Figure 13.3. Tomb evolution at
Bygholm Nørremark (after P. Rønne 1979).
|
TABLE 13.2
Number of traceable mounds by type
Long-mounds 1261
Transitional
(Dutch) 95
Tumuli 812
Unclassifiable 243
TOTAL 2411
This
traditional classification has no chronological implications. A small number
of these mounds are complex mounds. These include unique types, such as
Katterø, Svendborg Amt, Lindhöft 110, and Tannenhausen 817.
|
|
TABLE 13.3
Dimensions of Polish long-mounds
proposed to be among the oldest tombs by Midgley (1992:52)
ID.
NO. TOWN FORM µL WIDTH 1 WIDTH 2 µW AREA
8228.0 Sarnowo 1 TR 76.25 11.07m 5.36m
6.19 471.99
8237.0 Leíniczowo TR 72.42 8.71 1.61
5.16 373.69
8245.0 Obalki TR 32.24 5.52 3.58
3.23 104.14
8253.0 Wietrzychowice TR 11.76
The mounds show relatively little overall consistency
in their dimensions, but their orientations range from east northeast to
east. L = length, W = width.
|
In spite of the large number of mounds
and hundreds of years of their investigation, there are no helpful guidelines
for analyzing mounds. In fact the tables given here are the first actual
tabulations of mounds covering the whole TRB culture area. Consequently, it
seems that no one has as yet determined significant regional or temporal trends
in mound dimensions beyond a few speculations already mentioned. Even Midgley
only dealt with a small class of mounds, the
"earthen long-barrows". She hypothesized that they were the
earliest tombs (Table 13.3). Others have argued that rectangular or round
mounds were first.
Laux (e.g. 1979a, 1991) suggests that
mounds increase in height through time. Schuldt's illustrations also seem to
indicate an increase in mound height concomitant with an increase in the size
of chambers and a likely trend to construct chambers closer to the surface. In
most cases though, the reporting of mound height is unstandardized and erratic,
largely due to rebuilding, destruction etc., that the available data, although
recorded in the data base, does not lend itself to meaningful analysis.
13.2 Mound and enclosure origin and evolution.
Even if one takes the Polish
radiocarbon dates into consideration, one can presently only justify an approximate
date of 3250±200 b.c. The first mounds probably were a natural byproduct
of digging (Mesolithic?) burial pits and then using the soil as back fill to
cover the interment. In time the resulting mound would have received greater
architectural elaboration which no doubt increased in ritual significance,
especially when several ancestors came to rest in close proximity under mounds
that gradually coalesced into a single more or less unified structure.
In Denmark
the Lindebjerg long-mound with its archaic Svaleklindt Group EN A/B
pottery (3060±100 b.c./3814±109 B.C.) may serve as example of this
process. Its seems to have grown by
accretion as new burials were added and covered. The final building stage
included all common megalithic features. Barkæer demonstrates a similar
evolution (Liversage 1992) and the excavation of Bygholm Nørremark
suggests a comparable process.
At Bygholm Nørremark Rønne
envisioned several successive stages of construction in which mortuary houses
and graves were enclosed by a stockade (Fig. 13.3). The enclosed area was
later covered with a trapezoidal mound surrounded by a stone enclosure
which retained the same form as the stockade. At an even later stage the mound
was enlarged and surrounded by a rectangular enclosure while a
primeval passage-grave was being constructed within the mound. Thus Danish
long-mounds are thought to have arisen as EN mortuary houses. However,
T. Madsen cautions that: Without totally rejecting the possibility of large mortuary houses, I
would suggest that we may be dealing with sequentially constructed long
barrows (Madsen 1979:315). This seems to be confirmed by the side by side and
linear arrangements of urdolmen in rectangular to slightly trapezoidal
long-mounds, as well as by the occurrence of multiple passage-graves in
long-mounds. Thus the evolution of Bygholm Nørremark shows that the
stockade, rather than the houses, provided the outline for the mound and the
stone enclosure. The stone enclosure is thus functionally equivalent to the stockade.
In this sense it is not just a retaining wall, but also a (symbolic?) barrier
that cordons off a long established sacred space.
Sequential mound construction must
have been the norm in the beginning throughout the TRB. The EN C
long-mound Flintbek LA 3, Schleswig-Holstein, shows a tiny oblong mound,
covering a central Konens Høj type grave. The mound was expanded in both
directions with three additional graves (Phase 1-4). A small rectangular mound with enclosure was
added, containing the perpendicular oriented Grave F and Extended-dolmen I-III, followed by a larger,
all-encompassing Phase 6 rectangular, fully megalithic enclosure, plus an
even larger northeastern rectangular mound/enclosure addition (Phase 7)
with large perpendicular
Extended-dolmen IV. The apparently succeeding nearby Long-mound
LA 4 exhibits a similar development from central dolmen with stone-circle
to axially expanded rectangular mound/enclosure (Zich 1992, 1994a, c, 1995a).
In Central Germany
sequential mound construction has been shown at Halle-Dölauer Heide
Mound 6 (Behrens and Schröter 1980 Fig. 36-42). The tomb is located
inside the famous causeway. The first Salzmünde burials (Graves I
and II) were said to be covered by village debris. This was followed by the
Salzmünde Grave 1 covered by the first "core mound." It was
followed by another grave covered by more mound fill. The next major phase was
a second core mound with grave. After this several additional graves and more
mound fill were added in conjunction with the construction of the trapezoidal
mound by the Salzmünde Group and Corded Ware culture. The final mound
elevation occurred in yet another Corded Ware burial phase, while still
another Corded Ware burial and a Bronze Age grave were inserted later.
The final grave was placed in the mound during the Late Bronze Age.
Similarly, the Baalberge primary grave of the Pohlsberg,
Latdorf, Central Germany (ID 6604) was a stone-cist
akin to the below surface urdolmen. Along with several additional chambers and
other graves, the mound later received a trapezoidal megalithic enclosure. But
sequential mound construction is not confined to long-mounds alone. Tumuli,
such as Schortewitz, also underwent such changes.
Figure 13.4. Danish urdolmen with EN C
pottery by mound shape. Of 36 dolmen
which contained identifiable Early Neolithic flasks 18 are in
long-mounds, 6 in tumuli, and 12 had no clearly defined mound.
