Bibliograpy, Sample Figures, C14 dates, Database of Megalithic Tombs
Baldia, M. O.
1994 Megalithic Tombs and Interregional Communication.
1996 From dolmen to passage- and gallery-grave: An interregional construction analysis.
A Bandkeramik causewayed enclosure implies 7000 year
old roads. Spatial analysis of 5000 later long-barrows, megalithic
tombs, and German/Belgian gallery-graves indicates a huge communication
network. Major communication lines disseminated culture change.
The tomb distributions partly correlate with known linguistic
groups. Tomb alignments indicate roads, converging on causewayed
camps by 3500±100 cal. BC. Megalithic tomb origins are autochthonous.
French origins are unlikely. Early megalithic architecture is
a replacement for wood in areas where large timbers become a precious
commodity, being diverted to the construction of wheeled vehicles,
palisaded enclosures, boats, increasingly large houses and perhaps
firewood for copper and gold production.
Customarily we define a prehistoric culture by assuming that regional
similarity of artifacts is due the direct communication between
the culture bearers. The greater the similarity, the more direct
or intense is the communication between the artifact makers. But
we rarely ask how this communication is structured. Here we will
address this question based on archaeological evidence for the
Neolithic/Eneolithic cultures of North and Central Europe.
Undoubtedly, communication is not entirely random. It is more
intense among those in the same household, work or age group -
the local community (e.g. Bogucki 1988, Kolb and Snead 1997).
Over greater distances it is channeled by environmental factors.
For example, ice-covered mountain ranges, turbulent seas, ominous
primeval forests, dangerous swamps and raging rivers hinder communication.
On the other hand, slow flowing rivers, calm seas and a dry, relatively
level parkland-like terrain should encourage communication. Thus
communication proceeds along a limited set of alternative channels,
not all of which are equally efficient.
From a purely economic perspective, the location and availability
of resources provides a focus for human interaction. The need
for such resources by more distant populations, combined with
environmental, technological and social factors that limit access
to such resources, result in strategically located sites along
the more efficient lines of communication. Such sites quite naturally
become the foci of human interaction, propagating innovations.
This fosters directional culture change.
By their very nature such strategically located sites provide
the opportunity to control the communication lines by secular
and/or religious means. Control in turn implies the ability to
garner social prestige, power, wealth, etc. for the local group,
if not specific individuals (Wason 1985, 1984 and presentation).
Paradoxically, as seats of power, the sites may also invite competition
for control that can lead to violence.
In Central Europe this process may be documented 7000 year ago
at the Bandkeramik causewayed enclosure of Asparn, Austria (Map,
Fig. 0; Windl 1996).
Here an old road appears to have utilized the causeways of a double
ditched enclosure in the process of traversing a gently sloping
ridge. A short distance from the enclosure a long section of the
dirt road is deeply sunken into the ridge, attesting to its great
antiquity. Typically, the dirt road, which now skirts the sunken
portion, is complemented on either side by a paved parallel modern
road system confined more directly to the valleys.
Over a millennium later the distribution of Funnel Beaker culture
(TRB) and German Gallery-Grave culture causewayed enclosures/central
sites and tombs suggest a huge communication network. Analysis
of some 5000 tombs indicates that they line prehistoric dirt roads
and cluster at intersections near central sites, fords and possible
harbors (Baldia 1995). Adjacent to the TRB is the German Gallery-Grave
culture (including the Wartberg culture). It appears to be a (later
?) part of the same communication network (ibid.). This network
tied together the various local groups of North and Central Europe,
by joining the causewayed camps/central sites through roads. The
"central sites" thus function as the primary communication
nodes.
The TRB is located in North and Central Europe, ranging from Southern
Norway to the Czech Republic and from Netherland through Poland
and into Ukraine (Figs. 1-2).
There are numerous related subcultures or groups, which change
through time and space. The TRB's C14 dates suggest an existence
between 4100/3900 - 2900/2800 BC,[1]
although there are regional differences and interpretations vary
(Fig. __ Chronology).
