Added
- Under Construction!
- Only some
illustrations have been added.
- This page
uses *.PNG graphics, which are visible in Explorer 5.5. If you use a
different browser, they may not be visible.
A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF MEGALITHIC TOMBS
14. A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL OF TOMB EVOLUTION
By
Maximilian O.
1993, 1995, 1999-April 25, 2006©
All rights reserved
Disclaimer
The chronology was initially developed without the
benefit of useful radiocarbon dates. The chronological table was developed
before calibration was standardized. Scandinavian megalithic chambers seem to
start around 3600/3400 cal BC. The Baalberge stone cists, in could start
earlier. Consequently, the chronology is
in need of revision.
Timber and stone was used interchangeably in the construction of Neolithic monumental burial architecture. Since this architecture consists essentially of four separate features: chamber, passage, mound and enclosure, any one feature, besides the mound could be made of stone or timber. It is, therefore, unnecessary to view timber structures as fundamentally different from stone structures. Thus an introduction of megaliths is merely a logical replacement of stone for wood, as described earlier. The following analysis explores the statistical relationship between different mounds and chambers through time and proposes a chronological model of tomb evolution.
Figure 14.1. Odd shaped mounds and enclosures
Gaarzerhof B36, Kr. Bad Doberan, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Klekkendehøj, Domsholte Sb. 85,
Møn, Gundsølille, Kirkerup Sb. 13,
14.1 Mounds and enclosures in relation to chambers
The traditional mound typology is limited to long-mounds and
tumuli and a dichotomy between megalithic and non-megalithic long-mounds. The
ill-defined distinction between the use of megalith and smaller stones appears
to be somewhat contrived, because many enclosures, particularly in eastern
|
Table 14.1 |
||||
|
PERCENT OF
TOTAL MOUNDS AND ENCLOSURES BY CHAMBER TYPE |
||||
|
|
RE |
TR |
RO |
LN DU OV
RD SC TU
MN ?? EN TOTAL N
|
|
UD |
2.26 |
.67% |
.03 |
.53%
.00% .00% .50%
.28% 1.34% .28%
1.70% .00% 7.58%
272.00 |
|
ED |
1.39 |
.53 |
.00 |
.20
.03 .14 .25
.20 2.20 .42
1.87 .06 7.28
261.00 |
|
PD |
.20 |
.08 |
.00 |
.08 .00
.00 .33 .08
.06 .08 .78
.00 1.70 61.00 |
|
GD |
.47 |
2.65 |
.00 |
.00 .00
.17 .17 .11
8.17 .22 1.78
.03 13.77 494.00 |
|
GG |
3.01 |
1.73 |
.00 |
.53 2.56
.14 .59 1.14
1.95 3.12 16.84
.25 31.87 1143.00 |
|
NC |
1.78 |
2.56 |
.00 |
.53
.00 .00 .00
.00 .00 .00
.33 .00 5.21
187.00 |
|
?? |
2.62 |
4.01 |
.00 |
5.41
.06 .00 .03
.11 1.20 .59
.00 .00 14.02
503.00 |
|
?D |
.67 |
.17 |
.00 |
.25
.00 .00 .03
.06 .03 .06
.92 .03 2.20
79.00 |
|
MC |
1.23 |
.70 |
.00 |
.75
.00 .06 .17
.81 1.17 1.28
6.22 .33 12.71
456.00 |
|
CI |
.03 |
.06 |
.00 |
.00 .00 .03
.06 .03 1.06
.03 2.37 .00
3.65 131.00 |
|
TOTAL |
13.66 |
13.16 |
.03 |
8.28 2.65
.53 2.12 2.82
17.17 6.08 32.81
.70 100.00% |
|
N |
490.00 |
472.00 |
1.00 |
297 95
19 76 101
616 218 1177
25 3587 |
Percent of mounds and enclosures listed by chamber type. 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.
Descriptive statistics based on 1156 enclosures (Table 14.2) demonstrate that there are some very short enclosures, particularly in northern Poland, which hardly qualify as megalithic structures. Yet the longest reported enclosure also comes from Poland. The mean enclosure length is 33.20 m and the median is 25.42 m. The narrowest averaged width is 2.04 and the greatest width, which stems from a circular enclosure, is 33.82 m. The mean averaged width is 7.44 m and the median width is 6.75 m. The smallest enclosure surrounds an area of only 16.62 m2, while the largest is a hundred times bigger, i.e. 1668 m2.
