mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Previous <14ModelChronology.htm> Home
Next <18LINGUI.htm>
Added June 29, 2001. Updated June 29, 2001, 16:26 hours.
* Under Construction!
* This file uses *.PNG graphic files, which visible in Explorer 5.5.
If you use a different browser, they may not be visible.
*A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS*
15. ORIENTATION AND LOCATION OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS
By/ /
/Maximilian O. Baldia/
1993, 1995, 1999-2001©
All rights reserved
15.1 Megalithic tombs and celestial alignments
A longstanding basic assumption in anthropology and related fields is
that an understanding of old traditions allows the researcher to trace
them back in time until even prehistoric phenomena find a plausible
explanation. In dealing with megalithic tombs and celestial alignments
this approach has unfortunately led to the neo-romantic view, providing
an intuitively very appealing perspective, which sometimes achieves a
religious quality that borders on mysticism.
This does not mean that the approach should be rejected out-of hand. The
systematic use of ethnographic information, historical and linguistic
records, mythology, fairy- and folk-tale analysis in conjunction with
archaeological data analysis should lead to plausible interpretations of
the mysteries surrounding megalithic tombs. Celtic, Germanic and Slavic
customs and traditions have survived into historical times. The most
prominent customs are feast days known from Celtic literature and
traditions. /Samuin/ (/Samhain/) celebrated the winter solstice
(December 21-22). /Beltane/ (German: /Walpurgisnacht/) celebrated
Midsummer's Night by lighting huge bonfires.
These and other customs held in common among various European cultures
have caused some antiquarians, astronomers and archaeologists to believe
that they may go back to the Neolithic times. For this reason such
customs have been used to explain observable facts about megalithic tomb
architecture. Thus Hadingham (1985:25-26) points out that the
astronomer Sir Lockyer/Lock'yer (1906) concluded that:
prehistoric people had celebrated the same solar festivals as had
eventually passed into the folklore of the Celts some two thousand years
later; to commemorate these events, stones were lined up in the
direction of the sun or stars that rose on the appropriate day. Lockyer
supposed that a class of astronomer priests had once controlled the
whole of prehistoric Britain, "on whom the early people depended for
guidance in all things, not only economic, but of religious, medicinal
and superstitious value."
/ /
More recently the British-American astronomer Hawkins reiterated this view:
Rowan, the mountain ash, was used on May Day, and the sacred mistletoe
at midwinter and midsummer. ... Ethnologists linked the ceremonies with
the druids, and the Beltane Fires were taken to be a representation of
the druidic Celtic sun-god. Usually there were a pair of fires, and
people (and animals) passed between them. Fires were lighted across the
country on the night of midsummer's eve, midwinter, and at the spring
and fall equinox. ... Fires were lighted on four other dates,[1]
<#_ftn1> when the sun's declination was 16°.3, north or south. This
declination fixed the calendar dates one-eighth of a year after the
solstices and equinoxes, approximately on February 4, May 6, August 8,
and November 8 on the Gregorian calendar. The year was therefore
divided into eight approximately equal portions. These divisions are
very close to the solar alignment dates found in the megalithic
structures by Thom[2] <#_ftn2>, and by Lockyer before him. Since
megaliths predate the Celtic Druids, the Beltane Fires might be
something handed down from the darkness of prehistory.[3] <#_ftn3>
Although some of the neo-romantic research may have read more into the
data than is prudent, knowledge of these long-lived traditions gives
rise to speculations about the orientation of megalithic tombs that lead
to astonishing discoveries. For example, O'Kelly (Roy, 1987: 35-36), the
modern excavator of Newgrange, recalls:
There had been a tradition at Newgrange, the locals would tell you ...
that on a certain day of the year the sun would shine into the tomb, and
the time suggested ... was midsummer.*[4]* <#_ftn4> ... But in
midsummer the sun was almost vertically overhead ... so the possibility
occurred to me to look at this in mid winter, when the sun would be
rising on the southernmost point on the local horizon ... I went, I
think, in 1969, to see for myself. ... First, a thin pencil of light,
which gradually widened to a band about seventeen centimeters wide, and
slowly swung across the floor (of the chambers passage) and gradually
was reduced as the ray began to be cut off. Fifteen minutes after this
whole process begins, it disappears. ... These investigations made it
quite clear that the whole thing was a deliberate attempt to catch the
sunlight at this particular time which ... was the winter solstice, the
end of the old year, the next day the new year begins, a time when right
around the world there has always been a midwinter festival. We are
still celebrating Christmas, with the day changed a little bit, the
whole thing Christianised (sic).
/ /
The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year in the northern
hemisphere. Its counterpart is the summer solstice (June 21-22).
