Added September 18, 1999. Updated April 25, 2006, 12:07
hours.
Figures are still being added! (If
no figures are not visible, it is a browser problem)
The
dissertation has a copyright. Please give proper credit when quoting its
content.
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 and similar monuments built
by Neolithic farmers in Northern Europe between about 3900-3000 B.C. It is specifically
concerned with those tombs left by the Trichterbecher Kultur, (TRB), 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 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
C14 dates of regional TRB Groups (after
Midgley 1992: 229 Fig. 74). North 1 Group = Southern Scandinavia, North II Group =
Schleswig-Holstein
The oldest C14 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.
The TRB existed from about 4400/4250 to 2950/2850 B.C.
(3600/3400 to 2400/2100 b.c.), 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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-Benešova 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.
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.
1.1
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.
Please send comments or
questions to Max Baldia.
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.
Calibrated radiocarbon
dates are abbreviation B.C. and b.c. signifies uncalibrated, conventional C14 dates.
TRB
is the most common acronym, but there are others (cf. Midgley 1992:31).
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.
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).
e.g. Bakker 1979a, 1992; Bakker et al. 1969; Burchard
et al. 1991; Czerniak et al. 1991; Jankowska and Wiílański 1991, Koíko 1981, Kowalczyk
1970, Kruk and Milisauskas 1981, 1977; Midgley 1985,
1992, Milisauskas 1978; Pape 1980; Tauber 1972.
This traditional
Scandinavian Neolithic relative dating scheme was defined by Becker (1947,
1948) and others, having since received additional elaboration.
Bakker
1988, 1992; Graham Clark 1977; Ebbesen 1985:54, Skaarup 1990:73; Hoika
1990b:53, 86.
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.
Bericht
der Tätigkeit der Römisch Germanische Kommission, Bericht der
Römisch Germanischen Kommission 58/II,
1977/1978:709 and 59, 1978:568.
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.
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.
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.
e.g. Rennebach 1974, 1985,
Nagel 1975, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1986, Hollnagel 1975; Nilius 1975; Nilius and Warnke 1984; Schuldt 1974.
Czarnetzki 1978, Herrmann 1979, Schoppa 1962, Schwabedissen 1962,
Tode 1962, Unze 1958.