TABLE 14.2
SUMMARY STATISTICS OF
ENCLOSURE DIMENSIONS
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
LENGTH WIDTH
AREA
N
OF CASES 666 606
591
MINIMUM 4.600 2.040 16.620
MAXIMUM 170.000 33.860
1668.000
RANGE 165.400 31.820
1651.380
MEAN 33.290 7.443 222.956
VARIANCE 649.738 10.691
35088.672
STANDARD DEV
25.490 3.270 187.320
STD. ERROR
0.988 0.133 7.705
SKEWNESS(G1)
2.206 2.596 2.865
KURTOSIS(G2) 6.135 11.409
13.081
C.V. 0.766 0.439 0.840
MEDIAN
25.425 6.750 169.790
TOTAL OBSERVATIONS: 1156
Figure 14.2. Length and width relationship of 591 enclosures. Except for the round enclosures, the width decreases as length increases.
Figure 14.2 shows that, just like the chambers, the enclosures form a fairly homogeneous population in terms of length and width. This even includes true earthen long-barrows and “unchambered mound” enclosures. Only the round enclosures detract from this picture due to their peculiar dimensions. This situation is exaggerated for larger enclosures, because as rectilinear enclosures increase in size, they decrease in width.
Figure 14.3. Box and whiskers graph of the length of 666 enclosures by chamber type.
Analyzing enclosures length by chamber type (Fig. 14.3), shows that the “unchambered” enclosures are the longest. These enclosures also have the widest range. This must be the result of a prolonged construction period that probably started around 4000 B.C. Before the enclosure length of “unchambered” long-mounds can be compared directly with enclosures containing urdolmen, a typological and chronological analysis of different non-megalithic chambers and graves needs to be made by local researchers. Still the statistical far outside values of enclosures with urdolmen beyond 90 m may hint at a connection between long enclosures with urdolmen and those without megalithic chambers. These outlyers may be the result of a prolonged use of some mounds that were continuously extended.
Excepting the far outside values of enclosures with urdolmen, these enclosures are shorter then those of enclosures with extended-dolmen. This is clearly indicated by their respective medians. The enclosures for polygonal-dolmen are the shortest, because the majority of them occur in small round enclosures. The length also reflects the small size of many round enclosures on Sweden’s west coast.
The length of enclosures with grand dolmen indicates that there may be a decline of interest in megalithic enclosures on Rügen. Most grand-dolmen (293) are covered by tumuli without a known enclosure. Ninety-five enclosures are trapezoidal, and plainly indicate a trend toward shorter enclosures.
Figure 14.4. Box and whiskers graph of enclosure width by chamber type.
Figure 14.5. Box and whiskers graph of enclosure area by chamber type.
Enclosures with passage-graves are split more or less evenly between rectilinear and circular enclosures. The median length of the enclosures surrounding passage-graves is slightly longer than that of grand-dolmen.
“Unchambered” enclosures are the narrowest (Fig. 14.4). This is an especially interesting statistic, since it includes a large number of the nearly triangular Kujavian mounds.[2] It implies that the great length of these long-mounds is achieved by a labor saving reduction in overall enclosure and mound width.
Figure 14.6. Length
width relationship of rectangular enclosures with urdolmen.
Enclosure width shows a similar pattern between enclosures with urdolmen and those with extended-dolmen. Except for the distant statistical outlyers the enclosures with extended-dolmen are wider. This trend is continued in mounds with passage-graves.
Enclosures are widest for polygonal-dolmen, falling largely within the upper hinge of the passage-graves. The large number of outlyers for enclosures with passage-graves is accounted for by the round enclosures, which are by their very nature wider.
Evaluating the area encompassed by enclosures (Fig. 14.5) shows that all chamber types, except enclosures without megalithic chambers, have at least one far outside value. The six largest enclosures appear to be rectangular. The rectangular or trapezoidal enclosure of Höwisch, Central Germany (ID 6264) may contain either a grand-dolmen or a passage-grave. Although information about this structure is based on an old source, neither its length of 118 m nor its width of 12 m is the largest. Its area of 1416 m2 is surpassed by two rectangular long-mounds, Karow, Lübz (ID 5603) in Mecklenburg and Wulksfelde 287-6 (Walksfelde?, ID 2735) in Schleswig-Holstein. Neither has a known megalithic chambers and may or may not be “unchambered.” Their respective areas are 1440 m2 and 1668m2.
