12. GALLERY-GRAVES (A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS)© Baldia 1993-2006

Added September 18, 1999. Updated April 15, 2008, 12:58 – 6 GMT.

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

A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS

12. GALLERY-GRAVES

Maximilian O. Baldia

1993-April 15, 2008©
All rights reserved

Excerpts

Archaeologists generally view the gallery-graves of the German highlands or Hercynian Zone as fundamentally different from the TRB's megalithic tombs. That is why they have collectively been termed the German Gallery-Grave culture. Frequently they are also referred to as the Gallery Grave group (German: Galeriegrabgruppe, Jorns 1976). However, Jockenhöfel suggests that U. Fischer's proposed term Hessian-Westphalian Stone Cist culture (German: Hessisch-Westfälische Steinkistenkultur) is preferable, but this can only apply to the western most group. This group, located in the states of Hesse and Westphalia, has also been termed the Wartberg group.¹ This nomenclature excludes the Central German tombs and reveals difficulties in pinpointing the geographic location and classification of gallery-graves.

Gallery-grave origins

The origin of gallery-graves is not clearly understood. It is entirely likely that they arose from non- and sub-megalithic structures, just like the dolmen of the North Group. This may be indicated by the protogallery-grave of Stein, Dutch Limburg dated 2830±60 b.c. (Fig. 12.1). Beier (1991a) classifies this and similar tombs as masonry chambers (German: Kammergrab or Mauerkammer) and combines them with more typical gallery-graves. Except for the choice of building materials, there is certainly considerable resemblance.

For example, two masonry chambers were excavated in 1926 at Nordhausen, Kr. Erfurt by Stolberg (Fig. 12.2; Behrens 1973:232 Fig. 95; Müller-Karpe 1974:952 No. 604). The architecture is no doubt related to the TRB stone bench construction. The size and layout hints at a relationship with grand-dolmen and gallery-graves. Nordhausen is just south of the Harz Mountains and about 100 km southeast of Bernburg. Piggott (1983:44) concluded that in the Hercynian group of tombs, the Thuringian sites, such as Nordhausen and Niederbösa are of the Walternienburg-Bernburg culture, dated at Aspenstedt to 2610±100 b.c. (H-210/171), although many chambers contain Salzmünde pottery (D. Müller 1991).

The chambers were constructed of quarried stone and most likely also contained wooden structures and wooden roofs (Behrens 1973: 107-109, 252 Fig. 95). One chamber measured 7:2.8 m and was partitioned into two "rooms." It has been estimated that about 60 individuals were interred in this structure (Feustel and Ullrich 1965). The burials appeared to have been arranged in three rows, perhaps in accordance with some kind of kinship rules. One cranium had been trephined. Artifacts included Walternienburg cups, a triangular arrowhead and perforated animal teeth for necklaces.

However, based on far flung comparisons with architectural features and ceramic artifacts from all parts of France (and even Italy), the German gallery-graves are generally thought to have originated from western forms found in the Paris Basin, Normandy, and Brittany (e.g. Beier 1991a, Schrickel 1976, Schwabedissen 1962), resulting in the term West European stone cists (R. Müller 1979, Schoppa 1962, Tode 1962). Distance wise, the tombs in the Paris Basin could be the most direct source (e.g. Kappel 1978, Knöll 1981). For example Kappel (ibid. Fig. 51) provides a photograph that illustrates the similarity between of gallery-graves from Presles, Dép. Val d'Oise. U. Fischer (1979) uses a similar approach and Schrickel (1976:192-193) sums it up by stating that:

The relationship between the French "allées couvertes" of the Paris Basin and the Hessian gallery-graves is paradigmatic. Still, the Hessian graves also exhibit similarities with the Loire-type of the "allées couvertes," which are likewise constructed below ground ... On the other hand, the gallery-grave of Gudensberg, which was erected on the surface, corresponds to the classic (= atlantic) type of the "allées couvertes." These are located throughout France, but occur primarily in Brittany and in the Rousillion region of the south. ... Even though there is no doubt that there is a connection between the Hessian and the French gallery-graves, no particular region can be isolated. This is due to the fact that the Hessian burial architecture contains elements from divers French grave types, which are sometimes combined even in a single grave. Occasional architectural features or peculiarities of West European passage graves are (also) incorporated.