Hadingham has claimed that, just as among the Zuni Indians, the winter
solstice seems to have been more significant in Northern Europe's
prehistoric past, because similar winter solstice tomb orientations are
known throughout the British Isles and Brittany. For example, the
passage of Maes Howe (ca. 2500 A.D.) in the Scottish Orkney Islands is
oriented toward the midwinter sunset (Hadingham 1985: 53-54). The
midwinter sunset also illuminates a decorated stone inside the chamber
of Dowth. Dowth and the equally impressive tumulus of Knowth are located
near Newgrange. Yet unlike Dowth, Knowth's two passages-graves are
positioned so that the eastern passage receives the rays from the rising
sun, the western passage receives it from the setting sun of the
equinox. Mitchell (1989: 95) adds that:
another equinoctial mound is Cairn T, one of a large group on the
Loughcrew hills to the west of Dublin, which is spectacularly lit by the
sun as it reaches the bi-annual midpoint of its cycle. A stone at the
back of its chamber is carved with a rayed sun symbol which is picked
out by the thin ray of light, and as the sun moves across the sky, the
beam passes along the stone and onto its neighbor, illuminating symbols
in turn. The Impression is a finger of light, spelling out a message
from a forgotten language of symbols.
/ /
Solar orientations are also known from the continent. The French chamber
of Gavrinnis in Brittany is lit by the midwinter sunrise. Even more
surprising is the fact that the chamber is also aligned toward the
southernmost moonrise. A bright white quartzite stone midway in the
passage seems to reflect the entering light.
British mounds are said to capture moonlight also, but Hadingham points
out that at least for the passage-graves of the Clava cairns (ca.
3000 B.C.) at Iverness actual observation showed that the horizon makes
the moon invisible from within the chambers (Hadingham 1985: 63-64). My
own observations, shortly before the winter solstice in December of 1996
indicate that these tombs, which are structurally dissimilar to TRB
tombs, sit on a riverbank, in a valley lined by hills on both sides.
Their entrances are facing away from the river. They are at an angle to
the modern road, pointing to a low spot on the horizon. However, at the
time of this visit, not a single heavenly body was visible from the
inside or the outside of the tombs throughout the entire night.
FRI 7/09/93 10:38:05 AM C:\SYSTATW5\DISSERTA\CHAORI.SYS
Table 15.1
*DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF CHAMBER AND ENTRANCE ORIENTATION*
*CHAMBER*
*ENTRANCE DEGREES*
*ORIENTATION*
*ORI. EAST *
* N OF CASES*
*1253*
*1253*
*786*
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
C.V.
MEDIAN
1.000
16.000
15.000
6.555
19.897
4.461
0.126
0.699
-0.648
0.681
5.000
1.000
8.000
7.000
4.848
5.033
2.244
0.063
-0.174
-1.110
0.463
5.000
1.000
360.000
359.000
152.001
3617.362
60.145
2.145
0.229
1.044
0.396
156.000
*TOTAL OBSERVATIONS: 2385***
*Chamber orientation is in 1/16 (22.5°) increments of 360° where 1=NNE,
2=NE, 3=ENE and 4=E etc. The first column of data lists chambers by
orientation of the greater width (for trapezoidal to egg-shaped forms).
Surprisingly the median orientation is the same as in the second column.
The second column is standardized by providing only the eastern
orientation from 1° to 180° east of north, regardless of chamber form.
As in the first data column, the median orientation is 5, /i.e./ ESE or
127.5°. Entrances are listed in degrees south of north. *
Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that many but not all tombs
west of the TRB culture area were aligned with celestial events. Such
alignments presumably mark periodically recurring celestial events that
may be used to predict particularly significant and regularly occurring
calendar dates, such as the beginning of seasons. This predictability
would be important for planting or harvesting crops and ceremonies
associated with these seasonal cycles. Such non-random events include
solstices, the cycles of the moon, the seasonal appearance of particular
stars or star systems, as well as occurrence of eclipses.
If TRB megalithic tomb orientations were determined by such predictable
celestial events, only a few specific, non-random orientations would be
expected, particularly in the Neolithic, when telescopes and other aids
for meticulous observations and detailed record keeping beyond an oral
tradition were missing. Further limiting the choices of suitable
alignments and thus decreasing randomness of possible alignments should
have been the cloudy nordic sky (Ellegård 1981). Finally, cultural
selection, which by definition reduces the myriad of possible choices
to a few, culturally specific and socially significant phenomenon
should limit tomb orientation even further, creating a consistent pattern.
However, no consistent alignment pattern was discovered by van Giffen
who published the most careful measurements of orientation of the
megalithic tombs in Netherland as early as 1925/1927. Similarly, Ashbee
(1970) recorded a broad range of orientations for British
earthen long-barrows.
Previous analyses of TRB mounds and chambers orientations indicated that
they were for all intents and purposes random (Baldia 1985b). It,
therefore, seemed that the window in the passage of the Newgrange,
aligned to the rising sun, was an exception. Thus, it was concluded that
in most cases it would be difficult to distinguish an accidental
alignment from a deliberate one as illustrated by Blakeslee's remarks
(Ellegård 1981:115): /The problem of false positives in astroarchaeology
is endemic; recently three solar alignments were found for a window in a
Hopi site - a window constructed by the U.S. National Park Service in
1933/ ... The skepticism persisted, even though Swedish archaeologist
had noted a predominant orientation in their tombs. It was not until
the final draft of this work that the orientations of mounds and
chambers, as well as the entrances were graphed. The results were
unexpected. They demonstrate that entrance/passage orientations are not
directly linked to mound and chamber orientations (Table 15.1).
Figure 15.1 demonstrates a predominant southern orientation with several
other significant peaks.
Figure 15.1. Entrance orientation density distribution for 786 chambers
in degrees with superimposed smoothed normal curve. The horizontal axis
represents 1-360 degrees east of north.