Toftum, Århus (ID 1208, T. Madsen 1979:301-20, Map.1, Fig. 3d) measures 960 m2 and should probably be considered to be an “unchambered” mound, since the two probable polygonal-dolmen are secondary. In size Toftum is followed by Snibshøj, Snæbum, Randers a. (ID 1112, A.P.Madsen 1896:XIX No. 29), which has a round enclosure ( 900.46 m2) and accommodates two passage-graves or polygonal-dolmen. The largest obviously trapezoidal enclosure is Wietrzychowice, Poland (ID 8260, Midgley 1985 Fig. 30, 39) without megalithic chambers. It measures 781 m2. This compares favorably with the largest rectangular enclosure from Denmark (Phanefjord, ID 1064 ), which contains three urdolmen and has an area of 743.86 m2. The largest enclosure encompassing the extended-dolmen Vietlübbe, Lübz, Schwerin (ID 5626) is also rectangular and measures 900.00 m2.
The smallest enclosures are mostly round and come from the west coast of Sweden. They contain mostly square-dolmen. They are followed by the small trapezoidal enclosures from eastern Germany and Poland.
Rectangular enclosures containing urdolmen have an interesting statistical profile (Fig. 14.6). Their length decreases as their width increases. This could mean that there was a certain limit to the energy that EN society was willing or able to invest in mound building. However, the data is skewed by two outlyers.
The median length of rectangular enclosures shows relatively little fluctuation from chamber type to chamber type (Fig. 14.7). This means that there is little change through time. Still, there are some observable differences. The longest mound has no megalithic chamber. There is a small increase in enclosure length from urdolmen to extended-dolmen. The polygonal-dolmen seem out of place, probably because they are a small unrepresentative sample. Their rectangular mounds are far longer than their trapezoidal ones. Enclosures with urdolmen have the greatest number of far outside values. This may imply a relatively unstandardized mound building process for the oldest rectangular mounds and reinforces the suspicion that the oldest long-mounds increased in length by accretion.
The median width of rectangular mounds is also fairly standardized (Fig. 14.8). The “unchambered” rectangular enclosures are the narrowest, but the widest contain polygonal-dolmen. Rectangular mounds with urdolmen have one very far outside value (23.21 m). It belongs to the complex mound Katterø, Diernisse s., Salling h, Fyn (Madsen 1896: 8 No. 13, ID 1095). This indicates that mound size does not only increase by lengthwise additions, but also by additions to the width, which is confirmed by the evolution of Flintbek LA3.
Figure 14.7. Box and whiskers graph of the length of rectangular enclosures by chamber type.
Figure 14.8. Box and whiskers graph of the width of rectangular enclosures by chamber type.
A comparison of the length of rectangular enclosures with trapezoidal ones shows some similarities and also some differences. The median length of trapezoidal enclosures with urdolmen is far smaller. Length is identical for both shapes, which contain extended-dolmen. However, trapezoidal enclosures with extended-dolmen (Fig. 14.9) have a much broader range and a tendency to be shorter than rectangular ones. Trapezoidal enclosures with polygonal-dolmen also show a trend opposite from rectangular enclosures with this chamber type. The length of trapezoidal enclosures with grand-dolmen has a much narrower range than rectangular enclosures containing this type of chamber. For enclosures containing passage-graves, there is very little difference in enclosure length. “Unchambered” trapezoidal enclosures are much larger than their rectangular counterparts, yet statistically they belong to the same population.
Figure 14.9. Box and whiskers graph of the length of trapezoidal enclosures by chamber type.
Figure 14.10. Box and whiskers graph of the width of trapezoidal enclosures by chamber type.
Comparing rectangular and trapezoidal enclosures containing the same chamber type shows that they belong to the same population, implying that mound form was generally not significant. Only mounds with polygonal-dolmen leave room for some doubt. Thus the shapes reflect primarily regional, sub-cultural differences, instead of chronological changes. In comparing the width of the two rectilinear enclosure types, the trapezoidal enclosures’ median width (Fig. 14.10) is larger in all chamber categories. However, the categories remain proportionately the same, except perhaps for trapezoidal enclosures with passage-graves. Overall, the latter have the widest trapezoidal enclosures.
14.2 The relationship between chamber types
The great pioneers of megalithic tomb research believed that the urdolmen, which supposedly range from 1 to 2 m in length and from 0.5 to 1.5 m in width, were either short but wide or long but narrow (Knöll, 1975:365-366). But the analysis of 305 urdolmen (Fig. 14.11 and Table 14.3) shows a much larger range of forms and a continuous distribution of their dimensions. Only the distant Swedish square dolmen are separable from the overall distribution, and then only partially.