Schrickel also points out vague similarities with various French ceramic styles, stone artifacts etc. She notes that various copper artifacts may have western or eastern origins, but frequently show similarities with artifacts found in TRB tombs and hoards.² She also directs attention to a similarity in artifacts from early gallery-graves and settlements that suggest an evolution from Rössen, Michelsberg, and Baalberge ceramics. The argument is similar to Schwabedissen's (1979a and b) contentions for the development of TRB ceramics noted above and is in need of additional research.

Schrickel divides the German gallery-graves into a Hessian, Westphalian, Hannover/Braunschweig, and a Central German province, but notes considerable overlap between each of these groups. She also observes an overlap between the gallery-graves and the TRB. Thus Schrickel (1976:222) concludes:

Since the tomb architecture and its contents continually exhibits reappearing interregional types, the term "Gallery Grave Culture" is only of limited use. It characterizes only a cultural complex, in which specific concepts of death, burial rites and cult philosophies dominate, finding expression through the building of gallery-graves, collective burial practice, offerings of animal tooth jewelry, animal (lower) jaws etc. Although tomb architecture and burial rites as well as some of the artifacts are based on western models, the carriers of the "Gallery Grave Culture" were local, settled population groups, which is what the anthropological research also indicates.

The obvious argument against a French connection are the gaps between the various supposed centers of origin and the German tombs. Thus Jockenhöfel (1980:355) suggested that the huge voids between the Hessian Stone Cist culture's chambers could be filled with Horgen related tombs. Reflecting on the Lindermark porthole-stone and the then chronologically and architecturally totally inscrutable Muschenheim tomb (Fig. 12.3-12.6), he hypothesized relationships with tombs on the Lahn River and the southern reaches of the Upper Rhein, where the Horgen culture also built stone chambers with portholes (cf. Beier 1992:417 Fig. 1). He argued that the Horgen culture existed at the same time as the Hessian Stone Cist culture based on certain axe types and collared flasks. Tombs like the four-sided megalithic chamber with porthole at Niederschwörstedt, Baden-Württemberg (Müller-Karpe 1974 Plate 495 H and J) indeed have portholes.

The porthole is, of course, also one of the architectural features used to derive the German gallery-graves from those in the Paris Basin (Kappel 1978: Fig. 52). According to Daniel (1963:44) port-holes occur in southern Iberia and in a small number of tombs in France and Britain, as well as in the gallery-graves of southern Sweden. And a connection with France is often drawn via the Schankweiler tomb - the western-most German so called gallery-grave (Fig. 12.7). But Schankweiler is a mere cist with a porthole. Schrickel (1967 Footnote 40) correctly points out that the porthole belongs to those architectural features, which can spread independently of a particular tomb form, as is evidenced by the portholes in the small 2.00m long stone cists of Central Germany. In fact, portholes are such a wide spread feature, that Daniel (1963:25-26) found it necessary to mention how Childe's untenable diffusion theories regarding Europe and southwest Asia were based on the discovery of portholes in southern India by Sir Mortimer Wheeler. Moreover, Swedish gallery-graves or Skogsbokisten (U. Fischer 1979) with portholes are younger than Schrickel's (1976) EN C-MN I dating of the gallery-graves, as are the French tombs (see below). Thus it has been obvious for a long time that the porthole is not a useful analytical feature.

It could be argued, of course, that the small Schankweiler cist is as old as the earliest dolmen in the TRB, because a fragment of a possible collared flask was found in the vicinity of the tomb by amateur archaeologists (Schindler 1977:11). But collared flasks are universal ritual (libation?) vessels found in the TRB and elsewhere. Most commonly they occur in the TRB of the North Group during the EN C, where they are replaced by pedestal bowls in the MN I (Madsen 1976 with references). They seem to appear first in Eastern Europe, arising later in gallery-graves (e.g. Knöll 1981). In the West Group the earliest flask is dated to Horizon 1, the last is executed in the Havelte styles, radiocarbon dated to 2150±30 b.c. and found in association with a Protruding Foot beaker in the Angelslo 14 earth grave, perhaps suggesting an overlap with the Corded Ware culture.³