All this should dispel the ever popular Long-house Theory
which derives the long-mounds from long-houses. But just in case it doesn't, it
should be noted that this naive theory also fails to explain the coexistence of
long-mounds and tumuli in the EN (Fig. 13.4).
|
TABLE 13.4
THE
NUMBER OF MOUNDS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE FORMS
LONG-MOUNDS 1261
Rectangular 490
Trapezoidal 472
Rhomboidal 1
Unknown 238
TRANSITIONAL 95
TUMULI
812
Oval 19
Round
76
Stone-circle 101
None/unknown 616
UNCLASSIFIABLE 243
Enclosures 10
Enclosure+mound 233
TOTAL 2411
The number of mounds and
their respective forms. It should be noted that out of 243 unclassifiable
mounds only 10 (4.12%) had no trace of a mound. This means that evidence of
an enclosure is highly likely to imply the existence of a mound, even when
there is no trace of one. The nearly square enclosure of Gaarzerhof
ID 5004 is counted here as a short long-mound.
|
The available data show only two possible
cases where two multi-side-stone dolmen might have existed in a single tumulus.
It is almost as rare to find more than one primeval passage-grave in a
tumulus. The early coexistence of
long-mounds and tumuli may thus be the result of a functional difference, where
long-mounds covered one or more chambers and other graves and the earliest
tumuli encompassed a single chamber. If additional burials had to take place in
the vicinity of a tumulus, a tumulus would be incorporated in a long-mound,
creating a complex mound as described below.
Regarding mound shape, it is logical
that as long as the prehistoric architects built small chambers, the form of
the mound did not rally matter. This may be yet another reason for the
coexistence of round and long-mounds. But as chamber size or passage-length
increased mound form became more important and advantages and disadvantages of
specific mound shapes became more marked.
Tumuli are especially efficient in
containing the large polygonal-dolmen. But some grand-dolmen in Mecklenburg
actually forced the architects to stretch the round enclosure into an oval one.
A similar process in the West Group stretched nearly round enclosures with
a kidney-shape into ever more elongated forms as the passage-graves increased
in length. Furthermore, polygonal-dolmen and oval primeval passage-graves are
most efficiently created in tumuli, where passage length can readily increase.
In fact, such an increase in length is virtually invited by round mounds.
The advantage of the long-mound is
that it accommodates the increase in chamber length of parallel chambers, such
as passage-graves. But long-mounds have disadvantages for the construction of
larger axial dolmen. Thus the advent of grand-dolmen caused a dilemma. The only
choice was to increase the mound's width or to rotate the chamber. This
probably was a major factor leading to the abandonment of the autochthonous
grand-dolmen in favor of passage-graves in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. But the advantage of lengthening the chamber
sacrifices the easy lengthening of the passage.
In the TRB West Group, where
short passages are common, round mounds, possibly under the influence of
coexisting long-mounds, evolved into ever longer transitional mounds. In the
largest chambers the mounds and enclosures seem to loose their early
significance as a separate unit. The mound itself sometimes barely covers the
chamber which is almost immediately surrounded by one or two enclosures. Thus
at Thuine 874 the inner enclosure practically touches the chamber. This is
a clear indication that the "expense" of building ever larger
chambers forced an economic decision to reduce the mound and enclosure size in
proportion to increased chamber size in the West Group. This means that
the Dutch type mounds/enclosures together with their passage-graves were
designed as a whole unit, as Bakker has argued.
The same evolution may have occurred
among the gallery-graves, where the larger chambers occasionally provide
evidence of an enclosure close to the chamber. For example at Etteln the
suspected enclosure remnant was only about 70 cm from the side wall of the
chamber (Günther 1978:233 Fig. 4).
13.3 Enclosure shapes
Although mounds are more successfully
classifiable by shape than chambers, it remains unclear which, if any form, is
the oldest. Furthermore, the mound's shape is usually determined by the
enclosure. A likely exception is the grand-dolmen with nearly square enclosure
(mean dimensions 9.34:8.40 m) of Gaarzerhof (B46, ID 5004). Schuldt's
plan (1972:166 Fig.166) the enclosure covered with a round tumulus. But when
mound contours are carefully mapped tumuli, such as Klekkendehøj and
Gundsølille show a curious angularity (Fig. 14.1, Hansen 1993a:101
Fig. 101), remotely akin to pyramidal North American Woodland period
Mounds.
The number of mounds and their
respective enclosure forms are shown in Table 13.4. As a rule the
enclosure consists of border stones that form what is sometimes called a
curb. It is constructed with the same kind of megaliths used to construct the
chambers, even if no megalithic chamber is present within the mound. The
resulting enclosure classification is
given in Table 13.5.
The enclosure is seen to function as a
retaining wall designed to keep the mound from being eroded
(e.g. Schlicht 1979a). Of course, the relationship between the stockade
and the megalithic enclosures at Bygholm Nørremerk add a likely sacred
function to the megalithic enclosure, no doubt separating a hallowed ground of
the other world from its mundane surroundings, setting into motion an evolution
of elaborate enclosure designs. Thus the enclosure for the passage-grave Jordhøj, at Mariager is reconstructed as a
platform for offerings (Hansen 1993a:19 Fig. 22). Kong Swendshøj's
enclosure is restored as supporting an actual catwalk (Fig. 9.3), and the
small enclosure stones together with a second ring of even smaller border
stones are reconstructed as outlining a
"paved" catwalk that surrounds the tumulus at the level of the
elevated passage entrances of Klekkendehøj on Møn (ibid. p. 14 Fig. 12).
|
TABLE 13.5
Classification of enclosures
Rectilinear
Rectangular
Trapezoidal
Rhomboidal
Circular
Round
Oval
Transitional
Dutch (Oval/kidney-shaped)
Complex enclosures
Side joints
End joints
Divisions
Secondary enclosures
Double enclosures
Rectilinear
Double Rectangular
Double Trapezoidal
Transitional
Dutch
Circular
Unlike
the chamber classification, this classification does not follow a specific
chronological scheme, although some forms occur only in the EN and some
others can be shown to exist only in the MN.
|
Wooden enclosures are very rare.