As it turns out, the average orientation of 786 entrances is 152° and
the median is 156.° Both statistics are surprisingly close to southeast
(157.5°). Major peaks occur in the southwest and the east. There is also
a small general increase in the numbers of entrances open to the north
to north-northeast. Orientations toward west southwest and possibly
east-northeast appear not to be common.
Since no one provided entrance orientations in degrees for TRB chambers,
the 786 measurements presented here are taken from tomb floor plans of
various sources published over the past 150 years. There may be
considerable differences in accuracy. Still, the weight of the evidence
suggests that some celestial alignments similar to those proposed for
the megalithic tombs of France and the British Isles are quite
plausible. Furthermore, it may now be stated that some of the most
likely solar and moon alignments proposed for Stonehenge and Callanish
probably occur in TRB tombs.
Figure 15.2. Chamber orientation from 1° to 180° in eight increments of
22.5°. The orientations of 1253 chambers has no strong pattern.
SAT 7/10/93 11:44:49 AM C:\SYSTATW5\DISSERTA\ENCORI.SYS
Table 15.2
*DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ENCLOSURE ORIENTATIONS*
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
C.V.
MEDIAN
ORIENTATION
EASTING
646
1.000
16.000
15.000
5.822
15.812
3.976
0.156
1.184
0.562
0.683
4.000
646
1.000
8.000
7.000
4.647
4.170
2.042
0.080
0.048
-0.792
0.439
4.000
*TOTAL OBSERVATIONS: 1157*
Descriptive statistics of 646 enclosure orientations out of 1157
recorded mounds/enclosures. Orientation is in 1/16 (22.5°) increments of
360°. The first column of data lists orientation of the greater width
(for trapezoidal to Egg-shaped forms). The second data column lists the
standardized orientation east of north from 1° to 180°.
The range of latitude for TRB tombs is about the same as that of the
latitudes between Stonehenge and Callanish, so that one must expect TRB
entrances to fluctuate between the azimuthal directions for some of the
sun and moon positions calculated for the two British sites (Hawkins
1986:184, 188 Fig. 1, 3). This means that the statistically most likely
entrance orientations would be facing the Midsummer moonrise and
moonset, the Midwinter sunset, the equinox moonrise, sunrise and
moonset. The Midwinter sunset may also have been important. This is
endorsed by Swedish research, which shows that moon orientations
dominate in Skåne and various sun alignments are observable in Falbygden
(e.g. Bägerfeldt 1993:164).
The gallery-grave Züschen/Lohne may also support a possible connection
with the moon and sun. On May 27-28, 1994 the nearly full moon light up
north side of the chamber. Several bovine designs, recently filled with
chalk, reflected the moonlight so that they were clearly visible even
after the sunset (ca. 11pm). The moonlit side contains the so-called
dolmen-goddess, a somewhat oval stylized face (Kappel 1978:16 Fig. 10).
The view of the slightly oval, nearly full moon, as viewed from the
chamber, looked like a disfigured face that seemed to cry out in agony.
Perhaps it was only an over stimulated imagination, but there seemed to
be a similarity with the face. Ocular designs on TRB MN pots,
occasionally taking on a face-like design, also have been liked with the
moon (e.g. Bägerfeldt 1993:160-166). The early sunrise at Züschen
provided another surprise, because even though the chamber is sunk into
the side of a hill, the sun shone right through the porthole, creating a
V-shaped beam of light that fell on the south wall of the chamber (ca.
6am).
In addition, the passage grave at /Kong Svends Høy
/,
on the Island of Møn in Denmark, points to a bright object during part
of the night, about a week before the summer equinox. Not only that, but
I also observed that the strangely arranged, huge enclosure stones at
proximal end
worked like a gun sight. When viewed from the distal end, the largest,
centrally located enclosure stone at the proximal end aimed almost at
exactly at the full moon with its top. In the morning, the sun rose
behind the mound, opposite the entrance
.
The opposite is true of the /Hvissehøj/, a complex passage grave in a
tumulus in Northwest Jylland (Chapter 11). Here I observed during mid
morning in September 1997 that the sun entered not only the main
chamber, but also the odd second and even the third post-chamber.
There is an added benefit to the discovery of celestial orientations. It
explains the development of numerous, oddly oriented, angled passages,
and may have been the impetus behind the widespread use development of
passage-grave architecture.
However, my not exactly systematic effort to test the statistical
results in the field, suggest that not all entrances and passages
pointed to a celestial body, because in some instances the view is
blocked by a nearby obstruction, such as a hill.
Unlike the entrance orientation, the orientation of the chambers shows
no strong patterning (Fig. 15.2). There may be a slight preference for
orientations facing south, followed by east and east southeast, but
this may in part be attributable to a tendency in some sources,
especially in some of the older literature, for rough estimates of
orientation favoring cardinal points. The lack of a definitive pattern
in chamber orientation is echoed in the orientation of 646 rectilinear
to oval enclosures (Table 15.2, Fig. 15.3). This means entrances and
passages were most likely designed to align with a celestial body or
event, while chambers and enclosures were oriented by a different
criterion. This criterion, which naturally also influenced the
entrance orientation to some extent, is, at least in part, the topography.