Figure 14.11. Length and width relationship of urdolmen. The linear regression line shows that statistically length increases together with the width, although some long chambers are quite narrow.
The analysis confirms that closed dolmen are usually parallel to the long-mound axis. But in time access to the urdolmen becomes an important feature (e.g. Aner 1963, Knöll 1976, Schuldt 1972). The resulting open dolmen are usually more or less perpendicular. Yet a few parallel urdolmen also appear to be open dolmen and may be viewed as a transitional development. A similar stage of mixed orientations is found in non-megalithic long-mounds at Barkær, Bygholm Nørremark and Flintbek LA3.
Aner once felt that closed parallel-dolmen were made accessible (open dolmen) by using only half an end-stone or leaving the end-stone out altogether. But Schuldt proposed a different development for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in 1972, suggesting an intermediate stage in which a top entrance is developed in parallel dolmen. This can also be demonstrated for adjacent Schleswig-Holstein, eastern Lower Saxony and Sjælland.
TABLE 14.3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR
URDOLMEN DIMENSIONS
LENGTH WIDTH AREA
VOLUME HEIGHT 1 HEIGHT 2 ENTRANCE
THRESHOLD
N OF
CASES 205 190 187 35 35 6 78 36
MINIMUM 1.020 0.450 0.480 0.530
0.650 0.700 0.020 0.400
MAXIMUM 3.000 1.730 4.200 5.460
1.690 1.460 1.480 1.530
RANGE 1.980 1.280 3.720 4.930
1.040 0.760 1.460 1.130
MEAN 1.805
0.897 1.654 2.321
1.086 0.963 0.804 0.860
VARIANCE 0.150 0.068 0.434 1.800
0.074 0.078 0.065 0.088
STANDARD
DEV 0.388 0.260 0.659 1.342
0.271 0.279 0.256 0.296
STD.
ERROR 0.027
0.019 0.048 0.227
0.046 0.114 0.029 0.049
SKEWNESS(G1) 0.303 0.666 0.871 0.789
0.388 0.913 0.123 0.812
KURTOSIS(G2) -0.246 0.079 0.780
-0.606 -0.587 -0.255 0.662
-0.135
C.V. 0.215
0.290 0.398 0.578
0.250 0.290 0.318 0.344
MEDIAN 1.800 0.870 1.560 1.620
1.000 0.920 0.785 0.775
TOTAL
OBSERVATIONS: 305
Figure 14.12. Box and whiskers graph of all chamber lengths by chamber type. The graph shows a nearly perfect time series.
The top-entrance probably leads to the half-height front-entrance. Later the entrance variations described by Aner occur. Measurements of 78 front-entrances of urdolmen indicate that they may be as small as 20 cm for square-dolmen and as large as 1.48 for some of the large chambers.[3] The median entrance is a comfortable 78 cm and the mean is a similar 80 cm.
The impetus for the new idea of open dolmen, was once thought to be the simultaneous arrival of polygonal-dolmen and round tumuli from the west. But the analysis shows that polygonal-dolmen must be derived from an architectural environment where large urdolmen and extended dolmen with two pairs of side-stones, an axial capstone and likely short passage, as well as square-dolmen with single capstone and relatively long passage were already being built (Fig. 14.12-14.13).
During early evolution urdolmen in long-mounds are rotated, so that they may be entered from the side of the mound. Yet this process did not occur all at once, because some dolmen with axial and parallel orientation coexist in the same long-mound. Passages are added to urdolmen and extended-dolmen develop. The development of angled passages in front of urdolmen foreshadows an autochthonous evolution of the passage-grave. Thus the passage-grave is the result of traits derived from large polygonal-dolmen, large extended dolmen and possibly small, three-capstone grand-dolmen. The development must have occurred spontaneously in an area where all forms coexisted.
The continuous evolution from urdolmen to passage-grave is evident in the progressive enlargement of the chambers. The length increases from one type to the next with considerable overlap (Fig. 14.2). Only the small number of polygonal-dolmen seem to be an exception. But since they are more or less round and usually have only one capstone, they naturally would be shorter than many two-capstone extended-dolmen.