Located southwest of the TRB, the German Gallery-Grave culture
is largely confined to the German Highlands (Hercynian Zone; Fischer
1979), covering central and northwest Germany (cf. Beier 1991)
and may date between 3600/3500-2900/2800 BC (Figs. 1-2).
For both cultures the most prominent architectural features are
"central sites" and megalithic tombs.
The long-mounds and megalithic tombs have been derived from various
places outside the Nordic TRB. This is tantamount to saying, the
people were too ignorant to develop their own monumental architecture.
Yet the necessity of foreign genius is contradicted by the simple
construction of the first mounds and megalithic chambers in various
regions of the TRB. Applying Occam's Razor, the evidence
thus points to an autochthonous development with regional differences
due to the variability in communication intensity as illustrated
by the following model of tomb evolution ( Fig.3)
and C14 analysis (Figs. __).
(Note: The following details are for discussion purposes and will
be touched upon only briefly during the presentation).
Mounds
Non- and sub-megalithic tombs occur throughout the early TRB.
In Denmark they are exemplified by burial pits such as Dragsholm
(Fig. cal dates, Dragsholm), which still exhibits Mesolithic affinities.
Occasionally such graves provide evidence of a shallow mound cover
(Ebbesen 1992). The linear arrangement of such little mounds evolved
into a (low?) long-mound at Flintbek in North Germany (Fig. 6).The
enclosure, demarcating these burials as a rectilinear unit, was
an afterthought, leading to a long-mound which received subsequent
embellishments. Perhaps this was a universal development in the
TRB ranging as far south as the Czech Republic (Brezno).
Flintbek's gradual development explains the problems encountered
in pinning down the precise beginning of long-mounds. The architecture
was initially not monumental. Individual developments seem unstandardized,
befitting local experimentation. This negates the traditional
notion of the wholesale importation of monumental tomb architecture.
It also explains the variability in C14 dates, which nonetheless
implies a simultaneously evolution of long-mounds in most parts
of the TRB around 3800 BC (Fig. ___ 6.17 abc).
Flintbek and Bygholm Nørremark (Fig. __) provide a glimpse
of the evolution of the mound enclosure. Mounds were surrounded
by wooden enclosures, sub-megalithic and megalithic stones. Even
the enclosures of dozens of early stone lined mounds, illustrated
over a century ago, show a complex development (Figs. __).
Chambers
Wooden structures
Numerous early non- and sub-megalithic graves are known from all
parts of the TRB (e.g. Beier 1991, Ebbesen 1992). Some appear
to be wooden structures, similar to mortuary houses. A mixture
of wood and stone construction is not unusual, even occurring
in the early gallery-grave of Stein, Dutch Limburg (Modderman
1964) and the rock-cut tomb TRB tomb of Sorsum, Germany (Häßler
1979).
The switch to stone construction probably happened in circumscribed
areas, such as the Danish islands, where large timbers became
a precious commodity, due to woodland management, induced by grazing
methods, the construction of palisaded enclosures, increasingly
large houses, boats and wheeled vehicles (Baldia 1995, 1996).
The same may have happened in parts the south (Baalberge Group),
such as Moravia, where one may suspect relatively dense populations
and active trade networks, dealing in copper etc. (Baldia 1997,
Menke 1989, Smíd's presentation).
Stone cists
Stone chambers appear to be a simple, gradual replacements of
the wooden structures. Theoretically, the earliest of these chambers
could have been made of submegalithic stone slabs. However, the
small cists are very rare in the north and their dating is inconclusive.
Still, since one such cist occurs together with Konens Høj
type wooden structures in the Barkær long-mounds (Liversage
1992), the two types may have coexisted around 3600/3500 BC.
In parts of Moravia stone cists are fairly numerous, but C14 dates
are not available. Based on Smíd's typochronology, the
cists belong to the later half of the Baalberge phase. (Baalberge C14 dates
are primarily from its western region, i.e. Bohemia and Central
Germany.) Therefore, the cists may have development more or less
simultaneous in the north and the south.
However, unlike the north, there is apparently no development
in the direction of fully megalithic chambers in Moravia (Smíd's
presentation). In fact, truly megalithic chambers occur rarely
south of the Elbe-Saale confluence in Central Germany (Beier 1991).