Figure 15.3. Enclosure orientation from 1° to 180° in eight increments
of 22.5°. The orientations have no strong pattern and largely mirrors
the orientation of the chambers, even though dolmen without entrances
and enclosures of "unchambered" mounds are included.
15.2 Tomb orientation and location vis-à-vis topography, soil type
and village location.
A vague connection between megalithic tomb orientations and the
topography can be verified for many regions. In 1970 Ashbee summarized
the orientation of long barrows and provided solid evidence for a
relationship between the mounds and the topography for some, but not all
parts of Great Britain.
Similar tomb alignments with topography can be demonstrated for the
Funnel Beaker tombs. Krause and Schoetensack, it may be recalled,
suggested a relationship of tombs with the plateau of the Altmark a
century ago. On the island of Rügen von Hagenow mapped 12 tombs aligned
east-west in a straight line on top of a long hill located between the
towns of Dummertewitz and Preez on his 1829 map. A few other possible
topographic alignments can also be spotted on the same map, but in
Rügen, as in Great Britain, many tombs have no obvious topographic
alignment at all, while gallery-graves supposedly largely follow the
river valleys of the highlands.
Table 15.3
VILLAGES, TOMBS AND SOIL TYPE IN KR. UELZEN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL TYPE FERTILITY AREA
TYPE % VILLAGE /km¨ TOMBS /km¨
CLUSTERS /km¨
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I LOESS HIGH-MEDIUM 120
8.57 1 0.01 4 0.03
4 0.03
Ia LOESS/SAND MEDIUM-LOW 50
3.57 3 0.06 2 0.04
2 0.04
II GROUND MORAINE MEDIUM 500
35.71 5 0.01 41 0.08
23 0.05
III SAND MOSTLY LOW 690
49.29 4 0.01 23 0.03
18 0.03
OTHER NONE
40 2.86 0 0.00 2
0.05 2 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
1400 100.00% 13 0.01/km¨ 72 0.05/km¨
49 0.03/km¨
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL N OF TOMBS ca. 250 or 0.17/km¨
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15.4 TOMBS, VILLAGES AND
SOIL TYPE IN THE RIVER ZONE OF KR. UELZEN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL TYPE
FERTILITY AREA TYPE
% VILLAGE /km¨ TOMBS /km¨
CLUSTER /km¨
I LOESS
HIGH-MEDIUM 8
2.45 1 0.12
2 0.25 0 0.00
Ia LOESS/SAND
MEDIUM-LOW 3
0.92 2 0.67
0 0.00 0 0.00
II GROUND MORAINE MEDIUM
120 36.81 5
0.04 16 0.13
8 0.67
III SAND MOSTLY
LOW 190
58.28 4 0.02
16 0.08 4 0.02
OTHER NONE
5
2.86 0 0.00
1 0.20 2 0.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
326 100.00 12
35 - 14 -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location of tombs, tomb clusters, and villages in the river zone of
Kr. Uelzen, Lower Saxony, in relation to soil types.
* *
* *
Laux observed that orientation differs in northeastern Lower Saxony
according to two kinds of landscapes. The western landscape, which is
closer to the North Sea, finds the tombs located in groups concentrated
in the sandy uplands of the coastal plain, above the marshes. In the
eastern landscape, primarily known as the Lüneburg Heath, the tombs are
largely located in the meadows near streams. He noted that the
long-mounds west of the Ilmenau River are oriented east-west, while
those east of the river are oriented north-south. This difference is
probably due to the lines of communication discussed later. Schirnig
mapped some 250 tombs in this region (Kr. Uelzen) in relation to soil
fertility (Schirnig 1979b).
Analysis of Schirnig's map shows that 12 of 13 (92%) of the village
sites are located in the river zone, which is defined as an area of
500 m on either side of the streams and creeks (Tables 15.3-15.4). Some
35 (48.61%) of the single tombs and 14 (33.33%) of the tomb clusters are
located in the river zone, which is 23.29% of the total county area of
ca. 1400 km2. This means that there are significantly more tombs within
ca. 500 m of either side of the streams than in the rest of the county.
Within the river zone single tombs achieve the highest density on the
most fertile loess soil (0.25 per km2). A similar proportion of single
tombs for this soil type is found in the rest of the county. But there
are no tomb clusters in this high fertility zone, or the loess/sand soil
of medium fertility. The loess/sand soil makes up only 3.57% of the
entire county and only 0.92% of the river zone. The highest proportion
of village-related sites per km2 is located on this loess/sand.
Table 15.5
GERMAN AND POLISH TOMB ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of tombs ............................1184
Average tomb elevation ...................... 46.46 m±35.73
1? ........................................10.71 to 82.21
2? ........................................ 0 to 117.96
3? ........................................ 0 to 153.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tomb clusters, on the other hand, achieve their highest density on
the ground moraine, which must have offered easy access to the erratics
used in tomb construction - a fact that is supported by Gehl (1972) and
Bakker (1982, Bakker and Groenman-van Waateringe 1988) in other regions.
But the ground moraine is also the second most common soil type in
Kr. Uelzen. It has medium to low fertility and covers roughly 36% of the
river zone and the county as a whole. Outside the river zone, the
ground moraine also has the highest single tomb density. It must,
therefore, be concluded that there is a dichotomy in location. The
tombs' location must be partly the result of easily available, nearby
building material, while village location seems to be determined by the
need for a constant water source and perhaps easily arable land.
