mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Previous <010_Intro_Dis_SPATIAL_ANALYSIS_MEGT.htm> Home
Next <02HISTOR.htm>
Added September 18, 1999. Updated January 29, 2001, 22:05 hours.* *
*Figures are still being added! (If no figures are not visible, it is a
browser problem)*
*A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS*
1. Introduction
By/ /
/Maximilian O. Baldia/
1993, 1995, 1999-2001©
All rights reserved
1.1 Goals and scope
* *
This study offers an analysis of the patterns discerned in the locations
and orientations of nearly 5000 megalithic tombs[1] <#_ftn1> and similar
monuments built by Neolithic farmers in Northern Europe between about
3900-3000 B.C.[2] <#_ftn2> It is specifically concerned with those tombs
left by the /Trichterbecher Kultur/, (TRB),[3] <#_ftn3> called the
Funnel Beaker culture in English, and those of the neighboring German
gallery-grave culture.
So prominent are these tombs on the landscape that they have excited a
virtual "megalithomania" (Mitchell 1982) of comment, speculation and
study for nearly a millennium. They have been described, measured,
depicted, excavated and interpreted. Their architects have been named as
giants, elves, devils, and even extra-terrestrial beings (von Däniken
1968). Inevitably these notions have drawn contemptuous comment from
professional archaeologists (Daniel 1980:78), who have proposed several
competing theories of their own to explain the monuments: Central Place
Theory, Archaeoastronomy, teams of Mediterranean priests, transhumant
cattle herders, egalitarian farmers, and local kings[4] <#_ftn4> have
all gripped the collective professional imagination and most continue
to vie for attention. None has yet been transformed into received
wisdom, suggesting that the matter is far from being settled. Even the
evolution and chronology of these tombs is still a matter of debate.
Such is the competitive arena of ideas into which this new model is
launched. It's basic tenet is that megalithic tombs evolved from a
ceremonial complex governing and reflecting the social, economic, and
cultural structure of Northern Europe during a part of the Neolithic.
Evidence will be presented to test a model in which megalithic tombs
functioned not only as permanent mortuary sites of Neolithic chieftains,
but also as public monuments that were probably used as shrines to
reinforce the status and social function of these chiefs. As shrines,
the tombs would have promoted ceremonies, which attracted large numbers
of people. The highly visible and accessible locations, as well as the
orientations and alignments of these shrines lends support to the
hypothesis that the tombs must have lined the major prehistoric roadways
of Northern Europe.
The monumental tombs analyzed here are located in what is today southern
Scandinavia, Netherland, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic
(Fig. 1.1). The area includes the North German Plain and adjacent
highlands. This is a woodland and coastal region dissected by rivers,
lakes and swamps.
Figure 1.1. Location of the research area (For a detailed map of North
and Central Europe click on the underlined text).
1.2 TRB chronology and regional groups
The megalithic tombs of Europe belong to many different cultures and
time periods. The oldest tombs appear to be in northern France (Mohen
1990:284). Their roots may go back to Mesolithic collective burial
practices. At Téviec, Morbihan (thought to be same of the same date as
the neighboring site of Hoëdic - 5800 b.c.) collective burials were
covered by a small tumulus (Mohen 1990:72, L'Helgouach 1990:107 with
references). However, small graves (often in long-mounds) are more
likely to be ancestral to subsequent megalithic tombs (Boujot and Cassen
1993).
Figure 1.2. Calibrated C^14 dates of regional TRB Groups (after Midgley
1992: 229 Fig. 74). North 1 Group = Southern Scandinavia, North II
Group = Schleswig-Holstein
The oldest C^14 dates from megalithic tombs occur in Brittany, where the
Dissignac multiphase tumulus (Saint-Nazaire, Loire-Atlantique,
L'Helgouach 1990:86 Fig. 1), containing two simple dolmen-like stone
chambers with passage, has three dates averaging ranging from
4300±150-3830±150 b.c. (L'Helgouach 1990:109). A fourth date near the
façade, probably from later construction activity, is 2990±140 b.c.
Similarly, Kercado has a date of 3890±300 b.c. and Guennoc III C has two
(3850±300 and 3125±140 b.c.) and the oldest date at Barnenez is
3800±150 b.c. (ibid. p. 109-10).
Figure 1.3. Regional and chronological TRB groups (after Bakker 1979,
Bägerfeldt 1993, Timofeev 1990). The theoretical TRB sphere of influence
is indicated by the broken circle and X marks its approximate
geographical center.