The tradition simply fades out to the south and south east, probably
indicating a similar fall off in communication intensity over
long distances.
Megalithic chambers
Theoretically the first experiments with stone slabs could have
led to the construction of primeval dolmen. Known as urdolmen,
these first megalithic chambers, made of easily available glacial
erratics, are shaped like simple boxes, perhaps similar to the
wooden Konens Høj type graves. They developed in the northern
core area (Fig. __ core area), where glacial erratic blocks were
readily available. The urdolmen of Ølstykke dates to 3600/3500
(Fig. __ Ølstykke C14). The more elaborate structures (extended-dolmen)
may be of a slightly later date (Fig. Rastorf C14).[2]
In time, these small megalithic chambers received greater architectural
elaboration by being fitted with entrances, evolving into larger
chambers with multiple side and capstones called extended-dolmen.
They spread beyond the core area, hinting at an expansion of the
communication network.
The transition from extended- to the large grand-dolmen occurs
around 3500/3400 BC, as exemplified by the C14 dates of Säve
57, Tofta (Bägerfeldt 1993, Persson personal
comm. 1996), and Vrue Hede IV (Jørgensen 1977).
Increasing in size, this type has a broad distribution reaching
from Sweden to Central Germany, and from the Dutch to the Polish
border. The majority of grand-dolmen with three or more pairs
of side-stones were probably built around 3400/3300 BC, judging
by the C14 date of Vrue Hede I (ibid.).
Variations in their distribution density suggest differences in
the direction and intensity of communication. Rectilinear dolmen
are more common in Saxonian Zone (Fischer 1979). They are, with
the exception of one passage-grave, totally entrenched on the
Island of Rügen. Polygonal-dolmen are largely confined to
the Scandinavian Zone.
Many grand-dolmen appear to have coexisted with the passage-graves.
The transition from dolmen with front entrance to passage-grave
with side entrance is due to two factors:
1. A constant effort to increase chamber size (Fig. __ Size).
2. A developing Nordic emphasis on the entrance/passage as indicated by its increased length, complexity and preferences for a southeasterly orientation (Figs. __ complexity, orientation).
The combination of these two factors resulted in the development
of transitional rectilinear and polygonal dolmen that led to passage-graves.
The transitional rectilinear chambers with corner entrance are
found near the center of the megalithic chamber distribution.[3]
The distribution roughly coincides with the main communication
lines of the TRB and provides a rare glimpse of the directional
advance of prehistoric innovation.
The transition from dolmen to passage-grave must be dated around
3400/3300 BC. However, the dating is hotly debated. Persson
and Sjögren (1996) point to an extremely early passage-grave
date from Sweden, while most archaeologists date them to the Middle
Neolithic Ib, which P.O. Nielsen (1993:85 unnumbered Fig.)
starts after 3250 BC.
The passage-graves have the widest east/west distribution of all
megalithic chamber forms. They reached as far as Netherland. In
the east they occur sporadically in seemingly degenerated form
in Poland's Globular Amphora culture.[4]
This suggests that in spite of the obstacles posed by five major
rivers, relatively strong interaction extended throughout most
of the northern half of the TRB by 3300/3200 BC.
The development of the stone-build gallery-graves at the southwestern
periphery of the TRB around 3400 BC may have been influenced by
the TRB's grand-dolmen. This again suggests a widening of the
communication network into the Hercynian Zone. That there was
interaction with the TRB of the adjacent Saxonian and even the
Scandinavian Zone is evidenced by some of the pottery. In the
contact zone grand-dolmen overlap German gallery-graves. There
also seems to be a later (?) regional overlap with the passage-
and gallery-graves, leading to hybrid chambers.
The distribution of the "dolmen-like" chambers, but
not the passage-graves, could support traditional assumptions
of contact with the Paris Basin tombs via the Belgian gallery-graves
(Fig. __ Gallery-grave distribution; Beier 1991, Fischer 1979).
