Added September 18, 1999. Updated April 25, 2006, 11:47 hours.

• 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. Baldia 1993, 1995, 1999-April 25, 2006©
All rights reserved

5.1 Introduction

Egypt, Greece, the Cyclades, Iberia, Brittany, the Paris Basin, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe have all been considered as centers of megalithic tomb origin (e.g. Daniel 1958, Fischer 1979a, Midgley 1985). Clearly, the TRB burial architecture is controversial. Archaeologists are divided into three major camps, subscribing to a Western, Eastern, and a Northern European or autochthonous place of origin. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate these theories.

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 Island of Gotland and Oslo Bay, where megalithic tombs are found. 2. The entire coastal region of Norway ,up to Trondheim, may also be included in the TRB boundary based on various TRB-like artifacts. 3. In the south, the boundary needs to be expanded to include Austrian Baalberge pottery and there are similarities between the TRB and the Mondsee pottery. 4. The connection between the Paris Basin tombs and the German gallery-graves is based on only a few tombs, most of which are undated, have later dates than the TRB tombs, and are of uncertain cultural affiliation. 5. The location of megalithic tombs must be extended beyond the Oder River, because there are numerous megalithic tombs in Poland (and in the Czech Republic?).

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 Europe was always culturally retarded when compared to the Mediterranean. Thus Montelius concluded in 1899 that the eastern Mediterranean was the most logical place of origin for megalithic tombs. The idea was taken to its logical extreme by G. Elliot Smith, who in 1911 proclaimed that all megalithic structures came from the Nile. When the majority of antiquarians and archaeologists realized that the tombs predated the Roman Empire, a century old western mind-set still inhibited their acceptance of an autochthonous development (Daniel 1980:78). Instead it led to an alternative concept - the Theory of Diffusion. Thus even in the mid 20th Century, the diffusionists, led by V. G. Childe, expressed ideas developed a hundred years earlier by people like Wächter (1841:9).

Diffusionists imagined that people from Crete and the Aegean Islands introduced megalithic architecture to Europe in form of a religious cult. Regional differences in architecture were simply attributed to different sects (Childe 1947:46) and local differences were dismissed as domestic peculiarities arising from latent indigenous traditions (cf. U. Fischer 1979a:27).

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 Mediterranean along the Atlantic coast (Daniel 1958; Renfrew 1983:154 left hand map). Yet in western Europe there is virtually no place more than 400 km from one ocean shore or another. Even TRB tombs are in an area, where the maximal distance from the center of Europe to the shore ranges only from 520 to 475 km (Fig. 5.2).

Figure 5.2. Maximum distances to coast from the center of Europe. Measurements based on the following: Bremerhaven-Genoa (1000 km) Bremerhaven-Venice (950 km), Travemünde-Venice (950 km), Trzebież -Trieste (900 km), Gadańsk-Trieste (1040 km).

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 Brittany and the channel islands monumental tomb building may have started between 4800-4500 B.C. with humble graves and mounds (Boujot and Cassen 1993). This was followed by small dolmen-like structures that evolved into polygonal dolmen-like chambers, passage-graves, and gallery-graves (Fig. 5.3). In and around the western Baltic a similar process started five to eight centuries later, probably ending earlier than in the west, and having a different evolutionary trajectory.

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 Oder (Fig. 5.1).[2] The megalithic chambers and stone-lined long-mounds to the east of that region were often ignored or seen as unrelated. Similarly, the southern and northern tombs were often neglected.[3] Daniel (1980:87-88) recalled the diffusionists' efforts to maintain their point of view even in light of new and contradictory facts:

Even in the days before carbon-14 dating it was becoming clear that the idea of ... deriving ... tombs ... from the domed subterranean tombs of Mycenae was chronologically impossible. As second line of defense the hypothesis was adjusted backward in time to the vaulted tombs of the Messara in Crete and the rock-cut tombs of the Cyclades. Now both carbon-14 and thermoluminesnece determinations show that European megalithic chambers antedate any collective tombs in the eastern Mediterranean.

These facts did not deter MacKie (1977a, b) to proclaim that wise men from predynastic Egypt and Mesopotamia built the tombs.

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 France and/or the Atlantic coast. They focus on the two basic chamber types: the origin of dolmen and the origin of passage-graves.

