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.