Added
The Comparative Archaeology
Revision 1.34
Megalithic Tombs and Interregional Communication[1]
Dedicated to Märta Strömberg
By
Maximilian O.
Southern
Paper presented at
the international symposium: Megaliths and Social Geography, 13-17 May,
1994,
|
|
Introduction
The study of geography demonstrates that all societies convey information,
including goods and services, between population centers along a network of roads
and waterways. Analyzing these lines of communication should also be
fundamental to the study of social geography and megalithic tombs. Therefore,
my primary objective is to determine such lines of communication in the
Funnel Beaker culture (
Concepts such as networks, communication flows, models of spatial interaction and diffusion, territories and boundaries, etc. are the basic subject of any geography textbook.[2] Thus I need only to clarify a few concepts. Communication is the essence of culture. As used here, it includes not only language, but also other forms of social and economic interaction. For biological, linguistic, economic and other reasons communication has to follow mutually agreed upon rules shared by a group of people through time and space in order to permit the kind of interaction necessary for the survival of the group.[3] Communication thus includes the exchange of goods and services, which are transacted between nodes of a cultural network of communication lines, analogous to a modern electronic communication network. In archaeology the lines of communication are, out of necessity, idealized links between nodes, but specific lines may occasionally be isolated as actual roads and waterways, which provide physical evidence of the connections between nodes. The spatial analysis of megalithic tombs can provide such evidence.
The geographic distribution of the megalithic tombs under discussion is well
known, although no one has as yet mapped or analyzed the location of all known
tombs.[4] Similarly, I cannot claim completeness,
however, the following analysis is based on the distribution of nearly 5000
megalithic tombs. They include megalithic chambers, tumuli and long-mounds from
Origin of megalithic chambers
It has been suggested that the extended
These timber mortuary structures may have given rise to the small primeval dolmen[8] of the EN C, since they appear to have functioned like the wooden chambers. Therefore, these small dolmen do not necessarily signal a sudden culture change. Moreover, the reason behind the switch from timber to stone construction may not have been as drastic a change as is traditionally assumed, since small stone-cists, such as those on top of the Danish Rude I long-mound, possibly dating to 3711±99 B.C., may already have been in use at the time the first megalithic chambers were constructed.[9]
Furthermore, the popularity of the primeval dolmen may have arisen as a
practical solution resulting from the need for suitable large trees required
for building houses, palisades, boats and apparently even single-piece
wagon wheels. Increased village size,[10]
more numerous fields, and larger herds of domesticated grazing animals during
the later part of the EN C would have reduced the forests containing these
timbers near the villages, making stone construction more cost effective. A
decline in tree trunk diameter used in construction from the EN to the
Middle Neolithic (MN), has been noted in conjunction with likely woodland
management and supports this argument.[11]
Therefore, stone chambers should first have occurred in areas where a large
population would have been confined to limited land. The most likely place in
the
Opinions regarding the beginning and end of megalithic chamber construction vary.[13] Long-mounds with simple graves and wooden chambers may have appeared at 3900 B.C., if not earlier. Megalithic chambers were built into long-mounds and tumuli starting sometime during the Early Neolithic Fuchsberg phase (EN II). They continued to be built until the Middle Neolithic Blandebjerg phase (MN II). Danish archaeologists provide absolute dates of 3400-3100 B.C. for their construction,[14] but others date the first primeval dolmen at 3600 B.C. and the earliest passage-graves to 3350 B.C.
In the absence of a solid list of radiocarbon dates for primeval dolmen, I
estimate their range of construction at 3750-3530 B.C., while the
transition from larger dolmen, i.e. polygonal dolmen and rectilinear dolmen
with corner entrance, to passage-graves may be placed between
3400-3340 B.C. The earliest true passage-graves may appear as early as
3360 B.C. Nonetheless, regional differences must have existed. Thus the
building of passage-graves may have ceased in
While some of the German gallery-graves may have been built after the end of
passage-grave construction,[16] they must have
developed at the same time as passage-graves (Fig. 22). My architectural
analysis suggests that the gallery-graves are derived from the large dolmen
(grand-dolmen) starting at about 3400 B.C.[17]
Like these dolmen, gallery-graves have front-entrances, but perhaps through
continued contact with the
Even though local social factors no doubt introduced some variability in size, one may conclude that overall megalithic chambers became ever larger in time (Fig. 2).[19] Such an increase must be attributable to a rise in the complexity of the social organization accompanied by intensified and more structured interregional communication, aided by the use of boats and wheeled vehicles.