Trapezoidal ones, presumably similar to Bygholm Nørremark include
Stengade I, Langeland, which contains Konens Høj-type graves and
EN C pottery. This mildly trapezoidal structure's mean dimensions were
approximately µ30.65:2.84 m or 87.5 m2. Half the size of Stengade I is
the trapezoidal bedding trench of Teglværksgåde (µ=14.00:2.96 m,
41.44 m2). In function, form and size they resemble
megalithic enclosures and are, therefore, treated in the analysis in the same
manner as their megalithic counterparts. Surprisingly, the literature does not
mention circular wooden mound enclosures for the TRB.
|
TABLE 13.6
Frequencies of mounds and enclosures
in relation to megalithic chambers
TYPE RE TR
RO LN RD
OV SC TU
DU MN ??
EN TOTAL
UD 81 24 1
19 18 0
10 48 0
10 61 0 272
ED
50 19 0
7 9 5 7
79 1 15
67 2 261
PD 7 3 0 3
12 0
3 2 0 3
28 0 61
GD 17
95 0 0 6
6 4 293
0 8
64 1 494
GG
108 62 0
19 21 5
41 70 92
112 604 9
1143
NC 64
92 0 19
0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 187
?? 94
144 0 194
1 0 4 43 2
21 0 0 503
?D 24 6 0 9 1
0 2 1 0 2 33 1 79
MC
44 25 0
27 6 2
29 42 0
46 223 12 456
CI 1 2 0 0 2
1 1 38
0 1 85 0 131
TOTAL 490
472 1 297
76 19 101
616 95 218
1177 25 3587
Gallery-graves
are not included, because there their enclosure form are unknown. UD =
urdolmen, PD = polygonal-dolmen, ED = extended-dolmen, GD = grand-dolmen, GG
= passage-grave, NC = non-megalithic chamber, ?? = unknown, ?D = unknown
dolmen, MC = megalithic chamber, CI = cist, RE = rectangular, TR
=trapezoidal, RO = rhomboidal, LN = long-mound of unknown form, RD = round,
OV = oval, SC = stone circle, TU = tumulus of unspecified form, DU =
Dutch-type oval, MN = unspecified mound, EN = unspecified enclosure.
|
Historically it has often been
practice to mix mound and enclosure forms and dimension. This has made analysis
difficult, because they are separate architectural features. The attempted to
untangle the problem was not always successful due to the nature of the
information provided in the literature. Occasionally, when the reports seemed
of high quality, the form and dimensions of long-mounds were assumed to be
equal to the enclosure of a given long-mound, otherwise it is important to
distinguished between the forms and dimensions of mounds and enclosures. The
resulting frequencies of mounds, enclosures, and their corresponding chamber
types are listed in Table 13.6.
While internal measurements are used
for chambers, the outside enclosure dimensions are used. Nonetheless problems
arise. For example, U. Fischer lists the length of Krause and
Schoetensack 109 as 30 m (U. Fischer 1956:71). My calculations,
based on the small but apparently very accurate plan (Sale
1:400) of Krause and Schoetensack (Fig. 29, 109), result in different
measurements. Since the guardians seem to have toppled over and increase the
enclosure length, the problem is resolved in this and similar situations, by
measuring the minimum and maximum length of each side
and averaging the dimensions. The result is an enclosure of 24.98:6.95 m
or 172.99 m2.
The following section describes the
enclosures in more detail. The relationship between enclosure and chamber types
are analyzed and regional and interregional comparisons are made where applicable.
15.3.2 Rectilinear Enclosures.
Rectilinear mounds and enclosures
exist from Sweden
to Germany.
They are virtually the only type in Poland,
but they do not seem to reach Netherland. The traditional classification
recognizes basically two types: rectangular and trapezoidal.
Rectangular enclosures:
Mounds with a rectangular megalithic enclosure are found mostly in Schleswig-Holstein and adjacent
areas around the western Baltic. In Germany
they appear to be the most common type next to tumuli, but they also exist as
far north as the Swedish/Norwegian border.
There is considerable overlap between
rectangular and trapezoidal enclosures. The distinction of the two types is not
always clear cut. Krause and Schoetensack 109 again illustrates the
dilemma. The mound has been described as rectangular, but the original plan
shows a slightly trapezoidal alignment of the sides, which diverge by about 1°.
Hence the enclosure is classified as RE/TR and the form as RE?W4, where RE
stands for rectangular, TR for trapezoidal and W4 for the four
guardian stones (two at each end).
|
TABLE 13.7
DISTRIBUTION OF RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURES BY REGION
Sweden 3
Denmark 93
Schleswig-Holstein 170
Eastern/Central
Germany 104
Northwest
Germany/Netherland
94
Poland 26
|
Regarding
"unchambered" long-mounds, the oldest rectangular enclosures
surround non-megalithic or sub-megalithic burials and urdolmen. Among the
longest rectangular megalithic enclosures without megalithic chamber is the
rectangular long-mound Steenaben (1), ID 2737, Sachsenwald. It measured
149:4 m and covered an area of 596 m2.
It must be dated to the EN C. These dimensions are not unique. Similar
narrow mounds of rectangular to mildly trapezoidal form include the trapezoidal
long-mound of Stralendorf discussed below. A total of 64 rectangular
long-mounds are of the "chamberless" variety. The number may be even
larger when one considers that there are an additional 94 rectangular
enclosures for which no chamber is known, but which are not classified as
"unchambered" tombs, because chambers may yet be found in many of
them.
The rectangular long-mound with three
axial dolmen at Phanefjord (ID 1064) on Møn is also one of the early, very
long rectangular mounds. Its dimensions are ca. 308 1/2 by
26 ft (94.16:7.90 m). Among the shortest and simultaneously the among
the widest rectangular mounds is Bildsø, Southwest Sjælland,
(ca. 53 3/4 by 29 ft, 16.39:9.11 m).
Most closed urdolmen align with the
axis of the enclosure, while open dolmen are overwhelmingly perpendicular.
There are a few exceptions, such as Budsemark (ID 1062), Møn. Its dolmen is still oriented parallel with
the axis of the rectangular mound/enclosure
that measured ca. 26.35:7.53 m, although A.P. Madsen's
illustration may indicate a possible entrance with the light shading of one
end-stone. Budsemark is a short mound, but there are
even shorter rectangular enclosures, such as Hogdal (ID 2), Sweden.