The Corded Ware/Single-Grave burial architecture consists primarily of wooden chambers in tumuli in the north (Struve 1955), but they built cists which occasionally employ stones of practically megalithic proportions. For example, the probable Corded Ware Chamber 7, dated 2570±110/2160±75 b.c., has capstones reaching a width of nearly 3.50 m (Behrens and Schröter 1980:69-78, 91). The chamber was built into the multi-phase trapezoidal Halle-Dölauer Heide Mound 6, that originated in the TRB's Salzmünde group and bears remote similarities with Muschenheim. The location of Schankweiler next to a steep slope is reminiscent of Corded Ware cists and related burials at Halle-Dölauer Heide. The Barbed-Wire beaker found in situ at Schankweiler (Fig. 12.7) also belongs to the northern European Corded Ware culture (Clark 1970 Fig. X). Since Corded Ware burials frequently occur in the top fill of TRB megalithic chambers and German gallery-graves (e.g. Schuldt 1972, Struve 1955, Schrickel 1976), the Schankweiler cist could have been built at the end of the MN or in the LN.

Nevertheless, Menke (1993:303) still interprets Schankweiler and Muschenheim as the result of cultural drift from the Franche-Comté, thus denying autochthonous roots. But S.J. De Laet (1976) argues that the Paris Basin tombs are later than those of the German Highlands (Fisher 1980, 1981; Menke 1993:307), a view supported by the recent analysis of tomb evolution in France (Boujot and Cassen 1993). Menke rejects De Laet's view, in spite of the fact that the dates of the allées couvertes in the Paris Basin place them into the LN. The median of nineteen C14 dates is slightly more recent than 2000 b.c.,⁴ while the same number of dates for gallery- and masonry-chambers yields a mean of slightly less than 2500 b.c. (Fig. 12.8). This would make the German gallery-graves older, a fact supported by the TRB pottery dated by Bakker to Horizon 2. Further more Fischer observed that the Wartberg group's pottery is more closely related to the Elbe-Saale area's Walternienburg-Bernburg and the Bohemian R_v ivnác_v cultures than the French Seine-Oise-Marne culture.

Unfortunately, the relative chronology of the Wartberg Culture, as proposed by Schwellnus, is not detailed enough. Schwellnus placed the group after Michelsberg III-IV and before the Beaker cultures. He starts Wartberg after Baalberge and correlates it with all subsequent Central German groups from Salzmünde via Walternienburg to Bernburg, including that portion of the KAK that supposedly coexisted with Bernburg (Schwellnus 1979:64-66, 79, 81). He ends Wartberg with the beginning of the Corded Ware. In other words, the group coexisted with all TRB related groups and Schrickel (1981:107) continued to favor her early dating of the gallery-graves over the KAK building period proposed by Schwellnus (1979). Thus the internal chronology of gallery-grave construction has remained difficult to access.

Another problem is the definition of the gallery-grave itself. If there is a chronological coexistence and geographical proximity between the megalithic tombs of the TRB and the gallery-graves of the Hercynian Zone one must ask the obvious question: What makes the German gallery-graves different from TRB chambers?

The answer is less than concise. For instance, U.Fischer feels that the architecture of Schortewitz in Central Germany differs from the TRB's Walternienburg-Bernburg megalithic tombs, such as passage-graves of Ebendorf and Drosa, even though the same building material (granite blocks) was used in the construction of Schortewitz (Fig. 2.14). He adds that the location of Schortewitz and similar tombs likewise sets them apart from the megalithic tombs of North Anhalt and the Magdeburg plain (U. Fischer 1956: 87).

The western Hessian-Westphalian gallery-graves also have traditionally been considered a separate tomb type in spite of their proximity to the TRB chambers. Judging from the literature, this is partly due to the construction material, which usually seems to be locally quarried stone-slabs. This gives them a different appearance, but not all TRB tombs used glacial erratics either. Another criterion for considering gallery-graves as a separate tomb type is that they usually have a front-entrance. However, dolmen also have front entrances. Originally it was thought that gallery-graves have no passages similar to those found in passage-graves - their closest neighbors. However, over the years it has become obvious that several gallery-graves have side-entrances and some even have a short passage. There is also a relationship in the size of both kinds of chambers.