The oldest region appears to be southern Portugal, where Monument I of
Poço de Gataira is dated to the 4510 b.c.±360 b.c. by thermoluminescence
dating of one of twelve globular pots (Mohen 1990:70). Excavated in
1948-1949, the 3:2 m polygonal passage-grave was covered by a tumulus
(ibid. p. 70-71). A date of 4440±360 b.c. was obtained by the same
dating technique for another tomb in that region. However, most dates
are more recent and fall into a time range similar to that of the
TRB.[5] <#_ftn5>
The TRB existed from about 4400/4250 to 2950/2850 B.C. (3600/3400 to
2400/2100 b.c.),[6] <#_ftn6> lasting for roughly 1000-1500 calendar
years (Fig. 1.2). The culture prevailed during the Scandinavian
Early Neolithic (EN) phases A/B and C, and most, if not all, of the
Middle Neolithic (MN) phases I to V.[7] <#_ftn7> During these phases
complex regional and interregional relationships existed (Fig. 1.3). It
is generally accepted that TRB tombs were built during the EN C-MN
Ib/III. But different regions participated at different rates in the
construction of megalithic tombs. The distant North Group seems to have
had the first megalithic chambers, being later joined by the West Group.
The East Group apparently produced fewer truly megalithic tombs.
Essentially non-megalithic mounds have been reported from the South East
and the South Group. Although it is commonly accepted that the concept
of megalithic tomb construction is derived from France, neither the
TRB's megalithic tombs nor the adjacent gallery-graves can be
convincingly attributed to direct outside influences.
1.3 TRB tombs and German gallery-graves
The long history of megalithic tomb research has resulted in one of the
largest collections of prehistoric architectural information. It is
estimated that 25,000 tombs were built in Denmark, over 400 in Sweden,
3000 in Schleswig-Holstein, perhaps ca. 170 in Netherland.[8] <#_ftn8>
The database contains almost 300 from Poland, over 3,500 from Germany.
Dating the tombs has always been a hotly debated issue. Among the
various proposals is one by Bägerfeldt (1993:66, 68, 73), who estimates
that the original use of monumental TRB tombs ranged from about
3900-2950 B.C. He places the construction of long-mounds with simple
graves and wooden chambers shortly after 3950 B.C. and assesses the
start of the supposedly earliest megalithic chambers - the primeval TRB
dolmen (German: /Urdolmen/) - at 3600 B.C. The urdolmen is a small,
rectilinear structure.[9] <#_ftn9> It may have no entrance, a
top entrance or a front entrance. Various larger dolmen with front
entrance, often possessing an antechamber, were built until 3350 B.C.,
when they were supposedly replaced by passage-graves, which are
primarily defined by a side-entrance. The end of construction came
perhaps between 3200-3100 B.C. Non-megalithic stone and timber mortuary
structures not only preceded megalithic chamber construction, but
ultimately outlasted that custom.
Chambers are traditionally classified according to one of three
criteria: the shape, the number of pairs of side-stones and capstones
(yokes), and the presence or absence of an entrance and/or passage. The
chambers consist primarily of erratic glacial boulders and, more rarely,
of other stones and even wood. The chamber's floor plan is usually
rectilinear, but in the North Group it is sometimes polygonal.
A few chambers were built below ground, as were burial pits (/flat- or
earth-graves/). Some graves were wood-lined or had a wooden
superstructure. Frequently, they had a cobblestone-lining or covering
(/stone-packing-graves/). Graves and stone chambers may be covered by
the same mound, which may or may not have a megalithic enclosure.
Mounds and their enclosures are customarily categorized by their shape:
rectangular, trapezoidal, oval or round. They consist of soil, sand
and small flat fieldstones, repeatedly surrounded by large upright
stones similar to those used in the construction of chambers. However,
wooden posts may occasionally take the place of these border-stones
(e.g. T. Madsen 1979, Midgley 1985). Sometimes more than one stone
enclosure surrounds a mound.
TRB megalithic tomb distribution overlaps with the German
gallery-graves. Being fewer in number, the origin and dating of the
German gallery-graves is even less well understood than that of the TRB
tombs. But their construction seems to roughly coincide with that of the
TRB's megalithic chambers. They are located chiefly in Hesse,
Westphalia, and Central Germany, bearing evidence of contact with the
TRB proper. They are usually long chambers constructed from thick slabs
of locally-available rock. Often they have a porthole-like entrance in
the center of the narrow end or front. This entrance is customarily
located inside an antechamber. Other chambers have side-entrances and
even short passages. Instead of portholes some gallery-graves use a
threshold similar to those found in many dolmen to demarcate the
entrance. Many chambers are subterranean. Few are known to have been
covered with shallow earth mounds.