Chiefdoms, territories and lines of communication
An evolution from Mesolithic bands and/or Early Neolithic tribes to Middle Neolithic chiefdoms seems to be a likely development.[20] If so, territoriality may be stipulated on theoretical grounds. It had been assumed that megalithic tombs are territorial markers for such social units, but using the traditional Thiessen polygon method[21] to analyze the location of the nearly 5000 tombs, which took the computer almost thirty hours, resulted in territories largely devoid of meaning (Fig. 3).
However, disregarding the polygons and focusing on the density of the tombs
shows numerous centers of tomb building activity, which may indicate the
location of chiefdoms. From this perspective the tomb clusters imply the
existence of population centers connected by primary lines of communication.
Using a different statistical method, a primary interregional north-south and
east-west tomb density pattern, intersecting at the
Looking at the tomb pattern in greater detail, the Swedish distribution
implies that communication took place primarily via the coastal waterways
(Fig. 5). On the West Coast the tomb concentration is heaviest on the
islands of Tjörn, Orust and the adjacent coastal region to the north. This
agglomeration may in part be the result of contacts with
The Swedish West Coast tomb distribution further implies a largely coastal north-south line of communication. The original communication flow must have come from Denmark via Skåne, since true primeval dolmen, set parallel with the axis of the long-mound, seem to be missing in the north. The concentration of the unique Bohuslän square dolmen implies that they were derived from the earlier rectangular to trapezoidal primeval dolmen and must be a somewhat later autochthonous development.
The traditional north-south communication link is outlined by Neolithic,
Bronze Age, Iron Age and Viking tombs in the vicinity of the modern
Highway E6 in northern Bohuslän. But due to the dissected landscape
consisting of islands and peninsulas in this area, the north-south tomb
distribution is not always quite as obvious in Bohuslän at ca. 3300 B.C.
as it is in Skåne, implying that water transport provided greater efficiency
than roads alone. In southwestern Skåne the ancient land route must have run
just inland from the modern coast. The entrance of the Gillhög passage-grave,
located west of Highway E6 actually points in the direction of this road
and numerous mounds of different periods line the east side of the highway
between
From the beginning of the
The dolmen are mostly located near the south coast of Skåne,[28] often following what appears to be a coastal route that leads to the vicinity of Kristianstad. There the tomb cluster shrinks from a loose distribution of dolmen in the EN to a tighter, closer grouping of passage-graves in the MN.[29] This may indicate an increased concentration of wealth and power by a developing chiefdom.
Tomb building intensified on the southeast coast during the MN, when
passage-graves began to outnumber dolmen. This is apparently part of a
heightened and, one may assume, profitable interaction with
The earliest megalithic tombs in the Falbygden area of Väster Götland
are dolmen. Although there may be as many as five such early chambers,[33] the locations of only three are illustrated in
Figure 7. Their southwestern distribution, when compared to the rest of
the passage-graves, suggests an early connection with the West Coast.[34] The northern most true primeval dolmen
can be reached by following the
At first glance the isolated nature of some 240 megalithic tombs in
Väster Götland seems surprising.[37]
However, the Swedish tomb distribution and the country's geography indicate
that the Falbygden area was quite strategically located (Fig. 5 and 8).
The area is near the headwaters of several rivers, which must have promoted
communication with the population centers on the West Coast. Any attempt
by these centers to communicate with Väster- or Södermanland (where the two
northwesternmost
In addition, the location of Alvastra with associated polygonal dolmen at
the eastern shore in
Primeval dolmen are concentrated in
There is also virtually no break in the distribution of tombs along the
coast from Djursland south through Schleswig-Holstein and the western portion
of Mecklenburg (Fig. 1). A line of density peaks runs north-south from the area
of Århus across Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein via the Sachsenwald, over the
Elbe crossing through Lüneburg, Uelzen etc., down to Magdeburg (Fig. 3 and
10). This distribution echoes that of the Fuchsberg-Haaßel[39]-Wolkenwehe pottery finds and indicates an
early and intensive communication network that may originally have extended
only to the Lüneburg/Uelzen area on the west side of the Elbe and was later
expanded.[40] The river was crossed again at
The tomb density peaks, as stated before, may indicate the general location
of evolving chiefdoms, which among other things could have controlled trade and
maintained the road network between
The interregional east-west line of tomb density peaks begins in the
Netherlands and continues into Poland. A peak is seen near Groningen. A second,
related peak occurs near Emmen (Fig. 4 and 16). From there the primary
line of communication leads via an ancient
Southeast of Rügen the tomb distribution continues on to a broad peak whose
contour is most likely determined by tombs near at least two plausible Oder
crossings. One crossing led to Pyrzyce, the other along the islands to Gryfice.