The situation is the same when one examines the width of the chambers (Fig. 14.13). Extended-dolmen are considerably wider than urdolmen, largely because most of them have their capstones rotated from the old axial position to the parallel position. The grand-dolmen demonstrate a close relationship to the extended-dolmen. On the other hand the polygonal-dolmen compensate for their limited length by an increased width. This brings their width more in line with the passage-graves, which in their early phase often had a polygonal to oval form. This fact underlines the close kinship between the two types and supports the Autochthonous Theory for dolmen and passage-graves alike.
Graphing the chamber area provides the best results (Fig. 14.14). It reinforces the above conclusions and has chronological implications as well. The median area increases from one type to the next, except between extended-dolmen and polygonal-dolmen, which are, as stated earlier, chronologically contemporary, but occupy somewhat different geographical regions.
Figure 14.13. Box and whiskers graph of chamber width by chamber type. After an initially rapid increase, width levels off in time. With the exception of some outlyers, gallery-graves are widest, because they employ lighter stones that allow greater width.
Figure 14.14. Box and whiskers graph of chamber area by chamber type. Chamber area increases in a perfect time series.
The range of the chamber area becomes ever wider and the number of statistical outlyers (outside values) increases in the larger, later chambers. Some of the outlyers may be explained as the largest possible monuments that could be erected within the limits set by the raw material and the available technology. This means that if a very heavy large megalith was close at hand it would probably be used. If this was not the case, two smaller ones would do just fine. Naturally, outlyers may also represent a chamber built by a particularly well organized, dedicated or well-endowed social unit that was able to create a much larger than normal structure. In either case, it is likely that a new chamber type was already being built, while an unusually large older chamber type was still under construction.
Figure 14.15. Box and whiskers graph of chamber volume by chamber type. Even though the number of chambers, for which all three
Of special interest are the statistical outlyers beyond the upper hinge of the passage-graves. The farthest outlyer is a round Swedish passage-grave belonging to the huge group of Falbygden chambers. Only additional measurements from this area will help determine how unusual this chamber really is.
Other outlyers belong to the big passage-graves of the West Group. These mathematical outside values provide a fairly good argument for a strong relationship between passage-graves and gallery-graves (during Horizon 3?) that is unaccounted for in the traditional typology, although Laux (1989, 1990, 1991) has placed some of them into a long and an extra wide category.
Figure 14.16. Length and width of all chamber types. In time chambers become longer and wider, until a mild split in density appears in chambers of ca. 7 m in length. This split is caused by the nordic tendency to build polygonal to round chamber forms and the Saxonian tendency to build long rectilinear chambers. A minor break occurs in chambers over 11 m in length.
TABLE 14.4
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ALL CHAMBER DIMENSIONS AND FEATURES
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
LENGTH
WIDTH AREA VOLUME HEIGHT 1 HEIGHT 2 ENTRANCE THRESHOLD
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
N OF CASES
1279 1256
1197 182 187 43
562 173
MINIMUM
1.020 0.450
0.480 0.530 0.500
0.700 0.020 0.200
MAXIMUM
41.000 4.500
84.000 80.800 2.000
1.800 1.700 3.780
RANGE 39.980 4.050
83.520 80.270 1.500
1.100 1.680 3.580
MEAN 5.723 1.652 10.154
10.842 1.362 1.266
0.731 0.758
VARIANCE 25.899 0.298
106.505 121.051 0.100
0.076 0.057 0.156
STANDARD DEV 5.089 0.546
10.320 11.002 0.316
0.276 0.239 0.394
STD. ERROR 0.142 0.015
0.298 0.816 0.023
0.042 0.010 0.030
SKEWNESS(G1) 2.673 0.306
2.411 2.661 -0.250
-0.384 0.809 3.392
KURTOSIS(G2) 9.865 0.485
8.085 10.472
-0.427 -0.604 0.900
19.740
C.V. 0.889 0.330
1.016 1.015 0.232
0.218 0.327 0.520
MEDIAN 4.200 1.650
7.140 7.625 1.400
1.300 0.700 0.650
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
TOTAL
OBSERVATIONS: 2970
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Dealing with three dimensions would provide even more useful information, but chamber height is not consistently available for all regions. Furthermore, the height is apparently not reported according to a particular standard. In spite of this, the resultant analysis of chamber volume (Fig. 14.15) complements the conclusions derived from the analysis of chamber area.