1.4 The sources
Information for this research was located at institutions scattered
throughout Europe and North America. To gather the data, several trips
abroad, using personal funds were necessary. In doing so, it became
evident that this research was, to say the least, a Herculean task that
quickly developed into a research marathon. Ideally it should have been
a project for a team of well-funded researchers. Since this was not
likely to happen, a network of contacts had to be established, providing
an opportunity to visit and correspond with some of the greatest minds
in European archaeology and related fields. Much of the data for this
research was acquired in 1978, 1980, and 1981 during lengthy visits to
the /Römisch Germanische Kommission/ (RGK) of the /Deutsche
Archäologische Institut/ in Frankfurt (Main).[10] <#_ftn10> At that
time the megalithic tomb at Muschenheim was visited.
While in Frankfurt, much of the vital literature was gathered. This
included the historically significant 19th century tomb catalogs by
von Estorff and Krause and Schoetensack. This data was updated with
Fischer's 1956 analysis of neolithic burial practices, Behrens and
Schröter's 1980 compendium on TRB and Corded Ware burials and analysis
of the Altmark TRB pottery. These, together with the tombs enumerated
by Preuß (or Preuß/Preuss 1966, 1973, 1980), form the foundation for
the data base in Central Germany. Additional excavation reports and
locational data by Schlette (1962) and others were utilized to round
out the data base for this region.
At the IPP, University of Amsterdam, there was access to van Giffen's
atlas of Dutch passage-graves and later publications (e.g. van Giffen
1925/1927, 1961a; van Giffen and Glasbergen 1964). The data were
supplemented with additional reports and official coordinates (e.g.
Lanting 1975, Klok 1980). Bakker 1979a served as primary guide and
inspiration, especially for Chapter 2. However, his publications after
1982 were not available until completion of the preliminary manuscript,
which served as the basis for the doctoral defense in December 1993.
Consequently these later publications were used primarily to correct
and update the final manuscript.
Important research was also done at libraries and archives at Schloß
Gottorp, the /Forhistorisk-Arkæologisk Institut/ of the
/Københavns Universitet/ and the /Institut for Forhistorisk Archæologi
ved Århus Universitet/ in Moesgård.[11] <#_ftn11> Numerous sites,
including Poppenholz 39, Idstedt 43, Toftum and Bygholm Nørremark were
visited in 1981.
M. Strömberg's definitive work on the Hagestad passage-graves became the
primary source for Swedish megalithic tombs of that type. Another
useful Swedish source is Bägerfeldt and Kihlstedt's 1985 study of 97
megalithic tombs on the Swedish west coast.
Sprockhoff's Atlas of German (and Polish) megalithic tombs is the single
most important source for ca. 3500 tombs in Schleswig-Holstein,
Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Lower Saxony and Westphalia.[12]
<#_ftn12> This atlas was supplemented by copies and notes made at
various institutions. The supplementary literature includes original
reports for Lower Saxony. For Schleswig-Holstein Sprockhoff's data
was updated with excavation reports and other publications.[13]
<#_ftn13> Schuldt's 1972 summary of 106 tomb excavation reports forms
the basis of the research for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Additional
articles by Schuldt and other archaeologists found at the RGK and
Harvard University's Tozzer Library supplement and correct
Sprockhoff's data in Mecklenburg.[14] <#_ftn14> Published official
coordinates provide Cultural Resource Management quality locational
information for this region (Keilig 1971, Lampe 1973, Schoknecht 1973).
Sprockhoff's Polish data was supplemented and corrected with data from
summary reports by Jankowska 1980, Midgley 1985, Kowalczyk 1970, and
Wis'lan'ski 1970. Additional tombs were discovered on a German
topographic map of Pomerania, housed at SMU. Nonetheless, the dearth of
available Polish literature has been an unpleasant handicap. The
situation is even worse for the Czech Republic, although the catalogs of
Jevisvovice - Starý Zámek, (A. Medunová-Bene?ova 1971, 1973, 1977,
1981.) provided useful insights into TRB ceramics and settlement site
location.
Data for the gallery-graves of the German highlands are chiefly based on
publications by Schrickel 1957, 1976 and Kappel 1978. Official
coordinates for ten of these tombs are taken from Schwellnus 1979. Other
information is derived from various sources.[15] <#_ftn15>
In 1987 some preliminary results were announced in lectures at the
World Congress of the /Union Internationale des Sciences Prehistoiques
et Protohistoriques/. This led to lively discussions and useful advice
on data acquisition by some of the most prominent scholars of megalithic
tombs.
