The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications for the development of social formations in Northern-Central Germany
2019, In: J. Müller, M. Hinz, M. Wunderlich (Eds.), Megaliths - Societies - Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe Bonn: Habelt 921–938.
Related papers
Social Implications of megalithic construction - A case study from Nagaland and Northern Germany
Megaliths - Societies - Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe, 2019
As one of the dominant objects of the Early and Middle Neolithic in northern-middle Europe, megalithic monuments are one important part of archaeological research asking for corporate structures and social developments. The analysis of possible social implications and the influence of megalith building on socioeconomic features of the communities involved in this practice can be broadened by the inclusion of ethnographic examples. Recent megalith building activities can be found in Nagaland, north-eastern India. These building traditions reflect competitive behaviour and the social representation of individuals and/ or communities. The close connection between megalith building and »feasts of merit« illustrates the socioeconomic meaning of this tradition. Due to the requirement of high amounts of resources and labour force, feasting activities and megalith building are influential regarding the balance and development of social relations and positions. Thus, in analysing the social implications of megalithic constructions, an inclusion of economic and spatial information is promising. In this study, questions dealing with the importance of competitive behaviour, cooperation and the possibility to detect a social differentiation resulting from inequalities among individuals will be asked. One of the areas with dense evidence of Funnel-Beaker activities in Northern Germany is south-eastern Schles wig- Holstein and north-western Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Extensive research on environmental conditions, settlements and grave structures by various projects provides good conditions for further analyses. An analysis of the occurrence of various grave goods in different grave types and a comparison of house sizes reveals no greater differences among the data set. Hence, a social differentiation or inequality based on unequal access to material goods and the ability to build unusual large houses is rejected. The comparison of megalith building traditions and the economic productivity – as reflected by the occurrence of flint axes – reveals interesting variation among local communities and different regions. As a result of this study, megalithic monuments can be interpreted as important objects of representative and competitive character, affecting social structures of the related communities.
How to build a Neolithic? Perspectives on megalith building practices and landscape perception during the Funnel Beaker period in northern Germany
Changing Identity in a Changing World Current Studies on the Stone Age around 4000 BCE - Edited by Daniel Groß and Mikael Rothstein, 2023
With the transition to the Neolithic period around 4100 BCE, a new form of cooperative action-the construction of monumental megalithic tombs-appears in northern central Europe, as well as southern Scandinavia. This practice had a great influence on the social organization and the expression of identities of communities of that time, as well as on the perception and use of landscape. A deeper look into the intensity and form of the construction of megalithic burial sites within a small region in modern-day northern Germany leaves us with an impression of the diversity that was connected to the overarching idea of megalith building. The paper will examine perspectives on the intra and inter-community significance of the socioeconomic act of constructing landscapes. Focus will be on the megalithic construction activities themselves and the chronological developments of megalithic burial grounds with reference to the Funnel Beaker period in northern Germany, focusing on the time between 4100 and 3200 BCE. This includes a consideration of the embeddedness of megaliths in specific systems of landscape division and use, as well as the diverse economic abilities and choices of existing communities.
Neolithic Land Use History in Northwestern Germany – First Results from an Interdisciplinary Research Project
The Neolithic settlement and land use history in northwestern Germany is subject to detailed archaeological and palynological investigations that are carried out within the framework of the DFG priority program “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation –the Emergence of Neolithic Monuments and Early Complex Societies in Northern Central Europe”. Up to now, only little is known about the settlement structure and the environmental conditions and changes in northwestern Germany during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC, although various megalithic monuments, grave mounds as well as surface finds indicate that the area was settled by the West Group of the Funnel Beaker and the subsequent Single Grave Cultures. Therefore, five local research areas were selected that bear high potential for interdisciplinary investigations into the structural context between graves and settlements, the temporal and spatial patterns of the Neolithic occupation period, and on the human impact on the landsc...
Neolithic Settlement and Land Use History in Northwestern Germany – First Results from an Interdisciplinary Research Project
Siedlung, Grabenwerk, Großsteingrab, 2012
The Neolithic settlement and land use history in northwestern Germany is subject to detailed archaeological and palynological investigations that are carried out within the framework of the DFG priority program “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation –the Emergence of Neolithic Monuments and Early Complex Societies in Northern Central Europe”. Up to now, only little is known about the settlement structure and the environmental conditions and changes in northwestern Germany during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC, although various megalithic monuments, grave mounds as well as surface finds indicate that the area was settled by the West Group of the Funnel Beaker and the subsequent Single Grave Cultures. Therefore, five local research areas were selected that bear high poenclosures, in order to shed light on the cultural context of Neolithic societies in Northern Europe since 4100 BC (compiled by Müller 2009; 2011). In Northwestern Germany, the distribution area of the west group of the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB) and the Single Grave Culture (EGK) is to be investigated. Several traces were left by both cultures in the areas between the Elbe and Ems rivers. The most prominent features are the numerous megalithic tombs that – at least partly – still shape today’s landscape (Fig. 1). They have often been objects of scientific research as their architecture and distribution reveal regional differences in settlement intensities and land use. In addition, a few flat graves, hoards, and settlements with building features are known (complied by Assendorp 1999; Kossian 2005; Laux 1995; Strahl 1990), while no causewayed enclosures have yet been identified from the mentioned area (compiled by Richter 2002, 3 pp.). Therefore, this setting is ideally suited for investigations into the Neolithic colonisation history of the 4 th and the early 3 rd millennia BC. The research project of the Lower Saxony Institute for Historical Coastal Research (NIhK) commences here. Within the project it is necessary to explore whether the rare TRB settlement features can be considered to be characteristic for this epoch and which settlement pattern might be presumed. Hence, the localisation and the extensive examination of wellpreserved TRB and EKG settlements are of great significance (Nösler et al. 2011). The relationships between graves and coexistent settlements and the existence of hierarchical structures among single settlements and graves, respectively, are important topics that will be addressed within the examinations. It is also of great importance to know which natural preconditions the Neolithic settlers had to deal with and which climatic and ecological changes they had to face. Palynological investigations will give insights into these developments. A number of further questions are to be investigated. For example, when was the TRB established on the Northwestern German Plain? From which cultures (Ertebølle, Swifterband, Rössen / Bischheim) did the TRB evolve? Which culture(s) influenced the TRB, and what reasons were crucial for this development? The transition from the TRB to the EGK, including when and why it took place, will also be analysed. The state of the art prior to the project’s commencement and its first results shall be presented in the following.
A. Kramer, M. Mennenga, D. Nösler, H. Jöns & F. Bittmann, Neolithic Land Use History in Northwestern Germany – First Results from an Interdisciplinary Research Project In: M. Hinz & J. Müller (Hrsg.), Siedlung, Grabenwerk, Großsteingrab (Bonn 2012)
The Neolithic settlement and land use history in northwestern Germany is subject to detailed archaeological and palynological investigations that are carried out within the framework of the DFG priority program “Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation –the Emergence of Neolithic Monuments and Early Complex Societies in Northern Central Europe”. Up to now, only little is known about the settlement structure and the environmental conditions and changes in northwestern Germany during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC, although various megalithic monuments, grave mounds as well as surface finds indicate that the area was settled by the West Group of the Funnel Beaker and the subsequent Single Grave Cultures. Therefore, five local research areas were selected that bear high potential for interdisciplinary investigations into the structural context between graves and settlements, the temporal and spatial patterns of the Neolithic occupation period, and on the human impact on the landscape. The research areas are located in the Elbe/Weser Triangle (Flögeln / Sievern, Wanna and Lavenstedt), in the Emsland (Hümmling) and the Wildeshauser Geest on sandy geest islands, all in the federal state of Lower Saxony. At least one pollen profile from each local research area was recovered from bogs and fens to work on the landscape reconstruction of Northwestern Germany. First results imply differences in the chronological development and intensity of the human impact on the vegetation possibly depending on regional differences or on the profile’s vicinity to different find categories like settlements or graves. The archaeological investigations will focus on three of the local research areas where promising sites were identified. At Holzhausen in the Wildeshauser Geest, geomagnetic surveys generated a structure that might be evoked by remains of a causewayed enclosure. In addition, two promising TRB settlements were discovered at Sievern and Lavenstedt. The close connection of the settlement at Lavenstedt to various Neolithic tombs provides the opportunity for working on questions concerning TRB settlement structures. At Sievern, the site was yet dated to the oldest Neolithic settlement in Northwestern Germany which is supported by results from pollen analysis and radiocarbon dating of the profile from the neighbouring bog “Dorumer Moor”. Therefore, we expect gain of knowledge about the Neolithic transition in the area.
Landscape, power and settlement dynamics. Notes on archaeological methods by means of examples from the Northern Rhineland, Germany.
Landscape in the Past & Forgotten Landscapes. Cracow Landscape Monographs Vol. 2. Landscape as impulsion for culture: research, perception & protections, 2016
In the last decades, evidence for settlement continuity in the rural space of the Northern Rhineland from late Antique to Early Modern Times is increasing. Focused on the Rhenish open cast lignite mining area, it will be discussed whether new semiotic and performative approaches in German landscape archaeology will come to convincing explanations for places enduring fundamental societal and economical changes. Special attention will be paid to the strategies of local rulers to legitimate their power symbolically and by means of rituals and performance. Most of the places, engrossed by the local elites, had religious meanings in a broader sense which were used to legitimate power. New elites or local leaders in weak positions in times of crises required symbols of power to legitimate their unstable social position. A common strategy was to refer back on ruins and old symbols of power to construct traditions and myths of origin. Therefore, places with particular symbolic meanings had a stabilising effect on settlement structures, especially in times of crisis.
Same but different? Neolithic economic and cultural change in northern Germany.
Landscapes, Histories and Societies in the Northern European Neolithic, 2014
Certain ideal types are associated with terms like “Funnel Beaker Culture” or “Neolithic mode of production”. Although they are helpful, if not necessary, as analytical tools they carry the risk of being used in narratives about the actual past, overlooking their artificial nature. Although there is an awareness of this problem in the case of the “culture concept”, there seems to be a lack of sensitivity in the case of economic habits and their impact on the structure and characteristics of societies. On the basis of the investigation of the Neolithic landscape, the site locations, and natural conditions in two districts of Schleswig-Holstein (Stormarn and Herzogtum Lauenburg), this paper will discuss the different trajectories — locational continuity and discontinuity — for different activities and the economic practises that can be deduced from the different land uses. While there appears to be a long continued implementation of areas for permanent settlements from the Mesolithic up to the Late Neolithic, fundamental differences are nevertheless obvious in the case of temporary activity zones. The related changes do not coincide with phase boundaries implemented for cultural and stylistic traditions. This leads to the plausible conclusion that not only economic practices but also societal configurations were continually in-between different stages of development.