The enclosure measures only
13.45:4.45 m. Within this enclosure is a probable
square dolmen with passage. The tomb represents the most northerly TRB
long-mound. Perpendicular multi-side-stone open dolmen in Mecklenburg
have similar sized enclosures as Hogdal. These include the previously discussed
tombs of Barendorf and Naschendorf. One of these enclosures even has two
guardian stones to be discussed later. In total there are 148 dolmen in
rectangular enclosure. These include 81 urdolmen and 50 extended dolmen.
Just seventeen grand dolmen have rectangular enclosures. This means that over time the use of
rectangular mound enclosures diminished.
There are 108 passage-graves in
rectangular enclosures. A few of these enclosures have guardians (Table 13.7).
Among these is one with a convex end discovered at Naschendorf,
Everstorfer Forst. It contains a five capstone passage-grave. Not
included in the above count is a remotely similar rectangular enclosure
(Fig. 9.3) with seven capstone passage-grave Vesterborg Sb. 1, Lolland
(T. Dehn et al. 1992, Hansen 1993:98 Fig. 42).
Five capstone passage-graves
similar to Naschendorf, such as in Gnewitz, Kr. Rostock, have shorter
enclosures without guardian stones. Even shorter rectangular enclosure are
found with the four capstone passage-graves in Upost, Kr. Demmin
and De Späukbusch, Liepen A113/B20, Gem. Thelkow, Rostock,
Mecklenburg (ID 5118). Its enclosure measured 6.52:5.80.
As mentioned, this four-capstone passage-grave is slightly smaller than
its neighbor (ID 5117, A112/B19) which has only three capstones and is
located within a circular enclosure.
Comparing the two enclosures indicates
that the round enclosure has a diameter of 6.60 m, which is for all
intents and purposes the same as the rectangular enclosure's length. The area
surrounded by the rectangular enclosure (37.82 m2) is minutely larger than the
area of the round enclosure (34.21 m2). This raises interesting questions
about the degree of contemporaneity of different enclosure forms.
Rectangular enclosures seem to
outnumber trapezoidal ones slightly, but this is not necessarily a sign of a
more popular architectural style. It must be remembered that the data is in
part based on old observations and antiquarians often habitually classified
mounds without careful measurements. Thus a mound with sides that were not
entirely parallel may have been classified as
rectangular instead of trapezoidal.
Trapezoidal enclosures: Trapezoidal
mounds are found in Denmark,
most parts of Germany,
but particularly in Poland.
In Denmark and Germany
they range from nearly rectangular to strongly trapezoidal. Among the mounds
with trapezoidal enclosure are 144 with unknown megalithic chambers and at
least 92 "unchambered" mounds.
Slightly trapezoidal German megalithic
enclosures with dolmen and "unchambered" structures date to the
EN C and perhaps the early MN Ia. The unchambered tomb of Stralendorf
(Fig. 13.5) measures 121:4.5-2.0 m and contains Molzow-style pottery
(e.g. Midgley 1992:90, 93) similar to the Fuchsberg style found in the
Altenmedingen-Haaßel long-mound with axial top-entrance urdolmen.
Most of the Polish "unchambered" mounds containing EN C pottery
and should be equivalent in age to the German and Danish tombs with Fuchsberg
pottery. Jankowska and WiílaÕski (1991:59) attribute the often
"unchambered" Pomeranian tombs to contacts with the adjacent
northwestern TRB. The Kujavian long-mounds are said to start at the beginning
of the Wiórek Phase (Koíko
II and IIIa), which Koíko
places between ca. 3600-2850 b.c. (Fig. 2.29). This
classification covers the EN A/B and most, but not all of the EN C. A
review of the evidence (Chapter 5-6)
leads to the cionclusion that Kujavian mound construction begins no earlieer
than in the rest of the TRB. The longest Polish mound is thought to be about
170 m.
East of the Elbe
trapezoidal mounds are quite common. In Poland
they seem to replace all other forms. Polish mounds frequently become almost
triangular in shape, contain sub-megalithic chambers or other structures, and
are often surrounded by partly sub-megalithic enclosures. These eastern-most
trapezoidal mounds are not always considered to be a part of the megalithic
ceremonial complex, even though they clearly contain closely related TRB
pottery.
Figure 13.5. "Unchambered" long-mound
with Early Neolithic C pottery, Stralendorf, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (after
Schuldt and Müller-Karpe)
Geographically, trapezoidal megalithic
enclosures indicate a decline or diminution in the size of border stones
from west to east. From the Lüneburg Heath on the largest stones are often used
only at the proximal end of trapezoidal or nearly trapezoidal enclosures, while
the rest of the stones decrease in size toward the distal end. The Kujavian
tombs seem to have carried this trend to its logical extreme, so that many
Polish tombs often have sub-megalithic enclosures. Sometimes megaliths occur
only at the proximal end.
The "unchambered" ˜upawa and Kujavian mounds are
a good example of declining use of megaliths in the eastern TRB. The stones
used in the ˜upawa
enclosures are often as small as the larger field stones used in
stone-packing-graves, particularly at the distal end. Some of the smaller
mounds hardly deserve to be called megalithic. The ultimate extreme must be ˜upawa mounds WPOM 25/26 and
25/17 (Midgley 1985 Fig. 36: 3 and 4). In terms of spatial analysis, this local
group distinguishes itself as having the smallest dimensions.
In contrast with the Baltic ˜upawa tombs, the inland
Kujavian mounds are much larger. They combine very narrow distal end combined
with a relatively wide proximal end, lending these mounds a triangular
appearance. Thus, the triangular shape has been viewed as a unique form of
architecture which is assumed to be unrelated to the megalithic tombs in the
west.
But the triangular form of the Kujavian mounds may be due to the use of larger
erratics and location of its non-megalithic chambers at the proximal end, which
necessitated a mean proximal width of 8 m to 9.5 m (Fig. 13.6).
This width by itself is not unusual, because it is common to find trapezoidal
mounds with chambers near the proximal end in other regions. Neither is the
form, which reaches long, nearly triangular proportions as far away as
Skabersjö 49/3, Skåne. The narrow distal end of the Kujavian mounds may simply
result from the use of sub-megalithic field stones for the enclosure. This
allows a width of less than 3.5 m. The 3.5 m trend line starts east
of the Uecker in Brandenburg and runs south of Pomerania (Baldia
1987a, b).