TABLE 14.5
CHAMBERS OVER THREE METERS IN WIDTH
ID.NO. TOMB
TYPE FORM µL
µW
Sweden
58 Tegnby 58/54[4] GG/PD???? OV/P8/TR 3.20
3.20
115
Åsahögen, Kvistofta GG???? OV/P9/RD 4.50
4.50
133
Ingelstorp GG/PD???? OV/P9/10 3.66
3.05
Denmark
1112 Snibshøj, Snæbum GG/PD2SCTU OV/P7/RD 3.49
3.26
OV/P8 4.26
3.26
1128 Smidstrup GGD???? OV 5.31
3.62
1208 Toftum PD?2RELN P5/RO 2.50
3.34
3881 Hekese 883 GG???? RO/TR 19.15 3.10
3882 Hekese 884 GG???? TR/RO 20.12 3.01
3937 Hilter GABS???? TR 12.35 3.55
6364
Rohrberg 140 GG/GD???? RE?/TR? 7.50
3.10
6421 Liesten 182 GG/GDEN?MN RE?/TR? 6.90
3.10
6427 Ladekath 188 GG?EN?MN? RE?/TR? 7.80 3.10
6428
Königstedt 189 GG?EN?? RE?/TR? 9.40
3.10
PD = polygonal-dolmen, PD2 = two in same mound, GABS, Gallary-grave below surface, GG = passage-grave, GGD = double passage-grave. Mound/enclosure: RE = rectangular, TR = trapezoidal, RO = rhomboidal, LN = long-mound, OV = oval, SC = stone circle, TU = tumulus, MN = unspecified mound, EN = unspecified enclosure, ? = uncertain, ???? = unknown enclosure/mound.
Summary descriptive statistics for chamber dimensions are listed in Table 14.4. Taken together, these statistics and the graphs indicate not only a continuous autochthonous evolution, they also show a significant overlap in dimensions. This is particularly the case between grand-dolmen and passage-graves, but also with small gallery-graves. This must be a strong indication that they coexisted during the EN C/MN I overlap, when two, three and probably even some four capstone chambers were constructed.
As noted archaeologists in Denmark and Germany also felt that there is a temporal overlap of grand-dolmen and passage-graves during MN I.[5] For instance, Ebbesen’s (1978:102) pottery analysis led him to conclude that the grand-dolmen:
must be of the time of the Troldebjerg style, but they continue into the time of the Klintebakke style. Therefore there is a chronological overlapping with the passage graves, almost all of which were constructed in the MN Ib. There is presumably an overlapping with the earlier types of dolmen too, because ... the dolmen at Orelund, Sandeager parish, was erected in the MN Ia; and it is conceivable that the different megalithic graves constitute a uniform, chronological, evolutionary series.
This view is confirmed when plotting the length and width of all megalithic chambers (Fig. 14.16). Starting out with humble dimensions, the chambers become ever longer. But after a length of about 11 m the number of chambers diminishes.
The width at first also increases along with the length, then the width encounters a barrier between ca. 2.60 to 3.00 m. This barrier is imposed by the available Neolithic technology.[6] The technology is unable to manipulate glacial erratics effectively beyond this barrier. To be sure, an occasional capstone exceeds the width barrier. The largest (glacial erratic?) capstones appear to be two of the three described by van Velen in 1613 for the seven capstone Surwoldshus.[7] The three western capstones measured 6.9:3.1:1.25 m (48,573.13 kg), 5.6:2.5:1.25 m (31,791.67 kg) and 5.0:3.5:1.90 m (60,404.17 kg). But such large capstones are usually oriented lengthwise, so that such oversized stones took the place of two or so smaller capstones - a practice commonly observable in single capstone primeval passage-graves. Although such stones could have been used to increase chamber width, this was usually not done, because the environment must have limited the availability of several such large stones within the transportation radius serviceable through Neolithic technology and social organization.
Thus it seems that only in areas where stone slabs or suitable erratics were available, particularly in parts of Sweden and the fringes of the German Highlands, is the width barrier attained on a relatively consistent basis. This indicates that it was not the size, as much as the weight, which was the primary limiting factor in using stones whose width reaches 2.60 to 3.00 m. The fundamental limiting factor to increased chamber size was the raw material. Additional limiting factors include technological and social, demographic and logistical constraints. Chambers exceeding this barrier occur only in strategic areas where it was possible to overcome a number of these limiting factors (Table 14.5), because the widest chambers occur primarily in widely separated clusters.