A two-part peak of tombs is found near Slupsk in the Lupawa Group of Poland. The tombs around Sarnowo form yet a third peak.
The tomb concentration of Slupsk points to an EN communication line
with
The tombs along the
The earliest roads
Controlling such lines of communication must have provided great prestige,
if not wealth, and may have been the motivation behind placing megalithic tombs
along roads. That prehistoric roads were associated with megalithic tombs has
been suggested since the beginning of the nineteenth century.[48] The gallery-grave of Züschen/Lohne,
In 1957 Asmus reported wagon ruts next to the destroyed megalithic tomb at Helvesiek, Rothenburg (Wümme). The road stratigraphy started with the track of a narrow gauge vehicle, that cut deeply into the soil. The mound's fill continued to wash into the road, so that subsequent tracks of mostly wider vehicles, that cut less deeply into the soil, together with marbled soil discolorations attributed to trampling by draught animals, were preserved.[50] Furthermore unequivocal evidence of EN wagon tracks have recently been discovered in association with an extended-dolmen below the multiphase Long-mound LA 3 of Flintbek, Schleswig-Holstein.[51]
The alignment of long-mounds at Flintbek suggest an EN road on the east side
of the
Precisely how an EN road was lined by megalithic tombs is seen near the
lower
Another likely road seems to be marked by the tombs near Barendorf, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Fig. 12). It is interesting to note that the north side of this road is lined with EN C tombs, containing chambers with rudimentary top-entrances. The more advanced dolmen flank the road on both sides, their entrances facing the road.
That tombs were first placed close to geographically strategic places, such as fords, as early as the EN C may be indicated at Pustow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Fig. 12-15). Provided the river followed approximately the same course in prehistory, it seems that primeval dolmen were placed on both sides of a ford in the Schwinge, followed successively by extended-dolmen and grand-dolmen. A competitive crossing may have been established up river at a later date when the grand-dolmen were built.
Bakker has argued for roads associated with megalithic and subsequent tombs
in the
In Sweden Stahlström reached the same conclusion for Falbygden's megalithic tombs in the 1930's.[58] Indeed, one such plausible local road network is found at Karleby (Fig. 17 and 19). The projected roads conform surprisingly well to the modern road system, right down to the intersection.[59] Toward the northwestern end of the Falbygden tomb distribution Olsbo has reported an ancient road at Häggum, west of the Brunnhemsberg, leading north in the direction of the Billingen plateau.[60] The stone-lined road, recorded 200 years ago, was associated with a now destroyed probable passage-grave and later Neolithic and Bronze Age tombs (Fig. 18).
Below the Mösseberg, in the town of
An argument against such roads is the location of two passage-graves in the Mönarps Marsh (Fig. 7 and 19). However, it is not certain that the marsh was wet at the time the tombs were built.[62] It would not be surprising if the hypothetical roads were later covered by the marsh, because passage-graves are known to have been completely overlaid by bogs resulting from the deteriorating climate of subsequent periods.[63]
Assuming that the Mönarps Marsh was a wet bog at the time the tombs were constructed leaves some puzzling questions unanswered. If the tombs were built in the difficult to access swamp, how did people transport the stones and why would they build major public monuments there anyway? Furthermore, Figure 19 shows that the two tombs were built on an elongated ridge in the marsh, next to the modern country road. Those tombs seem to be a natural extension of an east-west tomb alignment, which could indicate the location of the prehistoric road. There is a similar alignment of four tombs along a ridge that reaches into the marsh on the northeast side (Fig. 7). This tomb alignment continues from the marsh to the west side of the Mösseberg in Falköping. Could this tomb alignment also have been associated with a road that crossed what is now considered the marsh? If this was the case it would imply that the Mönarps Marsh was largely dry in the areas where the tombs were located.[64]
More difficult to explain is the location of the passage-graves Luttra 14 and 15 on the southwest side of the Ålleberg. Their location may be the result of two separate roads similar to the parallel roads at Karleby (northwest of the Ålleberg). Visual inspection indicates that the sight lines of Luttra 14 (the larger and, therefore, typologically later tomb) could have been blocked, or at least impaired, by the tumulus of Luttra 15, containing a three-capstone chamber. Since the tombs are rather far apart, this unusual arrangement may perhaps be the result of Luttra 14 using Luttra 15 for sighting a celestial event.