Figure 13.6. Polish long-barrows with
chamber-like non-megalithic structures and burials located in the proximal end,
Sarnowo 32/8 (top) and Gaj (after Midgley 1985, Chmielewski 1952).
Although the Polish mounds are termed
"chamberless," they contain structures that range from dolmen and
passage-graves to several kinds of rectilinear wooden, non- and sub-megalithic
structures. The non-megalithic "chambers" occasionally resemble their
megalithic counterparts and different types are discernible. As just stated, they are usually located in
the proximal end of the mound and it
appears that some, such as Gaj, were entered from there (Fig 13.6).
Others, as far away as Little Poland, were entered from the more customary
side (Fig 13.7). Extended skeletons were usually buried in various parts
of Kujavian Mounds. Many of the burials resemble earth-graves and
stone-packing-graves. Some of these are no doubt related to the mounds with
rectangular enclosure, such as Gnewitz, Kr. Rostock, Rothenmoor,
Kr. Sternberg and others found east of the Elbe in the Havelland, as well
as those forms found in the Czech Republic. They are dated to the late
EN C/MN Ia? (e.g. Schuldt 1972:95).
Figure 13.7. One of the eastern-most
"chamberless" trapezoidal long-mounds at MiÓocin-Kolonia, about 15 km
west of Lublin, Poland (Midgley 1985 Fig.39, No. LPOL-3 after JastrzÄbski). The form of Grave 1
(GV 1) looks surprisingly like the pavement of a megalithic passage-grave,
whose stones have been extracted. Grave 1 may have been entree from the
north side of the mound.
Therefore, Kujavian mounds should not
be considered as a separate or unique form of tomb architecture. Neither
should they be considered as prototypes for TRB megalithic tombs. Instead, they
are simply a regional variant that is similar to other Polish and eastern
German mounds, which tend to deemphasize megalithic chambers and megalithic
enclosures. They simply remained closer to the universal sub-megalithic TRB
architecture of flat-, earth, stone-packing, stone bench, and stone cist
graves.
There are only 24 trapezoidal enclosures with
urdolmen. Among these is B37 at Forst Everstorf, Kr. Grevesmühlen
which has a fairly long enclosures. This tomb, as well as the one at
Barkvieren, Kr. Rostock, have parallel urdolmen with top entrances. By
contrast, the perpendicular urdolmen in trapezoidal enclosure together with
two angled guardians of Frauenmark, Kr. Parchim is very short. A rather similar enclosure with two guardians
and a two-capstone extended-dolmen, located in Stuer, Kr. Röbel, is
even smaller.
1. Guardian
2. "Drywall"
construction
3. Side-stones
4. Passage
/ chamber entrance
5. Mound
fill
Figure 13.8. Mound and enclosure with guardians (after
Schuldt 1972).
|
TABLE 13.8
Megalithic rectilinear enclosures with
guardians
ID NO TOMB TYPE FORM
5042 UDRE?LN TRCVX
5095 UDTRLN TRW2
1088 UDRELN REW4?
5232 UD2TRLN TRW4?
1080 UD2TR+RELN TRW4?
51 PDTRLN TRW?
6424 ED?RE/TRLN RE?W4
5355 ED2TRLN TRW4
6093 EDTRLN TRW4
5204 GDTRLN TRW4
6339 GGTRLN TRW4
5361 GGTRLN TRW4
6030 GGTRLN TR4?W
5048 GGRELN RECVX
5696 GGRELN REW2
5650 GGTRLN TRW?
5724 GGTRLN TRW?
UD = urdolmen, PD =
polygonal-dolmen, ED = extended-dolmen, GD = grand-dolmen, GG =
passage-grave, RE = rectangular enclosure, TR = trapezoidal enclosure, LN =
long-mound, W = guardian, CVX = convex façade.
|
In eastern Lower Saxony,
Central Germany and Mecklenburg trapezoidal enclosures with two to four
guardian stones became popular (Fig. 13.8). However, it is less well
known that guardians may also occur in Scandinavia. Enclosures with guardians
are primarily trapezoidal and contain dolmen and passage-graves (Table 13.8).
Guardians form a façade that defines a kind of (empty?) space at the proximal
and sometimes even at the distal end. This façade may be rectilinear or
convex. The resulting design forms a
kind of plaza or forecourt (Fig. 10.16).
This makes it tempting to see
relationships with equivalent forecourt in the British Isles, but there is
no evidence of contact. The chamber entrances are on the sides of the TRB
enclosures with façades, not at the ends, as for example in the mounds of Great Britain.
Nonetheless, Windmill Tump, Ty Isaf and Belas Knap
Capel Garmon and Pipton in England and Wales have remotely similar
façades. Their dolmen- and passage-grave-like chambers are entered from the
sides of the enclosures, just as in the TRB.
Trapezoidal enclosures contain fewer
urdolmen. They also harbor only 19 extended-dolmen, but they accommodate 94
grand dolmen. This reverses the trend found in rectangular enclosures and
hints at a regional difference within the North Group during the later Early Neolithic
and MN I(a?). Furthermore, the popularity of trapezoidal enclosures
declines again in favor of rectangular and other forms of enclosures in the
Middle Neolithic, because only 62 passage-graves are enclosed in
trapezoidal mounds. In part the decline must be due to the advent of the new
Dutch type transitional enclosures of Horizon 2/3.
Only one long-mound is rhomboidal
(Fig. 13.9). It is found in Gunderup, Ribe a. (ID 1158). Measuring
35 m in length, its width was approximately 3.75, 16.05 and 3.35 m.
This results in an area of ca. 286.80 m2. The mound contains two (early axial
capstone?) extended dolmen that look remarkably similar to the two axial
capstone extended-dolmen in trapezoidal mound of Nobbin, Kr. Rügen. This
enclosure's averaged length is 30.36 m and the width ranges from 9.86 as
measured at the proximal end of the guardians and 6.74 m at the opposite
end. It encloses an averaged area of 238.33 m2. This is surprisingly close to the
measurement of Gunderup. In terms of enclosure shape, the reconstructed
enclosure of Olpnitz (ID 2267), Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernförde, which
contains two or three extended dolmen/urdolmen may be related. The
enclosure was reconstructed by Sprockhoff to have parallel sides and round ends
similar to Dutch-type enclosures and measures 18.00:6.70m.