On-site to off-site: A multidisciplinary and multiscale consideration of the 13th to 11th century BCE transformation in northern Germany
In book "Millet and what else? The wider context of the adoption of millet cultivation in Europe". Sidestone Press., 2022
Older and more recent excavations in the Mang de Bargen micro-region of northern Germany have revealed traces of local human activities, starting from the Late Neolithic (ca. 2200 BCE) and continuing, through the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, to the Roman Iron Age (1st century BCE). This paper focuses on the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age occupation, when the site was used mainly for funerary activities. Near and on-site palaeo-environmental investigations revealed that the local environment was changing during this period. The fundamental shift in burial rites during the 13th to 11th centuries BCE coincided with a fundamental change in land-use practices. This probably included an intensification of use of open, agricultural land associated with a shift from woodland to grassland pasturage. A number of crops typical of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age agriculture in northern Germany were in use at Mang de Bargen. A comparison of the developments at the local scale (based on both on- and near-site data) with the archaeological, archaeobotanical and palaeoenvironmental evidence from a regional (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany) and a supraregional (northern Germany) scale (using off-site data) reveals similar and coinciding changes in material culture, burial rites and land-use patterns. The changing land-use practices in northern Germany during the last centuries of the 2nd millennium BCE are also reflected in the diversification of the crop spectrum, including the beginning of cultivation of broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum). This supports the idea that the 13th to 11th centuries BCE were the time of far-reaching societal transformation. Substantial changes occurred in many forms of material expression (settlement architecture, layout and size; utilitarian objects), as well as in ideology (mortuary practice), technology (raw materials and techniques), trade and exchange (intensified circulation of goods), and the food economy (new crops and domesticates).
Settlements and social development of the 3rd millennium BC in central Germany
Bell Beaker Settlement of Europe, 2019
In: A. Gibson (ed.), Bell Beaker Settlement of Europe: The Bell Beaker Phenomenon from a Domestic Perspective. Prehistoric Society Research Papers 9 (Oxford), 235-254. Central Germany is generally defined as being the Middle Elbe-Saale region, located North, East and South of the Harz Mountains and within the federal states of Saxony, Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt. In the north it is limited by the lowlands of northern Germany with mostly poor-quality soils and in the south by the Thuringian Forest and the Ore Mountains. The areas south-east to north-east of the Harz mountains were key settlement regions during the Neolithic, due to the excellent soils and the balanced climate. In addition, natural deposits of salt and copper are important, although the use of local copper sources in the Neolithic remains to be confirmed. This paper starts with a brief regional overview of the cultural development during the 3rd millennium BC and outlines the general character of the settlement and economic strategies of the different archaeological cultures. The aim of this paper is to present new insights into settlements and house structures of the Final Neolithic, namely the Schönfeld culture, the Corded Ware culture and the Bell Beaker culture, in Central Germany (Fig. 13.1) and to relate them to those of the subsequent Early Bronze Age Únětice culture. Mainly based on the evidence discovered within the last 15 years, the settlement history of the period between approximately 2800–2000 BC will be re-evaluated.
M EG A LI T H S
SOC I E T I E S
L A N DS C A PE S
volume
E A R LY M O N U M E N TA L I T Y A N D
S O C I A L D I F F E R E N T I AT I O N I N
N EO L I T H I C EU R O P E
Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 18
3
Eds.:
Johannes Müller
Martin Hinz
Maria Wunderlich
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der CAU Kiel
Megaliths – Societies – Landscapes
Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe
Volume 3
Proceedings of the international conference »Megaliths – Societies – Landscapes. Early Monumentality
and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe« (16th –20 th June 2015) in Kiel
Eds.: Johannes Müller, Martin Hinz, Maria Wunderlich
in Kommission
Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn
2019
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung
der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn
und des Institutes für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der CAU zu Kiel
Verlag
Redaktion
Bildbearbeitung
Satz & Grafik
Design-Konzept
Umschlaggestaltung
Umschlagfoto
Kapitelfotos
Konferenzfotos
Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn
Martin Hinz, Maria Wunderlich & Julia Menne (CAU Kiel)
Nicole Schwerdtfeger & UFG-Graphic Department (CAU Kiel)
Nicole Schwerdtfeger & UFG-Graphic Department (CAU Kiel)
Janine Cordts (CAU Kiel)
Janine Cordts (CAU Kiel)
Vol. 3: Sara Jagiolla (CAU Kiel)
Ch. 5, Ch. 6 & Ch. 7: Sara Jagiolla (CAU Kiel)
Sara Jagiolla (CAU Kiel)
ISBN
978-3-7749-4213-4
Titel auch als E-Book (PDF) erhältlich unter www.habelt.de
Druck
BELTZ Grafische Betriebe GmbH, Bad Langensalza
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der
Deutschen Nationalbibliografie.
Detailliertere Informationen sind im Internet über
<http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.
© 2019 by UFG CAU Kiel and authors
777
Preface of the Series Editor
The DFG Priority Program 1400 »Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation: On the origin and development of Neolithic large-scale buildings and the
emergence of early complex societies in Northern
and Central Europe« started its work in 2009. Its research agenda focused on the investigation of the phenomenon of monumental structures, in particular on
megalithic constructions and their social and economic backgrounds during the Neolithic with a focus
on Northern Central Europe. Already in May 2010 a
workshop on the topic »Megaliths and Identities« took
place in Kiel. The vivid dialogue that had started on
this early workshop continued throughout the years
after. In consequence the international conference
»Megaliths, Societies, Landscapes« was organized
five years after on a broader scale. Many experts gathered to discuss research on megalithic and monumental structures and the societies that built them on not
only a European scale.
The three volumes, which you hold in your hands,
may inspire again new ideas and perhaps new insides
for future research on the development of these early
monumental landscapes!
Johannes Müller
Contents
Preface of the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777
Volume 1
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
INtRoDUC tIoN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
the monumentalisation of European landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Martin Hinz, Johannes Müller, Maria Wunderlich
Diversified monuments: A chronological framework of the creation
of monumental landscapes in prehistoric Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Maria Wunderlich, Johannes Müller, Martin Hinz
Boom and bust, hierarchy and balance: From landscape to social meaning –
Megaliths and societies in Northern Central Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Johannes Müller
1 MoNUMENtS oF WooD AND E ARth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Kerbstones, causewayed enclosures and protective circles in Southern Scandinavia and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Lutz Klassen, Benedikt Knoche
Monumentalisation and settlement development on the edge:
the case of haldensleben-hundisburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Annalena Bock, Christoph Rinne, Kay Schmütz
Ritual and competition: Reflections on the function of a Baalberge rondel in the light
of the nomadic economy and way of life of the Baalberge Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Oliver Rück
the earthworks at Altheim: Built by many for many . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Thomas Saile
First indications of Neolithic monumentality in the Dutch wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Gary R. Nobles
Phenomenology of spatial organisation of Kujavian long barrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Renata Zych
Monumental cemeteries of the 5th millennium BC: the Fleury-sur-orne contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Emmanuel Ghesquière, Philippe Chambon, David Giazzon, Lamys Hachem, Corinne Thevenet, Aline Thomas
Monumental entrances at Iberian Neolithic and Chalcolithic ditched enclosures:
Entrance 1 at Perdigões (Portugal) as a case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
José L. Caro, Víctor Jiménez-Jáimez, José Enrique Márquez-Romero, José Suárez-Padilla
Neolithic ditched enclosures: A comparative history of their interpretation in Britain and Iberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Víctor Jiménez-Jáimez
2 MEGALIthIC StUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
the first farmers as monument builders in the Sarup area, Funen, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Niels H. Andersen
Early monumentality and social differentiation: A case study in Western Mecklenburg, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Timothy Darvill, Friedrich Lüth
What’s going on in the southeast? Searching for the funeral and ritual practices
beyond the megalithic oikumene . Examples from the land of Brandenburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Jonas Beran
A report on the verification of megalithic tombs in Western Pomerania, Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Agnieszka Matuszewska
Case study of Erwitte-Schmerlecke, Westphalia . An archaeological contribution to hessian Westphalian megaliths
and their role in early monumentality of the Northern European plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Kerstin Schierhold
A monumental burial ground from the Funnel Beaker Period at oosterdalfsen (the Netherlands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Henk M. van der Velde, N. Bouma, Daan C. M. Raemaekers
tRB megalith tombs in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
J.A. Bakker
Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Riccardo Cicilloni
A »rediscovered« menhir in Mid-Southern Sardinia (Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Riccardo Cicilloni, Federico Porcedda
Monumental sector in the archaeological site of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville):
Research in the area from »La Pastora« . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Juan Manuel Vargas Jiménez, Luis M. Cáceres Puro, Joaquín Rodríguez Vidal, Teodosio Donaire Romero, Fernando Muñiz Guinea
towards other Atlantic shores: Reviewing Senegambian megalithism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Luc Laporte, Homady Bocoum
Megalithic landscapes in the highlands of Sumatra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Dominik Bonatz
Volume 2
3 MoNUMENtAL L ANDSC APES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .446
on the edge of the Neolithic world – But not on the periphery . Perspectives from an enclosure on
thy, North-Western Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .449
Tobias Torfing
Megalithic tombs and wetland depositions as markers of old and new places in the Early Neoltihic:
Break or inversion of ritualized practices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .465
Almut Schülke
Megalithic and settlement patterns of Funnel Beaker times in Eastern holstein, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .487
Jan Piet Brozio
Settlements and houses between Elbe and Ems – the Funnel Beaker Culture in North-West Germany . . . . . . . . . . 507
Moritz Mennenga
the Michelsberg Culture of Northern Baden-Württemberg: A case study of a Neolithic landscape
with enclosures and open sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Birgit Regner-Kamlah, Ute Seidel
Monumental sites in the landscape . World of the dead and living world during the Middle and
Late Neolithic in Western-Central France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
Vincent Ard, Lucile Pillot, Emmanuel Mens, Vivien Mathé
Measuring distance in the monumentalities of the Neolithic in Western France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
Serge Cassen, Cyrille Chaigneau, Valentin Grimaud, Laurent Lescop, Pierre Pétrequin, Carlos Rodríguez-Rellán, Marie Vourc’h
Monumentality, liminality and the negotiation of ritual space in the Irish passage tomb tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
Lynda McCormack, Stefan Bergh
Just passing by? Investigating in the territory of the megalith builders of the Southern European plains .
