Economies of Destruction

Fontijn, David

doi:10.4324/9781315109879

Cited by 34 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, single finds and hoarded objects showed similarities in treatment, raising the possibility that distinguishing between the two depositional practices may not necessarily be helpful. Current shifts in theoretical perspectives are embracing both symbolic and functionalist approaches to single finds and hoards of damaged objects (Fontijn, 2019;Wiseman, 2018); the DRS offers the chance to assess the variation and diversity of damage within single groups or across wider areas to interpret trends in damage, as well as relationships between complete and incomplete objects and use-related versus intentional damage. This can change and strengthen how we reflect on pre-depositional processes, such as selection, accumulation, and pre-depositional treatment, and ultimately gain insights into the social role of Bronze Age metalwork.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

There's Method in the Fragments: A Damage Ranking System for Bronze Age Metalwork

Knight

2020

Eur. j. archaeol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Broken and damaged Bronze Age metalwork has long been studied, but there is no methodology for identifying signs of intentional versus unintentional action. Past approaches have tended to rely on assumptions about how such finds were damaged. Drawing on the material properties of copper alloys, as well as on recent research into wear-analysis and experimental fragmentation of bronze implements, this article presents a working methodology for identifying deliberate damage. Seven ‘Destruction Indicators’ are presented, with associated criteria, for making informed interpretations about archaeological artefacts. These contribute to a ‘Damage Ranking System’, an index for ranking damage on Bronze Age copper alloy objects based on the likelihood that damage was intentional. Two case studies illustrate how this system can be applied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

There's Method in the Fragments: A Damage Ranking System for Bronze Age Metalwork

Knight

2020

Eur. j. archaeol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One monograph stands out from the extensive bibliography on landscape depositsthe PhD thesis published by David Fontijn (2002;cf. also 2007;2019). This stimulating work covered the deposition of predominantly bronze objects in wetlands, settlements, and graves in the southern Netherlands from 2300-600 BC.…”

Section: Understanding Landscape Depositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fourth factor concerns long-term depositional practices. While Fontijn's studies (2002;2019) are based upon depositional sequences of 3000 years in Holland and other areas, the data from Old Europe covers a shorter period of 2000 years, coarsely divided into only two phases (5th millennium BC: Early-Middle Copper Age; 4th millennium BC: Late Copper Age) in which there were few areas in which deposition in both phases was encountered.…”

Section: Understanding Landscape Depositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Deposition of History in Prehistory: Copper Objects on Sites and in the Landscape

Chapman¹,

Gaydarska²

2020

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variable proportion of finds from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of ‘Old Europe’ has come from places outside settlements, cemeteries, production sites, ritual sites, or caves. Such finds tend to be described as ‘chance/isolated/single/stray’ finds or, when in groups, as ‘hoards’. The frequent, modernist cause invoked for these finds is that they were either ‘hidden’ in times of mortal danger, represented a ‘gift to the gods’, or simply ‘lost’. One reason for these explanatory shortcomings is the over-attention to the types of objects deposited in the landscape and the frequent lack of attention to the often-distinctive place of deposition. We believe that we have misnamed, overlooked, or not accurately characterised an entire class of sites, which we term ‘landscape deposition sites’, whose defining feature was the transformation of a place by the deposition of a significant object or group of objects to create a qualitatively different place. The creation of such landscape deposit sites varied in time and space throughout Old Europe, but all sites were affected by this new dimension of the extended cultural domain. In this article, we consider the interpretations of metal deposition in North-west Europe and the light they shed on an earlier and geographically different region. The primary aim of this paper is an exploration of the variable relationships between landscape deposit sites and the coeval finds made in special deposits in settlements and cemeteries in the 5th and 4th millennia bc, which will lead to proposed new interpretations of landscape deposition sites.

show abstract

“…Looting, for example, has destroyed many rich grave assemblages completely. Moreover, our evidence is heavily determined by past cultural practices, such as whether or not valuables were deposited in hoards or were kept in circulation, and whether ostentatious burial was culturally important (Wengrow 2011; Fontijn 2019). For these reasons, the distribution of wealth in archaeological data needs to be investigated with considerable scrutiny.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequality Before the Bronze Age: The Case of Chalcolithic Cyprus

Klinkenberg

Düring

2022

Oxford J Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence and nature of social inequality has been the topic of a substantial amount of research in recent years, with one group of scholars concluding that social inequality increased significantly with the rise of urbanism on the basis of the application of Gini measures, and another group arguing that social inequalities existed long before urbanism and that not all urban societies were class societies. Here, we present the case of Chalcolithic Cyprus, a decidedly pre-urban period for which we have quantifiable evidence that might indicate social inequality. On the basis of this dataset we will re-evaluate recent postulates on the emergence and nature of social inequality.

show abstract

Economies of Destruction

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

There's Method in the Fragments: A Damage Ranking System for Bronze Age Metalwork

There's Method in the Fragments: A Damage Ranking System for Bronze Age Metalwork

The Deposition of History in Prehistory: Copper Objects on Sites and in the Landscape

Inequality Before the Bronze Age: The Case of Chalcolithic Cyprus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About