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. Germany's gallery-graves were said to be derived from the Paris Basin in the “second half of the third millennium,” while other kinds of interactions (Wechselbeziehungen) influenced “Ireland, Great Britain, Scandinavia, North Germany and the Netherlands ... up to ca. 2400bc,” i.e. 3000 B.C. (J. Müller 1987:74).

He placed blind faith in an insufficient number of C¹⁴ dates (ibid. 1987:73 Fig. 1), especially when dealing with the TRB. For Denmark he used nine dates from varying unspecified types of long-mounds and one lone date for a passage-grave. For Germany an interaquartile range without the number of C¹⁴ dates or any reference to a tomb is provided for dolmen. The same is true for Danish urdolmen, yet he stated that in Denmark the construction of the simple dolmen begins in the EN C at 3100bc (1987:72), i.e. ca. 3900 B.C. - a statement contradicted by P. O. Nielsen (1984) based on the earliest C¹⁴ date of a dolmen (Ølstykke = 3600/3450 B.C.) in Denmark, where most archaeologists argue that the beginning to megalithic tomb construction dates to about 3400 B.C., as discussed elsewhere. No effort was made to develop a typology that explains the sudden appearance of Atlantic/Amorican passage-graves and their evolution into the several tomb types, including allees couvertes and Nordic dolmen, through time and space. Nonetheless, Beier (1991a:21-22), referencing J. Müller's brief article, explains the German menhirs, gallery-graves and other structures as resulting from French impulses and attributes the dawning of collective burial practices (in the TRB's MN) to such western influences (ibid. 174).

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, Clark and Piggott 1965/1970, Daniel 1958). The introduction of these new chamber types must have occurred after the true urdolmen with supposedly single interments were already built in the north (e.g. Knöll 1975:371). The initial construction of passage-graves, which, as it was argued, did not occur until the MN Ib, reinforced this view.[5]

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 Scandinavia as follows: “Again, the Iberian Peninsula could have been the place of origin and the French coast along with Great Britain would have been intermediate locations.”[6] It was, therefore, assumed that long passages, together with collective burial practices, were introduced by sea (e.g. Daniel 1958, U. Fischer 1979a). The notion was reinforced by the previously mentioned observation that megalithic tombs are within 400 km of the ocean.

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 Sweden. The trait was supposedly inherited from the long Atlantic passages in Brittany. But this funnel-shape is the functional result of trying to integrating the passage walls with the oval to kidney-shaped mound enclosures and/or accommodation of the ceremonial area. It seems to have developed separately in Sweden and the TRB West Group. Besides, there may be over 1200 uncalibrated C¹⁴ years difference between the building of the French and the TRB tombs with more or less funnel-shaped passage.[7]

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 Hesse extended burials may also predominate (ibid. 1994:50). Häusler thus attributes the predominance of single, extended, supine burials, commonly found in the disparate earth-graves of the TRB, to a Mesolithic substratum.

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 Scandinavia as early as the EN C, which would negate a western origin of this custom.

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 Brittany (Laux 1991:51). His view is based on the chamber form and the selection of angular quartzite blocks that could imitate the limestone slabs used in the French tombs. But the use of thin limestone-like slabs together with some granite erratics is also common in the Falbygden area of Sweden, so that the architecture was most likely dictated by local raw materials rather than ill-defined long-distance cultural influences. Therefore, a simpler solution is that Tomb D may have been constructed first when the most ideal construction material, including the oversized, flat capstone were readily available. Moreover, having to cope with leftovers would explain the undersized third capstone of the largest and presumably latest 4+4 side-stone passage-grave B. An identical capstone arrangement can also be found in the northern Falbygden area at Axval, Skärv 81, which is part of a loose group of three tombs (Rooseveltsson 1992). This may confirm Weber's (1993a) model predicting that architectural changes would be dictated by changes in the availability of raw material.

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 Sweden. In fact, the mean width the six largest passage-graves in the current data base actually exceeds that of the gallery-graves. In addition, the width of both chamber types fit into the range of TRB tombs, implying a single statistical population. Generally, the determining factor for capstone dimensions was not the size, but rather the weight, leading to wider passage-graves in Västergötland and western Lower Saxony, as well as the wide gallery-graves in the Hercynian Zone. Last, but not least, the physical evidence for a geographic and chronological relationship between German and French gallery-graves, to be analyzed later, is exceedingly speculative.

