Updated December 3, 2000
Conclusion
The model implies that the TRB's megalithic chambers started on the Danish islands and on or near the adjacent Western Baltic coast, barely crossing the Elbe, while non and sub-megalithic tomb construction continued over a broad area. Schleswig-Holstein's Flintbek LA 3 suggests that Konens Høj graves continued in use until they were replaced by small perpendicular extended-dolmen, perhaps between 3530 B.C.-3500 B.C. (2800-2780 b.c.). The development of the urdolmen's top- and front-entrance implies that they are the result of multiple interments, although repeated ritual entries without additional burials could of course also have fostered this innovation. Chamber size increased through the use of multiple side- and capstones. The northern polygonal-dolmen evolved from square-dolmen on Sweden's west coast. A second area of development is in the Danish islands, Jylland and parts of Schleswig-Holstein, where polygonal-dolmen evolved from extended-dolmen with axial capstones. Extended-dolmen also evolved into grand-dolmen, the majority of which have a more southerly distribution. The highest concentrations of grand-dolmen is on Rügen, where the only known passage-grave appears to be intrusive (Rennebach 1986). The Nordic polygonal-dolmen become larger, taking on the appearance of polygonal to oval passage-graves. As a result the larger rectilinear dolmen, which overlap with the polygonal-dolmen, switch from a front- to a corner- and finally a side-entrance, being turned into passage-graves. This passage-grave architecture spreads into the Falbygden area, Netherland, Central Germany and parts of Poland. The gallery-graves also evolve from the larger dolmen in the adjacent contact zones near the German highlands. In this area there is no evidence of a local evolution from the more popular front-entrance to the passage-grave-like side-entrance with short passage. Passage-grave-like entrances are found primarily in the northern contact zone with the TRB West Group. This implies that gallery-graves evolved (just?) before passage-graves became popular, but there was considerable interaction, leading to both gallery-grave-like Wechte type chambers and passage-grave-like Beckum type chambers in the contact zone.
The demise of the megalithic chamber tradition is unclear. For Denmark grand-dolmen and passage-grave construction is thought to have ended at 3100. In Netherland the five largest datable grand passage-graves (O2, D32, D19, D14, D53) have 7/8-10 pairs of side-stones and a length of 12.0/11.5-17.3/17.0 m (Bakker 1992). They must be the final chambers that were constructed. Their earliest vessels are Horizon 3 pottery (3300-3200 B.C.). However, one should perhaps expect a drop in chamber size before the final demise of megalithic architecture, at least in some areas. This seems to be indicated by the West Group tombs east of Netherland and west of the Weser. Here most of the large grand passage-graves were built during Horizon 3, but a series of chambers with 6/7 pairs of side-stones and ranging in length from 10.4-15/14.5 m contain Horizon 4 sherds (3200-3050/3025 B.C., Bakker 1992:145 Table 4).[36] The increased spacing of their side-stones may reflect a decline in readily available building blocks. This may have contributed to the end of megalithic tomb construction, although there may not have been a lack of glacial erratics in some regions. The last chamber constructed may have been Westerholte, measuring 8.4/7.9 m (ibid.), consisting of five pairs of side-stones and containing Horizon 5 pottery sherds (3050/3025-2950 B.C.) as its earliest content, unless the earliest pottery is missing. Therefore, one can conclude that the end of TRB chamber construction occurred between 3100-2970 B.C., at least outside Netherland, while gallery-graves construction may have ended by 2860 B.C.
The model must undergo further fine-tuning as more C14 dates from chambers become available. However, the refined chamber typology based on building elements leads to new insights in the evolution of chamber construction. Social and economic factors, as well as the availability and kind of megaliths used in tomb construction introduced variability (Baldia 1995). Thus the various chamber types overlap in dimensions, form, and to some extent in time. Nonetheless, there is an overall trend towards increased size and complexity. Such an increase must be attributable to a rise in the complexity of the social organization (e.g. T. Madsen 1982, 1990; Randsborg 1970; Skaarup 1983, 1990) accompanied by intensified and more structured interregional communication, aided by the use of boats and wheeled vehicles. This produced a relatively unified ideology so that the custom of megalithic chamber construction spread from the core area into Norway, Netherland, Poland and Central Germany along the major lines of communication.[37] However, the specific architectural expression of this ideology was left up to local and regional groups. The actual interpretation ultimately depended on the groups' own traditions, economic where-with-all, labor resources, availability of raw materials, state of technology, level of social organization and position within the communication network.
It may, therefore, be concluded that the evolution of megalithic TRB
chambers and German gallery-graves was a logical autochthonous process. The
tomb architecture of early French megalithic tombs differs from the
autochthonous tombs. The evolutionary trajectory of chamber construction in the
two regions, although similar, is not the same in time or space (Fig. 26).
Related Links
Neolithic/Copper
Age Link Index: Links to News Bulletins, Articles, Site Reports, Databases,
etc. about the Neolithic/Copper Age in Europe.
Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.