However, the gallery-graves west of the Rhein may postdate the
TRB, suggesting an expansion of the communication network after
2900/2800 BC, when Baltic amber was transported to southern France
(Beck and Bocquet 1983).[5]
This leads to the conclusion that monumental TRB mortuary architecture
was a gradual, autochthonous development. Individual regions exhibit
their own evolution. Regional differences are partly mitigated
by the dispersion of significant innovations along the major lines
of communication.
The regional differences in TRB tomb architecture are analogous
to dialects. The analogy has interesting implications, since the
so-called Indo-European homeland has been sought in the TRB and
Globular Amphora culture areas. Mallory (1989) evaluated this
research, but questions the claims.
Nevertheless, historically known linguistic groups have been used
to aid archaeology (cf. Snow's presentation) and coincide with
some of the TRB subgroups (Fig. __Subgroups). Trapezoidal mound
dimensions indicate geographic differences (Midgley 1985), which
may have linguistic implications (Fig. __ Trap. dim. plot). This
is particularly evident in the later Germanic speaking region,
where most megalithic chambers and enclosures are found. Small
mounds are most common in the Old Prussian/Baltic speaking region
on the southern Baltic coast. Large, strongly trapezoidal to triangular
mounds are in Kujavia, Poland (Map
with location of Sarnowo, Kujavia), where the later Slavic speakers
are encountered. The distribution of German gallery-graves could
coincide with a portion of the later Keltic realm or some other
suspected language group.
In places, the ancient communication pattern seems to have continued to historical times. For instance, the unique square-dolmen occur almost exclusively in Bohuslän on the Swedish west coast. They indicate a relatively isolated development, in spite of the proximity to the Falköping area. Historically known linguistic, economic and political differences between Bohuslän and Falköping are echoed in the TRB subsistence pattern and pottery style, not just chamber construction (Clark 1977, Persson personal comm. 1998).
The wider Nordic realm, down to the Eider River and the tip of
the East Holstein peninsula, exhibits concentrations of polygonal-dolmen
(Bakker 1992, Kælas 1981, 1983). Only a few are found beyond
this region (Bakker 1992). Historically, the Eider has always
been some what of a boundary between groups.
However, when speculating on linguistic relationships and the
possibility of the origins of the western Indo-European languages,
one must keep in mind the difficulties in establishing boundaries
based on prehistoric artifacts (Eggers 1959), a troublesome issue
even in the US Southwest, where archaeological cultures do not
necessarily coincide with American Indian traditions (Dongonske
et al. 1997). The problem is exacerbated by pottery typologies,
which were originally devised to differentiate ceramics through
time and space. They do not lend themselves readily to establishing
diachronic, interregional relationships. Finally, while there
is some agreement that Germanic could have originated in Southern
Scandinavia/North Germany and Old Prussian/Baltic developed near
the southern shores of the Baltic Sea, Slavic is often deemed
to be a late intrusion (Häusler 1981a, 1988, 1992b, 1995,
1996, Milisauskas personal comm. 1993).
The tomb density distribution indicates major north/south and
east/west communication lines, which meat at the Elbe River near
the Lüneburg Heath (Fig. __ density map). A closer look at
the location of the Elbe tombs shows string-like alignments, suggestive
of roads (Fig. 9). This
was first noted by Fischer (1956) in the Altmark of Central Germany).
Such roads would have been unpaved tracks, developing ruts that
forced the use of alternatives routes. One should also expect
seasonal routes, abandoned roads and multiple intersections. Roads
seem to be leading to river crossings, harbors, and central sites.
In the following I discuss a small sample of these tomb alignments
and their implications for Neolithic communication.
The Elbe tombs
In the Lüneburg Heath (Kr. Uelzen) tomb alignments imply
distinct lines of communication suggestive of roads (Fig. __ Uelzen
tombs, Fig. __ Estorf 1846 tomb alignments).
To the north, the tomb alignment near Bliedersdorf, on the upper
Elbe indicates that several extended-dolmen in long-mounds line
both sides of a likely prehistoric road (Fig. __ Bliedersdorf).