Nonetheless, the overall distribution, to be discussed later, suggests
an intricate communication network.
On the whole, it is difficult to control for the specific local
environmental factors that influence tomb distribution. Topographic
factors must be treated with care. A rise in sea level and postglacial
rebound has changed land elevation. Coast lines, lake levels, marshes
etc. have changed.[5] <#_ftn5> In some parts soil types have been
changed through redeposition of fertile soils from undrained areas to
well-drained and depleted soils. This process is called
/Plackendungung/ or /Esche/ in German. To complicate matters even more,
Goldman (1981 and personal communication 1981) suggests that many of the
Mecklenburg lake and marsh districts are uninhabitable without
artificial drainage. Hoika (1986) felt that the Oldenburg Graben was a
barrier. Bakker (1976:69, 1991 Fig. 2) mapped the marsh lands and
prehistoric coastal areas near the North Sea and southwestern most
Schleswig-Holstein. However, even those wetlands attracted habitation
and were part of the TRB communication network, as the location of the
Heveskesklooster grand-dolmen demonstrates.
Figure 15.4. Neolithic coastlines of Denmark and northern
Schleswig-Holstein at ca. 4000 B.C. (Bägerfeldt 1993:218 after
Brøndsted 1957).
The elevation above sea level for Dutch sites has been mapped along with
soil types (Bakker 1980a, 1982, 1983; Bakker and Groenman-van Waateringe
1988). The present analysis of 1184 megalithic tombs, including
gallery-graves, from Germany and Poland yields an average elevation is
46.46 m above sea level (Table. 15.5). The lowest tombs are located on
the coast of Schleswig-Holstein where several are at or below current
sea level especially on the Island of Sylt.[6] <#_ftn6> Sylt, Amrum, and
adjacent Danish islands were still part of the North Sea coast
(Fig. 15.4). However, islands, such as Helgoland, had to be reached by
boat and even tombs, such as those located near Wanna and Großen Ahlen
in the Elbe-Weser Triangle, where in contact with the North Sea (Behre
1979:200), while they appear to be inland now. Several of the islands in
the Baltic were much larger and more closely connected with each other.
They must have been extremely important communication links during the
Neolithic. Long distance sea travel between Pomerania and Skåne via
Bornholm are existed at least since the EN (Fig. 15.5).
Figure 15.5. Possible sea route between southern Sweden, Bornholm and
Poland as indicated by EN TRB pottery (squares) found in the Baltic Sea
(after Nielsen and Nielsen 1990:55 Fig. 1, tomb location after Hansen
1993).
Many tombs were located near marshes. This includes the Swedish
passage-graves of Falbygden, the tombs in the lake district of
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and many tombs in Poland[7] <#_ftn7> and the
western tombs in Netherland (Bakker and Groenman-van Waateringe1988).
Others tombs are found in marshes, suggesting a gradual increase in the
water level and a decrease of available land in the MN and LN. (Behre
1979: 200).
In Jutland and adjacent areas, the TRB avoided certain highlands. In the
German highlands the tombs cling to the slopes near the river valleys.
The highest tomb there, a gallery-grave, is 322 m above sea level.
U. Fischer observed a similar tendency to hug the slopes for TRB tombs
in the forest of Wötz (/Forst Wötz/, Gem. Leetze, Kr. Salzwedel) in the
northwestern Altmark and pointed out that:
/ /
There are obvious topographic rules (for the location of megalithic
tombs). The highest elevations are always avoided. The tombs lie on the
slopes ...[8] <#_ftn8>
He suggested that the tomb location is related to roads. La Cour and
Mathiassen observed that the tomb location in West Jutland followed the
boundary between loam and sand, avoiding wet places for the same reason
(Bakker 1976: 64). Schlicht (1979a: 44) described the topographic
relationship of large dolmen and primeval passage-graves in tumulus
without enclosure for northwestern Lower Saxony by stating:
It is conspicuous, that all these small (tree capstone) chambers are
situated on prominent points in the landscape, on tongues of land or
fords, across which the trade routes led.
Her observations also hold true for parts of Jutland,
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and even Poland.
/ /
15.3 Megalithic tomb location and territories
The location of megalithic tombs will be treated on two levels: the
location of individual tombs and the location of entire tomb groups or
so-called cemeteries. Popular explanations regarding individual tombs
and tomb groups focus on three subjects:
1. A Tomb functions as a central place,
2. Tomb groups or clusters define tribal define a chiefly territory,
3. Tombs form borders between rival territories.
15.3.2 Tomb functions as a central place
The explanation that an individual tomb functions as a central place and
perhaps as territorial marker is a popular, but ill-defined assumption.
It received some semblance of scientific validity in the 1970's and
early 80's through Renfrew's use of Thiessen polygons, which were
drawn around the few surviving megalithic tombs of the West Salisbury
Plain in Great Britain to demonstrate the existence of tribal or chiefly
territories. The whole principle rests on the assumption that each tomb
is a central place or territorial marker.
The Central Place Model is not new. In fact it is based on ideas current
among German geographers in the 19th century. Its definitive
articulation was presented in 1932 when the German scholar Christaller
(1893-1969) completed his dissertation at the University of Erlangen.