Figure 13.9. Rhomboidal enclosure with parallel
urdolmen/extended-dolmen, Gunderup, Ribe a., Jutland (Karsten 1978: 119
Fig. 63).
16.3.2 Circular Enclosures
Tumuli occur in
all parts of the Funnel Beaker culture area, although only three are reported
for Poland by Sprockhoff. There are interesting regional differences, not the
least of which is that megalithic enclosures are primarily confined to
Scandinavia. Forms range from round to oval.
Round enclosures: As is
evident from Table 13.9, most tumuli show little evidence of enclosures.
For eastern Germany, where at least 438 tumuli once existed, 36 show evidence
of stone-enclosures and only 6 come from known stone circles. Based on
Schuldt's information, this must be attributable to the diminutive size of
circular enclosures and the probable complete absence of even those enclosures
in most tumuli. By contrast, there are a minimum of 32 circular enclosures in
the here far less well documented Denmark and 19 on Sweden's west coast.
At least sixteen round enclosures are recorded for Schleswig-Holstein, but only
3 in Northwest Germany. None are reported from Netherland or Poland. This
indicates a preference for large megalithic circular structures by the Nordic
population.
Throughout the TRB, eighteen urdolmen
including square-dolmen are located within circular enclosures. Only half that
number of extended-dolmen are surrounded by a round enclosure. Seven are
associated with stone circles of undefined form, and 79 occur in tumuli
without known enclosure. This is due to a spatial differentiation in the
EN C where extended dolmen have a more southerly distribution and,
therefore, occur commonly in the German tumuli without known enclosure. The
Nordic population preferred polygonal-dolmen while, as Schuldt himself
stressed, there are no real polygonal dolmen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This
spatial distinction is further emphasized by the fact that the majority of
polygonal-dolmen occur in circular enclosures.
Most of the round stone circles
contain urdolmen, extended-dolmen and polygonal-dolmen. Through time there is a
gradual decrease in the number of round and oval enclosures and stone circles
in general, concurrently there is a massive increase in tumuli without known enclosure.
In fact, 293 grand-dolmen occupy tumuli without known enclosures.
|
TABLE 13.9
TUMULI, CIRCULAR ENCLOSURES AND CHAMBERS
ROUND
OVAL STONE CIRCLE TUMULUS
TOTAL
Urdolmen 18 0 10 48 76
Extended-Dolmen
9 5
7 79 100
Grand-dolmen 6 6
4 293 309
Unknown dolmen
1 0
2 1 4
Passage-graves
21 5 41 70 137
Unknown chamber
1 0
4 43 48
The data show
that circular mounds and enclosures were most popular in the later phases of
the EN C and the MN Ia.
|
Figure 13.10. The
length to width relationship of transitional Dutch enclosures.
This increase in tumuli without stone-circles
is perhaps due to the high concentration of grand-dolmen in places like the
island of Rügen. In such places large megaliths would have become a rare
commodity that would have been too costly to use for enclosures. Of course,
other factors, such as the eastern tendency to use diminutive stone enclosures,
may also play a role.
There are 21 passage-graves in round
enclosures. Some 70 passage-graves are located in tumuli without evidence of an
enclosure. One of these Danish tumuli is Gundsølille (ID 1019), which
accommodates a double passage-grave. Its mound has a diameter of was once
determined to be about 80 ft (24.38 m), but modern measurements show
contour lines that show a marked angularity (Fig. 14.1).
Figure 13.11. The
length to width relationship of round, oval and transitional Dutch-type
enclosures. Circle = round, diamond = oval, square = Dutch type.
Danish passage-graves with
round enclosure make up 11 out of 21 (52.38%) of the total identifiable
number of passage-graves. Likewise, 20 out of 41 or 48.78% of all
passage-graves in stone-circles are found in Denmark.
This strongly implies that the tradition of building circular megalithic
enclosures continued into the MN in the north.
Oval Enclosures: Oval
enclosures are fairly rare. Five are known to contain extended-dolmen, six
harbor grand-dolmen and five surround passage graves. Their dimensions indicate
they are really part of the round enclosure population. Thus the traditional
category of oval enclosures is probably not an independent type. In other
words, oval enclosures are simply round enclosures that were slightly stretched
to accommodate a chamber. Furthermore, it is quite likely that most round
enclosures were not perfectly round anyway. The relationship between oval enclosures
and transitional enclosures is analyzed below.
17.3.2 Transitional Dutch-type enclosures
Ranging from roughly oval tumuli to
virtual long-mounds, the Dutch-type, occasionally kidney-shaped enclosures
form a tightly knit regional group, which is almost entirely confined to the
TRB West Group. Relationships might perhaps be traced to southern
Schleswig-Holstein, western Mecklenburg and northern Central Germany. It
is possible that at least some gallery-graves in the adjacent Hercynian Zone
had similar enclosures.
Figure 13.12. Oval kidney-shaped passage-grave
enclosure, D15 (after Bakker).
Figure 13.13. Egg-shaped passage-grave
enclosure, Sögel, Germany. (Sprockhoff 831).
In Schleswig-Holstein an oval to
slightly rectangular mound with two to three
perpendicular extended dolmen at Olpnitz
has virtually identical dimensions as the ten yoke-passage-grave's
enclosure at Westerholte 893 (ID 3892). Similar dimensions are known
for Osnabrück 913 (ID 3917) and Groß Berßen 860
(ID 3831). This illustrates that relatively similar architectural designs
existed in the southern part of the North Group before they appeared in
the West Group.
The actual Dutch-type enclosures may
have had their origin in tumuli with funnel-shaped passage/enclosure opening.
This architecture is best preserved in the three-capstone passage-grave of
Bokenäs 42/43 in Sweden and appears occasionally throughout the TRB. It is
possible that three capstone and six capstone passage-graves Gowen
211 and 210 in Mecklenburg exhibit a comparable trend towards a kidney-shape.
At least three more chambers of this form occur in eastern and
Central Germany.
Figure 13.14. Egg-shaped passage-grave
enclosure Pappeloze Kerk, Schoonoord D49 (after Bakker).
