The diversity of contexts in Late European Prehistory has posed a challenge to the writing of traditional general syntheses. The growing volume of data from fieldwork, advances in archaeological surveying, the use of various technologies in laboratory analysis, intense interdisciplinary work, and attention to detail in archaeology have challenged the conventional lines of convergence. Nowadays, the particularity of each context seems to be the rule. However, there are topics that call for an integrated approach to sites, archives, and ideas, such as the long-term archaeological landscape, monuentalization, kinship structures, or ancestors.

The book The Tombs of the Forefathers. Neolithic Long Barrows in Ritual Landscapes provides a synthesis of the Neolithic period in Bohemia in what is today the Czech Republic within a broader European context. It includes a catalogue of the identified archaeological sites with long barrows in Bohemia, a monograph on the archaeological excavations of three long barrows, and a theoretical exploration of the ritual landscape across a long diachrony. All in a single, approachable book spanning 183 pages. The work stems from a research project coordinated by Jan Turek and Petr Krištuf, while it is also linked to their previous projects. It combines archaeological analysis with theoretical reflection, while also emphasizing the dissemination of archaeological knowledge. Indeed, this book serves as an excellent example of science communication, bringing together accessible texts for non-specialists with more technical discussions, analyses, and reflections.

The work begins with an introductory chapter (pp. 1–31), which defines the theoretical and chronological framework of the main theme. It examines the relationships (architectural and symbolic) with the contexts that preceded them (the long houses), and establishes the chronology for the emergence and use of this type of architecture. It further describes the archaeological cultures of Bohemia dated to the Middle/Late Neolithic (4500-2300 cal bc), consistently linking them to research in other European regions. The authors define the main structural themes of the European Middle/Late Neolithic in their analysis as: (i) technological innovations; (ii) domestic structures; (iii) the symbolic dimension of animals, in particular cattle and the ‘cult of the bull’; (iv) the symbolism of beverage consumption, especially fermented drinks; (v) the symbolism of warfare, associated with masculine expressions of power (iv) family structures (biological and social) and the nuanced, non-linear attribution of gender roles in certain contexts/chronologies. The authors also summarize the burial rites that fall within the same chronology (Middle/Late Neolithic) and the same geographical context (Bohemia), within the archaeological framework in which the research takes place.

In the second chapter (pp. 33–37), the authors contextualize the long barrows within Europe, stating that Northern Europe can be classified as the civilization of long barrows (p. 37). In this chapter, the authors define the architectural variability, geographical dispersion, and construction chronologies of these structures in Europe (dating to 4600-4500 bc). They offer their interpretation of these structures as monuments, which emphasize the construction efforts, the collective character of the labour, their symbolic meaning connected with ancestors, and as markers of continued habitation in a territory; ultimately as representations of ‘the crucial values of early farming communities in Europe’ (p. 36). The practice of monumentalizing the landscape during the European Neolithic seems to effectively link the diversity of European contexts (e.g. Gebauer et al., Reference Gebauer, Sørensen, Teather and Valera2020).

Having established the framework for long barrows—including their chronology, architecture, social contexts of construction and use, and spatial context—in the third chapter, the authors embark on a characterization of these structures in Bohemia (pp. 39–96). This chapter, to which Martin Gojda also contributed, presents an updated catalogue of sixty-seven structures interpreted as long barrows, identified through aerial survey, geophysical survey, and rescue excavations. As noted in the introductory chapter, these monuments were no longer visible in the Bohemian landscape. While previous scholars have noted this absence (Neustupný, Reference Neustupný, Biehl, Bertemes and Meller2001), Turek and Krištuf provide a long-overdue update to the state of the art. For each site, the location, morphological type (the typology is presented in the following chapter, p. 126, based on Krištuf, Reference Krištuf, Turek and Fišer2024), and description of the feature are provided. Most sites are documented with aerial photographs or archaeological plan drawings.

