Added
Figures are still being added, but
if no figures are 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
7. THE MEGALITHIC CHAMBER CLASSIFICATI006
By
Maximilian O.
All rights reserved
7.1 The limits of traditional typologies
Historically,
tomb classification focused on the megalithic chambers and only minimally on
the mounds and their enclosures. Four types of dolmen, two kinds of passage-graves,
three or so kinds of gallery-graves along with the largely unclassified
sub-megalithic stone cists and various mixed stone and wood constructions
are variously recognized. However, no truly systematic tomb typology exists,
which encompasses the entire variability of TRB tombs and German
gallery-graves. This is true, even tough Montelius systematized the
classification of dolmen, passage-grave, and gallery-grave/cist in the 19th
century (see Chapter 2) and Sprockhoff, Aner, Schuldt, Laux and Bakker have
provided the most systematic additional elaboration in the 20th
century (e.g. Fig. 7.1).
The
lack of a systematic, universally applicable typology is obviated in Fig. 7.1. It exemplifies the TRB chambers
typologies, which focus primarily on the chamber shapes. In most areas chambers
exhibit a rectilinear floor plan, but in the TRB North Group the shape is
sometimes square or polygonal, bordering on round to oval. Thus this typology
is not universally applicable, nor is it entirely consistent even for the TRB
West Group, for which it was developed.
If
there is one consistent notion expressed in the existing typologies, it is that
later chambers are larger. In fact, by the time my original research on the
evolution of megalithic tombs was completed Skaarup (1993:106) concluded that
Danish excavations since the late 1960’s “on the whole … confirm earlier notions,” that dolmen
developed from “narrow, body-length
chambers” via extended, polygonal and large dolmen. He added that
“the large dolmen form a structural
link with … the passage graves …” But even this basic
development, usually painted only in broad strokes (e.g. Schuldt
1972: 10-11), is far from being unanimously accepted for various reasons.
The classification of German gallery-graves, located to the south of the TRB West Group, has been even less systematic. These tombs are customarily seen as a separate class of long chambers constructed from slabs of locally available rock instead of glacial erratics (Fig. 7.2), but the building material does not figure in the typology. One type has a porthole-like front-entrance. This entrance is mainly located at the end of an antechamber (Fig. 7.2: 1-2). Others use a threshold-like dolmen type front-entrance (Fig. 7.2, 4), while still others have a drywall seal (Fig. 7.2, 7-8). Some chambers have side-entrances and even short passages (Fig. 7.2, 6, 9), akin to passage-graves. Many chambers are subterranean. A few gallery-graves were demonstrably covered with shallow earth mounds (Fig. 7.2, 4). Some appear to have had megalithic mound enclosures. The available chamber typologies rarely address chronological questions, since the pottery typology is too ill defined to permit such answers. The newest research (to be discussed later) provides a few insights based on C14 dates, but raises as many questions as it answers.
|
CHAMBER TYPE |
SIDE STONES (pairs/yokes) |
CAPSTONES |
ENTRANCE |
MOUND/ENCLOSURE |
|
|
1. Urdolmen 2. Urdolmen 3. Extended-dolmen 4. Grand-dolmen 5. Extended-dolmen 6.
Passage-grave 7. Passage-grave 8.
Passage-grave 9.
Passage-grave 10. Passage-grave? 11. Passage-grave 12. Passage-grave 13.