Still another difference may be that gallery-graves were usually not covered with large mounds and unlike passage-graves, they are generally sunk into the ground. Yet many urdolmen and certain extended-dolmen are constructed below the old soil surface. Unlike TRB tombs, gallery graves supposedly also do not occur in groups, but recent research has shown that they were built in close proximity of each other (Günther 1978, 1979a, b, 1980a, b, 1989, 1990, Trier 1993).

For these and other reasons mentioned below, one is forced to conclude that the similarities between gallery-graves and TRB megalithic tombs outweigh the differences and conclude that one could consider them merely a regional variant of the TRB megalithic chambers.

The traditional gallery-grave classification

Schrickel's pioneer work on the German gallery-graves was done in the 50's and 60's. It was conveniently summarized in 1976 (Fig. 7.2, 12.9) and outlined by Kappel in 1978. The classification was designed to be descriptive and has been extremely useful for this research. However, from an analytical perspective it provides little regional or chronological information. Chambers are classified by their entrance location, the kind of entrance, the number of compartments and, in one case, by the shape (Fig. 12.9). This differs drastically from the TRB tomb typology and, therefore, needs a brief comparison.

Regarding the entrance, most tombs have the same entrance location as TRB dolmen, that is, they employ a front entrance. Side entrances occur more rarely, but are distributed on a broad front from Sorsum in the northeast to Beckum II in the northwest. They are found as far south as Rimbeck (ID 7036 Fig. 12.9, 11). The kind of entrance used in the classification refers primarily to one- and two-part porthole stones. Such stones occur with and without known chambers from Cologne on the Rhein, where the original location is unknown, to Watenstedt and Quedlinburg, just north of the Harz. Porthole stones occur in chambers with front- as well as in chambers with side-entrance. Other chambers, such as Heddingsten, had entrances sealed with drywall construction.

The traditional typology also notes that chambers are partitioned into compartments (Fig. 12.40). Schmerleke I, Kr. Lippstadt, had five. Uelde, Kr. Lippstadt had four. The Lautariusgrab of Gudensberg, Kr. Fritzlar, may have had three compartments (Fig. 12.13). But multiple subdivisions seem to be a local architectural style, confined to the northwestern part of the gallery-grave distribution, thus suggesting a connection with TRB tombs. This view is reinforced by the fact that the Lautariusgrab, which is the most southeasterly chamber may not belong to this class, because U. Fischer (personal communication 4/4/94) observes that this chamber was a pile of stones ... with the flat side of the erected stones facing outward - a highly unusual arrangement, which places the reconstruction in doubt.

Further more, such compartments occur only in relatively large chambers, which may mean that they are a late development, related to complex passage-graves and passage-graves with internal niches and cubicles. The central German tomb of Gotha is an exception, both in its location and in the fact that it is the only chamber that supposedly had two compartments. A simpler explanation is that the chamber is a grand-dolmen with antechamber. The same could be said of Bredelem, Kr. Goslar (Fig. 12.21) and Warnstedt, Kr. Quedlinburg, and Schankweiler, although the last one must be classified as a stone-cist.

TABLE 12.1
CLASSIFICATION OF GALLERY GRAVES	Side-stone Pairs
Primeval gallery-grave with front- or side-entrance	3?-6?
Extended gallery-grave with front- or side-entrance	6?-10?
Grand passage-grave with front- or side-entrance	10+

Note: Due to the lack of capstones, the poor condition of side-stones and the great variability in the size of the stones employed in the construction of gallery-graves, the relationship between the chamber length and the number of side-stones is less reliable than in most TRB tombs.

Only one chamber has been classified by shape. This is the V-shaped passage-grave like side-entrance chamber of Beckum II (Fig. 7.2, 6; 12.9, 31). The chamber is located near the head waters of the Ems and the Lippe. The research indicates that this chamber's unusual form is occasionally also found in passage-graves throughout the TRB,⁵ including the adjacent Emsland. This implies a close connection with the TRB.