The transition from round to Dutch-type
enclosures via oval enclosures is illustrated in Figure 13.10-13.11. However,
this indicates only a statistical relationship in dimensions and needs further
examination. Besides, there is often a rectilinear component in these
enclosures, implying that they are a transitional regional form. As if to
confirm the transitional nature between round and rectilinear designs, the
enclosures range from virtually oval-shapes, as in Loon D15
(Fig. 13.12), via near egg-shapes, as in Sögel (Fig. 13.13), to more
difficult to describe shapes like that of the Pappeloze Kerk,
Schoonoord D49 (Fig. 13.14).
The longer enclosures, such as in
Westerholte 895 have a mildly trapezoidal tendency. Westerholte is no
architectural accident, because other chambers, such as Großenkneten also have
a rounded proximal end and a more or less rectilinear distal one
(Fig. 13.15). Perhaps this transitional nature is in partly due to the
overlap of several architectural building traditions.
Figure 13.15 Transitional
passage-grave enclosure of Großenkneten (Sprockhoff 934).
18.3.2 Complex enclosures
Most of the mounds and their
enclosures resemble the simple shapes just mentioned, but primarily in Denmark
and Schleswig-Holstein more complex structures were created. These are enclosures with side joints,
end joints, mound-divisions, and secondary enclosures. Nearly all
these enclosures contain dolmen, which means that they were built during the
EN C. This early tendency of sharing as well as dividing EN long-mounds
is shifted in the MN to a process of agglutination and partitioning of
passage-graves, suggesting a distinct switch in (ritual?) focus from the mound
to the chamber.
Side Joints: Side joints
occur when the long-sides of more than one enclosure are shared by building
long-mounds right next to each other. By default some of the narrow-sides could
also be shared if the mounds are the same length (Fig. 13.16).
At Katterø four to six perpendicular dolmen of
various sizes are located in a broad, nearly square mound of roughly 46 by 45 ft
(14:13.81 m). If one assumes that the two capstones in the
north of the mound still cover two dolmen-like chambers, it can be argued that
up to six axial dolmen may exist. Judging from A.P. Madsen's
illustration, the mound had a fair number of enclosure stones still more or
less in situ. These stones seem to indicate that more than one enclosure is
present. The southern chamber actually appears to be in its own rectangular
mound enclosure measuring ca. 27 1/2 by 12 1/2 ft (8.40:3.73 m).
It is possible that three rectangular
long-mounds, or - and this seems more likely - two trapezoidal and one
rectangular long-mound with shared enclosure account for the number of
otherwise oddly distributed dolmen. The northern mound would thus contain two
or so dolmen, the middle one three, and the short southern rectangular one
obviously contains only one central dolmen. This process of mound/enclosure
agglutination is also found at Flintbek LA 3 in Schleswig-Holstein and may
correlate with axial mound divisions discussed below.
Figure 13.16. Side-joints in the complex mound of
Katterø, Denmark. The lines indicating
the joined sides are based on stone alignments and mound gradient. As many as
three mounds seem to share enclosures. The original plan is reproduced below.
End Joints: End joints would
theoretically occur when long-mounds are built end to end like
double passage-graves. However, long-mounds were often built so close
together that it
is difficult to know whether they are separate mounds or one single, continuous
long-mound without thorough archaeological excavation. This category is,
therefore, only a theoretical construct. One likely Danish example is found at
Prierskovgård on Lolland (Fig. 13.17). A large primeval-like perpendicular dolmen
was placed in a small trapezoidal to rectangular mound enclosure which was
(later?) extended, or connected, to a narrower but slightly longer enclosure.
Figure 13.17. Long-mound(s) with multiple joined
enclosures or mound divisions, Prierskovgård (A. P. Madsen
1868: 50 No. 79).
This (added?) rectangular enclosure harbored a smaller
perpendicular dolmen that had a southern entrance. The change in shape of each
enclosure segment suggests adjoining, possibly chronologically sequential
construction. This notion is reinforced by the placement of the cornerstones
(guardian-stones?), which protrude beyond the end of the enclosure.
The peculiar location of the larger dolmen, and the likelihood that it had an
entrance in the north, as opposed to the south, also argue for a sequential
rather then synchronic building process. However, it is not inconceivable that
the inner rectangular structure, consisting of the small dolmen and the
smaller enclosure stones, was constructed first. The enclosure would then have
been expanded at the east and west ends to enlarge the mound. Perhaps this
explanation is also applicable to the trapezoidal West Pomeranian long-mound
of Dolice, Poland (Midgley 1985 Fig. 34 WPOM-10). There WiílaÕski
found an end-joint-like megalithic stone row about seven meters from the
proximal end of the megalithic enclosure.
Transverse timber mound divisions are known from the
Bygholm Nørremark. T. Madsen
compares the Bygholm Nørremark timber rows with those of the Barkæer,
Østergård and Tolstrup long-mounds (T. Madsen 1979:314 Fig. 5 a-c).
Related transverse stone pavements, dividing the entire long-mound stem from
Emmen D43, Oldendorf 686 and Stralendorf 403 (Bakker 1992:20).
This suggests that such divisions in wood or stone may have been a more common
feature in mound construction than is generally recognized. Further more,
pollen analysis indicates that these features, which probably mark individual
building phases, may have been of relatively short duration (ibid.).
The Polish discovery may lead to yet a third hypothesis.
Since many of the eastern Polish mounds contain a chamber like structure in the
proximal end that could also be interpreted as a kind of forecourt, end joints
may be indicative of a special structure to which the remainder of the mound
was attached.
Yet another interpretation is that the two rows of
3 stones within the Prierskovgård enclosure simply divided the mound
crosswise, in a manner that is similar to the stone plates which divide the
chambers into separate compartments or cubicles.
Axial divisions: Axial mound division are known from the tombs of
Phillippstal, Nieby and Karsko. The long-mounds of Phillippstal 33 near Roikier and Nieby 34, Kr.
Flensburg, had axial mound-divisions in the 1830's according to Pastor Jensen
(Sprockhoff 1966: 11, Plate 12 and Fig. 6 respectively). The
ca. 45 m width of the Phillippstal enclosure suggest side by side
mounds. A similar situation could have
existed in Karsko, Pyrzyce, Poland (Chmielewski 1952: 39 Fig. 10).
