Added
- Figures are
complete. If no figures are visible, it is a browser problem
- The
conversion caused problems with the footnote links.
The
dissertation has a copyright. Please give proper credit when quoting its
content.
A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS
5. ALTERNATIVE MEGALITHIC TOMB ORIGIN THEORIES
By
Maximilian O.
All rights reserved
5.1 Introduction
Figure 5.1. Idealized megalithic tomb
distribution (after Fischer 1979 and Kowalczyk 1970). Atlantic tombs = chambers
with long passage. Note that there are several problems with this map. 1. The Scandinavian
TRB boundary should include the
5.2 The Western Origin Theories
A myriad of arguments for the western origin of megalithic tombs have
been circulated over the centuries. Many of them have been outlined by Daniel
(1958, 1980). U. Fischer (1979a)
furnished one of the best documented surveys of the diverse architectural
connections between TRB tombs and similar structures in the west, while
Schrickel (1966, 1976) did the same for the German gallery-graves.
Western Origin Theories have their roots in Goguet's view that northern
Diffusionists imagined that people from
In the absence of a detailed chronology, architectural and cultural
differences observable in the structure and content of the tombs often were
overlooked as the myopic focus concentrated on general distributions, lumping
all sorts of structures together. Charts reminiscent of Westendorp's 1822
geographic tomb boundaries failed to take into account the actual locations,
glossing over considerable gaps between regional tomb clusters (Fig. 5.1).[1] Based on such
idealized maps it is still held that tombs occur no more than 400 km from
the coast (e.g. Beier 1991a:28,
U. Fischer 1979a:27). This observation legitimized the claim that tombs diffused
from the eastern
Figure 5.2. Maximum distances to coast from the
center of
This is not to deny that human interaction was facilitated by the sea, encouraging
the popularity of monumental tomb architecture, once established. But its
origins appear in separate places at different times (Renfrew 1983a), when
various cultures reached the necessary social complexity to warrant the
expenditure of time and energy. In
The western oriented mindset led to overly zealous mapping procedures
that favored western continuity, reversing this trend in the east so that
megalithic chambers were only recorded up to the
Even in the days before
carbon-14 dating it was becoming clear that the idea of ... deriving ... tombs
... from the domed subterranean tombs of
These facts did not deter MacKie (1977a, b) to proclaim that wise men
from predynastic
Renfrew (1973) pointed out that C14 dates made the
diffusionist theory untenable. L'Helgouach (1973) used C14 dates to
declare the passage-graves on the French Atlantic coast the oldest tombs and
the center of origin for European monumental megalithic architecture. This
matched with Giot's (1960) opinion that the tombs in Brittany developed from
Mesolithic antecedents, leading Renfrew to consider primarily local origins,[4] but others now
interpreted the antiquity of the tombs in Brittany to mean that the origins
must be sought there (e.g. J. Müller 1987). The proposals can be divided
into primary and secondary (indirect) western origins.
3.1.2 Primary Western Origin Theories
The primary western origin theories suggest that some if not all aspects
of megalithic tomb architecture must have reached the TRB culture area
directly via
The Atlantic origin theory of dolmen rejects the
Autochthonous Theory outright. It assumes that even the earliest
megalithic TRB tombs must be derived from the west.
J. Müller (1987:72, Fig. 1) compiled C14 dates from
northern European tombs, listing the interquartile C14 ranges for
early tomb types: Amorican 3640-3030 b.c., British 3230-2560 b.c.,
Danish 3010-2655 b.c. Based solely on the C14 dates, he
suggested a diffusion model starting from the Amorican region of the northern
Biscay bay and adjacent west central France.
He placed blind faith in an
insufficient number of C14 dates (ibid. 1987:73 Fig. 1),
especially when dealing with the TRB. For
Figure
5.3. Evolution
of French tombs and ceramics (Boujot and Cassen 1993:489 Fig. 3).