As a rule, the entrances and passages not only face the road, but they may also be orientated along sight lines for celestial events (Fig. 20).[65] This would explain why the passages of dolmen and passage-graves are frequently acutely angled and why the majority of the chambers are found on one side of the hypothetical road. Chambers at the opposite side are usually offset to prevent interference with the sight lines (Fig. 11 and 12). Even when tombs are stacked behind each other in a manner similar to Luttra 14 and 15, as in the case of the Sieben Steinhäuser, the passage still seems to be oriented so that the sight lines are not blocked by the mound in front.[66]
Dolmen with passages are roughly perpendicular, while passage-graves and long-mounds are more or less parallel to the road. Within a group of tombs, early dolmen are more likely to be found on both sides of the road,[67] while (late dolmen? and) passage-graves seem to be only on one side of it. Gallery-graves may be aligned parallel with the road. The proximal end of Kujawian long-mounds, containing wooden chambers with dolmen-like front-entrance, may face the road. This could indicate a chronological change and regional differences.
Tombs frequently seem to cluster at intersections.[68]
Examples of likely intersections are Oldendorf, Horndorf, Hammah, Haaßel,
Groß Berßen, all in Lower Saxony; Heiligenhafen/Putlos 257-264 and
additional unnumbered tombs (including those near Kröss), the
Schmalensee-Bornhöved-Tarbeck tombs, Sachsenwald, all in Schleswig-Holstein.
Intersections are also indicated by the tomb distributions in East Central
Jutland, as for example at Årupgård.[69]
Intersections may explain the clustering of Kujawian tombs, such as those of
Sarnowo. Around
The tombs of East Central Jutland appear to line roads that pass in the vicinity of the T. Madsen's central sites.[71] The causewayed camps seem to be located in protected, strategic locations that overlook the roads, which seem to pass within one kilometer of these centers. This may also be the case with the Wartberg group's hilltop settlements and gallery-graves.[72] Observations at Halle-Dölauer Heide, which has an associated trapezoidal long-mound, leads me to suspect that this causewayed camp functioned among other things as a strategic control point of important trade routes starting as early as the (late?) EN C.
Gallery-graves and communication
The evidence for the association of gallery-graves and roads is not clear.
Tombs I,
The Elbe communication network interfaced with the gallery-graves at
Helmstedt, and the Elbe-Saale region (Fig. 21). Another area of overlap
was near the
In spite of this close connection the German gallery-graves have
traditionally been derived from
The western most German tomb is located at Schankweiler, near Bitburg, high
above the Enz, a tributary of the Prüm River. The small chamber contained an in
situ barbed wire beaker and may, therefore, date between
2050-1850 B.C.[78] A sherd found outside
the tomb, in an area disturbed by an Iron Age building, has been interpreted as
a collared flask that may or may not belong to the original content of the
chamber.[79] The French gallery-graves contain
such vessels at perhaps 2900 B.C.[80] The
collared flasks of the Hessian-Westphalian gallery-graves are not well dated,
but those of the
The nearest currently known western neighbors of Schankweiler are a small
number of Belgian megalithic chambers at Wéris near the
The proto-gallery-grave of Stein, Dutch Limburg, which dates to 2830±60 b.c., is only about 25 km from the flint mines. Relating Stein to the flint trade is, therefore, plausible, especially since other flint extraction areas were used even in the MN. However, a trade route connecting the Belgian tombs via the Ourthe and Maas to Rijkholt-St. Geertruid and Stein would require additional research. A link between Stein, or the Belgian tombs, and the porthole stone at Köln cannot be substantiated, since the original location of this probable entrance stone is evidently not known.[87]
But a line of communication from Wéris to Schankweiler, perhaps via the
valleys of secondary rivers, deserves attention, since the communication line
from Schankweiler to the Rhein appears to be gaining credibility through the
excavation of a gallery-grave at Kruft, Kr. Mayen-Koblenz[88] and an additional likely chamber northwest of
Wittlich. The line of communication could have run from Schankweiler, via
Kruft, Neu Wied, and Giessen to the North Hessian tombs and perhaps
on to the Elbe-Saale region. The apparent gap in
The often discussed direct relationship with the Paris Basin is much
more problematical. Large geographic gaps in the tomb distribution and a median
age difference of 600 years appear to preclude a direct derivation of German
gallery-graves from the west. However, some form of communication with
This makes the ongoing excavations of the enigmatic tomb, the Heilige Steine
near Muschenheim, Hesse extremely important. In a preliminary report Menke has
supported a connection with vaguely similar tombs in the Franche Comté.[94] But there may be an equally interesting
similarity with Mound 6 at Halle-Dölauer Heide. This multiphase
trapezoidal mound dates to the
Given the current state of knowledge, it cannot be entirely ruled out that a line of communication existed between the Paris Basin, Hesse, and Central Germany. But it is difficult to substantiate its geographic and chronological position.