the case of Azután, toledo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
Felicitas Schmitt, Primitiva Bueno-Ramírez, Martin Bartelheim
Monuments on the move . Assessing megaliths’ interaction with the North-Western Iberian landscapes . . . . . . . . 621
Carlos Rodríguez-Rellán, Ramón Fábregas Valcarce
General and local spatial trends in Galician megalithic landscapes (North-Western Iberian Peninsula) . . . . . . . . . . 641
Miguel Carrero-Pazos, Antón A. Rodríguez Casal
A GIS approach to the study of megalithic tombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
Riccardo Cicilloni, Marco Cabras
the European Route of Megalithic Culture – Pathways to Europe’s earliest stone architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677
Daniela Stefanie Hauf, Rüdiger Kelm
4 NEoLIthIC SUBSIStENCE AND MEGALIthS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .688
tracing dietary change of the megalithic population in South-Western Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691
Malou Blank
Middle Neolithic economy in Falbygden, Sweden . Preliminary results from Karleby Logården . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705
Karl-Göran Sjögren, Tony Axelsson, Maria Vretemark
Changing environments in a megalithic landscape: the Altmark case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719
Sarah Diers, Barbara Fritsch
Megaliths, people and palaeoeconomics in Neolithic Malta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
Caroline Malone, Finbar McCormick, Rowan McLaughlin, Simon Stoddart
→ Volume 3
5 MAtERIAL CULtURE IN MoNUMENtAL SEt tINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786
Flint use in ritual contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789
Lars Larsson
Causewayed enclosures under the microscope: Preliminary results of a large-scale use-wear analysis project . . . . . 803
Peter Bye-Jensen
Pottery traditions in the Funnel Beaker Culture – Archaeometric studies on pottery from Flintbek (Germany) . . . . . 811
Katrin Struckmeyer
the Stein-Vlaardingen Complex and the t R B West Group . An inquiry into intercultural contacts
and cultural diversity during the Dutch Neolithic as well as an impetus to demographic archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Erik Drenth
From pigment to symbol: the role of paintings in the ideological construction of European megaliths . . . . . . . . . . 845
P. Bueno-Ramírez, R. de Balbín-Behrmann, R. Barroso-Bermejo, L. Laporte, Ph. Gouezin, F. Cousseau, L. Salanova, N. Card,
G. Benetau, E. Mens, A. Sheridan, F. Carrera-Ramírez, A. Hernanz, M. Iriarte, K. Steelman
6 SoCIAL DIVER SIt y AND DIFFERENtIAtIoN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .866
the enigma of the Neolithic cult houses – Graves, shrines or social statement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Anne Birgitte Gebauer
Pots for the ancestors . the structure and meaning of pottery depositions at passage graves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Torsten Madsen
the phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications for the development
of social formations in Northern-Central Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Martin Furholt , Doris Mischka
Enclosures, structured deposits and selective innovations: Riedling and the role of the South Bavarian
Münchshöfen Culture in the new networks of the Late Neolithic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Daniela Hofmann, Ludwig Husty
From graves to society: Monuments and forms of differentiation in death (Northern France, 4th millennium BC) . . . 957
Laure Salanova
how routine life was made sacred: Settlement and monumentality in Later Neolithic Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Joshua Pollard
the North Munster atypical court tombs of Western Ireland – Social dynamics, regional trajectories and
responses to distant events over the course of the Neolithic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
Carleton Jones
Burial practices and social hierarchisation in Copper Age Iberia: Analysing tomb 10 .042 – 10 .049 at
Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1005
Leonardo García Sanjuán, Marta Cintas-Peña, Marta Díaz-Guardamino, Javier Escudero Carrillo, Miriam Luciañez Triviño,
Coronada Mora Molina, Sonia Robles Carrasco
Landscapes of complexity in Southern Portugal during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039
António Carlos Valera
7 MoNUMENtS AND thEIR BUILDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Danish passage graves and their builders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Torben Dehn
Niedertiefenbach reloaded . the builders of the Wartberg gallery grave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Christoph Rinne, Katharina Fuchs, Ben Krause-Kyora, Julian Susat, Juliane Muhlack, Christoph Dörfer, Sabine Schade-Lindig
Physical strain on megalithic grave builders from Wartberg and Funnel Beaker Culture in Northern Germany
– Erwitte-Schmerlecke, Völlinghausen, Calden I, Großenrode II and Rheine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1083
Susan Klingner, Michael Schultz
Moraines, megaliths and moo: Putting the prehistoric tractor to work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1099
Eva Rosenstock, Astrid Masson, Bernd Zich
Building workforces for large stone monuments: the labour dynamics of a living megalithic tradition
in Eastern Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Ron L. Adams
Social implications of megalithic construction – A case study from Nagaland and Northern Germany . . . . . . . . . . 1133
Maria Wunderlich
Building community: Significant places now and before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153
Lara Milesi
17
Preface
Monumentality and megaliths continue to be a
prominent and central research object in prehistoric archaeology, as reflected by the lasting interest in
the research of monumentality in the course of many
research projects. A considerable improvement of the
understanding of monumentality has been accomplished by improved dating-methods and comparative
perspectives. In accordance with these developments,
an international conference was held in Kiel in 2015,
aiming to bring together researchers from all over Europe and their respective perspectives on different
forms of monumentality.The conference »Megaliths,
Societies, Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic Europe« was organised by and meant as a platform for final discussions
of the Priority Programme 1400 »Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation. On the origin and development of Neolithic large-scale buildings and the
emergence of early complex societies in Northern
Central Europe«. This priority programme lasted for
six years and included several institutions in Germany. We would like to thank all of the researchers involved for their persistent and fruitful work, which are
mainly also published as monographs within this series. The European Megalithic Study Group also took
part in the conference.
The conference – and with it this publication – provided a framework for the presentation and discussion
of many different case studies, which shed light on
the interconnectedness and diversity of the complex
› monumentality ‹ in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe. It also provided a place to discuss open questions
and problems, whereby we hope that this book will
equally provide a basis for further discussions.
It is undoubtedly the contributions that make up
the quality of these three volumes, and we are extremely grateful that so many European colleagues
have been willing to contribute their knowledge to
the overview of the current state of research that
these books intend to provide. Indeed, it is not least
thanks to the contributors’ discipline, friendliness,
patience and professionalism that we have been able
to compile such an extensive body of research. In advance, we had hoped that this publication could become a reference book on Early Monumentality and
Social Differentiation, and if we succeed, it is thanks
to every single author. Therefore, we would like to express our deep gratitude.
In addition, a multitude of helping hands – in language correction, image processing and layout– make
such a comprehensive publication possible in the first
place, and whose work is far too rarely appreciated.
These include Julia Menne, Richard Forsythe, who
honed the last linguistic imperfections, Janine Cordts,
Nicole Schwerdtfeger, Susanne Beyer, Agnes Heitmann and Carsten Reckweg, who edited hundreds of
illustrations and arranged them in the right places.
Without the support of the German Science Foundation (DFG), it would not have been possible to carry out the DFG-Priority Programme or the conference
and this publication. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all these parties involved.
Martin Hinz, Johannes Müller, Maria Wunderlich
21
the monumentalisation of European landscapes
Martin Hinz, Johannes Müller, Maria Wunderlich
It is the monumental sites that characterised large
parts of Neolithic Europe during the 5th and 4 th millennia. During these centuries, Neolithic societies began
to construct above-ground monuments and enclosures
in many regions of southern, western, northern and
central Europe. These developments might be linked to
processes of social differentiation, changed economic
practices, new exchange systems and ritual traditions.
These perspectives were the central focus of the
conference › Megaliths, Societies, Landscapes. Early
Monumentality and Social Differentiation in Neolithic
Europe ‹, which was held in Kiel with 184 participants
from 14 countries by the SPP 1400 › Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation. On the origin and development of Neolithic large-scale buildings and the
emergence of early complex societies in Northern Central Europe ‹. The conference especially focused on the
interlinkage between Neolithic monuments, the construction of landscapes and the societies.
This took place against the background of the priority programme, which from the onset aimed to understand and analyse the monuments in their context.
For too long, megaliths in particular have been examined detached as monoliths, so to speak, which in
their own right represent a prominent archaeological
phenomenon of the European Neolithic, but whose
real significance can only be appreciated through their
entanglement in the overall network of socio-cultural
conditions of early agricultural societies. The investigation of architecture and its regional characteristics
is certainly very valuable in itself, and a classification
and chronology form an important starting point for
further investigations. However, it must not be limited to that! Therefore, the objective of the priority
programme was clear from the beginning, and this
view was reinforced during the course of the project,
namely that the monumentalisation of the landscape
through the collective work of communities is to be
explained by social processes of differentiation resulting from changed ways of economy, new exchange
systems and ritual ideas. Only from the synthesis of
all available and newly-acquired data combined with
the interpretation from ecological, socio-historical
and cultural anthropological perspectives can an understanding of these processes be made possible. The
structure of both the priority program and the conference is committed to this goal: the monuments as
such must be studied in detail, whereby those that are
not made of stone and therefore have not visibly survived to this day and thus have experienced less research activity require special attention. Nonetheless,
at least as important is the analysis of the economic basis of the communities constructing them, the
material culture, which can be directly or indirectly
connected to the monuments themselves, the social
conditions, which can be deduced from these traces
of human activities and must be given special consideration against the background of collective work and
burial, and, finally, the people of the Neolithic period themselves, who we can seldom enough identify
for the area of megalithic architecture in general but
who are the bearers of this phenomenon and ultimately responsible for the monuments, which still shape
landscapes today and can and indeed still do serve as
markers and points of crystallisation of identity.
The phase of early monumentality offers important
insights into processes that have influenced human
coexistence. While it is difficult to recognise a social
structure before, the dynamics of change intensify
enormously during the construction period of Neolithic monuments. Starting with the Passy type graves,
in which individuality and monumentality suddenly
emerge to an enormous extent, we see an ever-more
developing focus on cooperation. The multiple change
in cognitive expression, this quasi search for a social
configuration against the background of the new way
of life and economy– certainly connected with new
ideologies – can be located precisely during the phase
of early monumentality.
