This page was last updated on December 3, 2000

Introduction

Currently archaeology focuses on cultural landscapes, tomb inter-visibility, and social organization in general. To be meaningful, such research depends a solid analysis of megalithic tomb construction across time and space. Unfortunately, such basic research is hampered by the fact that the tombs have usually been continuously reused, are generally heavily damaged, and their former distribution can only be partially reconstructed (e.g. Hoika 1990b:53, 85-86, Skaarup 1985:418). In addition, the traditional chamber typology is rather rudimentary and the nomenclature is not wholly standardized. As a result neither relative dating based on pottery typology nor C¹⁴dating can guarantee the original construction date, and none of these methods are sensitive enough to provide the explicit sequence of their architectural evolution (cf. Bakker 1979, 1992; Hoika 1990b; Laux 1979, 1990, 1991; Midgley 1985, 1992; D. Müller 1991).

The problem is demonstrated by the proposed dates for megalithic chamber constructions. Bägerfeldt (1993:66, 68, 73) estimates 3600-2950 B.C. for their use, with shorter periods for the construction of various types. T. Madsen (1990:32-33) proposed a building period of 380 years for the estimated 25000 Danish tombs thought to be built during the Early Neolithic (EN) C/II-MN AI. Skaarup (1990:75) dated chamber construction to 3400-3100 B.C., a span of 300 year, from the EN II Fuchsberg to Middle Neolithic (MN) AII Blandebjerg phase. For Schleswig-Holstein a construction period of ca. 360 years (3480-3120 B.C.[2]) is preferred for some 3000 known tombs (Hoika 1990b:53, 86). But 3400 to perhaps 3200 B.C. (Horizon 1-3) is envisioned for less than 100 extant passage-graves and one grand-dolmen in Netherland[3] (Bakker 1988, 1990, 1992, Brindley 1986a, b). This building period of ca. 200 years contrasts with the large number of Danish chambers of both kinds, for which P. O. Nielsen suggests a 150 year period.

Traditionally the beginning of primeval-dolmen (urdolmen) construction is dated to about 3530 B.C. (2800 b.c., Schwabedissen 1979:156). These rudimentary chambers contain collared and lugged flasks (Fig. 26), usually dated to the EN C/II Fuchsberg style (3600/3500-3200 B.C., Midgley 1992:214). Hoika (1994:89-91, Fig. 1, 100 Fig. 4; 1990b:85) even observed similarities to the FN Ic Satrup style (ca. 3800-3400 B.C., Midgley 1992:210) in the extended-dolmen Rastorf LA1. Yet the MN AIa Troldebjerg style occurs in the single capstone extended-dolmen Birkenmoor 125 and 130 with short passage (Schwabedissen 1979), as well as in the grand-dolmen of Borre, Præsthøj and Vedsted (Ebbesen 1979:71). The style is roughly equivalent to Brindley's Dutch Horizon 1 and 2 dated 3400-3300 B.C. (Bakker 1992:45, 142 Table 2), but according to P. O. Nielsen, Troldebjerg pottery is thought to be a short lived transitional style, lasting perhaps only some 50 years. Clearly, there are problems with the radiocarbon curve (e.g. Bakker 1979, 1992) and possible incongruencies in pottery classification (Midgley 1992:140). Thus it has even been suggested that some passage-graves were built during the MN AIa (e.g. Jørgensen 1977, Schwabedissen 1953). However, with the exception of a handful of contested finds, passage-graves contain MN AIb pottery, dated 3250-3100 B.C. according to P. O. Nielsen (personal communication 1996). Similarly, Hoika (1990b:86) maintains that neither grand-dolmen nor passage-graves are definitely older than MN AIb in adjacent Schleswig-Holstein.

Therefore, the logical evolution from the EN non- and sub-megalithic graves, via small urdolmen, to huge, complex MN passage-graves (e.g. Aner 1963, 1968; Bakker 1979; T. Madsen 1979, 1990; Laux 1979, 1990, 1991; Schuldt 1972; Sprockhoff 1938, 1952) is not fully supported by relative nor absolute dating (Bakker 1992, Hoika 1990b:90). Collagen C14 dates derived from human skeletal remains, if taken literally, would even suggest that burials in passage-graves predate those in dolmen, or at the very least "there does not seem to be any chronological difference between (burials in) dolmens and passage graves" (Sjögren Internet communication 15 May 1995). As a result the precise evolutionary process and duration of chamber construction is at best difficult to ascertain.

The problem is compounded by the German gallery-graves, which are often viewed as an architectural style distinct from the TRB chambers, derived from France, and variously dated (Beier 1991; Fischer 1979; Schrickel 1966, 1976, 1981; Schwellnus 1979). Interestingly enough, the same origins have been proposed for TRB chambers, especially polygonal-dolmen and passage-graves (e.g. Aner 1963, 1968, Laux 1970, 1984, 1989, 1990, Fischer 1979, Kælas 1955, 1967, J. Müller 1987).

However, the spatial analysis of nearly 5000 TRB tombs and German gallery-graves leads to a model of chamber construction with detailed chronology (Table 1, Fig. 1-2), that provides a logical autochthonous evolutionary trajectory, accounting for overlapping chamber types and regional variation (Baldia 1995). Chamber dimensions reveal a single tomb population (Fig. 3-5), starting with small structures that show an overall trend of increasing size and complexity through time and space.

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.