Chritaller's views were primarily stimulated by the theories of German
spatial economists and settlement geographers Alfred Weber, Kohl,
von Thünen, and Gardmann. Hagget (1972:286) defines central places as
follows:
/ /
*Central places* are broadly synonymous with towns that serve as the
centers for regional communities by providing them with *central goods*
like tractors and central services, like hospital treatments. ... Higher
order centers stock a wide array of goods and services; lower order
centers a smaller range ... *Complementary regions* describe the areas
served by each central place. They exist for both higher and lower order
centers and are defined by town-country relationships. Such regions
differ according to the order of goods, but they may overlap with other
complementary regions. The regions for higher order goods are large;
those for lower order goods are small. ... Christaller defined the
*centrality* of an urban center as the ratio between the services
provided and the local needs of the inhabitants. Towns with high
centrality would supply many services per inhabitant, and vice versa.
One must ask why this definition should also be applicable to a
Neolithic economy. According to most archaeologists Neolithic economy
is based on a barter system. Furthermore, why should it apply
particularly to megalithic tombs, which unlike towns are not usually
thought of as providing goods and services. Therefore, they do not
necessarily need to display the same location pattern of cities and
towns, which are the development of a modern /market economy/.
Apparently these major socioeconomic and conceptual differences never
addressed were addressed. Renfrew's use of central place spatial
analysis of megalithic tombs, using the Thiessen polygons and similar
approaches, should therefore raise serious doubt. Three such doubts
spring to mind immediately.
/First/, several tombs of the West Salisbury Plain are found in groups
of two or even three tombs.[9] <#_ftn9> The polygons destroy that
relationship. In fact, all the tombs together may form a single, unified
tomb group, because none are more than 2 km distant from the next.
/Second/, the tombs form linear alignments that cross the countryside as
if by design. This is especially the case with the clustered tombs 18,
23, 21, 19, and 20, as well as the less closely linked ones. The
possibility that they are part of some kind of communication link, or
even lined a road as suggested for TRB tombs, was never entertained.
/Third/, even if some tombs could have been /central places/ others
could have been subordinate places. The likelihood that some tombs were
more important than others needs to be addressed if one takes this
approach seriously. Related to this is the assumption that all tombs
were in use at the same time, a problem which Renfrew himself noted.
The problem with Renfrew's approach is further exacerbated by the
distribution of the Neolithic long barrows of Dorset and Wiltshire
(Renfrew 1973, Fig. 2). In this region, the large number of tombs
prohibits the use of Thiessen polygons entirely. Of course, Renfrew must
have noticed this dilemma, for he himself abandoned the use of the
polygons for this region (see below). Unfortunately,
/Central Place Theory/ found many uncritical disciples in spite of this
fact.
One such disciple is Darvill who analyzed the court cairns and
passage-graves in Ireland. Typically, he drew a polygon around each
known court cairn, regardless of its location and association with its
neighbors (Darvill 1979 Fig. 4). The resulting extraordinary and
unnatural differences in polygon size, common to this form of spatial
analysis, was explained away in the following less than scientific
manner (ibid. p. 331):
There is a close but not regular distribution of sites (cairns).
Evidence for this is in the manifestation of boundary pressure exerted
by the inhabitants to maintain a certain minimum area, presumably
containing minimum requirements. This would produce an uneven
distribution of area sizes, as centers would be closer to the best
land. If a market economy, ranked hierarchy or other outside trade
network were at all developed one might expect a more regular
territorial area. The uneven territories would suggest a territory
generated and maintained by the living population for its own survival.
Yet Darvill never provides data about the relationship of agricultural
soil quality, carrying capacity etc. and the distribution of court
cairns to substantiate the kinds of minimum requirements he envisions.
Quantitative evidence for economic activities, which could provide
evidence for the relative importance of agriculture, animal husbandry,
hunting, fishing, and gathering and the relationship to the tombs are
also not provided. This suggests that the concept of boundary pressure
is nothing more than a circular argument derived from the unnatural and
inherent problems associated with Thiessen polygons, which by their
mathematical definition would be smaller in the center of a cluster than
at that cluster's edges.
To make matters worse, he rejects the existence of a market economy and
social ranking based on negative archaeological evidence, i.e. he argues
that /the total number of different artifact types (is) pretty small/
(ibid. p. 325). Apparently it never occurred to him that this opinion
might describe the state of archaeology, rather than the economy of the
court cairn builders.
Regarding his argument that the cairn builders had a segmentary (tribal)
social organization, Darvill himself is forced to admit:/ Unfortunately,
we do not have the evidence from settlement sites conclusively to
endorse the recognition of small functioning groups/ (ibid. p. 319),
which he believes to be small farm steads. The evidence for such farm
steads is based on the excavation of a mere two (local?) Irish sites and
three across the Sea in England.
Furthermore, Darvill notes that the pottery in the court cairns /is
characteristically of the Grimstone Lyles Hill series, which has a wide
spread distribution in Ireland, Scotland and Eastern England/ (ibid.
p. 314). This should have suggested to him that he was dealing with a
relatively complex socioeconomic organization that was able to stay in
contact by land and sea. Many of the tombs are concentrated on the
coast, but others form strings or chains that connect the coastal tomb
clusters at opposite coasts clear across Ireland. Thus, one could expect
that a sophisticated communication network existed in the British
Islands, similar tothose of the Denmark, where barrow roads connecting
harbors have been suggested for decades (S. Müller 1904, Mathiassen 1948).