Therefore, in addition to the individual case studies
on individual monument landscapes, the SPP also included projects investigating the background of early
monumentality; in fact, more projects were related to
this aspect than those set up in the traditional sense.
Indeed, this is also the basis for the division of the
conference into the individual sessions, which again
22
reflects a focus on the holistic approach to the concept
of early monumentality.
There is a close relationship between monumentality and cooperative practices in the construction
and use, especially the burial and other ritual practices of and within the monuments themselves. Expressions of this concept can be found in the form of
megalithic tombs, menhirs, stone circles, avenues and
non-megalithic constructions like long and round
barrows, causewayed enclosures and further timberand-earth constructions. The session › Monuments of
Stone, Wood and Earth ‹ provided an overview of the
various manifestations of monumentality in their European context.
Monuments are a part of an economic, social and
ritual landscape. Monuments are always embedded
in an overall landscape and social practices, from
which they gain their meaning. Domestic structures
often represent the background and link of symbolic
and ritual components associated with monumentality. In order to understand the phenomenon of monumentalisation, it is essential to take an archaeological
perspective that integrates social practices and landscapes. In the session › Monumental Landscapes ‹, this
entanglement was examined. Several contributions
identified different levels of meaning by addressing
groups of monuments, their relationships with each
other and to the non-monumental elements of the Neolithic worlds.
It has always been assumed that early monumentality is associated with changes in subsistence, economy and technology, and may be causally related to
these changes. In its quantity and omnipresence,
monumentalisation remains linked– according to today's state of knowledge– to productive economies.
Today, we have a large amount of data, dating and new
methods at our disposal in field archaeology and scientific analysis to confirm or question this notion.
New light is cast on agricultural tools, techniques and
the organisation of the Neolithic subsistence economy, including the movement and mobility of things,
plants, animals and humans. In this sense, the development of monumentality in relation to economies can be correctly assessed. The session › Neolithic
Subsistence and Megaliths ‹ therefore comprised contributions dealing with the Neolithic subsistence in
general, as well as the connection between economy
and monumentality in particular.
The study of material culture has always been the
backbone of archaeological research. Material culture
itself is the most direct way of observing the life of
Neolithic societies responsible for the construction
of the monuments. Through the exploration of material culture, processes of production and consumption become perceptible, of which the monuments
M. Hinz/J. Müller/M. Wunderlich
themselves are part. With the help of such analyses,
the work processes that to a certain extent determined
Neolithic societies can be examined. In addition, it is
the tangible densification of communication processes
that connected the individual groups of spaces, whereby the exchange of objects may have been a medium
for the reproduction of these societies. In the session
› Material Culture in Monumental Settings ‹, material culture was examined in the context of the phenomenon of early monumentality. The focus was on
research investigating the production, use and distribution of objects and thus addressing the overarching
questions. Chorological or chronological differences
in the use of an entire group of materials, site-specific analyses and microscopic examination of individual objects formed the broad framework. The objects
themselves were in focus, but above all the question of
the practices that were made possible by the artefacts
and into which they were embedded.
As a distinctive phenomenon, the megalithic tomb
represents a form of monument that points to a significant cooperative aspect. Such monuments could only
be built together. At the same time, the common use of
these structures is made plausible by a collective burial custom. The same applies to other forms of monumentality in which cooperative building processes by
larger groups of people were necessary. At the same
time, these monuments may have been important as
ritual and symbolic central places, especially for both
large or disperse groups of people. In addition to the
integrative character of monuments, they might often
be associated with the exclusion of persons. For example, a megalithic tomb separates the enclosed from
the outside world. The same applies to causewayed enclosures, where in these cases a distinction is made
between inside and outside. Accordingly, are these
monuments the expression of a cooperative ideology,
or do they testify to the power of some over the labour
of many? In addition to these inherent characteristics
of monuments, the timespan of their emergence seems
to be characterised by a stronger (inner) differentiation of groups of people, recognisable archaeological
in the field of material culture. For example, in northern Funnel Beaker Societies, there is a significant regionalisation of decorations and ceramic forms, while
they are spatially connected by a very similar burial
custom, almost a variation of a supra-regional sharing of megalithic construction customs. The topic
dealt with in the session › Social Diversity and Differentiation ‹ highlighted references to the underlying
processes of the mentioned phenomena, which result
from current studies. How can we interpret the rather sparse and often seemingly contradictory traces of
the social organisation of Neolithic societies? Can social differentiation be observed in the context of the
The monumentalisation of European landscapes
monumentality of the landscape, and in what forms
are the different developments presented in different
regions? Although a differentiated picture has been
drawn, a common line may nevertheless be presumed
that architecture is in most cases indeed more cooperative but also most often the most traditional and inert
element in the course of social change.
There are some approaches that lead directly to the
people who erected the monuments, namely the direct study of human remains and the analysis of their
sparse personal testimonies. Ultimately, with their
data, ethnoarchaeological studies – even if they do not
examine Neolithic cultures themselves – represent an
invaluable extension of the interpretive scope. Human
remains are unevenly present in the different areas of
the distribution of the phenomenon of early monumentality. Nevertheless, they become all the more important as a source where they are present. Although
a knowledge transfer of anthropological studies from
one research area where they can be carried out to another must use the same analogy as ethnoarchaeological studies, they represent unique focal points that
illuminate an otherwise only indirectly visible area.
The › Monuments and their Builders ‹ session was devoted to the task of collecting such evidence to get
› closer to the people behind the monuments ‹.
The three volumes presented here broadly reflect
the original structure or the conference. The first volume deals with › Monuments of Wood and Earth ‹, as
well as › Megalithic Studies ‹.
We have decided to separate the originally-consolidated session for the publication. This decision was
influenced by the outstanding role of non-megalithic
monuments made of wood and earth due to their significance as the earliest appearing types of monumental structures in Neolithic Europe. The second chapter
focuses on monuments built of stone. Despite this division between the two types of monuments, we would
like to stress the interconnectedness, their – in many
23
cases – chronological continuity, as well as the shared
role of the monuments in the creation of new and renewed monumental landscapes.
The second volume comprises chapters on › Monumental Landscapes ‹ and › Neolithic Subsistence and
Megaliths ‹. Both chapters take an overarching perspective on different regions and types of monuments.
Their focus lies on aspects of the creation and alteration of landscapes, as well as aspects of Neolithic
economy and subsistence. One of the main accomplishments of these case studies lies in their chance
to provide a socioeconomic background against which
the phenomenon of monumentality might be understood and interpreted.
Finally, the third volume is devoted to different aspects of material culture, social differentiation and dynamics. It comprises chapters on › Material Culture in
Monumental Settings ‹, › Social Diversity and Differentiation ‹ and › Monuments and their Builders ‹. The papers included in these sections provide a background
on the social processes and mechanism being influential in monumental building practices. They also
provide a comparative perspective, including recent
examples of ethnoarchaeological research in areas of
megalith building traditions.
The newly-acquired data now makes it much more
possible to integrate the phase of early monumentality meaningfully into developments that span the arc
from complex foragers via agriculturalists to metal-producing societies. In our observation, most of
the European megaliths are linked to societies that
already produced surplus but comprised cooperative
ideologies.
However, it is precisely the regional heterogeneity
and inner dynamics that ensure that the investigation
of early monumentality and social differentiation will
continue to be an exciting field of research in the future, which is also relevant for the assessment of today's social configurations.
Martin Hinz
martin.hinz@iaw.unibe.ch
martin.hinz@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Johannes Müller
johannes.mueller@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Maria Wunderlich
m.wunderlich@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology
Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel
Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2 – 6
24118 Kiel
Germany
25
Diversified monuments:
A chronological framework of the creation of monumental landscapes in prehistoric Europe
Maria Wunderlich, Johannes Müller, Martin Hinz
The emergence of different kinds of prehistoric monumentality within modern-day Europe creates a complex structure of diverse building traditions, including
both megalithic and non-megalithic monuments.
Only recently, B. Schulz PaulSSon (2017) presented a comprehensive summary of available dates of
megalithic monuments in western and parts of central Europe. Expanded by the British Isles as well as
modern-day Germany and Poland, Figure 1 presents a
general overview of the different chronological and social contexts in which the construction of prehistoric
monuments took place. In order to ensure comparability and accessibility, the classification of monument
types is based on the distinction between dolmens,
passage graves and (megalithic and non-megalithic)
long barrows. The category of dolmens comprises different sub-types, such as the extended and small dolmens present in Funnel Beaker contexts.
Megalith building traditions and the construction of
enclosures represent an archaeological topic of European scale, spanning different regions and times. Both
aspects have been the subject of intensive and diverse
research questions as well as extensive dating programmes. Besides early approaches (cp. Müller 1984;
1998), especially the improvement of archaeological
excavation techniques and the use of Bayesian modelling has significantly improved our understanding
of the chronological framework within which the rise
of monumentality took place (among others: Schulz
PaulSSon 2017; Whittle et al. 2011). The summary
that we present here strongly relies on these studies.
As reflected in the different chapters of this book,
monumentality encompasses monuments made of
wood, earth and stone. Certainly among the most impressive sites are the different kinds of enclosures that
were built throughout the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
phases of European prehistory. Among early examples
of causewayed enclosures are those within the context
of Cerny and Michelsberger Groups in the Paris Basin,
as well as in central Germany (JeuneSSe 2004; KlaSSen 2014; Whittle et al. 2011). Several centuries later, enclosures were frequently built in the context of
Funnel Beaker communities in what is now northern
Germany and Denmark (compare Andersen this volume; hage 2016). With one of the highest densities,
but in a different context, enclosures were also erected
on the British Isles from 3800 cal BC onwards (Whittle et al. 2011). In contrast to these situations, the
building of enclosures in the Iberian Peninsula started
slightly later, around 3300 cal BC (JiMénez-JáiMez/
Márquez-roMero 2016), already situating them in
Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic contexts.
The second type of non-megalithic monuments are
long barrows, which represent the earliest types of
monumental grave structures in the respective regions.
Outstanding examples of these early grave types are to
be found in both the Paris Basin as well as north-western France. Long barrows are preceded by the monumental tombs of the Passy type in the Paris Basin, of
which similar examples can also be found in the Normandy (chaMBon 2010; gheSquière et al., this volume; Schulz PaulSSon 2017; guilaine 2011).