Recent excavations at Flintbek LA 3 indicate that the axial division is
part of the older long-mound to which a later, longer mound/enclosure was added
Fig. ___). However, at Phillippstal 33 the axial mound-division appears
to be made of stones smaller than the enclosure stones. This could indicate
that such stones function as a guideline for construction teams building the
tomb, similar to the axial sod line in D43 and the and the turf, topsoil and chalk rubble at
Avebury (cf. Bakker 1992:20, Burl 1979:171-172).
Figure 13.18. Long-mound
with two axial dolmen and rectilinear secondary enclosure, Leerbjerg
(A. P. Madsen 1868:6 No. 27).
Secondary enclosures: Secondary enclosures
are either rectilinear or circular. They are small enclosures within the large,
normal enclosure. Unlike the double enclosures, the secondary Nordic enclosures
always have a different shape than the primary enclosure. However, the
earliest enclosure at Flintbek LA3 is simply a slightly smaller version
of the second enclosure. Often, such enclosures seem to center on a particular
dolmen (Fig. 9.5). Furthermore,
enclosures only occur in long-mounds which are likely to contain only dolmen.
Passage-graves and tumuli are apparently not involved. This means that it is
purely an EN phenomenon, even though Sprockhoff (1966:70-71) speculated that
the ca. 5 m square secondary
enclosure at the Putlos 264 was a Slavic burial.
Figure 13.19. Long-mound
with two(?) perpendicular dolmen and round secondary enclosure, Gundsømagle,
Sømme h. (A. P. Madsen 1868:6 No. 25).
At Valby Hegn, North Sjælland, a
small rectangular or mildly trapezoidal long-mound exhibits an incomplete
rectangular or slightly trapezoidal enclosure. The smooth side of the stones face outward
and form a clean, non-random alignment. The stones exhibit the dark shading
that Madsen used to show that they were in situ. Two perpendicular dolmen are
immediately adjacent to the complete southeastern end of the secondary
enclosure. The northwestern end is not seen.
At Leerbjerg in East Sjælland, a
similar long-mound with two parallel dolmen of slightly different orientation
has a nearly complete, trapezoidal secondary enclosure in its northern
half (Fig. 13.18).
The secondary enclosure's stones were smaller than the actual mound
enclosure. The smaller primeval dolmen was located near the center of the
secondary enclosure, which may mean that it was the first phase of construction.
Figure 13.20. Trapezoidal
long-mound with possible axial dolmen in circular secondary enclosure,
Frejlev (A. P. Madsen 1868: 50 No. 80).
Figure 13.21. Rectangular long-mound
with parallel dolmen and two rectilinear secondary enclosures, Bavelse
(A. P. Madsen 1868: 33 No. 55).
Even more unusual is the trapezoidal
long-mound of Gundsømagle, also in
East Sjælland (Fig. 13.19).
It has a centrally located lateral dolmen. A second, very small purported dolmen is near the distal end of the mound,
right where the mostly destroyed enclosure should form the southeastern corner.
Another undefined stone with an axial east-west orientation is in the center of
the mound's distal end. Between this stone and the centrally located dolmen is
a perfectly circular enclosure constructed of stones slightly smaller than those of the
trapezoidal mound enclosure, possibly indication and earlier phase.
A similar circular
secondary enclosure is reported from Frejlev on Lolland (Fig. 13.20). This secondary enclosure is near the eastern
end of a small, mildly trapezoidal mound.
Within this circular structure is an axial capstone that probably covers
a dolmen, perhaps also representing an earlier phase. By contrast, the
secondary circular enclosure of Wartin 575, Kr. Angermünde was built
above the passage-grave during the Bronze Age, using the stones of the
mildly trapezoidal Neolithic enclosure (Bakker 1992:76-77, 190-191
Fig. 29-30 with references).
The rectangular long-mound of Bavelse
in Southeast Sjælland (Fig. 13.21)
contains two probably rectangular secondary enclosures - one at the
northern, and one at the southern end. A parallel dolmen with apparent
front-entrance seems to be surrounded by the southern secondary enclosure.
Another illustration, showing the tomb and its surrounding environment,
demonstrates how much smaller the stones of the secondary enclosure were
compared to the mound primary enclosure's side-stones.
Figure 13.22. Double enclosures of Ÿwierczynek 1 and 2, Niezawa,
Poland as illustrated by L. KosÓowski
(Chmielewski 1952: 42-43 Fig. 12 and 13).
19.3.2 Double enclosures
Although double enclosures occur
in all major regions where a large number of megalithic tombs are found, but
are very rare. A double rectangular enclosure was illustrated by Kjærbølling
in 1838, but A. P. Madsens 1884 illustration only shows a single
enclosure. Another
was built in the final construction phase of the Bygholm Nørremark
long-mound. Trapezoidal ones are also rare. Two of them were reported in a
local Polish group by L. KosÓowski
in the 1920 (Fig. 13.22). Only the sides are doubled up.
Double circular enclosures
may have been built during later, non-TRB related mound construction. Examples
are Lottorf in Schleswig-Holstein and the extended dolmen at Serahn, Kr. Güstrow in Mecklenburg.
At Flögeln, Westemünde (ID 3105) a small cist was located within a
possible double enclosure. In Lüge, Central Germany, the 3+3 side-stone
chamber had a double enclosure that was spaced far apart.
Figure 13.23. Double enclosures of Thuine,
Kr. Lingen, Osnabrück. (Sprockhoff
1975 No. 874).
The
double transitional enclosures are identical to the single Dutch-type
enclosures of the West Group. Two of these are well known. Thuine
(ID 3860, Fig. 13.23) is the larger (outside enclosure µ=32.8:7.25),
due to the fact that its chamber had seventeen capstones. Lähden,
Kr. Meppen, Osnabrück is smaller (outer enclosure µ=25.5:6.25), because
its chamber had 15 capstones. The Emsland may have harbored yet another chamber
with double enclosure at Ostenwalde on the Hümmling, according to Tempel
(Schlicht 1979a, Tempel 1978).
13.4 Related
Links
Central and North European Neolithic Chronology with summaries of
individual cultures
Neolithic/Copper Age Link Index: Links to News Bulletins,
Articles, Site Reports, Databases, etc. about the Neolithic/Copper Age in
Europe.
Megalithic Tomb Index: Scientific
database of 5000 North and Central European Long-Mounds (Long-Barrows), Tumuli,
and Megalithic Tombs, Including Gallery-graves.
Please send comments or
questions to Max Baldia.