The Atlantic origin of
passage-graves accepts the Autochthonous Theory only for the original
megalithic chambers (urdolmen). Consequently, it assumes that the custom of
collective burials in passage- and gallery-graves is the key evidence for
western influence (e.g. Beier 1991a,
TRB passage-graves with long passages were thought to be the oldest type
(e.g. Kælas 1956, 1967) although they occur only in or near the TRB
North Group, leaving a large, unexplained gap between them and Amorican
tombs (Fig. 5.1). The diffusionist paradigm saw passage length as a genetic western trait and explained its
occurrence in
There was yet another twist to the Western Origin Theory. It was based on
the same preconceptions as those just outlined, but assumed that the TRB
West Group's passage-graves were older than dolmen. These chambers were
thought to be the only type in Netherland (cf. Bakker 1979a with
references). Such a purity of type was viewed as evidence that the TRB
West Group was the first place of introduction. The greater variety of
chambers to the east and north was, therefore, seen as reduced contact leading
to imperfect duplication of the ideal chamber type.
This theoretical perspective received a further boost when it was
observed that the West Group's passages (whose lack of length was overlooked)
are sometimes funnel-shaped. The shapes is also found among a few long passages
in
At the heart of this theory is the assumption that urdolmen were designed
for a single supine, extended burial, in contrast to the passage-graves, which
were supposedly designed for collective interments (e.g. Beier
1991a:174-177, 191; Clark and Piggott 1965/1970:254). Whether or not dolmen
were really designed for single interments is another question, because even
though they usually contain no evidence of human interments at all, while some
contain more than one individual, as described later. That passage-graves were
ossuaries is controversial (cf. Grupe 1984, Knöll 1980, Raddatz 1979). Grupe
(1984) observed that natural processes, including animal action, were responsible
in the distribution of skeletal parts. Likewise, Bennike (1985b) attributed the
disarticulated state of the skeletons in the passage-grave of Huldbjerg,
southern Langeland, to natural decomposition and the addition of later
interments, rather than culturally determined disarticulation of the body
before or during interment.
Häusler accepted the traditional assumption that passage-graves and
collective burials are derived from the west, seeing them mainly as ossuaries
(Häusler 1992:291). He contrasts this
supposedly western custom of multiple burials with the traditional
earth-graves, assuming that the earliest mound covered Baalberge and Salzmünde
stone cists (Plattengräber and Blockkisten), and the Nordic urdolmen
were also designed for single interments (Häusler 1992:291; 1994:47). Extended
burials further occur in the Kujavian long-mounds (ibid. 1994:47). The northern
part of the Central German Walternienburg culture likewise follows this
tradition and in the gallery-graves of
In German the gallery-graves, such as Altendorf, extended burials
predominated, but piled up skulls, perhaps from earlier interments, were
frequently found, especially near the sides of the chambers (Jordan 1954,
Kappel 1979:25-31, Fig. 22-28). Likewise, fifteen skulls and numerous long
bones were piled near the northeast side wall of the four-yoke passage-grave Sieben Steinhäuser 807/B.[8] This has suggested
to Laux that the gallery-grave builders from the Hercynian Zone were
interred in this TRB tomb (Laux 1991:51-52). But a similar pile occurs in the
closed urdolmen of Hjortgårde 9 (Fig. 8.2), probably indicating that
this practice occurred in
Laux further presumes that Passage-grave 810/D (ID 3703;
Fig. 7.1, 10) was constructed in imitation of Loire-type dolmen and
similar forms in
Laux points out that the extra-wide Karlsteine
near Osnabrück are made of sandstone, while others consist of the heavier and
bulkier glacial erratics. Thus Laux sees the origin of the so-called
extra wide passage-graves in the Loire-type dolmen (Laux 1991:58-59). How
and why these dolmen evolve into passage-graves is not explained in the
literature, and similarly wide chambers occur as far away as
3.2.2 Secondary Western Origin Theories.
Rössen and Michelsberg are
traditionally defined as western cultures. Theoretically, they could have
influenced the development of TRB tombs and gallery-graves.
Rössen Origins: Bosinski
(1961:171-185) discussed the possibility that many if not most German menhirs
and certain megalithic chambers are associated with the Rössen culture. A
logical extension of his ideas would mean that the gallery-graves and perhaps
even the megalithic tombs of the TRB have their roots in the subterranean tombs
of the Rössen culture.
Bosinski excavated the vicinity of the ca. 1.20 m high menhir in
Einselthum. He found several stone artifacts and features which could have been
associated with the menhir. These included a stone pavement, post holes,
evidence of fire, several poorly preserved bones, including pig bones, teeth,
pits, and what could be interpreted as a megalithic chamber (Fig. 5.4).
The dimensions fall in the range of the Nordic urdolmen. An undecorated Rössen
globular pot was found. Most sherds belong to the older Rössen.