The entrances of the chambers face the road. There were once additional
tombs associated with the alignment. A barely noticeable depression
in line with the tombs appears to be the remaining trace of the
ancient roadway continue in the NW (Fig. __ Bliedersdorf slides).
A modern long distance road complements the tomb distribution,
as does a small farm road.
About 40 km SW of Bliedersdorf, near Gnarrenburg, is an ancient
marsh crossing, where a wooden track way was reported 100 years
ago. Tempel (1992) points to TRB and later tombs, as well as a
Neolithic axle and wagon wheel, found in the track's vicinity.
He suspects that traces of the original TRB crossing is below
the excavated track.
Schleswig-Holstein
A larger, similarly suggestive tomb distribution is known from
Flintbek (Fig. __ Map). The crescent shaped alignment hints at
intersections. I suspect that the road meandered from the south
eastern side of long-mound LA 3 to its opposite side, where the
wagon tracks are found. Additional tombs beyond the map also appear
to be associated with the Flintbek tombs (Baldia in press).
Antique maps in other regions of Schleswig-Holstein suggest that
tomb alignments formed roads with intersections. For example,
an old map of Bornhöved illustrates a complex road network
(Fig. __ Bornhöved).
The tomb distribution near the Oldenburg Graben, as mapped by
Hoika (1986), indicates a complex network with alternative roads,
crossing wetlands, leading past TRB villages and ending near probable
harbors (Fig. __ Oldenburg Graben). The network is partially confirmed
by the orientation of the tombs. Northwest of this map is a related
group of tombs ("Ruserberg," Futterkamp-Blenkendorf
LA4-6, Sprockhoff 1966). The series of parallel long-mounds implies
a road to the Hochwacht Bay of the Baltic Sea. TRB settlement
sites have been discovered in the bay and a nearby lake (Baldia
in press).
On the west coast of the state there is a extraordinary correlation
between megalithic tombs, proposed barrow roads, identified by
a vast number of post TRB tumuli, and known mediaeval roads. (Fig. 8;
Bakker 1991; Hinz 1950, 1953a, 1953b, 1954,).
East Germany
Numerous similar tomb alignments occur in eastern Germany. Among
the most impressive are those illustrated on Hagenow's 1829 map
of tombs on Rügen (Fig. __ Hagenow map, Fig. __ slides).
In the Everstorfer Forst megalithic tombs of various periods seem
to line an ancient way that is complemented by a farm road immediately
to the north. The more distant passage-graves hint at an intersecting
road (Fig. 7, Slides).
The tombs near Pustow indicate a river crossing. The oldest tombs
were built near the river. These were followed by later dolmen
farther away from the crossing. In time a competitive crossing
appeared, lined by later, larger chambers. (Fig. __ Slides, Pustow
map 1-3).
Along the middle Recknitz River (Schuldt 1967:1 Fig. 1) a series
of tombs suggest a complex road network. There are several apparent
crossings. This includes an impressive, old sunken road across
the river from the Liepen tombs (Fig. __ Slides).
Denmark
Vrue Hede, Denmark seems to represent a general northwest-southeast
road with probable intersections. The proposed road system is
lined by tombs, including later sub-megalithic stone-packing graves
(Bakker 1980c, Jørgensen 1977). Gaps in the alignment may
indicate crossroads. It seems likely that the area was involved
with the flint trade, possibly connecting the Danish flint mining
region of the North Sea coast with "trade centers" along
the Baltic coast.
"Kong Humbles Grav" (Skaarup 1985:151-152, #162, Map
1, 4) on southern Langeland suggests a N/S route. The tomb is
near the modern Rundkøping road, but its location points
to a more favorable route. Probable evidence of the ancient roadway
is an elongated depression parallel to the long-mound, 90-100
m from the dolmen entrance. The tomb appears to align with several
others. Unfortunately the nearest three have been destroyed.
Poland
Wislanski mapped what amounts to an intricate network of megalithic tombs east of the Oder, near Pyrcice, Poland (Map, Fig. __). The tombs and their arrangement are akin to those in the west.