Long barrows are also present in Funnel Beaker contexts, representing the earliest monumental burial types in northern Germany, Denmark and
Poland with an appearance from 3900/3800 cal BC
onwards (compare MiSchKa 2014; Müller 2014;
rzePecKi 2011; SJögren 2011). Nevertheless, a distinction can be made between the Kujavian grave
types in modern-day Poland – which were always
non-megalithic long barrows – and the monuments in
northern Germany and Denmark, which were partly
transformed into megalithic long barrows by the integration of megalithic grave chambers (MiSchKa 2014;
noWaK 2013; PoSPieSzny 2010). A similar development is also detectable in southern England. Here as
well, the earliest monuments comprise non-megalithic
long barrows (3700 cal BC), while later on a transformation into megalithic monuments took place (Darvill 2016).
Soon after the introduction of long barrows, the
construction of dolmens and passage graves mark
the most intensive phase of megalithic building activities throughout Europe. In many cases, the appearance of dolmens precedes the emergence of passage
graves, although – based on available 14C-data – a
3000
Southern France
BB
BB
Veraza
Chalcolithic
3500
Neolitico
LN
SOM
Temples
FN
Chalcolithic
Chalcolithic
Conguel
FN
LN
MN
Ggantija
Chasséen
Mgarr LN
LN
4000
MN
Skorba
EN
Neolitico
Cardial
Michelsberg
MN
Chambon
Cerny
MN
MN
Epicardial
EN
Cardial
Dolmen
Passage Graves
Gallery Graves
Non-Megalithic
Long Barrows
Megalithic
Long Barrows
Special types
EN
Passy
Epicardial
MN
Chasséen
MN
Ghar Daian
EN
EN
LN
Zebbug
MN
5000
FN
Chalcolithic
Tarxien
4500
Ireland
Bretgane/Paris Basin/NW-France
Corsica
Sardinia
BB
Malta
BB
Andalusia
Catalonia
2500
M. Wunderlich/J. Müller/M. Hinz
West Iberian Peninsula
26
Cardial
EN
Cardial
Earliest apprearance of Causewayed/
Ditched Enclosures
Fig.1. The chronological framework of megalith building traditions in Neolithic and Copper Age Europe. Included are both
monuments made of stone, as well as stone and earth monuments. The depicted enclosures mark the earliest appearance of this
phenomenon in the respective regions. Nevertheless, the presence and use of these enclosures spans a longer timeframe. The
different contexts covered by the contributions within this book are marked in lighter grey.
FN
FN
CW
CW
LN
Unstan Ware
MN
Horgen
Poland
Sweden
Denmark
Northern Germany
FN
LN
Grooved Ware
MN
Central Germany
Scotland/Orkney
Netherlands/NW Germany
Southern Germany/Switzerland
27
Bernburg
LN
Stone circles
South England/Wales
Diversified monuments
2500
Battle Axe
CW
LN
SGC
CW
SGC
CW
MN B
MN B
GAC
Wartberg
LN
MN A
MN A
MN
LN
3500
Plain Ware
FBC
EN
EN
Swifterband
YN
Baalberge
Altheim
Michelsberg
EN
YN
EN
LN
FBC
EN
FBC
FBC
FBC
4000
MN
Münchshofen
MN
3000
4500
MN
LPC
EN
EN
contemporaneity of both grave types must be assumed (Furholt/MiSchKa, this volume; Schulz
PaulSSon 2017; SJögren 2011). Once again, the earliest dates of human bones from megalithic grave
chambers are to be found around 4500 cal BC in Brittany and along the Atlantic coastline of France in Castellic and Sandun contexts (Schulz PaulSSon 2017).
The whole area of Brittany, north-western France as
well as the Paris Basin provides an extraordinary case
of diversified monumentality, encompassing diverse
grave types and a long duration of monumental building activities in different contexts (le roy et al. 2014;
guilaine 2011; BouJot/caSSen 1993).
EN
5000
Around 4400/4300 cal BC, the earliest dolmens
in Sardinia and Corsica were built during the Middle Neolithic, soon to be followed by passage graves
and accompanied by the erection of standing stones.
These building activities continued until the end of
the 4 th millennium BC (cicilloni, this volume).
Another centre of megalith building activities is
to be found on the Iberian Peninsula, with the earliest construction phases of dolmens starting around
4300 cal BC in Andalusia and Catalonia. Andalusia
provides an interesting case study, including from another perspective. Here, megalith building can be divided into two distinct construction phases. After the
28
initial Neolithic phase, megalith building activities
immensely decreased, although the old monuments
were still important places. It is only during the Chalcolithic period that building activities became clearly intensified again. This second phase of megalith
building started in the second half of the 4 th millennium and lasted for many centuries (Schulz PaulSSon
2017; garcía SanJuán et al. 2011; garcía SanJuán
et al., this volume).
On the British Isles, in the Netherlands and Germany as well as Scandinavia, the earliest appearance
of dolmens and passage graves is to be found mostly
later during the second half of the 4 th millennium BC.
Many of these monuments are situated in the context of the different Funnel Beaker groups, as well as
the neighbouring Wartberg and Bernburg Groups.
The megalithic grave chambers appear at a very similar time within the modern-day areas of the Netherlands, northern and central Germany, as well as
Denmark. Only in Sweden, the erection of dolmens
M. Wunderlich/J. Müller/M. Hinz
started slightly later and partly in contemporaneity
with the passage graves (Furholt/MiSchKa, this volume; MiSchKa 2014, Müller 2014; raMStein 2014;
Schulz PaulSSon 2010; SJögren 2011).
The last type of megalithic building activities is represented by the gallery graves that occur in modern-day
Sweden, Germany, France and Catalonia. These tombs
represent a different construction type, albeit at the
same time providing a continuation of collective burial rites in the respective regions (raetzel-FaBian
2000; BlanK et al. 2018; SchierholD 2012).
Despite presenting a wide scope of case studies
within different regional and chronological contexts,
this compilation is only a summary of the fundamentally diverse and complex monumental building activities in the scope of the 5th to 3rd millennium BC. Future
research will sharpen our understanding of chronological matters as well as the occurrence of megalithic
architecture in other regions of Europe.
REfEREncEs
Blank et al. 2018: M. Blank/A. Tornberg/C. Knipper, New Perspectives on the Late Neolithic of South-Western Sweden.
An Interdisciplinary Investigation of the Gallery Grave
Falköping Stad 5. Open Archaeology 4, 2018, 1–35.
Boujot/Cassen 1993: A Pattern of Evolution for the Neolithic
Funerary Structures of the West of France. Antiquity 67,
1993, 477– 491.
Chambon/Thomas 2010: P. Chambon/A. Thomas, The first
monumental cemeteries of western Europe: the »Passy
type« necropolis in the Paris basin around 4500 BC. www.
jungsteinsite.de 2010, version 19.10.2010.
Darvill 2016: T. Darvill, Megalithic tombs, barrows, and enclosures in fourth millennium BC Britain. In: V. Ard/L.
Pillot (eds.), Giants in the Landscape: Monumentality a
nd Territories in the European Neolithic. Proceedings of
the XVII UISPP World Congress (1–7 September, Burgos,
Spain) Volume 3 / Session A 25d (Oxford 2016), 3 –17.
García Sanjuán et al. 2011: L. García Sanjuán/D.W. Wheatley/
M.E. Costa Caramé, The Numerical Chronology of the
Megalithic Phenomenon in Southern Spain: Progress and
Problems. In: L. García Sanjuán/C. Scarre/D.W. Wheatley (eds.), Exploring time and matter in prehistoric monuments: absolute chronology and rare rocks in European
megaliths. Proceedings of the 2nd European Megalithic
Studies Group Meeting. Menga: revista de prehistoria de
Andalucía. Serie Monografía 1 (Antequera 2011), 121–157.
Guilaine 2011: J. Guilaine, Megalitos de Francia: Distribución
Geográfica y Cronogía. In: L. García Sanjuán/C. Scarre/
D.W. Wheatley (eds.), Exploring time and matter in prehistoric monuments: absolute chronology and rare rocks in
European megaliths. Proceedings of the 2nd European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting. Menga: revista de prehistoria de Andalucía. Serie Monografía 1 (Antequera 2011),
77–101.
Hage 2016: F. Hage Büdelsdorf/Borgstedt. Eine trichterbecherzeitliche Kleinregion. Frühe Monumentalität und
soziale Differenzierung 11 (Bonn 2016).
Jeunesse et al. 2004: C. Jeunesse/P. Lefranc/A. Denaire,
Groupe de Bischheim, origine du Michelsberg, genèse
du groupe d’Entzheim. La transition entre le Néolithique
moyen et le Néolithique récent dans les régions rhénans.
Cahiers de l’Association pour le Promotion de la Recherche
Archéologiques en Alsace 18/19 (2002/03), 2004, 1-280.
Jiménez-Jáimez/Márquez-Romero 2016: V. Jiménez-Jáimez/
J.E. Márquez-Romero, Prehistoric ditched enclosures and
necropolises in Southern Iberia: a diachronic overview. In:
V. Ard/L. Pillot (eds.), Giants in the Landscape: Monumentality and Territories in the European Neolithic. Proceedings
of the XVII UISPP World Congress (1–7 September, Burgos,
Spain) Volume 3 / Session A25d (Oxford 2016), 57– 68.
Klassen 2014: L. Klassen, Along the Road (Aarhus 2014).
Le Roy et al. 2014: M. Le Roy/S. Rottier/C. de Becdelievre/
S. Thiol/C. Coutelier/A.-M. Tillier, Funerary Behaviuor of
Neoltihic Necropolises and Collective Graves in France.
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44/3, 2014, 337–351.
Mischka 2014: D. Mischka, Flintbek and the absolute chronology of megalithic graves in the Funnel Beaker North
Group. In: M. Furholt/M. Hinz/D. Mischka/ G. Noble/
D. Olausson (eds.), Landscapes, Histories and Societies in
the Northern European Neolithic. Frühe Monumentalität
und soziale Differenzierung 4 (Bonn 2014), 125 –143.
Müller 1987: J. Müller, Ein Vergleich von Radiokarbon-Daten west- und nordeuropäischer Megalithgräber, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 17, 71-75.
Müller 1998: J. Müller, Die absolutchronologische Datierung
der europäischen Megalithik. In: B. Fritsch/M. Monte/
I. Matuschik/J. Müller/C. Wolf (Hrsg.), Tradition und
Innovation. Prähistorische Archäologie als historische
Diversified monuments
Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Christian Strahm. Internationale Archäologie. Studia Honoraria 3 (Rahden/Westfalen
1998) 63-106.