Needing a ground check of the ideas expressed in the defended
dissertation, a 6000 km tour was undertaken in 1994 to observe the
landscape and visit important sites from Oslo to Lund, across the Danish
islands and Fehmarn. The Elbe and its most likely river crossings, as
well as much of the German gallery-grave area, including Giessen,
Warburg, and Neu Wied were toured. The trip also included excursions to
many Falbygden tombs and tombs near Rotenburg (Wümme). Other sites
included Bliedersdorf, the /Sieben Steinhäuser/, and Schankweiler, as
well as a visit to the Halle-Dölauer Heide. In 1995 excursions to tombs
on the Danish islands, Holstein, and Kujavia were undertaken.**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *
1.5 Related Links
*/Central and North European Neolithic Chronology
/*
with summaries of individual cultures*/ /*
*/Megalithic Tomb Index /*: Database of tombs used for
this research.*/
/**/Neolithic/Copper Age Link Index
/*: Links
to News Bulletins, Articles, Site Reports, Databases, etc. about the
Neolithic/Copper Age in Europe.
Previous <010_Intro_Dis_SPATIAL_ANALYSIS_MEGT.htm> Home
Next <02HISTOR.htm>
<010Spatial_Analysis_MEGT_TOC.htm>
Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> Megalithic tombs include megalithic dolmen,
passage-graves, gallery-graves, and mounds with megalithic enclosures,
but without megalithic chambers. The actual count also includes some
non-megalithic long-mounds.
[2] <#_ftnref2> Calibrated radiocarbon dates are abbreviation B.C. and
b.c. signifies uncalibrated, conventional C14 dates.
[3] <#_ftnref3> TRB is the most common acronym, but there are others
(cf. Midgley 1992:31).
[4] <#_ftnref4> /e.g./ Baldia 1985a, Darvil 1979, Hawkins 1973, Higgie
1981, Körner and Laux 1980, MacKie 1977, Mitchell 1982, 1989,
RenRenfrew 1973, Thom 1971, J. Voss 1980.
[5] <#_ftnref5> 4350/3870 - 2525/2105 B.C. (Jorge 1990: 50);
3110±50/2660±50 b.c. (Kalb 1990: 26); 3070±50/2620±50 b.c.,
2910±40 b.c., 2900±40/2640±65 b.c. (Kalb 1990: 29); 3940-3200 B.C.
(Casal 1990: 71).
[6] <#_ftnref6> e.g. Bakker 1979a, 1992; Bakker /et al./ 1969; Burchard
et al. 1991; Czerniak et al. 1991; Jankowska and Wiíla?ski 1991, Koíko
1981, Kowalczyk 1970, Kruk and Milisauskas 1981, 1977; Midgley 1985,
1992, Milisauskas 1978; Pape 1980; Tauber 1972.
[7] <#_ftnref7> This traditional Scandinavian Neolithic relative dating
scheme was defined by Becker (1947, 1948) and others, having since
received additional elaboration.
[8] <#_ftnref8> Bakker 1988, 1992; Graham Clark 1977; Ebbesen 1985:54,
Skaarup 1990:73; Hoika 1990b:53, 86.
[9] <#_ftnref9> In English the plural of /dolmen/ is /dolmens/. However,
the German usage of the word distinguishes singular from plural through
context rather than by changing the suffix. Since the chamber typology
is largely derived from traditional non-English classifications, I
adhere to the German practice.
[10] <#_ftnref10> Bericht der Tätigkeit der
Römisch Germanische Kommission, /Bericht der
Römisch Germanischen Kommission/ 58/II, 1977/1978:709 and 59, 1978:568.
[11] <#_ftnref11> A.P. Madsen's 1868, 1896 and 1900, Nordman 1918,
Rosenberg 1929, Thorvildsen 1946, T. Madsen e.g. 1979, 1982; Gebauer
1978, and Davidsen 1978; Ebbesen 1975, 1978, 1979.
[12] <#_ftnref12> Sprockhoff 1966, 1967 and 1974. (The last volume was
posthumously prepared by Körner.) The costly volumes were given to me by
my late father, Ludwig L. Baldia.
[13] <#_ftnref13> Hoika 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1988; Hingst 1973, 1983;
Hark 1972; Bokelmann 1973, 1977; Kühl 1980; Aner 1962, 1963, 1968;
Schwabedissen e.g. 1979 a and b.
[14] <#_ftnref14> e.g. Rennebach 1974, 1985, Nagel 1975, 1977, 1983,
1985, 1986, Hollnagel 1975; Nilius 1975; Nilius and Warnke 1984; Schuldt
1974.
[15] <#_ftnref15> Czarnetzki 1978, Herrmann 1979, Schoppa 1962,
Schwabedissen 1962, Tode 1962, Unze 1958.