Farther east, the Kujavian long-mounds seem to have a somewhat
different arrangement than those in the west. The Sarnowo tombs
suggests complex intersections in the vicinity of the early TRB
village (Fig. Wiklak 1983), which partly coincide with current
dirt roads. About 10 km southwest of Sarnowo, at Wietrzychowice
(just west of Chotel)
the wide or proximal end of each mound must have faced a road
near the current creek crossing, judging from the present landscape.
In places the combined effect of the mounds looks like a huge
wall, along which the road could have passed (Fig. __ slides,).
Northwest Germany and Netherland
The east/west distribution of megalithic tombs in northwest Germany
leads to the Visbek and Hümmling tomb clusters. Schlicht
suggested that the tombs were part of a road system (Fig. __ Schlicht
Map).
The Dutch tomb distribution suggests a continuation of the network
on the other side of the Bourtanger Moor. The huge marsh undoubtedly
hindered communication. The most likely connections were via the
Emmen/Meppen corridor in the south and the (modern) Ems estuary
in the north, as indicated by the tombs near Delfzijl and Leer
(Bakker 1978, 1979a, 1979b, 1992a, 1992b, 1982, 1990, 1991). The
Dutch tombs form alignments that coincide with Late Neolithic
mounds, built after 2900 BC (Bakker 1976, 1991; De Groot 1988,
Jager 1985), suggesting that the Neolithic roads were well entrenched
by that time (Figs. __ Dutch tomb distribution).
German gallery-graves
The German gallery-grave of Züschen/Lohne may be part of
a larger chain of tombs. It is located half way up a hill, opposite
a related Neolithic hilltop village (Kappel 1978, Schwellnus 1979).
It is paralleled by a small dirt road that more rationally fits
the landscape than the paved road near the small creek in the
valley. The village was in an ideal position to guard several
roads. The view from one of these (modern) roads is astounding.
The Züschen/Lohne tomb literally pops into view at the crest
of this road (Fig. __ slide).
The recently discovered Tombs I, III-V at Warburg (Löwe personal
communication 1994) form an alignment that could imply a prehistoric
road system, with Tomb II perhaps suggesting an intersection akin
to the adjacent modern road system (Fig. __).
Gallery-graves/cists west of the Rhein and the French connection
It is difficult to argue for a connection between the gallery-graves
of the Wartberg culture NE of the Rhein and the few chambers to
the west of the river, including those in Belgium. Given the small
size and hill top location of the chambers west of the Rhein,
some were most likely built at the time of the Single Grave/Corded
Ware culture (2900-2450 BC). The few dates from the Belgian tombs
also imply a late date [2700 BC (0.67) 2490 BC and 2400 BC (0.89)
2130 BC].[6] The barbed wire
beaker found in the small Schankweiler cist could suggest an even
later date of 2050-1850 BC (cf. Bakker 1992 xii, 40-42),
although it may also simply indicate later reuse.
Most likely, any direct connection with the Paris Basin and German
tombs postdates the TRB. This conclusion is at variance with the
traditional view (e.g. Beier 1991, Fischer 1979, Menke 1993 and
presentation) and warrants additional detailed research.[7]
To summarize, Neolithic roads have been proposed a century ago
(cf. Bakker 1976, 1991; Hoika 1987). The above shows that there
is mounting evidence that the megalithic tombs actually lined
such roads. But while the roads appear to be part of a large network
the commonly accepted early connection between French and German
tombs is more difficult to establish. Even more surprising is
the fact that Neolithic roads are still not readily accepted.
The lack of acceptance by many European archaeologists contrasts
sharply with American research, showing that roads are a common
feature in several societies equivalent to the TRB. This and other
independent evidence for wheels and wagons, requiring a road network,
will be considered below.
In the US Southwest roads were constructed by a farming society,
which had no draft animals and wheeled vehicles (e.g. Frazier
1986; Vivian 1972 and presentation). Comparative research shows
that intercommunity roads or pathways exist and are associated
with shrines, temples and/or rock art, not only in the US Southwest,
but also in Hawaii (Kolb and Snead 1997). The roads and pathways
in those areas also function as community boundary markers.