Müller 2014: J. Müller, 4100 – 2700 B.C.: Monuments and Ideo_
logies in the Neolithic Landscape. In: J.F. Osborne (ed.),
Approaching monumentality in archaeology. IEMA proceedings 3 (Albany 2014), 181–214.
Nowak 2013: M. Nowak, Neolithisation in Polish Territories:
Different Patterns, Different
Perspectives, and Marek Zvelebil’s Ideas. Interdisciplinaria archaeologica. Natural sciences in archaeology 4/1, 2013, 85–96.
Pospieszny 2010: L. Pospieszny, The Neolithic Landscapes
of the Polish Lowlands. Earthen Long-Barrows and Their
Histories. In: Å.M. Larsson (ed.), Uniting Sea II: Stone
Age Societies in the Baltic Sea Region. The Uniting Sea
workshop II in Stockholm, Sweden October 20 - 22th 2006
(Uppsala 2010), 147–170.
Raetzel-Fabian 2000: D. Raetzel-Fabian, Calden. Erdwerk und
Bestattungsplatz des Jungneolithikums. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 70 (Bonn 2000).
Ramstein 2014: M. Ramstein, Ein neolithischer Dolmen an der
Steingasse in Oberbipp. Archäologie in der Schweiz 37/3,
2014, 4 –15.
29
Rzepecki 2011: S. Rzepecki, The roots of megalithism in the
TRB culture (Lodz 2011).
Schierhold 2012: K. Schierhold, Studien zur Hessisch-Westfälischen Megalithik: Forschungsstand und -perspektiven
im europäischen Kontext. Münstersche Beiträge zur urund frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 6 (Rahden/Westfalen 2012).
Schulz Paulsson 2017: B. Schulz Paulsson, Time and Stone.
The Emergence and Development of Megaliths and Megalithic Societies in Europe (Oxford 2017).
Sjögren 2011: K.-G. Sjögren, C-14 Chronology of Scandinavian Megalithic Tombs. In: L. García Sanjuán/C. Scarre/
D.W. Wheatley (eds.), Exploring time and matter in prehistoric monuments: absolute chronology and rare rocks in
European megaliths. Proceedings of the 2nd European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting. Menga: revista de prehistoria de Andalucía. Serie Monografía 1 (Antequera 2011),
103 –119.
Whittle et al. 2011: A. Whittle/F. Healy/ A. Bayliss, Gathering
Time. Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern
Britain and Ireland (Oxford 2011).
Maria Wunderlich
m.wunderlich@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Johannes Müller
johannes.mueller@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Martin Hinz
martin.hinz@iaw.unibe.ch
martin.hinz@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology
Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel
Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2 – 6
24118 Kiel
Germany
921
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications for the development of social
formations in northern-central Germany
Martin Furholt, Doris Mischka
AbsTRAcT
Based on the study of radiocarbon dating of burial monuments in Northern-Central Europe, the authors propose
that megalithic long barrows and small single dolmen were
built between 3650 −3400 cal BC. Since 3350 cal BC, passage graves, gallery graves and large dolmens constitute
the preferred burial architecture. These three latter types
represent three regionally-distinct variants of the same
principle, namely the concentration and collectivisation of
burial activities. This »collectivisation«, a processes of social stabilisation and concentration can be observed both in
burials and settlement patterns.
InTRoducTIon
Until recently, the phasing of the Funnel Beaker
period in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany rested mainly upon typological considerations,
resulting in a periodisation comprising several typological phases ( 1987; 1992 , 201−232;
205−221 in particular), which can only partly be confirmed by radiocarbon dates ( 1994; 1992; -/ 1994;
1990, 86; / 1995, 70; 2011).
This has been partly due to unfavourable preservation
conditions of materials (e.g. bones) and an unfavourable structure of the archaeological features. Settlement sites mostly comprise thin cultural layers with
scarce material remains. Burial rites are dominated by collective megalithic graves, where a connection between construction activities and grave goods
is difficult to establish, as these chambers are usually being more or less continuously used for centuries.
One task of the Priority Program »Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation« was to improve
the absolute dating of the Funnel Beaker period in
Northern Germany through an increase in radiocarbon dates and the excavation of new sites to establish stratified contexts that allowed the application of
Bayesian modelling, or at least to date contexts with a
more explicit sample-artefact connection. Since 2009,
it has been possible to date 973 new samples and thus
enlarge the number of radiocarbon dates available
connected to the North Group of the Funnel Beaker
complex. Compared to the 281 identified in a survey
in 2007, this is a significant increase, which is instructive for our knowledge on several aspects of the early
Neolithic period in Northern Germany and Southern
Scandinavia.
This paper concentrates on the new picture of a
phasing of monumental grave structures, including
megaliths, and compares our findings to the development of settlement structures and social organisation. We will approach this topic discussing the data
on three spatial scales, namely the local level – concentrating on the megalithic burial ground of Flintbek, south of Kiel ( 2011a; 2011b; 2012; 2013;
2014) – the regional level – Northern Germany – and
the transregional level of the Funnel Beaker North
Group. We present the data while pursuing the following research questions: Is the overall trend of
burial architecture a uniform one observable in the
whole Funnel Beaker area, or is there a regional variability? Are the developments of burial architecture
connected to changes in settlement, social organisation and land use?
922
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
Fig. 1. Flintbek. Map of the excavated sites (according to Zich 2005, changed by Carsten Mischka and Nicole Bößl).
ThE locAl lEvEl: flInTbEk
The case study of Flintbek – next to Kiel – was instructive for our understanding of the development of
burial architecture at the local level ( 2011a;
b; 2012; 2013; 2014). The graveyard comprises 29 megalithic burial monuments (Fig. 1): 6, possibly 7, long barrows with 14 dolmens and 15 non-megalithic burials
(Flintbek LA 3, 4, 17/171, 37, 137 and 167), 4, possibly
6, passage graves with 4 −5 or 7−8 non-megalithic burials (Flintbek LA 5, 40, 52, 57, possibly LA 7, 11) and 7,
possibly 9, single dolmen with 1 or 4 non-megalithic
burials (Flintbek LA 6, 17/171 next to the long barrow,
Flintbek LA 18, 38, 53, 56, 58 and possibly LA 7, 11)
and probably two totally-destroyed further megaliths
(Flintbek LA 16 and 49). Despite being almost completely erased by modern agriculture, their remains
were excavated entirely by the State Heritage Management Organisation of Schleswig-Holstein from
1976 to 1996 in a strictly standardised way. Bayesian
923
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010): r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009)
Long barrows (3600–3350 cal BC)
5400
Megalithic burials, construction related dates
Megalithic burials, use related dates
Non-megalithic burials
Radiocarbondetermination (BP)
5200
5000
4800
LA 4
LA 4
LA 167
LA 37
LA 137
LA 3
LA 3
LA 137
4600
LA 4
4400
4200
4200
4000
3800
3600
4200
3400
4000
3200
3800
Modelled date (BC)
3000
3600
3400
3200
3000
Fig. 2 . Flintbek. Age-modelled, calibrated AMS-measurements of charcoal and skeletal remains of megalithic and nonmegalithic burials within long barrows. For better comparison, the two data series are plotted on two calibration curves
shifted along the x-axis.
models were built up using the a priori information of
the well-reported stratigraphical or constructional sequences, linking 150 new AMS datings. They enabled
understanding the temporal frame of the burial construction activities connected to a settlement area in
detail. Several observations are striking:
1. Results for the long barrows (Fig. 2)
ù The long barrows in Flintbek were constructed between 3630 −3350 cal BC 1.
ù There are no non-megalithic long barrows preserved in Flintbek; all of them were transformed
into megalithic tombs within their biography.
ù The long barrows commence by either non-megalithic burials like in Flintbek LA 3 or they begin
1 Be aware that within this and the next figures, there are
two curves plotted one upon another. One is shifted
along the x-axis to allow a better comparison of the data.
with megalithic burial chambers of the dolmen
type like Flintbek LA 4 or LA 167.
ù The long barrows initiated by megalithic burial
chambers are – in Flintbek – older than the others.
ù The non-megalithic burials within the long barrows belong mainly to the second half of this time
span, namely starting around 3500 cal BC. Only
the dates of Flintbek LA 4 can be interpreted as being as old as the earliest megalithic dates, although
this is less secure due to the building sequence,
which unfortunately shows no clear stratigraphical order.
ù The use-related dates – dates of artefacts or charcoal in particular from the burials themselves – indicate a main use time between 3600 – 3350 cal BC.
924
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010): r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009)
Dolmen not within long barrows
(3600–3350 cal BC)
Megalithic burials, construction related dates
Megalithic burials, use related dates
Non-megalithic burials
5000
LA 38
Radiocarbondetermination (BP)
LA 38
LA 58
LA 18
LA 56
LA 38
LA 6
LA 38
LA 53
LA 53
LA 6
LA 53
4500
LA 7
LA 18
LA 11
LA 6
4000
LA 6
4000
3800
3600
3400
4000
3200
3800
3000
3600
2800
3400
2600
3200
Modelled date (BC)
2400
3000
2200
2800
2600
2400
2200
Fig. 3 . Flintbek. Age-modelled, calibrated AMS-measurements of charcoal from dolmen not from long barrows. For better
comparison, the two data series are plotted on two calibration curves shifted along the x-axis.
2. Results for the dolmen chambers that were not integrated into long barrows (Fig. 3)
ù There are several dolmen in Flintbek that were not
integrated into long barrows within their lifetime.
For some of them, it can be discussed whether they
were covered by round mounds instead.
ù AMS dates prove a construction between 3600 and
3350 cal BC.
ù They confirm re-uses in one or several secondary
use phases up to around 2400 cal BC, as for example in Flintbek LA 6. They were probably easier to
access for a longer time than the dolmens incorporated into long barrows.
ù Regarding dolmen within long barrows and in the
discrete positions, we cannot state a succession
from non-megalithic to megalithic burials but a
contemporaneous use of different kinds of burials
within one and in between several monuments.
3. Results for the passage graves (Fig. 4)
ù The time and area of origin of the passage graves is
not yet clearly known, but in Flintbek they are constructed in a later period than the long barrows.
ù The sequences of the Bayesian models created for
the AMS dates of the charcoal samples from the
sites are too short to overcome the plateau of about
350 years between 3350−3000 cal BC.