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, Germany (1.8-1.6:1.1-0.9:0.8-0.6 m), possibly dated to the Rössen culture (Bosinski 1961 Fig. 7).

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 Jutland. If one adds J. Müller's contention that the Sarnowo date is later than those of the Amorican tombs and accepts it as a terminus post quem (J. Müller 1987: 72), one cannot entirely rule out an early, but ill-defined, tomb building activity derived from the west. But Brittany is over 1000 km from East Jutland, Poland is even more distant, and the Belgian mound's cultural affiliation is unclear (Bakker personal communication 1981). Thus a link between Brittany via the MBK of Belgium can probably not be supported, although a MBK origin may yet be demonstrated by the ongoing Muschenheim tomb excavations (Menke 1993:313 Table 2).

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 Atlantic. Nor are there at present demonstrated solid chronological and geographic continuities between other parts of France, such as the Paris Basin, and the Hercynian tombs (cf. Beier 1991b:417 Fig. 1).

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 Elbe, which cannot be explained by the Western Origin Theory, instead implies a concentrated, cohesive geographically and chronologically independent autochthonous development.

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 Denmark, Germany and Poland, as well as a few true earthen long-barrows. The strict definition would exclude virtually all Polish and German long-mounds, because they are lined with megalithic and nearly megalithic stones, not timber. Only Jutland and immediately adjacent areas have a few real timber-lined earthen long-barrows (Madsen 1979a, Midgley 1985 Fig 10). Far to the south, the early phases of Mound 6, Halle-Dölauer Heide and some of the many Czech mounds fall into this category. In spite of this fact, Ashbee (1970), Madsen (1979) and Midgley (1985) follow Piggott ***Child???? in correlating the British earthen long-barrows and German long-mounds.

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 Europe's earthen long barrows and megalithic tombs from Poland to Great Britain, suggesting TRB/Lengyel coexistence. The C¹⁴ dates for the Lengyel are 4000/3900 - 2800/2700 b.c. (4600/4540-3440/3340 B.C.). U. Fischer (1987 and verbal communication May 1994) doubts that Danubian groups, such as the Brzeíº Kujawski, still existed during the TRB (Fig. 2.29). Yet Midgley (1992:203), following Koíko, continued to argue for contemporaneity with Sarnowo, Pikutkowo and Brzeíº Kujawski on the basis of two C¹⁴ dates from Long-house 56 at Brzeíº Kujawski (3580±210 b.c. / 4380±240 B.C. and 2565±210 b.c. / 3214±282 B.C.). She added that pottery with TRB-like ladder ornaments, an amphora (apparently imported from the TRB) found in a deeply stratified Brzeíº Kujawski pit (3310±190 b.c. / 4093±214 B.C.), and a shell necklace of a female skeleton from Pikutkowo indicate not only contemporaneity, but also evidence of TRB/Lengyel interaction (ibid.). Yet even if one ignores the huge standard deviations of the dates and accepts coexistence between Brzeíº Kujawski with the TRB at Sarnowo, one cannot explain the size and shape of the small TRB houses at Sarnowo.

Beneath Barrow 8, GabaÓówna discovered traces of 6:10 m daub concentration with post holes on one side, thought to be a house (e.g. Midgley 1992:329, 1985 Fig. 26a).[13] Adjacent to the mounds, in Site 1A which contained TRB A/B pottery, indisputable evidence of two other houses measuring 4.1:3.0 m and 6.0:5.0 m were discovered (Midgley 1992:329-30, Fig. 96; Wiklak 1986). These small, slightly trapezoidal houses bear no resemblance to the Brzeíº Kujawski Group's Lengyel-type long-houses (Midgley 1992:29 Fig. 8) or the large, nearly triangular Sarnowo long-mounds. The theory thus begs the question why the Sarnowo TRB people built their own small houses, yet copied a foreign house type for their mound architecture.

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 Kujavian IA? (sic) ceramics as early as 3900 b.c. or even 4000 b.c.[17] Midgley (1985) used Ko