Given the problems associated with the above-mentioned explanations for
the location of individual tombs, it goes without saying that
individual megalithic tombs probably did not function as central places
from which the territory of chiefdoms can be determined. This is not
only the case in the British Isles, but also in the TRB. For the TRB
Bakker applied Renfrew's approach to the tombs in Netherland and
Renfrew (1980) did the same for German tombs. But the assumption that
the tombs represent /central places/, has failed its test
(Fig. 16.1).[10] <#_ftn10>
The present analysis agrees with the conclusions of Hoika and Bakker.
Bakker and Groenman van Waateringe (1988:143) proposed that /social
factors were the sole determinants for the distribution of its
settlements, hunebeds (megalithic tombs) and inhumations without
aboveground monuments (earth/flat graves) of Netherland/. It was
concluded that tombs were preferably located within less than 400 m from
the available erratic boulders on loamy sands. They further connected
tomb alignments with the topography and prehistoric roads.
As early as 1982 Bakker had applied Renfrew's approach of using polygons
to determine the territorial boundaries to which tombs might be
related. The result clearly showed that the boundaries were meaningless,
or rather, that the tombs were not centers of territories. Renfrew's
Thiessen polygons were addressed by Bakker and Groenman-van Waateringe
(1988:143). The still found to be less than useful.
The tombs are thinly spread in the west and the polygons seem to
coincide with the peat bogs there. But in the/ northern zone ... six
known hunebeds are neatly arranged 5.9 to 7.0 km apart, on average
6.2 km from each other ... Several (tombs) of the Hondsrug are
meticulously aligned suggesting location on straight roads. these
alignments ... are often quite incompatible with any Thiessen polygon
arrangements/ (ibid. 1988:149). Yet the Renfrew game, as Bakker called
the approach did not end with an analysis of individual tombs. It has
also been applied to tomb groups.
15.3.2 Tomb groups or clusters define the territory of chiefdoms
The conjecture that tomb groups or clusters define the territory of
chiefdoms is also attributable to Renfrew. /Central Place Theory/
apparently did not account for the distribution of the neolithic
long-mounds of Dorset and Wiltshire, thus Renfrew came up with a new
explanation (Renfrew 1973 Fig. 2), which seems to suggest that
causewayed camps rather than individual tombs or even tomb groups,
functioned as central places. His real conclusion, somewhat lost in the
rather speculative 1973 article should, therefore, have been that the
location of causewayed camps combined with related tomb groups could
define the location of tribal or chiefly territories. This is in effect
what can be demonstrated for Kr. Uelzen.
In spite of Renfrew's sudden switch from tombs to causewayed camps, the
uncritical use of Thiessen polygons, drawn around arbitrarily defined
tomb clusters was accepted by archaeologists interested in the spatial
distribution of megalithic tombs. The result was the same as in the case
with individual tombs. Tomb clusters do not fit neatly into the
polygons. Again this can be demonstrated with Darvill's 1979 research,
and his method of dealing with the Irish passage-graves.
Darvill (1978 Fig. 10) illustrates what happens when one uses Thiessen
polygons to determine political boundaries based on tomb groups,
i.e. groups of Irish passage-graves, which are thought to be later than
the court cairns. Discovering a/ five- or six-level pyramidal hierarchy
of centers, /he is forced to reject the pattern developed by a rank-size
analysis of the tomb groups, because this would be /a similar pattern to
that of the Roman Empire.// /He, therefore, rightly concludes that /the
picture is possibly confused and exaggerated by the fact that a ritual
structure/ ... (because of) /its very complex nature may be different
from a political or social/ ... structure (Darvill 1978:322)/./
Due to this conclusion, he notes that the larger centers lie on a line.
In this case he is not referring to individual tombs, but rather to
groups or cemeteries containing a number of close by passage-graves.
This linear pattern would not have surprised him if he would have
observed, that the lines or chains of tombs cross the whole of Northern
Ireland, as if to indicate the shortest possible roads or communication
lines from coast to coast. In fact, the distribution pattern of the
passage-graves in Darvill's Fig. 10 is even more linear than that of the
court cairns, suggesting perhaps a more established and rationalized a
communication system that may have found expression in a road and water
transportation system which was already approximated by the earlier
court cairns.
Since Darvill was preoccupied with his effort to determine territories,
rather than establishing lines of communication, he was forced to fall
back on Thiessen polygons and the traditional argument of population
movement and migration as proposed in 1938. This is a rather unexpected
turn of events, because the author's introduction condemns the
resistance to his form of spatial analysis in traditional archaeology.
