Updated December 3, 2000
Model of
passage-grave evolution
(3400-3100/2970
B.C. / 2700- 2490/2400 b.c. [3250-3100 B.C.])
Even in areas, such as Falbygden, where relatively light, large capstones were available, the requirement of increased capstone size finally exceeded the limits of Neolithic transport and technology, so that multiple capstones had to be used for polygonal-dolmen.[18] This led to transitional forms and ultimately to oval passage-graves, which in turn caused a reconvergence of polygonal and rectilinear forms. While polygonal-dolmen became larger, turning directly into passage-graves (Fig. 10), two to four yoke rectilinear chambers continued to be built. To change the rectilinear chambers into passage-graves, the location of the entrance/passage had to be shifted. Early efforts resulted in transitional chambers, not fully classifiable as dolmen or passage-graves.
Transitional chambers with passage 3400-3360 B.C./2700-2650 b.c.: Some time during the construction of multiple side-stone dolmen, perhaps by 3400 B.C./2700 b.c., transitional chambers were created that logically led to passage-grave architecture. Transitional chambers are traditionally arbitrarily classified as grand-dolmen, e.g. Twietfort, or as passage graves, e.g. Sulkendrup Mølle. The rectilinear extended-dolmen-like protopassage-grave, in the long-mound of Ostenfeld 157, Schleswig-Holstein, is a good example of an early transition from dolmen to passage-grave. It has a corner entrance/passage. The neighboring (two-capstone?) primeval passage-grave's entrance is moved just one side-stone to the left from the corner. A similar situation is demonstrated in the long-mound of Humble 18 (Sb. 16) on Langeland, where the influence of polygonal-dolmen is evident. Between the two long-mounds almost the entire evolution from extend-dolmen with axial capstone via probable grand-dolmen, and oval polygonal-dolmen-like protopassage-grave, or extended-dolmen-like protopassage-grave with corner entrance, to passage-grave with off-center passage is recorded (Fig. 11).
That there was a deliberate effort to move the entrance/passage to the corner is shown by the apparent renovation of the grand-dolmen-like chamber at Sulkendrup Mølle, Vindinge Sb. 9, Fyn (Fig. 12). Here the dolmen's front entrance is closed off and a corner entrance is constructed during the Neolithic. Although such corner entrances/passages are rare, they are not unique. Most occur in Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark. In addition to Ostenfeld 157, Humble Sb. 16 and Vindinge Sb. 9, likely Danish protopassage-graves are Jungshoved Sb. 44, Ørslev Sb. 15, possibly Kirke Svenerup Sb. 21, all on Sjælland, and Norbæk Sb. 3, Viborg, Jylland.[19] In Schleswig-Holstein the smallest chamber of this type is Fahrenkrug 242. Certainly Hamdorf 162, Eichtal 55, Grammdorf 276 and Kellenhausen 281 belong to this class, but Büstorf 53, Holzdorf 59 and Hemmelmark 82 must also be considered.
Although protopassage-graves imply that the change from dolmen to passage-grave resulted in the area of overlap between rectilinear and polygonal-dolmen, the trend spread (quickly?) along the predominant lines of communication in the northern and western TRB (Baldia 1995). The southwesternmost chamber of this type was a grand-dolmen-like structure at Twietfort, western Mecklenburg (Fig. 13).[20] The southernmost is a three-yoke transitional chamber at Bebertal, Haldensleben in Central Germany (Schlette 1962 Tomb 8) and the westernmost is Visbek 975 in the Emsland (Fig. 14).
Primeval passage-graves (3360 B.C./2650 b.c.): P. O. Nielsen and Skaarup, date the beginning of passage-grave construction to the MN AIb, said to begin at 3250 B.C. Certainly, most passage-graves exhibit MN AIb pottery, although Jørgensen (1977), Ebbesen (1978:181) and Schwabedissen (1953) thought they were able to identify MN AIa pottery in a few cases. Also FN II pottery was found in the eastern Tannenhausen 817 passage-grave (Bakker 1979:63 Fig. 7, 1992; Laux 1991:63, Gabriel 1966) and passage-grave Kragnæs (Skaarup 1985:249-263 No. 318, Fig. 299, 5). An earlier date of µ2805±100 b.c. is suggested by two collagen dates from the same skeleton in Gökhem 17, Sweden.[21] However, the second, more precise date's lower part of the standard divination (2750-2640 b.c.) would seem to be more appropriate for this 2.7:1.0 m rectangular passage-grave. Thus Gökhem 17 should have been built between 3400-3360 B.C./2700-2650 b.c. This is close to the upper range defined by the standard deviation (3363 B.C./2660 b.c.) of the two capstone primeval passage-grave Jordhøj, which is dated K-978: 3180±183 B.C./2540±120 b.c.[22] It is also close to the earliest date from Vroue Hede III (K-1568: 2610±100 b.c., e.g. Persson and Sjögren 1996 Appendix). Still, P. O. Nielsen (personal communication 1996), who, like Persson and Sjögren (1996), uses "OxCal" plots, reinforces the more conservative position that the Vroue Hede and Jordhøj dates (K-1567, K-1568, K-978) indicate a start date fully 100 years later than the present model suggests.