The classification of gallery-graves does not officially distinguish between masonry-chambers, stone slab construction, and the very rare rock-cut tomb referred to as Felskammer Grab in German. This is as it should be, because the Westphalian masonry-chamber of Erwitte-Völlinghausen demonstrates the kinship with TRB chambers in that it used a drywall construction that imitates the form of megalithic stones with their flat side facing the inside of the chamber (Trier 1993: 35). Rock-cut tombs establish the same TRB connection, because Sorsum⁶ (Fig. 12.9, 36; 12.10) has all the important features of a passage-grave. In the absence of suitable boulder, it was simply constructed by quarrying the appropriate form out of the local bedrock. The chamber had no capstones, instead receptacles for square wooden beams were found (Fig. 12.12). The TRB pottery of Sorsum belongs to Horizon 2 (MN Ib?), estimated to end around 2620 b.c./3300 B.C. (Bakker 1979a:149, 157).

Sorsum is related to local village sites (Fig. 12.11). The relationship has been shown to be similar to that reported by the Wartberg group of Hesse and the TRB groups in Central Germany (Heege 1989:214). The rock-cut tomb is not entirely unique in Germany. Another one is known from Wewelsburg, Kr. Büren, Westphalia. That chamber measured 14.0:3.0 m according to Schrickel and its area would be ca. 42.00 m2 which is roughly comparable with the dimensions of Sorsum (ca. 16.0:2.3 m or 36.80 m2). These chambers have traditionally been classified as gallery-graves, although the layout of Sorsum is that of a passage-grave with steps. As mentioned, they seem to occur in perpendicular dolmen, where the use of wood may have prevented discovery (Fig. 9.5). Stone steps analogous to those of Sorsum have been discovered in the West Group (Bakker 1992:22-23).

Reclassifying gallery-graves

The fact that gallery-graves are largely confined to the German highlands, should not overshadow the more important fact that they are located immediately south of the western grand-dolmen distribution. The similarity of the gallery-grave's antechamber/passage with the antechambers of larger dolmen hints at the likelihood of a common lineage with TRB tombs. In fact, Beier (1991:163) was forced to observe that the relatively small grand-dolmen of Zuchau, Kr. Schönbeck ... is reminiscent of the 'Central German chambers.' Furthermore, the gallery-grave distribution overlaps with the dolmen and passage-graves of the Elbe/Saale in the east and the Ems in the west.

As noted, at Sorsum the ceramic content also indicates a connection with the TRB. U. Fisher and Schwellnus have stressed the similarities to the Central German TRB subgroups to the east, while Schrickel (1976:216-17) concluded that the oldest finds in all tombs of the various gallery-grave groups can be connected with, or show relationships to the Funnel Beaker culture. The most recent evidence provided by Raetzel-Fabian (1999, 2000) also confirms this relationship, adding a connection with the Horgen which is centered on both sides of the Swiss/German border.

Such similarities suggest that it may be profitable to disregard the difference in building materials, including limestone, sand-stone, quartzite slabs, gneiss, wood etc., and employ the same criteria previously used in analyzing TRB dolmen and passage-graves. (Table 12.1, Fig. 12.13). Such a classification presupposes an architectural relationship between gallery-graves, grand-dolmen and passage-graves based in part on the idea that the pottery and, therefore, the population is somehow related to the TRB. But it must be cautioned that, as Bakker (1979a:149) put it: (The) pottery does not give us an immediate, clear confirmation of this theory which is plausible in light of the architectural typology.

Chamber and Passage Location

The two Züschen gallery-graves were about 150 m from each other. Similar arrangements occur elsewhere. Günther, who had excavated seven gallery-graves, observed that for six of them the nearest neighbors consist of a shorter and a longer chamber. For example, Kirchborn I is almost 19.30:2:07 m or 39.95 m2, while Kirchborchen-Gallihöhe (Kirchborn II) measures 11.75:2.75 m (32.31 m2). Similar situations were supposedly demonstrated for Henglarn I and II, and Atteln I and II. He further perceived that the larger chambers had passage-grave-like side-entrances, implying that the larger, later chambers were influenced by passage-graves. But there are inconsistencies.