Passage-grave? |
1 1 2 3 2.5 2? 4 5 6 1.5 4 11.5 6.5 |
Lengthwise Lengthwise Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright Upright |
1 1 2 4 2 2? 4 5 6 1 5 11 6 |
None Top Front Front Front Side Side Side Side Side Side Side Side |
Rectangular? Rectangular? Rectangular? Unknown Rectangular Unknown Unknown Round
(Tumulus) Rectangular? Rectangular? Round
(Tumulus) Oval/Kidney Trapezoidal |
Figure 7.1. Typology and
chronology of
The mound classification lags far behind that of the chambers. Although mounds are made of soil, sand and small flat fieldstones (cairn, German: Rollsteinhügel) etc., the building material rarely figures in the classification. Instead mounds, like chambers, are normally only classified as rectangular, trapezoidal, oval or round (Fig. 7.1, 5, 10-13). These shapes are often defined by large upright enclosure-stones similar to those used in the construction of chambers (Fig. 7.1, 5, 10, 12-13), but a distinction between enclosure and mound is rarely made. Sometimes more than one megalithic enclosure surrounds a mound, but this rare local trend has not warranted a separate type. Theoretically wooden posts occasionally took the place of stone-enclosures, but this separate class – the earthen long-barrow – usually refers to a long-mound with megalithic enclosure, that theoretically does not contain a megalithic chamber. Finally, the relationship between the chambers and the mounds, although useful, is not always ascertainable, limiting this criterion as an analytical tool.
Figure 7.2. German gallery-grave typology (after Schrickel 1976:191). 1-3 and 5 Hessian subgroup; 4 Central German subgroup; 6-9 Westphalian subgroup. Various scales.
It
must be concluded that the traditional typologies fail to address the total
interregional architectural variability for various reasons. Even the
relatively elaborate chamber classifications are too simplistic and, therefore,
too insensitive to the temporal and spatial variability of the architecture.
This becomes obvious when trying to apply the traditional typologies to the
data.
Invariably
contradictions arise between theoretical or ideal types and the actual,
observable architectural forms. For example, the chamber's classification by
the number of side- or capstones works in
Often
the builders used more than one end-stone at one or both ends, angling them to
fit the rounded form of the capstones - a custom established for
extended-dolmen with perpendicular capstones. In polygonal to oval chambers
this custom makes it impossible to tell the difference between side-stones and
end-stones. In time side-stones were placed further apart and so-called drywall
construction filled the gaps (Fig. 7.1,
12).[2]
When boulders were used to help fill big gaps, a stage is occasionally reached,
where it is difficult to tell whether the bolder functions as fill or a
somewhat undersized side-stone. There are long, narrow chambers (Fig. 7.1, 7-9) and short, wide ones (Fig. 7.1, 4, 10, 6). This means that
adjustments were made for the shape of the available capstone and it is the
overall chamber size, rather then a single dimension, which was important.
Although
overall size seems important and most archaeologists have measured the
chambers, few applied the results directly to their typology. Some seem to have
used the dimensions as a partial guide in their decision making process during
classification, but their criteria were never systematized. Schuldt actually
provided tables of measurements and concluded that in time there was an overall
increase in all three dimensions. Bakker (1979a, 1980a, b) analyzed the length
of passage-graves. He showed a significant statistical relationship between the
West Group's relative chronology (typochronology) based on pottery types
and increasing chamber length. But the correlation may be less significant than
originally thought (cf. Bakker 1990, 1992, Laux 1990, 1991).
Furthermore,
Hoika (1990b) has expressed doubts about the validity of the traditional
typologies due to their “Darwinistic,” evolutionary slant and the
imprecise chronology. Based on a paradigm that is not shared by all
archaeologists, the notion that architecture evolves from small, simple chambers
into large, complex constructions is, nonetheless, falsifiable and, therefore,
must be tested instead of being dismissed out of hand. The imprecise chronology
is a major stumbling block, common to most archaeological research, especially
in areas, where radiocarbon dating had met considerable resistance by the
archaeological establishment, or where funding was so limited that the method
could not be applied. The solution is to create a systematically solid typology
and test it against a pottery typology that is based radiocarbon dates with
good provenience. Unfortunately, the pottery-based typochronologies are
constantly reworked and hardly tested against well provenienced C14
dates. In fact, there are very few well provenienced C14 dates
available and C14 dating itself is wrought with difficulties that
are no less problematical than any typology.
