The significance of ‘invisible’ places

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.