Added September 18, 1999. Updated April 25, 2006, 13:45 hours.

The dissertation has a copyright. Please give proper credit when quoting its content.

A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS

9. THE MULTIFACETED TRANSITION TO PASSAGE-GRAVES

Maximilian O. Baldia

1993-April 25, 2006©
All rights reserved

Summary/Conclusion

The dichotomy between dolmen with front-entrances and passage-graves with side-entrances has traditionally been accepted without challenge. Even when the German terms Dolmen Zeit and Ganggrab Zeit, along with their Scandinavian equivalents, were replaced with Early Neolithic and Middle Neolithic to accommodate the ceramic research, no conceptual change occurred. Thus the axiom of the fifties was that any chamber with a passage, even ancient dolmen, were built during Middle Neolithic, specifically MN Ib. However, during the Analytical Period it became increasingly obvious that the boundary between the EN and the MN was more arbitrary than previously thought. First Schwabedissen and then Jørgensen and Ebbesen, who studied the relationship between ceramics and megalithic chambers, argued that some passage-graves were already built during the MN Ia (Bakker 1979a: 174 Footnote 7:1). But this was usually received with skepticism.

The increasing number of C14 dates provided no easy resolution to such conflicts. Analysis of the dates showed that the EN C/II Fuchsberg overlapped with the MN I for a minimum of 230 years. Midgley (1992:131, 456) further noted that MN Ia Troldebjerg pottery, found predominantly (in) ... dolmen (Præsthøj, Borre or Vedsted) as well as Birkenmoor 125 and 130, appears to be widely if not densely distributed, but for the present its relationship with other MN I pottery remains ambiguous. Bakker (1979a) showed that the MN Ia/MN Ib boundary was rather unclear and Midgley (1992:140) observed that Jørgensen placed the nine Hagebrogård pedestaled bowls in MN Ia while Ebbesen ... split them into Ia and Ib, (revealing) a strong element of subjective judgment ... All of this serves to underline the fluidity of pottery styles during the critical period when passage-graves first came into being (cf. Midgley 1992:31-231). Furthermore, a similar fluidity existed in tomb architecture, which led to a number of ill defined, if not ignored, transitional chambers, classifiable neither as dolmen nor as passage-graves.

Traditionally the long passages of the North Group have been seen as a derivation from passages of the Atlantic coast, but long passages actually developed as part of the dolmen architecture. The evolution produced a dichotomy in architecture, arising from an ancient TRB tradition to divide the chamber into functionally different sections. The resulting chambers were rectilinear dolmen with antechambers and short passages, and polygonal-dolmen as well as nordic passage-graves with long and often complex passage segmentation.

Different chamber sections, divisions and niches must have had their beginning in urdolmen with top entrance. The area underneath the entrance-plate often appears to be a separate addition. This area may have led to the development of ante-chambers in extended- and grand-dolmen of the North Group. The passages of rectilinear dolmen are usually quite short, while square-dolmen, using long passage side-stones already demonstrate a trend towards long passages, which is often taken to an extreme in the construction of later polygonal-dolmen and nordic passage-graves.

Surprisingly, antechambers fund in grand dolmen do not seem to exist in polygonal-dolmen and passage-graves. However, an internal segmentation of the passage through doorways or entrance frames divides the passage into two parts as seen in the Swedish polygonal-dolmen Valla 79/98. Thus the second half of the passage between the dividing stone slab and the front of the chamber entrance is in effect an antechamber. Similar segmentation occurs in other passages, including those of typical passage-graves, implying a relationship between dolmen with short passage and antechamber, polygonal dolmen with long passage, and passage-graves with passage segmentation and often very long passages.

The number of entrance stone-frames were tabulated in Denmark by Rosenberg (1929: 251) and are reanalyzed to reach the following conclusions. Figures 9.16 and 9.17 show that the majority (47.7%) of the 132 passage-graves did not provide evidence of entrance stone-frames. This may be partly the result of poor preservation. Of the remaining chambers nearly one third (31.1%) have one entrance stone-frame, about 1/5 (20.5%) have two, and less than 1% have as many as three. Figure 9.16 also demonstrates that there is a rapid fall-off in the number frames.

The greatest variety and number of tombs (87 or 66%) is in Sjælland (Fig. 9.18), suggesting that this was the primary location were passage-graves and the use of entrance stone-frames in particular originated. Furthermore, chambers like the five-capstone passage-grave of Ravenshøj could indicate a relationship between passages and antechambers, on Sjælland. Its passage segmentation leaves an antechamber-like area, two side-stones long.

There seems to be a trend towards greater segmentation of the passage in the east. Figure 9.19 shows the regional differences between Rosenberg's passage-graves and their number of entrance stone-frames. It reveals that passage architecture was most complex in Sjælland. Figure 9.20 indicates that each region had its own distinct frequency distribution. In fact, the two most widely separated tomb populations, Jutland and Sjælland, exhibit virtually opposite frequency curves. The architecture on Fyn was closer to that of Jutland. The relatively isolated island of Bornholm was architecturally closer to Sjælland. Over all, this demonstrates a gradual transition in architectural preferences through space.

Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.