Thus,
at the dawn of the 21st century there are numerous traditional
typologies exhibiting elaborations that vary by region (e.g. Fig 7.1,
Bägerfeldt and Kihlstedt 1985, Beier 1991a), changing their focus based on the
quality of preservation, the excellence of the excavation reports, and the
local traditions and prevailing paradigms. As a result interregional
comparison, necessary to analyze the architectural tomb development, is
difficult and forces concentration on the lowest common denominator, which traditionally
focus on the shape and dimensions of the floor plan, the number of side- and
capstones (yokes), and the presence or absence of an entrance and passage of
chambers. One is, therefore, forced to conclude that after all the decades of
research, determining development of tomb architecture still boils down to a
choice between emphasizing a chronology based on the pottery typology or the
chamber typology.
7.2 A refined classification
For
the reasons expressed above, I was at first tempted to abandon the traditional
approaches altogether. However, it turned out that the pioneers of megalithic
tomb research had really provided a useful if less than systematic classification
framework that merely needed refinements based on data from all parts of the
research area, in order to determine the development of megalithic tomb
construction.
As
a result, the focus of the following typology is partly based on the number of
capstones, especially when discussing smaller chambers. But the number of yokes
and side-stones is emphasized, particularly when the capstones are missing.
Having used these basic stone counts derived from hundreds of floor plans and
profile drawings, a rough guide for the typology was originally developed and
later refined by analyzing the chamber dimensions. The result is the initial
classification in Table 7.1.[3]
The
table suggests that the process of tomb construction seems to parallel
Chaos Theory in that the originally simple architectural systems can be
shown to produce complex behavior expressed by ever larger and more elaborate
structures. The motivations behind this process of architectural innovation and
change are typical human behavior patterns, driven by expediency and
creativity.
The
data indicate that expediency and creativity were stimulated by socio-economic
and environmental limiting factors. Thus, whenever practical, expediency and
creativity led the architects to ignore discernible cultural norms, or mental
templates (Deetz 1967:45-49), related to established architectural designs. Yet
paradoxically, the resulting architectural innovations often turned into new
norms arising from the human penchant to imitate a useful or pleasing idea.
Thus
one can observe a general increase in chamber size and architectural
complexity, but one also finds for example that the builders had no problem
using two side-stones instead of three or one capstone instead of two, when
ever this was practical. For this reason, it is difficult to say whether or not
several of the largest urdolmen with passages, which exceed the size of many
extended dolmen, are really extended-dolmen in which large stones found a
convenient use, or if they are the result of a particularly “rich”
or dedicated social segment, that invested more time and manpower in a
particular urdolmen than other groups were able or willing to do. A similar
situation exists with passage graves (Bakker 1992: 144-148 Tables 3-7).
While
the proposed structural typology generally adheres to the traditional
classification, it leads to the conclusion that all chamber types, including
gallery-graves can be derived from the (closed) urdolmen. This contradicts
previous assumptions, as delineated earlier. It further suggests that the size
and complexity of chambers generally increases through time, but size and
architectural complexity also overlap specific chamber types and vary in time
and space. Of course, Table 7.1 is
merely a one-dimensional list, which by itself cannot adequately demonstrate
the relationship and complexity of the chambers in time and space. This
requires a detailed analysis of the evolution from dolmen to passage- and
gallery-graves, for which the table itself may serve as an outline.
|
Table 7.1 Structural
typology of megalithic chambers |
|
Dolmen |
|
Primeval-dolmen
(urdolmen) Closed-dolmen (parallel) Transitional dolmen (parallel/perpendicular) Top-entrance urdolmen Half-height front-entrance urdolmen Square dolmen Extended dolmen with axial capstone Multiple side-stone dolmen
(perpendicular) Extended-dolmen Polygonal extended-dolmen Grand-dolmen Polygonal grand-dolmen |
|
Passage-graves |
|
Transitional chambers
with passage Rectilinear-dolmen
with angled passage Polygonal-dolmen
with passage Passage-graves Primeval passage graves
Extended passage-graves
Grand passage-graves
Complex
Chambers Side-chamber passage-graves End-chamber passage-graves
Double passage-graves
Triple passage-graves
Dual-passage chambers
Single chamber double passage-graves
|
|
|