacy of the Netherlands. Show less