Certainly, Kirchborchen-Gallihöhe and Kirchborn I each had a porthole and the smaller chamber had a dolmen-like front-entrance, while the larger had a passage-grave-like side-entrance. At Atteln the smaller chamber also had a front entrance while the larger chamber supposedly had a side-entrance. While this could suggest that a similar process leading from front- to side-entrance suggested above for the TRB, Atteln I had a "drywall" sealed entrance while for Atteln II the entrance form in unknown (although the entrance location is reported to be secure). Furthermore, while the two Henglarn tombs follow the same pattern, Henglarn II is only slightly larger than Henglarn I and its entrance location is completely unknown, even though Günther envisioned it in the completely destroyed northeastern side. An entrance on the southwestern side seems likely, because the plan shows an empty space the size of missing side-stone in its center. Such an entrance location would be in keeping with that of several West Group passage-graves, especially since the slightly convex side appears to bow inward towards this opening. However, a porthole stone in the partly destroyed northwestern end is equally likely, because the meager remains may indicate an antechamber there. Therefore, it seems likely that gallery-graves developed from larger dolmen and mutual architectural influence, though ill defined, continued in the contact zone with the passage-graves.

Addendum

While the most recent developments in Wartberg culture research provides useful insights into the development of the pottery, they do only raise more questions about the development of the gallery-graves. Both the pottery typology and the published C¹⁴ dates are insufficient to support or refute the sequence of architectural development as proposed above. We must await further details about the early collagen based C¹⁴ date of the Züschen/Lohne 1 gallery-grave, before accepting the tomb as a prototype, before one can accept the notion that such tombs start with the large Züschen-type gallery-graves. Monumental architecture, be it Egyptian pyramids or Maya temples evolve from smaller structures. Starting with monumental architecture that have no precursors would support the traditional German notion that the tombs were introduced from the Paris Basin or Brittany. But other German gallery-graves of this type must provide similar dates with better provenience. In addition, neither the pottery analysis nor the available Belgian C¹⁴ dates can support can demonstrate the validity of this notion at present (see also Baldia 1994, 1995a).

FOOTNOTES

¹ Schwellnus 1979 (See Schrickel 1981 for a critical review of the term Wartberg culture).6 The tomb is listed as Sorsum/Halsberg and appears to be located in Emmerke, Gm. Giesen, Kr. Hildesheim.

² Bakker (1979:128-30 and end-notes 19, 20) disagrees with Schrickel's (1966) early dating of western TRB related copper. He dates this copper to the late MN, i.e. Drouwen D and E. However, he notes the non-arsenical copper from a Baalberg grave at Preusslitz (Preuß 1966), west of the Elbe, was imported via a possible south east/north west route. This route paralleled another one along which arsenical copper was imported into Scandinavia during the EN C.

³ Bakker, 1979a:135-139, 146, 183-184, Fig. B21; 1992:41. Ottaway (1986 Fig. 5-6) illustrates the large range of the Corded Ware's thirteen C14 dates (ca. 2550-1750 b.c.), but the first inter quartile range of ca. 2200-2050 b.c. narrows the time span. Bakker provides calibrated dates of 2900-2450 B.C., suggesting a 50 year overlap with the TRB.

⁴ J. Müller (1987 Fig. 1,3) provides an inter quartile range of 2200 to 1630 b.c. with a mean of ca. 1950 b.c. for the use of the allées couvertes.

⁵ In most of passage-graves of this kind only one side is V-shaped.

⁶ The tomb is listed as Sorsum/Halsberg and appears to be located in Emmerke, Gm. Giesen, Kr. Hildesheim.

Related Links

Baldia, M. O.
Megalithic Tomb Index

Megalithic Tombs and Interregional Communication. Paper presented at the international symposium Megaliths and Social Geography, 13-17 May, 1994, Falköping, Sweden.

From Dolmen to Passage- and Gallery-grave: An Interregional Construction Analysis. Paper delivered at the conference: Megalithic tombs: Their Context and Construction. 25 June 1995, Kalundborg, Denmark (in press).

Raetzel-Fabian, D.
The Calden Causewayed Enclosure and the Neolithic Wartberg culture of Germany. The Comparative Archaeology WEB

Absolute Chronology and Cultural Development of the Neolithic Wartberg Culture of Germany. The Comparative Archaeology WEB

Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.