Human ingenuity overcame the limits placed on increased size with increased architectural complexity. This was especially the case with the complex passage-graves of Denmark. There double- and triple-passage-graves, passages-graves with dual passages and passages with a side chamber and one or more post-chambers were developed. In the West Group and the adjoining Hercynian Zone the solution was to build extremely long and occasionally also rather wide passage-graves and gallery-graves.
14.3 The chronological model
Rectangular and trapezoidal enclosures belong to the same population, statistically speaking. There are no significant changes in enclosure length through time, although some passage-graves occur in proportionally short mounds. The same may be true for enclosure width, although there seems to be a slight, but continued trend of increase in width among the trapezoidal mounds. On the other hand, chambers show a clear trend of increasing size through time, regardless of which dimension is analyzed. This is convincingly illustrated by the box and whiskers graphs.
Statistically all chamber types belong to the same population, as seen by their ranges, which overlap. Thus passage-graves evolve from the larger extended-dolmen, the smaller grand-dolmen and the polygonal-dolmen. But gallery-graves evolve from grand-dolmen, leading to extra wide chambers such as Hilter, and are influenced by passage-graves, although some of them are outright passage-graves simply built with different construction material. Furthermore, passage-graves have a large number of statistical outlyers which may confirm a close relationship between grand passage-graves, extended gallery-graves and grand gallery-graves.
It must, therefore, be concluded that this analysis confirms what some archaeologists have suspected for some time. To use Ebbesen’s (1978:106) words: The division of the Funnel-beaker Culture into a Dolmen and Passage-grave period can be traced back to 1874 when it was proposed by O. Montelius. In 1974 C.J. Becker changed these terms to Early and Middle Neolithic ... Thus it must be concluded that the boundary between Dolmen and Passage-grave periods has been placed right across a continuous evolution of society. Further more, the 100 or more bodies encountered on rare occasion in passage-graves merely highlight the fact that ca. 1500 years of continued interments occurred in many tombs (Skaarup 1993:106-107).
Therefore, the relative chronology, based on the ceramic typology, is of limited use in ascertaining the evolution of chambers. To make matters worse the C14 dates have too broad a range, are bedeviled by a series of wiggles and suffer from too many vagaries of nature to provide a truly independent backbone for evaluating the precise trajectory of tomb evolution. This is illustrated by nine early dates from the tombs, which have a mean of 2,978 b.c. and a range of 270 uncalibrated years.[8]
However, taking all variables into account, the preceding analysis leads to a model summarized in Table 14.6, which suggests that the evolution of megalithic chambers may have started with mounds containing non- and sub-megalithic graves, cists and chambers. This led to the construction of urdolmen between 3000-2800 b.c. (3750-3530 B.C.), a broadly defined period of 220 calibrated years. Closed urdolmen are followed by transitional dolmen at ca. 2850-2750 b.c. (3590-3460 B.C.). Within this time span of perhaps 130 years the evolution from top to front entrance occurred, additional side-stones were often added, but chamber size remained limited through the use of an axial capstone.
TABLE 14.6
CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL OF MEGALITHIC CHAMBERS
3750-2990/2860 B.C./3000-2400/2300 b.c.
3750-3290 B.C./3000-2610 b.c. Dolmen
3750-3530 B.C./3000-2800 b.c.
Primeval-dolmen (urdolmen, normally parallel to long-mound)
3590-3460 B.C./2850-2750 b.c.
Transitional dolmen (parallel/perpendicular to long-mound)
3590 B.C./2850 b.c. Top-entrance urdolmen
3530 B.C./2800 b.c. Half-height front-entrance urdolmen
3530 B.C./2800 b.c. Square dolmen
3500 B.C./2780 b.c. Extended dolmen with axial capstone
3480-3275 B.C./2760-2610 b.c.
Multiple side-stone dolmen (perpendicular to long-mound)
3480 B.C./2760 b.c. Extended-dolmen
3480 B.C./2760 b.c. Polygonal extended-dolmen
3450 B.C./2740 b.c. Grand-dolmen
3450 B.C./2740 b.c. Polygonal grand-dolmen
3400-2970 B.C./2700-2400 b.c.