ù Therefore, it is not yet possible to determine whether the passage graves were erected – for example –
at a short time span at the beginning of this time
range or if they were erected and used within the
entire period.
ù The two older dates of Flintbek LA 57 have to be
evaluated sceptically; the first very old date was
re-measured by the Kiel AMS laboratory due to laboratory difficulties (discussion in et al. 2015;
contra: et al. 2015), while the new result
also seems much older than all of the other passage
925
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010): r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2009)
Passage graves (3350–3100 cal BC)
5000
R_Date KIA-40267 La057-0102-128
Radiocarbondetermination (BP)
4800
R_Date KIA-43280 La057-0102-128
4600
R_Date KIA-40155 La040-1601-085
R_Date KIA-40154 La040-1010-083
R_Date KIA-36217 La052-1408-106
R_Date KIA-36215 La052-1402-100
R_Date KIA-40128 La005-0101-014
R_Date KIA-36213 La040-1702-088
R_Date KIA-36216 La052-1404-102
R_Date KIA-37159 La005-0101-014
R_Date KIA-40156 La040-1700-086
R_Date KIA-36212 La040-1701-087
R_Date KIA-36214 La052-1401-099
R_Date KIA-37176 La057-0101-127
R_Date KIA-36211 La040-1700-086
R_Date KIA-40165 La057-0101-127
R_Date KIA-40157 La052-1401-099
4400
R_Date KIA-40158 La052-1411-107
4200
3900
3800
3700
3600
3500
3400
3300
3200
3100
3000
2900
Modelled date (BC)
Fig. 4 . Flintbek. Age-modelled, calibrated AMS-measurements of charcoal from passage graves.
graves in Flintbek. The first passage graves in Sweden were built in earlier times than 3300 cal BC
according to (2010), so the
Flintbek date cannot be totally excluded as too old,
although it should currently be treated as an outlier, until perhaps more dates increase the probability of such old passage graves in Northern Germany.
Even if the above-ground parts of the megaliths were
destroyed, it was possible for most of the Flintbek sites
to describe the dolmen types according to the German typology ( 2011a, 884 fig. 20.48). Urdolmen without an entrance do not exist in Flintbek. We
were able to distinguish small dolmen (Kleindolmen)
and the larger extended dolmen (erweiterte Dolmen,
alias Großdolmen or in Danish stordysse), as well as
2 In figure 5, each grey line symbolises the range of the 14 C
date of the building of one megalith burial monument in
the Flintbek area. The rectangular boxes give us the idea
polygonal dolmen with a polygonal instead of a rectangular chamber layout, and the passage graves, with oval
or rectangular chambers. Using the aforementioned
temporal development of the Flintbek monuments, the
micro-region offers a closer look at the typological development of the tomb types. While the overall time
span in which dolmen were built in Flintbek ranges
from 3630 to 3350 cal BC (see above), it is possible to order the types mentioned along the time axis:
4. Results concerning the chronologically-preferred
architecture (Fig. 5 2)
ù The oldest feature in Flintbek is a polygonal dolmen
– so far supported only by one date – followed by
extended dolmens, which are older than small dolmens, while the passage graves evolved the last.
about the time range in between one or more of the different types of megalithic tombs that were built.
926
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
Our hypothesis resulting from this case study on the
local scale is:
Passage graves
ù Dolmens are only built in the Early Neolithic.
ù Some were integrated into long barrows, while others
were not and especially those free-standing dolmens
were re-used more often in the following centuries.
ù The passage graves are built only after 3350 cal BC.
The demonstrated new quality of analysis is only
possible within an entirely-excavated and well-dated settlement region, of which Flintbek is the first one
in Northern Germany. We are now in a position to
compare the results with the Scandinavian evidence.
Furthermore, below we will compare the Flintbek sequence to the regional level by discussing the regional
SPP data of burials as well as settlements and enclosures. Finally, we will discuss our results concerning
the phasing of burial architecture, settlement and enclosure construction in the light of changes in land use
and in relation to population estimations proposed for
the working area.
Extended dolmen
Polygonal dolmen
Small dolmen
3800 3600 3500 3400 3300 3200 3100 3000 BC
Fig. 5. Flintbek. Summary of the dated types of monuments
on the Flintbek burial field.
Long barrows
Dolmens
Passage graves
Gallery graves
100 km
Fig. 6 . Map of Scandinavian burial monuments indicating the
regional quantity of dolmens (light grey) and passage graves
(dark grey) (according to Persson/Sjögren 1995, 79 fig. 15).
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
calibrated date
1500
1000 BC
Fig. 7. Summary graph of radiocarbon dates grouped by
grave type (according to Persson/Sjögren 1995, 73 fig. 12).
927
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
ThE TRAnsREGIonAl scAlE: souThERn scAndInAvIA
DK-Dolmen
S-Dolmen
oldest site
best (1s)
coNstructioN
dat e
A re-evaluation makes clear that there are only few
dates connected directly to the construction of the
monuments. However, in Denmark samples of birch
bark from the dry-stone walling (Zwickelmauerwerk)
of passage graves delivered very reliable dates, pointing
towards a start of the passage graves at or even before
3350 cal BC.
Altogether, the Scandinavian evidence is not as clear
as we hoped (Fig. 8). For the dolmens, we do not have
many dates related to the actual construction, although
Denmark and Norway are quite similar to the Flintbek situation overall. Most dates deriving from passage graves are use-related dates, between 3300−3100
cal BC. However, in Denmark there are two and in Sweden three dates showing a slightly earlier construction
of passage graves than the beginning of the plateau in
the calibration curve around 3350 cal BC.
u s e r e l at e d dat e s
coNstructioN
r e l at e d
std < 75 years
N o. o f dat e s
No. of sites
The absolute dates of Scandinavian megaliths are
discussed by and (1995),
(2010), (2011) and (2014).
A possible deviation from the situation in Flintbek is
the earlier start of passage graves in Sweden, where the
earliest dates are as old as 3500 cal BC. In this context,
it is important to point to specific patterns of distribution (see fig. 6): In Sweden, passage graves dominate
over dolmens, while in Denmark we have many more
dolmens than passage graves. The summed probability graphs for Scandinavia as a whole indicate that long
barrows and dolmens start a little earlier than the passage graves but are used contemporaneously over a
long period (Fig. 7).
However, the dates mainly derive from human
bones from the burials and thus indicate a phase of use
rather than construction. Moreover, quite a large number of dates are not reliable, as re-dating has shown 3 .
11
17
3
3
7
3630 – 3350 BC
> 3350 BC
Vroue Hede IV
8
20
9
.
10
3490 – 3120 BC
not clear
Kinneved 21
N-Dolmen
2
2
.
.
1
3625 – 3360 BC
not clear
Holtenes III
Flintbek
9
25
25
16
9
3440 – 3374 BC
> 3374 BC
LA 37
Flintbek
.
.
.
.
.
3628 – 3599 BC
> 3599 BC
LA 167
DK-PG
10
14
3515 – 3345 BC
> 3345 BC
Hvalshøje
DK-PG
.
.
3365 – 3115 BC
> 3115 BC
Raevehoj
18
3
> 3360 BC
Mysinge 2//
Gökhem 17
S-PG (with sequence models)
Flintbek
9
10
1
.
.
.
105
46
69
37
.
.
91
46
4
24
24
6
18
3365 – 3345 BC
> 3350 BC
LA 57?, LA 40
10
27
7
6
.
3910 – 3540 BC
> 3540 BC
Rustrup II
4
.
8
2
3
.
3943 – 3705 BC
> 3705 BC
Kristineberg A
Sum
79
288
185
44
183
Prozent Flintbek
16,5
DK-ELB (without Facade)
S-ELB (without Facade)
Flintbek
17,0
26,5
50,0
14,8
Fig. 8 . Evaluation of the quality of dated samples of Scandinavian megalithic tombs related to the building of the monument.
In some cases, an early and a late construction date are shown, indicating the time spans in between these grave types were
built. DK-Denmark, S-Sweden, N-Norway, PG-Passage grave, ELB-Earthen long barrow. The sample material of the Danish
passage graves is birch bark from the dry-walling between the orthostats.
3
Personal communication P. Persson 2011, EAA Oslo.
928
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
ThE REGIonAl scAlE: noRThERn GERmAnY
The data from Flintbek and Southern Scandinavia
can be compared with the dated structures at the regional level of Northern Germany. In addition to long
barrows, dolmens and passage graves in Flintbek, we
have dated 13 burial structures containing dolmens
with 65 dates, two burial monuments containing passage graves with 49 dates and two burial monuments
containing gallery graves with 79 radiocarbon dates.
These dates indicate a phasing that is to a large extent
quite similar to that of the Flintbek cemetery. Fig. 9
shows that dolmens in long barrows are constructed between 3650 −3400 cal BC, while the use-related dates indicate a start of burial activities in these
structures around 3650 cal BC, with several re-uses in
later periods. A difference compared with the Flintbek example is the fact that we have a distinct phase
of non-megalithic long barrows (in Borgstedt LA 22 ,
Albersdorf LA 56, see 2016, 161−198), which
OxCal v4.2.4 Bronk Ramsey (2013); r:5 IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013)
5400
Radiocarbon determination (BP)
5200
5000
4800
4600
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
Modelled date (BC)
Fig. 9. 14C dates related to dolmen chambers in long barrows in Northern Germany (outside of Flintbek), differentiated between
dates associated with the barrow only (green colour coding), with the construction of the dolmen chambers (red colour code).
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
929
OxCal v4.2.4 Bronk Ramsey (2013); r:5 IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013)
Radiocarbon determination (BP)
5000
4500
4000
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
Calibrated date (calBC)
Fig.10. 14 C Dates related to dolmen chambers in round barrows in Northern Germany (outside of Flintbek).
start at least 3820 cal BC 4 , even if megalithic chambers are included in a later phase. Dolmens in round
barrows (Fig. 10) show – regarding the majority of
dated complexes – the same chronological position as
dolmens in long barrows, namely 3650 cal BC. However, there is one notable exception that needs to be
addressed: the large dolmen of Borgstedt LA 28 is ambiguously dated (see 2012; 2016, 196). An
old conventional date from the Leibniz laboratory in
Kiel placed the use of the chamber in the period of
3650 to 3400 cal BC, but two newer accelerator measurements from the same laboratory date between
3950 and 3800 cal BC, which makes this grave the
oldest megalithic monument in Northern Germany
and Southern Scandinavia combined. Both samples
were measured on charcoal, albeit a relatively shortlived species (Rosaceae). Moreover, such an old date
is supported by a vessel of the Early Neolithic I that
4 A bounded phase in Oxcal 4.2 for long barrow construc-
of activities between 4050−3818 BC (95.1 %) and a boundary for the end of activities between 3622−3362 BC.
tion-related activities calculated a boundary for the start
930
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
was found inside the dolmen. On the other hand, the
two dates were measured in a period of reported difficulties and inaccuracies within the Leibniz laboratory (see above; et al. 2015 and contra
et al. 2015). Unfortunately, there is no organic material left to reproduce this early position of a dolmen,
and we thus remain sceptical and refrain from accepting the claims for such early megalithic architecture
until it is backed by other, equally-old structures.