Figure 5.4. Megalithic-like
reconstructed chamber at the Langer Stein
menhir by Einselthum, Kr. Kirchheimbolanden,
He concluded that the pit, the pavement and the megalithic construction, as he calls the chamber,
were all of the same age. All stones were of the same local limestone and there
was no evidence that the menhir was erected separately. All structures were probably
part of a related complex, which may have had ritual significance due to
evidence of fires in several areas. Thus the chamber may have been a below
ground burial site that was marked above ground by the menhir. The lack of
human remains and burial goods is, à la
Kirchner, interpreted as possible evidence that menhirs are associated with
cenotaphs.
Bosinski (1961:179-184) compared the above site to several others,
suggesting a Rössen affiliation. To demonstrate the likely connection between
menhirs and the Rössen culture he cautiously provided a map that indicates a
strong correlation between Rössen sites and menhirs (ibid. Fig. 8). A
large menhir was reported to have been associated with a trapezoidal mound and
megalithic chamber at Muschenheim (Menke 1993, personal communication May
1994). However, the dating of those few comparative examples is generally
rather questionable[9] and archaeologists
in the Rheinland question both the reconstruction of the Einselthum chamber and
the association of megaliths with Rössen (U. Fisher verbal communication
1994, Kriese 1979:32).
Michelsberg Origins: All
Western Origin Theories have one thing in common. They focus on the megalithic
chambers and largely ignore the origin and evolution of the mounds. This is
precisely the reverse of the Eastern Origin Theory, which focuses on the
mounds and ignores the chambers. But if the western origin of the TRB's tomb
building activity has any basis in fact, there should be evidence of mound
building immediately to its (south)west.
Indeed, it is possible that the Belgian MBK built such mounds. Bakker et al.
(1969 Fig. 13) provided a map which includes two possible Belgian
long-mounds originally described by De Laet (1967:340 as referenced in
Bakker et al. 1969). The idea that the
Belgian mounds were already built in the MBK deserves further attention, since
they could have been built between 3600 and 2900 b.c.[10]
If one assumes a late date, the Belgian monumental architecture may have
been a result of contacts with the TRB interaction sphere, negating a western
origin. However, if one presumes an early date, the mounds may provide at least
a theoretical bridge between the Amorican tombs (J. Müller's 1987
interquartile range of 3640-3030 b.c.) and the early non-megalithic TRB
mounds of
In summary, the Western Origin Theory ignores that, in the rare cases
when human bones are present, collective burials can be demonstrated in some
urdolmen and tiny cists, not just in passage-graves.[11] The notion itself
requires a distinction between single interments and collective burials, which
is not easily done, given the often far too meager osteological remains, frequent
secondary interments, and the likely rearrangement and even removal of primary
interments. Further more, there is a lack of scientific evidence for direct
temporal, geographical and cultural connections between the TRB tombs and
similar tombs along the
Therefore, it must be concluded that the reasoning behind the Western
Origin Theory is questionable at best, especially in light of the widespread use of
non-megalithic graves which may have given rise to similar structures in stone
in different places at disparate times. Besides, the construction of the box
-like urdolmen does not require extraordinary architectural training. The
notion that such ideas and skills had to come from outside the TRB, a culture
that produced massive causewayed camps and had wheels and wagons is, to say the
least, surprising. There is nothing in the tomb architecture nor its
distribution that precludes an autochthonous development. The distribution of
urdolmen around the western Baltic and in the vicinity of the
5.3 The Eastern Origin Theory
Promulgated by Midgley (1985), the Eastern Origin Theory focuses on a
special tomb type - the so called earthen
long-barrow with timber enclosure in a bedding trench and without
megalithic chamber.[12] Unfortunately, the term as used by Midgley
includes mounds with megalithic enclosures (German: Kammerlose Hünenbetten) of
Continuing this tradition, the Eastern Origin Theory proposes that the
Polish mounds were the prototype of the TRB's monumental burial architecture
(Midgley 1985: 82, 205-219, 1992:481). The basis for this theory was
four extremely early C14 dates, and her revival of the idea that the
mounds were houses for the dead.