In the fourth chapter, ‘Stories of barrows around Mount Říp’ (pp. 97–135), the authors take us to the landscape of Mount Říp, the geomorphological feature that has dominated the territory from prehistory to the present day and to which legends and traditions are linked. In the vicinity of Mount Říp, the authors carried out excavations of three long barrows, and it is in this chapter that they present the main results of their fieldwork. The three structures reveal significant morphological similarities, yet their specific contexts highlight the uniqueness of each burial and site. In two of the excavated long barrows, individual burials were identified: a child approximately ten years of age (at Dušníky long barrow) and an adult male interred with twelve arrowheads (at Račiněves long barrow). On the third site (Vražkov long barrow), two burials were detected, one contemporary with the construction of the long barrow, and a second, poorly preserved, dated to a later phase (2459-2209 cal bc) (p. 115). The chapter concludes with a summary of the data and discussion, particularly of the regional context, with typological and chronological analysis, dating the construction of these monuments in Bohemia to around 4000 bc.

Chapter 5 (pp. 137–52), to which Václav Cílek and Pavel Bolina also contributed, guides the reader towards an interpretation of these contexts within their broader ritual landscapes. Mount Říp is deeply rooted in Czech mythology, with written references dating back to the medieval period. The authors provide a historical analysis based on documentary sources from various periods, which depict this space as ritualized and highly symbolic. Their discussion of the theory of ritual landscapes emphasizes the role of oral tradition and underscores the significance of this theme within archaeology, drawing repeated parallels with Stonehenge as an illustrative case for understanding the interplay between the monument, the immediate environment, and converging landscapes. Rather than offering a strictly theoretical reflection on the concepts of ritual, landscape, or ritual landscape, the authors appear to deliberately distance themselves from the long-standing—and probably exhausted—debates in European prehistoric archaeology regarding the concept of ritual (e.g., Jorge, Reference Jorge and Valera2014; Thomas, Reference Thomas and Insoll2011). Instead, they suggest that the ritual and the profane were interwoven in the daily lives of prehistoric communities.

Chapter 6 (pp. 154–78) returns to the long barrows of the Mount Říp region, with contributions from Jan Fišer, Petr Pokorný, Barbara Strouhalová, Martin Janovský, Kristýna Hošková, Jan Novák, Hana Grison, Cyril Ron, and Jiří Švehla. Through the integration of palaeoecological analyses and archaeoastronomical approaches, the authors examine the relationships between landscapes, skyscapes, and architectural forms. They highlight the human transformation of the landscape during the Middle and Late Neolithic, and the structuring of long barrows according to specific astronomical orientations.

In the final chapter, ‘Conclusions: monuments in landscape and human culture’ (pp. 179–84), the authors synthesize the guiding principles of their research, through which they sought to: (i) review all available data on a region that had not received much scientific attention, working on architectural typology and refining the chronologies of construction and use; and (ii) reflect on the purpose of these structures. According to the authors, these monuments were not limited to serving for the burial of the deceased, but were important points in the long history of communities, linked to their ancestors, whom the interred individuals could have symbolically represented. The understanding of these sites may have changed over time, but they would continue to be part of the ritual landscapes of farming communities, structuring their worldviews. The scientific objectives of the project also did not overlook local communities—the valorization of oral tradition in research and the communication of results to different audiences through various forms of media are all described in the book.

This volume is an example of how archaeology can bring the past to light and, in this sense, actively constructs heritage. Regions that previously appeared devoid of archaeological remains due to a lack of research are now dotted with dozens of prehistoric monuments, supported by paleoenvironmental studies and specific data on the times and people who lived in these spaces. This capacity of archaeology can also be documented in other European regions recently, such as the Iberian Peninsula (see e.g. Valera, Reference Valera, Kneisel, Furholt, Hofmann, Mischka, Kirleis and Wunderlich2025, which updated the geography and interpretation of ditched enclosures in Portugal).

What compels human communities to repeatedly inhabit specific sites, maintaining their highly symbolic character even as their meanings have been reshaped by shifting cultural contexts? Archaeology should not be used to validate direct lines of continuity from mythical forebears to present communities, since such claims may raise complex issues concerning kinship, rights, and the legitimacy of use of both land and discourse. However, archaeology can and should return to communities a participatory voice in the construction of knowledge, as illustrated by the study of Mount Říp as an ancestral landscape by Jan Turek and Petr Krištuf.