Due to this turn of events, he concludes that the passage-graves
indicate a two-level socio-political organization and adds that/ it is
evident from Fig. 10 that many of the barrows (80%?) lie on or near the
boundary of the territory. .../ /By adjusting the lines formed by the
barrows, no doubt a more realistic picture of the territories could be
produced /(Darvill 1978:324).//
/ /
In the Funnel Beaker culture area the use of Thiessen polygons has
created similar dilemmas. This is illustrated in Sweden by the
Falbygden's passage-grave area of northern Västergötland (Bakker and
Groenman-van Waateringe 1988 Fig. 10.5, Kælas 1981 Fig. 10). The area
still contains 240 of some 290 known tombs in an area of 500 km^2 , i.e.
nearly two tombs per square kilometer. As in Ireland, many tombs wind up
right on the boundary lines of the polygons. In fact, only one tomb
group, located on the west shore of a lake between the polygon of
Karleby and that of Dimbo, forms a truly self-contained group. All
others touch or cross the boundaries of the polygons. Even worse, many
tombs are not even enclosed by complete polygons. Here too, the obvious
existence of many continuous strings or chains of tombs could have been
more economically explained by hypothesizing a prehistoric road network.
Thus it must be concluded that neither individual tombs nor tomb
clusters can be used to define the boundaries of chiefdoms.
15.3.3 The tombs as territorial boundaries
The notion that the tombs themselves form a territorial boundary goes
back to the 8^th century, when prehistoric mounds were used as boundary
markers (Sippel 1980:138). Most importantly, it is known that thousands
of artificial (non-sepulchral) tumuli were erected as boundary markers
during the Middle Ages (ibid. pp. 139-40). The Boundary Theory,
therefore, seems to have no prehistoric basis, but it is still proposed
as a possible explanation of tomb location by several archaeologists.
Evidently, the Boundary Theory has not been applied to actual tomb
distributions and one can, therefore, only provide the views of Hoika
1986 and personal opinion.
The boundary concept is fundamentally different from that of a
territorial marker. The territorial marker theory suggests that a
semi-nomadic society, using slash and burn agriculture or cattle
breeding, marked ownership of its territory by constructing megalithic
tombs on its (newly?) acquired land. If this society built tombs in
different locations through time, this would result in local tomb
clusters or groups. However, it seems rather unlikely that such clusters
would form the observable and rather prevalent string- or chain-like
distribution of tombs noted above.
If tombs had been used to mark territorial boundaries, i.e. actually
formed the borders of complementary regions; long chains of tombs would
not be unexpected. Such chains are known from all regions of the Funnel
Beaker culture area. Occasionally the chains intersect other chains,
suggesting that territories could have been completely surrounded by
such tomb boundaries. Yet, there seems to be no reasonably sized area
that has ever been completely encircled by tombs.
Perhaps the only well documented modern data for territorial boundaries
marked by megalithic tombs was published by Hoika for the tombs on both
sides of the Oldenburg Graben of eastern Schleswig-Holstein. Hoika
(1986:201) concluded that:
/ /
It is likely that the Johannisbeck, a river that could only be crossed
in a few places, formed the division between two (TRB) communities, so
that the tombs were erected in their border areas. Something similar may
have occurred in the (TRB) communities of Seegalendorf, Gemeinde
Gremersdorf (Fig. 7), and near Neukirchen (Fig. 6), where the tombs
appear to be located on the edge of a large number of settlement and
individual find sites.
/ /
The Oldenburg Graben was no doubt a barrier and the suggestion of tomb
boundaries is intriguing (Hoika 1986:193-94 Fig. 7-8). Although
dismissed by Hoika, the argument for a limited connection between old
roads and their association with megalithic tombs is scientifically
testable and, therefore, will be discussed later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.4 Related Links
*/Central and North European Neolithic Chronology
/*
with summaries of individual cultures*/ /*
*/Neolithic/Copper Age Link Index
/*: Links
to News Bulletins, Articles, Site Reports, Databases, etc. about the
Neolithic/Copper Age in Europe.
*/Megalithic Tomb Index/*
*/: /*Scientific database
of 5000 North and Central European Long-Mounds (Long-Barrows), Tumuli,
and Megalithic Tombs, Including Gallery-graves.
Previous <14ModelChronology.htm> Home
Next <18LINGUI.htm>
<010Spatial_Analysis_MEGT_TOC.htm>
<010Spatial_Analysis_MEGT_TOC.htm>
Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> Frazer (e.g. 1959: 695-738) actually documents a much
larger series of European fire-festivals including lantern fires, Easter
fires etc.
[2] <#_ftnref2> e.g. Alexander and Archibald Thom 1978.
[3] <#_ftnref3> G. Hawkins 1973: 275-276. (References within the quote
were added).
[4] <#_ftnref4> Note that the location of the passage in Newgrange was
not known until about 1699 (e.g. Roy 1986).
[5] <#_ftnref5> The local effects of these changes are described.e.g.
Behre 1979, Hoika 1971, Klug et al. 1974, F. Voss et al. 1978.
[6] <#_ftnref6> e.g. Hark et al. 1975.
[7] <#_ftnref7> The long-mounds of Sarnowo are in the immediate vicinity
of a marsh.
[8] <#_ftnref8> Fischer 1956:84; my translation.
[9] <#_ftnref9> Renfrew 1973 Fig. 1, Tombs 12 and 13, 18 and 23, as well
as 19,10 and 21.
[10] <#_ftnref10> Bakker 1982, 1988, Hoika 1986. I brought my misgivings
about the shortcomings to Bakker?s attention in 1981 and he agreed at
that time that archaeologists need to draw attention to the
problematical use of Thiessen polygons in tomb research.