Previous Home Next

Added June 29, 2001. Updated April 25, 2006, 10:50 hours.

  • Under Construction!
  • Only some illustrations have been added.
  • This page uses *.PNG graphics, which are visible in Explorer 5.5 and later. If you use a different browser, they may not be visible.

 

A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS

                                                                                                                                                             13. MOUNDS AND ENCLOSURES

By

Maximilian O. Baldia

1993, 1995, 1999-2001©
All rights reserved

 

 

13.1     Introduction

 

Many, but not all chambers are located in burial mounds. Following Daniel, one suspects that all chambers were intended to be covered by mounds, since they are an integral part of chamber construction. They waterproofed the chambers and provided structural support by keeping the stones from shifting and collapsing (Fig.13.1). However, some chambers, such as Heveskesklooster (Bakker 1992) (Bakker 1992), may never have been complete­ly covered.

 

 

 

Figure 13.1. The complex, watertight seal of the Jordehøj, Møn passage-grave (Hansen 1993a:60 Fig. 97). Elaborate layers of crushed flint, clay, stones, and soil cover the chamber.

 

 

 

Not counting 880 unclassifiable megalithic tombs, 2411 structures exhibit evidence of mounds, while 2217 chambers are not known to have had mounds or enclosures. Thus 52.0959% of the chambers were covered by mounds. Considering the enormous destruction of the tombs, this may be a fairly strong indication that most, if not all chambers, must have had a mound cover.

 

 

 

TABLE 13.1

Classifiable chambers without traces of mounds or enclosures

            CHAMBER TYPE            NO MOUNDS                  TOTAL                       NO MOUND

                        UD                               61                               272                                  22.42%

                        ED                               67                               261                                  25.67

                        PD                               28                                 61                                   45.90

                        GD                               64                               494                                  12.96

                        GG                               604                              1143                                 52.84

                        GA                               46                                 58                                   79.31

 

 

UD = urdolmen, PD = polygonal-dolmen, ED = extended-dolmen, GD = grand-dolmen, GG = passage-grave, GA = gallery-grave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 13.2. Complex four layer stratigraphy, Kong Svends Høj, Lolland (Dehn et al. 1992:85 Fig. 7).

 

 

Polygonal dolmen, passage-graves, and gallery-graves are the least likely to show evidence of a mound-cover (Table 13.1). Bakker suspects that the smaller passage-graves in Netherland never had mounds, but similar size mounds elsewhere do.

There is  a dearth of interregional information on TRB mound composition. Schuldt  distinguishes cairns from other (undefined) tumuli. Excavation reports, such as those by Hansen (1993a:20,24-25 Fig. 20, 31), provide good insights into the construction of the mound (Fig. 13.2). But it is difficult to form any meaningful interregional comparisons, due to the complexity of the stratigraphy resulting from continued rebuilding and expansion that often lasted right into the Bronze Age, and considerable destruction (ibid.).

The 2411 burial mounds[1] have traditionally been dichotomized into long-mounds and tumuli. Table 13.2 demonstrates that the long-mounds outnumber tumuli, which is surprising, since Schuldt (1972) found that tumuli outnumbered long-mounds in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. There is also a small number of transitional mounds. The term transitional merely refers to a transitional mound form which is neither exactly a long-mound nor a tumulus.[2]

 

 


 

 

The early phases, includ­ing the stockade and the ­trape­zoidal stone enclo­sure were constructed in the EN C.  The internal structures are both paral­lel and perpendicular to the bedding trench. This is similar to the urdolmen in their transitional phase, when the first open dolmen faced in either direction. The later, larger central structure is parallel, like the passage-graves. The original mound was supposedly constructed in two phases.  Its mega­lithic enclosure, as measured from the plan, had an average length of ca. 53 m and a width ranging from 8.09 at the proximal end via 9.95 at the widest portion to 5.39 m at the distal end. This gives it an area of 415 m2. The later megalithic phase is dated to MN I/II. Its dimensions are 66.67:11.90-11.31 m. The area of 774.04 m2 is nearly twice as large as that of the trapezoidal EN C enclosure. Judging from the remains of the megalithic chamber, it may date to the transi­tional phase when poly­gonal-dolmen developed into passage-graves, i.e. ca. 2700-2600 b.c. (3400-3280 B.C.)

 


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.[3] 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).[4]  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[5] 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.[6] 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.[7]  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).[8]

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.[9]  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.[10]  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.[11]

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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14]

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.[15]  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.[16] 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 [17] 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.[18]

 

 

                                    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).[19]  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[20] 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).[21]  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.[22] 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.[23]  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).[24] 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).[25] 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.[26] 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).[27]  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)[28] 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.[29] 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.


Previous Home Next

 

Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.

 

 



[1] Data from Sweden's west coast did not include mound information, but it may be assumed that enclosures signify mounds.