3.1.3 Houses as prototypes for tombs
Although ascribed to Childe, the idea that long-mounds are houses for the
dead is a recurring theme since Westendorp's publication some 200 years
earlier. According to Midgley (1985)
trapezoidal Danubian type Lengyel long-houses are the prototype for
northern
Beneath Barrow 8, GabaÓówna
discovered traces of
The small Sarnowo houses and similar ones throughout the TRB often have a
porch or an antechamber-like feature,[14]
which may suggest an alternative hypothesis. The floor plan is akin to
front entrance dolmen with antechamber or wide passage, as well as
gallery-graves with antechamber. In fact, Schuldt (1972) called certain
antechamber like constructions a foyer (Windfang)
in analogy to house architecture designed to keep out the cold wind. The
resemblance between the small Sarnowo houses, the burnt ritual building from the Gaj long barrow (Midgley
1992:329) and related wooden Kujavian chambers, as well as the TRB
cult houses (e.g. Midgley 1992:441-43, Fig. 127), may mean that
there was a relationship between megalithic chambers, wooden chambers, small
TRB houses and cult houses, but not Kujavian long-mounds. A similar
relationship may have existed between round ended houses, such as Wittenwater
(Schirnig 1979 Fig. 11) and the round-ended structures, identified as
(mortuary?) houses, within the trapezoidal Bygholm Nørremark timber
enclosure (Fig. 13.3).[15]
Finally it should be noted that even the interpretation of several of TRB
long-houses has been questioned, so that the Barkær and Stengade houses are now
generally regarded as tombs.[16]
Also many barrows acquired their final
shape by a series of extensions ... or by superimposition of a different shape
(Midgley 1992:465) so that Midgley's (1992:481) conclusion that the connection between the central European long houses and the
TRB burial mounds is not merely coincidental, is untenable.
3.2.3 Controversial C14 dates
The pottery from Sarnowo is EN A/B (Wiklak 1983), but Koíko dates the central
The Sarnowo C14 date, around 3620 b.c. ..., is not a
priori unacceptable. Still, ... the mean
value ... should ... have been one or two centuries later. Besides, some
caution is to be recommended because the quality of the charcoal sample was of
'quality B', not 'A', and the sherds are not definitely diagnostic for TRB A/B.
A look at the stratigraphy (NiesioÓowska
1994, Voosteen 1996b:178-179) shows that the C14 date stems from a
pit, that was overlain by the primary grave in the mound, confirming that it
does not date the mortuary site. Although the pit contains early TRB pottery, it
may not even date the ceramics. It could date older material not directly
associated with the pottery. It may also simply be a fluke, due to the nature
of radiocarbon behavior. For this reason it is recommended to date at least
four samples from the same feature.
In addition, the chronological preeminence of the Polish tombs is due to
an over-reliance on only four early C14 dates (U.Fischer 1987:138).
Thus Midgley's literal interpretation of these dates causes six problems:
First, the lone C14 date from Sarnowo and a mere three dates
(4110±80, 3780±45, and 2075±60 b.c.) from the Łupawa
tombs[18] were clearly insufficient to draw sweeping
conclusions about the origin of megalithic tombs.
Second, the Sarnowo charcoal does not belong to the mound construction
period. It is in reality from a pit cut by the central grave that was sealed by
the later barrow (Midgley 1985:221; 1992:201).
Third, the youngest Łupawa date (2075 b.c.), taken from
a hearth next to the barrow, obviously does not date the Łupawa
tomb, because it would make this tomb 2035 to 1705 uncalibrated C14
years younger than the other Łupawa tombs as implied by Midgley's 1985
chronology.
Fourth, the Łupawa date of 4110 b.c. is 330 uncalibrated C14
years older then the remaining usable date of 3780 b.c.
