14. A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL OF TOMB EVOLUTION

Maximilian O. Baldia

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, Roskilde a., Sjælland (After Schuldt 1972:166 Plate 12, Hansen 1993:13,15 Fig. 11, 15).

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 Germany and Poland have megaliths on one end that gradually decrease in size towards the other end. Furthermore, some tumuli have megalithic enclosures, others use sub-megalithic stones, while many exhibit no obvious evidence of enclosures at all.[1] Thus the old distinction between “earthen long-barrows” or “unchambered” long-mounds versus mounds with megalithic enclosures and/or megalithic chambers unnecessarily distorts the unity and range of TRB burial architecture. A simple division by enclosure/mound form is more useful, although in the past enclosure dimensions were often uncritically mixed up with mound forms as round, oval, rectangular and trapezoidal. A breakdown of 3857 tombs, including mounds, enclosures and chambers (Table 14.1) shows that rectangular and trapezoidal long-mounds are the most popular enclosure forms.

Table 14.1
WED 6/30/93
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,