[2] An example of such mounds must be that of the double passage-grave at Gundsølille, Hansen 1993a:15 Fig. 15. Its more or less square contour plan was not available for the original data analysis, but several mounds in Mecklenburg seem to have related forms, that suggest this category needs further attention.

[3] The possible cases of two dolmen in single tumulus are Fritsholm, Sønder H. on the island of Lolland (ID 1077) and Dronninghoi, Schuby, Schleswig-Holstein (ID 2252).

[4] The data base includes wooden enclosures, for which data was available.

[5] I arrive at the following measurements for the data base:  22.80 m (computer variable ENC_LEN1), 22.76 m (ENC_LEN2) for sides of  the actual enclosure;  27.20 m (ENC_LEN3) and 28.80 m (ENC_LEN4) if one includes the "guardian stones" at both ends.

[6] Unfortunately Sprockhoff lists 154:8.5 m in his text, but the plan in the atlas measures 149 m in length and 4 to 4.5 m in width. I opted for the dimensions in the atlas, since a number of other chambers of the Sachsenwald match the narrow form.

[7] Phanefjord, Møn, Præstø a. (A. P. Madsen 1868:40 No. 62).

[8] Bildsø, Sorø a. (A. P. Madsen 1900: 8 No. 1).

[9] Budsemark, Møn, Præstø a. (Madsen 1868: 39 No. 61).

[10] This chamber may be one of the rare parallel open dolmen. If there was indeed a front-entrance, it would have required climbing the mound and reaching the entrance through a shaft after the mound was completed.  An entrance shaft would also have been necessary for primeval-like dolmen with front-entrance in tumuli. Ramp-like entrances have been demonstrated for gallery-graves and are common in the Central German Rampen Kammer. The few existing parallel dolmen with entrance combined with their unstandardized architec­ture make it unlikely that axial primeval-dolmen in long-mounds regularly had a front-entrance. It is far more likely that such dolmen are a transitional form that precede the construction of perpendicular dolmen with entrance and passage. In addition, the evolution from parallel to perpendicular dolmen may well have varied in different regions. Parallel primeval-dolmen probably developed top-entrances in some regions while some kind of entrance shafts or other openings must be presupposed in other regions. This may have happened even before they evolved a passage and a perpendicular orientation in long-mounds.

[11] Enclosures that are only mildly trapezoidal and seemed most likely to be rectangular are classified as RE/TR, while those more likely to be trapezoidal are TR/RE.

[12] Jaüdüewski 1973 (referenced in Bakker 1979a), Knöll 1975:368.

[13] The British mounds include Carn Ban, Cashtal yn Ard, East Bennan, Scottish mounds include the two South Yarrows mounds, Skelpicj, Coille Na Borgie, Ormiegill and Carrywhin. (Müller-Karpe Plates 617-620 with references).

[14] Müller-Karpe Plates 612B; 614A; 615C; 616, 1 and  2 with references.

[15] Gundsølille, Somme h., Kjøbenhavns a. (A. P. Madsen 1868: 8 No. 19).

[16] In Eastern and Central Germany only seven are found to be enclosed by stone circles.

[17] It seems plausible that Olpnitz, Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernförde is related to a number of rectangular to trapezoidal long-mounds with rounded corners, or to the rhomboidal mound of Gunderup, Ribe Amt.

[18] The chambers are ID 6248, 6285, 6326, 6384, and perhaps 5855.

[19] Katterø, Diernisse s., Salling h,, Svendborg a. (Madsen 1896: 8 No. 13).

[20] For example long-mounds I, II, and III (each with centrally located perpendicular dolmen) at Grundolden­dorf-Bliedersdorf, Kr. Stade (e.g. Wegewitz 1949: 10-12).

[21] Prierskovgård, Musse h., Lolland (Madsen 1868: 50 No. 79).

[22] The eastern dolmen has a placement within the first enclosure section that looks like the small trapezoi­dal to rectangular long-mound at Frauenmark, Kr. Parchim (Schuldt 1972: 156 Plate 2a, B22).

[23] Valby Hegn, Holbo h., Frederiksborg a. (Madsen 1868: 7 No. 15).

[24] Leersbjerg, Hvalsø h., Kjøbenhavns a. (Madsen 1868: 6 No. 27).

[25] Gundsømagle, Hvalsø h., Kjøbenhavns a. (Madsen 1868: 6 No. 25).

[26] The location of the supposed dolmen is so unusual that one wonders if the two chamber side-stones were misinterpreted and really are fallen enclosure stones.

[27] Frejlev, Musse h., Lolland (Madsen 1868: 50 No. 80).

[28] Bavelse, Tybjerg h., Præstø a. (Madsen 1868: 33 No. 55).

[29] Stokkeby, Rise Sb. 16. Tomb 405 (Skaarup 1985:206-297, Fig. 347-348).