Fifth, the Pomeranian dates are 490±80 to 160±45 uncalibrated C14
years older than the Kujavian date of 3620±60 b.c. If taken literally,
this would mean that the origin of the Polish tombs occurred in
Sixth, all dates that pertain to the actual construction of megalithic
tombs are at least 980 uncalibrated C14 years younger than the
oldest Polish C14 tomb dates. Eleven Danish C14 dates are
listed by Midgley herself. Only nine of these mark actual early tomb
construction.[19] The dates have a
mean of 2978 b.c. and a range of 270 C14 years. This differs
markedly from her four Polish C14 dates, which have a combined
statistical range of ca. 2000 uncalibrated C14 years. Even when the youngest date is left out, the
remaining three still have a range of 490 uncalibrated C14 years.[20]
3.3.3 Kujavia as center of TRB tomb origin
The Eastern Origin Theory argues that Kujavia was the center of origin
for TRB tombs.[21] This means that
Kujavia had the longest time to develop additional architectural forms and one
would expect the greatest variety in tomb architecture in
But the Eastern Origin Theory also fails to explain the change from non-
and sub-megalithic graves to the use of megaliths. Their use is quite
pronounced in the centrally located North Group and continues in the
West Group, but declines from north/west to east/southeast
(Table 5.1). A century ago Krause and Schoetensack (1893) noted that this
lack of megaliths in
However, the availability of suitably large erratics must have influenced
the location and size of megalithic tombs (Bakker 1988: 151-155, Gehl
1972:110, Schuldt 1972: Map 15). Thus the lack of suitably large
boulders has been invoked by Bakker (1992:73 ff.) as causing the narrow
width of the few known passage-grave-like cists of Poland attributed to the KAK
by Wis_'lan_'ski. He further states that other than cultural differences, the
absence of boulders large enough to serve as capstones for passage graves
may have been the major factor in building only small tombs in the Uckermark on
the Polish/German border (Bakker 1992:73-74).
Closer examination of the Uckermark tombs shows that Gehl's line, marking
the Brandenburg End Moraine, ends west of the Uecker, where the major
string of urdolmen and cists heads southwest to the main tomb cluster near the
Randow. But here the location of erratics suitable for building megalithic
tombs, as mapped by Gehl, again appear. Furthermore, the sub-megalithic cists
(Schuldt 1972 Map 9 F) actually coexist geographically with urdolmen
and extended-dolmen (but not the later grand-dolmen and passage-graves; ibid.
Map 3-9). Of 287 tombs 38.68% are megalithic tombs, 7.32% are either urdolmen
or cists, and 40.77% are cists, while only 1.39% are long-mounds without
megalithic chambers.[23]
Thus the architecture is almost evenly split between megalithic and
sub-megalithic structures in spite of the supposed lack of large boulders.
Similarly, Schuldt's West Group of unchambered mounds falls well within
the moraine region that provided the building blocks for geographically
coexisting megalithic tombs, Midgley's (1992:469) interpretation of Schuldt's
1972 Map 15 not withstanding.
Nilius (1979:28) explained the existence of small chambers by invoking
cultural influences from
Thus the decline in the use and size of megaliths in the TRB's east and
south is most likely due to a number of factors that may include a culturally
determined regional trend. In the east the construction material for chambers
changes from the principal use of megaliths to the dominance of timbers, which
could simply be due to greater timber resources.[25]
This is illustrated by comparing the number and types of chambers in
Schleswig-Holstein with those of
It must, therefore, be concluded that the incongruent C14
dates, the similarities in ceramic stiles, the occurrence of EN C and
early MN pottery in most Polish tombs (e.g. Piontek and Weber 1987:15-20),
and the decreased use of megaliths in the east, indicate that the Kujavian
tombs are nothing more than a regional variant of the overall mound
distribution. The observable differences in Polish tombs are simply components of regional and
interregional trends. These components permitted local and regional variation
of common architectural (and ritual) themes. As such, the Polish tombs
represent the eastern most manifestations of the TRB's monumental burial
architecture and symbolize the intricate communication network of the whole TRB
culture area, suggesting an autochthonous evolution.
Table 5.1
|
Number of identifiable
chambers |
|
Chamber Schleswig-Holstein Poland |
|
UD 56 0 PD 7 0 ED 94 4 GD
9 2 GG
98 *9 NC 36 80 ? ? 74 140 |
|
UD = urdolmen, PD = Polygonal-dolmen, ED = extended-dolmen, GD = grand-dolmen, GG = passage-grave, NC = non-megalithic chamber or unchambered long-mound, ?? = mound with unknown chamber, *includes passage-grave-like KAK cists. |
5.4 The Autochthonous Origin Theory
The Autochthonous Theory, addressed more fully in the following
chapters, compensates for many of the shortcomings in the other origin
theories. Kossinna observed that the TRB developed from the Ertebølle culture.
This would imply that the TRB burial architecture also evolved from
Late Mesolithic antecedents. Indeed, the Mesolithic graves show
considerable architectural complexity and Häusler sees the TRB's extended
burials as a continuation of this ancient tradition. The Swedish archaeologist
Malmer even suggested that the dolmen developed from small, little known Mesolithic
stone cists in Scandinavia.