Conclusion
To assess the processes which transforms a Mesolithic society with a largely littoral adaptation into one possessed with building ever more fantastic monuments for its ancestors let me briefly describe a 1900 km long "region of mystery and magic ... (of) dense mists ... of rocky inlets and fjords in which water, land and sky blend as one continuous form ..."[96] Countless salmon spawned in the rivers. Huge quantities of fish could be dried and stored for winter. Canoes were used to harpoon whales. Kelp, seaweeds, roots, seeds and berries were found in abundance.
This surplus of resources permitted a lengthy winter season of feasts with
ceremonies that turned into socially competitive events where families owning
the better salmon runs or berrying plots had a huge edge. When engaging in
direct rivalry, they were supported "by numbers of less privileged kin.
... Because comparable positions were held in each clan, competition developed
in attempts to raise the status of position in one clan above that of the
equivalent position of the other. Some potlatches were announced as challenges
to rival clans. Refusal to accept such a challenge was derided as indicating
the rival's inability to give the even greater potlatch."[97] Gifts of beaten native copper plaques traded
into the
As the reader may have already guessed, this is not a description of Sweden's West Coast during the Early Neolithic, but rather of the American North West Coast only a century ago. Here the magic sources of power came from the spirits of the ancestors and were celebrated in fantastically elaborate totem carvings and designs by hunters and gatherers who developed a complex social organization without agriculture or animal husbandry. If it were not for the ethnographic record, archaeologists would never suspect the existence of this social complexity.
The social interactions of Northern Europe's Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic population must have been similar, leading to increasing social complexity and ever more elaborate burial structures. The rivalry between more powerful clans led to a chiefdom-like social organization, particularly in strategic areas through which the trade of the sought after status goods, including copper,[99] amber and flint had to flow due to geographic limiting factors. The ever larger and more elaborate tombs and the ceremonies near the entrance area, or parvis,[100] bear witness to this process. The routes, along which these goods were exchanged, were guarded by the spirits of the ancestors enshrined in these tombs.
Geographic limiting factors partly determined the location of the lines of communication and produced a concentration of wealth and power which found expression in monumental burial architecture. Social competition expressed in group activities led to the building of ever larger tombs with ever more elaborate architecture. Although there is a statistically demonstrable trend of increased chamber size through time, differential wealth, power and organizational ability of the social group engaged in constructing a particular tomb must have resulted in size differences within a given period of construction.[101]
The location of the tombs and their spread must be associated with the major lines of communication of Northern Europe. These lines may have found expression in roadways lined by megalithic tombs. The construction of early tombs, for example two and three-capstone passage-graves, including those with corner-entrances, may have followed such lines, while some larger dolmen, such as Heveskesklooster, Netherlands[102] were perhaps still built in the hinterland. The construction of large chambers may have come to a sudden end at somewhat different times in different regions. The stone chambers were replaced by the traditional earth-graves and small stone-cists.
The implication for the study of social geography is that culture change proceeds along geographic lines of communication and filters into the hinterland along a dendritic pattern, causing differential rates of change. This change is further complicated by local and regional traditions, as well as the power of the local group engaged in building, or rebuilding a particular tomb at a particular time.
|
|
|
Related
Articles 1996/1999 From
Dolmen to Passage- and Gallery-Grave: An Interregional Construction Analysis.
Paper delivered 25 June 1995 at the conference on Megalithic
tombs: Their Context and Construction. Kalundborg, Denmark. (Revised 1996,
minor revisions 1997, Figures added July 1999) 1994/2000 Megalithic Tombs and interregional Communication. Paper presented at the international symposium: Megaliths and Social Geography, 13-17 May, Falköping, Sweden. Updated March 21, 2000). 1995 A Spatial Analysis of Megalithic Tombs. A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Dedman College Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. Raetzel-Fabian, Dirk 2000 Absolute Chronology and Cultural Development of the Neolithic Wartberg Culture of Germany. (Added December 10, 2000, Updated in PDF format January 8, 2002). www.jungsteinsite.de 2002 Monumentality and Communication: Neolithic Enclosures and Long Distance Tracks in West Central Europe. Paper delivered at the symposium Perspective 2000: Cultural Continuity and Social Change. The 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, April 9, 2000. First published on the Comparative Archaeology Web (www.comp-archaeology.org) in Dec. 2000. (Updated in PDF format January 5, 2002). http://www.jungsteinsite.de |
Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.