Passage-graves
3400-3360 B.C./2700-2650 b.c. Transitional chambers with passage
3400 B.C./2700 b.c. Large polygonal-dolmen with passage
3400 B.C./2700 b.c. Rectilinear-dolmen/protopassage-grave with angled/corner passage
3360-2970 B.C./2650-2400 b.c. Passage-graves*
3360 B.C./2650 b.c. Primeval passage graves
3290 B.C./2610 b.c. Extended passage-graves
3240 B.C./2570 b.c. Grand passage-graves
3320-2970 B.C./2630-2400 b.c Complex
Chambers
3320 B.C./2630 b.c. Side-chamber passage-graves
3300 B.C./2620 b.c. End-chamber passage-graves
3290 B.C./2610 b.c. Double passage-graves
3260 B.C./2580 b.c. Triple passage-graves
3240 B.C./2570 b.c. Dual-passage Chambers
3210 B.C./2560 b.c. Single chamber double passage-graves
3400-2860 B.C./2700-2300 b.c. Gallery-graves
3400 B.C./2700 b.c. Primeval gallery-graves with front- or side entrance
3290 B.C./2610 b.c. Extended gallery-graves with front- or side entrance
3240 B.C./2570 b.c. Grand gallery-graves with front- or side-entrance
Chronological model of megalithic chamber evolution. Calibrations are arbitrarily rounded and based on equivalent dates by Midgley 1992:495-501. *The calibration of 3360 B.C./2650 b.c. is based on Bakker 1992:xiii.
TRB people started constructing multi-side-stone dolmen with perpendicular capstones at around 2760-2610 b.c. (3480-3290) for a period of as much as 190 calibrated years. But within 80 to 100 years the development of transitional features begin to foreshadows passage-graves. Some urdolmen and especially extended- and later grand-dolmen features begin to include angled and corner passages, rendering many dolmen, including the large polygonal-dolmen, which by definition cannot have end or side entrances, indistinguishable from primeval passage-graves. The overlap with primeval passage-graves may have lasted about 40 years from 2700-2650 b.c. (3400-3360 B.C.).
Clearly recognizable characteristics of passage-graves probably appear around 2650 b.c./3360 B.C., if not earlier. The majority of primeval passage-graves with two to three capstones, but occasionally with one to four, normally measuring ca. 2.8-3.8 m in length, were probably built before 2610 b.c./3290 B.C., a span of 70 to 100 years. During this time (perhaps starting at 2630 b.c./3320 B.C.) the first complex passage-graves with side- and end-chambers evolved in the primary area of passage-grave development. The inception of end-chambers leads to complex chambers in Jutland and the Danish islands.
Extended passage-graves must have become the norm by 2610 b.c./3290 B.C. Within 50 or so years, i.e. by ca. 2570 b.c./3240 B.C.) large passage of seven and more capstones become most popular, leading to the grand passage-graves, which are longer than 10 m. This is the period when most of the largest chambers must have been created. A final period of megalithic chamber construction may tentatively be stipulated between let us say 3200/3150 B.C to 3050/3000 B.C., based on the evidence of the West Group. During this ill defined period of 100-150 years at least five relatively long chambers with widely spaced side-stones, numbering 5/6-7+ pairs and having a length of 8/10.4-15 m, were created between the Ems and the Weser.
Gallery-graves may arise out of the same non- and sub-megalithic tradition that gave rise to TRB chambers as early as 2830±60 b.c./3570 B.C.? (Fig. 12.1). Early megalithic gallery-graves may be derived from or at least influenced by large extended- and small to medium sized grand-dolmen, with which they share most architectural features. They could have appeared at about, or just before, the primeval passage-graves developed. Therefore, gallery-graves may first appear at about 2700 b.c./3405 B.C. Perhaps at around 3290 B.C./2610 b.c. they evolve into extended gallery-graves that range from 8.60 to nearly 13 m in length and from 1.80 to 3.20 m in width. Extremely large gallery-graves, here called grand gallery-graves, may have been built around 3240 B.C./2570 b.c., which is near the upper limit of the Atteln I C14 date’s standard division (2500±65 b.c., Beier 1991a: 183a Table 12.2). This should be close to the (late) Horizon 2 pottery of Sorsum, Wechte 1 and 2. The dimensions of these large chambers overlap with the outside values of the (very large) grand passage-graves, perhaps indicating a coexistence. The end of gallery-grave construction may have occurred between 2450 b.c./3030 B.C. and 2300 b.c./2860 B.C.
14.4 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
Megalithic Tomb Index: Scientific
database of 5000 North and Central European Long-Mounds (Long-Barrows), Tumuli,
and Megalithic Tombs, Including Gallery-graves.
C14 Dates of
Megalithic Tombs: Selected list of radiocarbon dates.
Please send comments or
questions to Max Baldia.