That the graves preceded and coexisted alongside megalithic tombs is
indisputable (e.g. Madsen 1971, 1979; Jørgensen 1977, Tempel 1972, 1979a;
Schwabedissen 1979a). Given the small likelihood of locating the sub-megalithic
burials, they, rather than megalithic tombs, should be viewed as the standard
burial architecture. After all, the sub-megalithic graves are distributed
throughout the entire TRB culture area including Poland and the Czech Republic
(e.g. Houëtˇová
1960), while the megalithic tombs have a more restricted distribution.
The use of monumental long-mounds without megalithic chambers began
sometime around 3900 B.C. Among the oldest Danish tombs is the Lindebjerg
long-mound, belonging to Svaleklint Group dated at 3060±100 b.c. /
3814±109 B.C. (Midgley 1992, Tauber 1970:135). The oldest monuments of the
Volling Group are Barkær, averaging 3200±80 b.c. / 3961±97 B.C.,
and Mosegården, whose earliest date is 3130±90 b.c. / 3887±103 B.C.
The wooden A-frame chamber from Konens Høj
(Volling Group) and the wooden façade in the
Svaleklint Group's Rude long-mound were built around 2900 b.c. /
3645 B.C. Furthermore, Rude and Barkær contain sub-megalithic cists,
recalling Malmer's Mesolithic cists.
T. Madsen (1982:212) points out that, although the closed urdolmen is consistently dated to an early phase (3100-2650 b.c. / 3900-3360 B.C.), only a couple of dolmen out of 204 known tombs, including earth graves, belong to this phase in Eastern Jutland. This would have coincided with Schwabedissen's (1979a) eighteen C14 dates for the Satrup ceramic group (3100-2770 b.c. µ=2930 b.c.). However, T. Madsen's modified this chronology, as addressed previously. It dates the beginning of megalithic tomb construction to 3400 B.C., which still coincides with the later Satrup dates (cf. Midgley 1992:496) and Hoika 1990, 1994 observes that the reused extended dolmen Rastorf LA 1 contains Satrup like sherds. But P. O. Nielsen (personal communication 1996) minimizes this view and observes that the Fuchsberg/Virum C14 dates imply “a likely date of the EN II date of 3550/3500‑3300 BC.” He justifies his view by pointing to Koch’s dissertation research and observes that Sarup I has five dates yielding a “mean value uncal. 2700 bc; cal. 3490-3370 BC" and “Toftum (eleven dates), (has a) mean value uncal. 2650 bc; cal. 3360 BC.”
Regardless of the precise beginning of megalithic tomb construction,
which I would place between 3650-3500 B.C., non-megalithic tombs have
generally earlier dates (Persson and Sjögren, 1996) and often contain EN I
pottery, but continued to be constructed during part of the EN II. This
means that megalithic architecture developed gradually and was neither the most
popular, nor the only form of burial architecture in the beginning. It is,
therefore, quite likely that megalithic chambers were gradually added to the
normal graves in geographically and economically strategic areas, as
demonstrated in the Flintbek LA 3 long-mound and many other tombs.
The island of Sjælland must have been among the most strategic areas in
the TRB. Here some 70% of Knöll's (1976) earliest dolmen, oriented parallel to
the long-mound and containing EN C pottery, are known, suggesting that the
use of this primeval chamber may have spread from there to adjacent regions
(Aner 1963), or developed there in concert with other western islands as well
as the adjacent mainland. This spread probably occurred along ancient
thoroughfares, expanding south across the Elbe along the
Fuchsberg-Haaßel-Wolkenwehe interaction routes,[26]
for which Schwabedissen suggested an C14 date of ca.
2800 b.c./3600 B.C. In Sweden a similar northward trend may also be
demonstrated.
Therefore, it must be concluded that the Autochthonous Theory can be
supported by a logical, geographic and chronological evolution of tomb types as
demonstrated in the following chapters.
5.5 Related Links
Central
and North European Neolithic Chronology with summaries of
individual cultures. The Comparative Archaeology.
Neolithic Chronology. The Comparative Archaeology
Neolithic/Copper Age Link Index: Links to News Bulletins, Articles, Site Reports, Databases, etc. about the Neolithic/Copper Age in Europe. The Comparative Archaeology
Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.