Hoika (1974, 1982, 1987a, 1987b, 1990a) observed that megalithic
tombs may have functioned as spiritual community boundary markers,
since they skirt the TRB settlements in Holstein. I have argued
(1995) that the megalithic tombs line prehistoric roads while
functioning as shrines. The research by Kolb and Snead suggests
that there is a close connection between shrines, including pictograph
locations, and roads. Perhaps the common drill or cup marks and
other symbols, including hands, feet, and occasional "sun
wheels," on megaliths confirm the close connection between
roads and tombs (Fig. __ Slide of new Mecklenburg "sun wheel").
While the dating and meaning of "sun wheel" symbols
is debatable, the paired oxen and wheeled vehicle motifs on the
German gallery-graves of Züschen/Lohne and Warburg, Northwest
Germany are more convincing (Günther 1990:46, 50 Fig. 6,
2; Fig. 7, 1-4). Some of the Warburg depictions date unambiguously
to the construction of the gallery grave.
Wheel and wagon motifs on TRB pottery confirm the use of wheeled
vehicles at the time megalithic chambers were first constructed.
Koko (1981 Fig. 31) described several Polish pots with such motifs.
The most unambiguous of them stems from the funnel beaker pot
of Bronocice, Poland, dated 3600/3400 BC (Fig. 5;
cf. Bakker's presentation). Numerous other motifs on TRB pottery
may also represent wagons and/or wheels (Baldia 1995).
Independent physical evidence of wagon tracks near tombs is even
more suggestive of roads. Wagon ruts covered by the erosion from
the mound of the destroyed megalithic tomb at Helvesiek, Rothenburg
(Wümme) stem from a narrow gauge vehicle (Asmus 1957 Plate
21, 2). They cut deeply into the soil. Superimposed tracks of
improved vehicles with wider tracks indicate advanced construction,
preventing them from sinking as deeply into the soil. In addition,
Asmus observed marbled soil discoloration, which he attributed
to trampling by draught animals and people.
That these tracks may date from the TRB is indicated by the Early
Neolithic wagon tracks associated with the extended-dolmen below
the multiphase Long-mound LA 3 of Flintbek, Schleswig-Holstein
(Zich 1994 Fig. 8 and 10). Multiple tracks, associated with
megalithic tombs and Late Neolithic mounds, are reported in Holland
(Bakker 1976, Degroot 1988, Jager 1985 and personal communication
1996).
Taken together, the archaeological evidence is highly suggestive of roads. One question remains: How do the tombs articulate with the "central sites"?
Beginning with the Neolithic, enclosed sites develop in Europe
(Fig. 4).[8]
Although TRB sites have been known in the southern areas of the
TRB for some time, the first northern site (Fig. ___ Büdelsdorf,
Schleswig-Holstein) was excavated between 1968-1974 (Haßmann
1994, Hingst. 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975). Since than a large number
of sites have been discovered in the north (Andersen 1996, Haßmann
1994), while non are known in other regions, such as eastern Germany,
where they may be covered by Slavic Period forts, utilizing the
same strategic locations (Nagel personal comm. 1997).
In the Czech Republic (and probably in nearby Poland) TRB-related
fortified "central sites" appear some time between 4000-3600
BC (cf. Smíd's presentation). The Moravian sites, coupled
with associated tomb clusters appear to make up a ca. 60 km
long communication line (Fig. __). In the Nordic TRB they first
appear around 3500 BC according to Andersen (1997), who noticed
merely a ritual relationship between these sites and the tombs.
In Scandinavia the TRB causewayed enclosures/central sites are
viewed as religious centers, some of which evolved into settlements
(Madsen 1978a, 1978b, 1982, 1988; Andersen 1997). In Germany,
Poland and the Czech Republic they are usually interpreted as
fortified villages, as well as production and trade centers (e.g.
Haßmann 1994, Kruk et al. 1996, Smíd's presentation).
In all areas the "central sites" are usually strategically
placed on hills and promontories, often near rivers and creeks
(Andersen 1997, Midgley 1992, Schwellnus 1979, Skaarup 1985, Starling
1984, 1988).