On the other hand, the conservative interpretation contrasts with dates proposed by Brindley and Bakker, which tend to support the present model. In the West Group, where grand-dolmen range as far west as the Ems. Farther west, on the Hondsrug, the earliest chamber is the primeval two-capstone passage-grave G3. Its length (3.2/2.7 m) is nearly identical with that of Gökham 17. It contained Horizon 1 sherds (Bakker 1992:144-145 Tables 3 and 4, Brindley 1986a, b). The period of primeval passage-grave construction would, therefore, again fall between 3400-3360 B.C./ 2700-2650 b.c. Primeval passage-graves, normally consisting of one to three capstones and polygonal to oval shape, as well as two- to three-yoke rectilinear forms, could therefore have been built by 3360 B.C./2650 b.c. (Table 1).
If one sets aside the problems of relative dating in the West Group (Bakker 1992 Table 3-6) for the sake of argument, the four primeval two-capstone passage-graves on the Hondsrug must be derived from the protopassage-grave Visbek 975, which itself is located among a cluster of dolmen. The four small Dutch chambers are equidistantly dispersed (Bakker 1992:154 Fig. 6), which supports coexistence. [23] So one could liken them to a founder population, spreading into an area devoid of megalithic tombs, that is subsequently filled in and expanded by larger chambers.
In the Scandinavian Zone two- and three-capstone primeval passage-graves often betray their kinship with polygonal-dolmen through their polygonal/oval shape. This has led to the distinction between oval and rectilinear passage-graves (e.g. Bokelmann 1973, Hoika 1990b:59-62). Also implying a close tie with polygonal-dolmen, is the location and often oval form of single capstone passage-graves, which are primarily concentrated in Denmark and Sweden.[24] They are rather rare and have hardly been considered in any typology. Single-capstone passage-graves often seem to be well constructed, indicating great architectural skill. The builders had considerable know-how, enabling them to transport and place the huge capstone on top of chambers consisting of 2+2 and 2+3 side-stones. Except for Güby 73 which is a little shorter, these chambers are between 3.0-3.8 m long. This size limit is the result of the TRB's general inability to manipulate larger stones, although the limit is more due to weight than the size (cf. Bakker 1992, Baldia 1995). The largest chamber is Sieben Steinhäuser 180/D, Niedersachsen. It measures µ11.21 m2, which falls in the range of three-capstone chambers, such as Denghoog, Wenningstedt 4 on Sylt, with MN AIb pottery. Consequently some single-capstone chambers may have been built at about the same time as (early?) three-capstone chambers.
Extended passage-graves (3290 B.C./2610 b.c.): Where a local series of construction has been preserved, increases in length, area, and the number of side- and capstones becomes evident. Thus one can trace the evolution of the Sieben Steinhäuser from two-yoke passage-grave (with oversized, single capstone) to four-yoke chamber (with one undersized capstone).[25] Extended passage-graves are defined as chambers with four to six yokes. Ranging from 3310-3210 B.C. (OxA-2708: 2640±120 b.c., e.g. Krzak 1994:443, Persson and Sjögren 1996 Appendix), the oldest collagen date from the four-capstone, 5+4 side-stone chamber Rössberga, Falbygden area, roughly supports the projected start of this period. Extended passage-graves may have been the most popular, although their number starts to decline with six-yoke chambers, at least in Netherland.
Grand passage-graves (3240 B.C./2570 b.c.): The largest chambers consist primarily of seven or eight capstones, but larger ones, such as Thuine 874, Emsland, can have seventeen capstones (Schlicht 1979). Thuine measures µ25.50:1.60m. This is only slightly larger then the longest Danish chamber of Dysagergårds Mark, Delby, Horns h., measuring 22.6 m (Kaul 1987:22). But the unexcavated, partly destroyed structure appears to be at least two separate chambers. As a result the largest Scandinavian chamber is Karleby 58, measuring µ17.00:1.77 (Blomqvist 1989:36 Fig. 2:7a). If one includes the relatively small Polish passage-grave-like chambers, some of which are attributed to the Globular Amphora culture (Wilaski 1970b), grand passage-graves had a broad geographic distribution, implying active communication from Falbygden to Central Germany and from Netherland to Kujavia.
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
.