Unfortunately, in many instances the central sites, which undoubtedly
functioned as communication nodes, are still too few in number
to permit establishment of the communication network. Nonetheless,
there appears to be a close tie between megalithic tombs and causewayed
enclosures in the north. Even the German gallery-graves are within
about 1 km of the hilltop settlements (Schwellnus 1979).
In the south, Moravian hilltop fortifications are similarly associated
with one or more clusters of burial mounds. In the north the tombs
appear to form alignments and intersections near causewayed enclosures,
as first described for the sites of Northeast Jutland, Denmark
(Baldia 1985). Some of these relationships are described below.
Schleswig-Holstein
At the manufacturing center of Büdelsdorf, the tomb alignments
indicate a complex intersection (Fig. __). One of the roads may
have continued across the Eider river (Baldia in press). A similar
situation is indicated at the TRB settlement of Sachsenwaldau,
where the topography and fan-shaped tomb layout suggests a complex
road network (Fig. __). The newly discovered causewayed enclosure
of Albersdorf-Dieksknöll is also accompanied by megalithic
tomb alignments (Fig. __), suggestive of a road system (ibid.).
Denmark
At Lønt, near the Haderslev Fjord, a causewayed enclosure
is accompanied by tomb alignments, which even today are partly
aligned with the modern road (Fig. __ Lønt).
At the multiple phase causewayed enclosure of Saarup on Fyn, a
large number of megalithic tombs form a complex set of alignments
(Andersen 1997 Fig. 121-122, 124, 126). Of special interest are
the multiple constructions on both side of a likely road at Strandby
Skovgrave. Here Extended and grand-dolmen in long-mounds open
to the probable road, in a manner familiar from Bliedersdorf.
At least one of the two separate chambers (DI) suggests an alternative
route, perhaps resulting from road drift, as suggested for Flintbek.
The tombs are some distance from the TRB house.
The above leads to the inescapable conclusion that causewayed camps/central sites were located near Neolithic thoroughfares. This together with their strategic geographic location, evidence for flint, copper and possible gold trade, implies that the sites controlled communication.[9] The "central sites" together with the tombs were part of a network that could have linked up with SE Europe, where "the first tumulus burial horizon is linked with a wave of advance in metallurgy" (cf. Primas' presentation).
The earliest roads may date to the Bandkeramik 7000 years ago. It would not be surprising to find that such roads linked up with the hunting tracks proposed by Hinz as the Mesolithic precursors of TRB roads (cf. Bakker 1976, 1991). TRB tomb alignments indicate roads, converging on causewayed camps by 3500100 cal. BC. Spatial analysis of 5000 TRB megalithic tombs and German/Belgian gallery-graves indicates a huge communication network, that fostered culture change, while expanding its range. It is possible that the wide-ranging Late Neolithic cultures represent a continuation of this process, resulting from continued technical improvements and the increased availability of wheeled transport and draught animals, as well as the burgeoning metal trade.
Tomb evolution starting with small graves and occasional low mounds
implies that earthen long-barrow and megalithic tomb origins are
autochthonous. The impetus for their development is unlikely to
have come from one particular region. They are instead more likely
to be the result of changes in the internal social structure.
The notion that "the megalithic idea" spread from France
to the TRB is difficult to support, given the differences in tomb
distribution, chronology, construction design and evolutionary
trajectory (Fig. __ French-German tomb evolution). Instead, early
megalithic architecture appears to be merely a convenient replacement
for wood in areas where large timbers become a precious commodity,
being diverted to the construction of boats, wheeled vehicles,
palisaded enclosures, increasingly large houses and perhaps firewood
for copper and probably gold production.
The tomb distributions partly correlate with known Indo-European
language groups. But demonstrating continuity from the Neolithic
to the present is a daunting task. It will require intensive analysis
of huge (and currently nonexistent) databases of artifacts, coupled
with precisely correlated stratigraphies combined with a more
fine-grained chronology.
Bibliograpy, Sample Figures, C14 dates, Database of Megalithic Tombs
Baldia, M. O.
1994 Megalithic Tombs and Interregional Communication.
1996 From dolmen to passage- and gallery-grave: An interregional construction analysis.