Concerning passage graves, we were only able
to date one structure outside of Flintbek. However, with Wangels LA 69 in eastern Holstein, we have
a newly-excavated structure with a well-documented stratigraphy, which allowed a Bayesian approach
( 2016, 155−162). Leaving all details aside (see
2016; , this volume), the Bayesian
model shows that the construction of the grave took
place around 3360 cal BC, and its use – and some additional constructional activities – continued at least
until 3000 cal BC. This supports the idea that passage
graves – outside of Sweden – are mainly built at a later stage within the megalithic sequence, with some
starting in the 34 th century cal BC, as indicated in
Flintbek and by the Danish evidence (see above).
Radiocarbon determination (BP)
OxCal v4.2.4 Bronk Ramsey (2013); r:5 IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013)
5000
4500
4000
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
Calibrated date (calBC)
Fig. 11. 14 C Dates related to Gallery Graves in north-western Germany (see Schierhold in press; this volume).
2400
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
Another supposedly late megalithic type is the gallery grave. Within the SPP, two structures in Schmerlecke were intensively dated by Kerstin Schierhold
(; this volume). The vast majority of dates
fall into the time period between 3350 −2900 cal BC
(Fig. 11). Two dates lie between 3600 −3400 cal BC and
931
four dates between 4000 −3600 cal BC. As the contexts are still unpublished, we will have to refer to
Schierholds publications, although we can conclude
that the data indicates that the majority of activities in these two gallery graves took place between
3400 −2900 cal BC.
EnclosuREs And vIllAGEs
In Northern Germany, only a few enclosures are
known. In the south of our working area, we dated the
circular enclosures of Belleben I ( 2012) and Hundisburg-Olbetal (/ 2012; et al.,
this volume; 2017). The latter is used from
about 4350 cal BC until 3850 cal BC, while Belleben is
consistently dated by more than 50 radiocarbon dates
between 3650−3400 cal BC (for details: in prep.).
We were able to establish Bayesian models for two
enclosures in the north of our working area, Albersdorf-Dieksknöll ( 2016; this volume) and
Büdelsdorf ( 2016; this volume). In both cases,
there is peculiar a combination of long-lasting traditions and short-term events, as is also known from
other regions (Sarup, 1997). In Albersdorf ( 2016; this volume), the first trenches were dug around 3750 cal BC and from then until
2550 cal BC several short-term activities took place, including several re-cuttings of the exact same trenches. The majority of these short-term events date
between 3630 and 3370 cal BC, after which there is
break for around 200 years, until a new re-cutting
occurs ( 2012; 2016, 50 fig. 6.12). The enclosures of Büdelsdorf ( 2016; this volume) were also
first dug around 3750 cal BC at the latest (boundary at
1 Sigma: 3750 −3650 cal BC). The last re-cutting took
place some time before 3350 cal BC. Between 3340
and 3200 cal BC, the trenches were filled and the village of Büdelsdorf was erected in the former interior of
the enclosure, which lasted for about 100 years 5 . After
the end of the settlement phase, the place was again
used as an enclosure, with several new re-cuttings until 3020 cal BC. This example demonstrates how enclosures and villages are clearly connected phenomena
(see also , this volume). The phenomenon
of villages is much less common in the Funnel Beaker area than in other Neolithic contexts. The usual
Funnel Beaker settlement site comprises small, thin
cultural layers, sometimes containing postholes and
5 Boundary for the start of settlement activities: 3340 und
3300 BC (95.1 %), boundary for the end of settlement:
3300 −3210 BC (95.1 %), see (2016).
shallow pits. These are difficult to identify and mostly
found during the excavation of other structures, when
they are – for example – preserved below a barrow (e.g.
2009). It seems that the dominating settlement form in the context of the Funnel Beaker North
Group is that of single farmsteads or small hamlets
of four or five houses. There are a few settlement sites
that show a different scale, where we find larger pits,
often also a substantial cultural layer and indications
of a larger number of houses. Naturally, archaeological research is biased towards these settlements, as
it is them that provide more favourable preservation
conditions for data concerning subsistence and economy. Within the SPP, we excavated the sites of Büdelsdorf and Oldenburg LA 77. In Büdelsdorf – as already
mentioned – excavations uncovered eight post-built
long-houses regularly arranged in a NE-SW orientation, forming a densely-built village structure (
2016). Hage argues that this dense village structure extends at least over a 2.6 ha core area, which would result in an original house number of 40 houses, and it is
surrounded by a less densely-built area, 4.2 ha in total
( 2016). Here, we deal with a community of several hundreds of people, living in a village with rather
strictly standardised house forms, positions and orientations. This settlement dates between 3340 −3200
cal BC (see above).
In Oldenburg LA 77, excavations uncovered five
long-houses and several huts in a similarly densely-built structure ( 2016). Again, it is argued
that as the village extends over 1.35 ha, whereby several dozens of houses and huts should have existed per generation, resulting in a population of some
hundred people. This settlement is dated by 12 14C
dates between 3270 cal BC−2920 cal BC ( 2016).
These two villages from Northern Germany confirm
the Danish evidence, where larger settlement sites are
seen as a phenomenon of the Middle Neolithic ( 1997; 2006).
932
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
Successive stages of construction
3500–3475 BC: Grave A
3485–3465 BC: Grave B
3470–3460 BC: Grave C, D
3470–3460 BC: Grave F, G, H?
3480–3460 BC: Grave E
970
975
Fire pit
3465–3435 BC:
Dolmen I, II and frame I
3440–3405 BC:
Dolmen III and frame II
3410–3375 BC:
Dolmen IV, frame III and car tracks
1030
975
Frame III
Plough marks 2
Post hole
Dolmen IV
Dolmen III
Grave E
Plough marks 2
Grave D+H
Plough marks 1
Cart tracks
Grave A
Frame II
Grave C+G
Flint
burning pit
Dolmen II
Grave B
Frame I
Grave F
Fire pit
Dolmen I
970
1015
0
10 m
1030
1015
Fig. 12 . The Burial Monument of Flintbek LA3 highlighting the successive stages of construction in a period between 3500 and
3400 cal BC.
bAck To flInTbEk foR An InTERpRETATIon
The cemetery of Flintbek provides a fine opportunity to study structural developments at a local scale.
As is visible from the 14C dates presented above, there
is a marked change of practices at around 3350 cal BC.
In the prior centuries, most monumental structures
show simple building plans but a variation of forms
and construction details, as well as successive events
of monument building and altering of structures.
As is best documented in the long barrow Flintbek
LA 3 (Fig. 12 , see 2011a; b; et al.
in press), a sequence of small-scale non-megalithic
graves are built over the course of 100 years, adding
up to a linear structure, which is only later surrounded by a stone frame and turned into a megalithic
6 If Flintbek LA 7 and LA 11 are also passage graves, we
have six clusters.
structure by adding several dolmen chambers and a
secondary, megalithic frame. Different but structurally similar histories can be shown for other long or
round barrows. There is probably no »general plan«
for the final shape of these monuments. The activities
take place within at least four clusters 6 along the ridge
on which the Flintbek cemetery is placed (Fig. 13). After 3350 cal BC, the structure of activities changes in
all four of these clusters towards a »collectivisation in
death«: in each cluster, instead of the larger number
of structures constructed and constantly re-built in
the earlier phase by supposedly several »communities
of practice«, now only one passage grave »bundles« all
the ritual activities within one megalithic monument.
933
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
The building plan is more complex and the chamber
is enlarged and from the beginning, where tumulus,
grave, passage and frame form one well-defined design. This pre-defined building plan is only changed
by taking up additional non-megalithic burials. When
we compare the early graves (3650 −3350 cal BC) with
the later ones, we also find a gradual shift of emphasis from collective activities during the building and
the successive enlargement of the monuments – for
example, long barrows – and from the successive integration of newly-deceased individuals as individuals
or very small groups of individuals into smaller chambers within the shared monument towards an initial
construction of one chamber and the successive integration of the individuals into this single, collectively-used larger chamber after 3350 cal BC.
Passage grave
Dolmen outside long barrow
Long barrow
Younger monument
Fig. 13 . The Neolithic cemetery of Flintbek, Northern Germany (after Mischka 2011a), highlighting the presence of four
clusters of graves connected to passage grave constructions in the phase after 3350 cal BC.
934
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
REGIonAl sTRucTuRAl dEvElopmEnTs
The structural development that can be pointed to
in Flintbek is also visible at the regional scale. Here,
it is possible to connect ritual practices connected to
monument construction and use with the development
of settlement and social structure. Since 3800 cal BC
– perhaps even earlier – we see the first monuments,
mainly non-megalithic long barrows, within which
since 3650 cal BC megalithic dolmen chambers are
integrated. At a comparable time starting around
3750 cal BC, the earliest TRB enclosures are dug.
Around 3400/3350 cal BC, passage graves and gallery graves constitute a new form of megalithic monuments. Both monument types share a fundamental
structural difference compared with the monuments
erected earlier. They are built according to a preplanned overall design, which is realised in one initial building event, much in contrast to the successive
building steps and alterations in the earlier phase. In
cases where alterations are made, this mostly does not
constitute a real change in the overall structure. For
example, in Flintbek LA 40, only the diameter of the
tumulus visible in the stone frames at the feet of the
barrow is enlarged (see 2011a). A second
characteristic of passage graves and gallery graves is
that the accessibility of these structures is mostly clearly marked by architectural features like the megalithic
passage, or the »Seelenloch« of the gallery graves. Thus,
when we see these monuments as places of ritual practices, the focus has changed from continuous construction activities including a constant alteration of the
design and shape before 3350 cal BC towards a more
fixed shape and stronger emphasis on depositional
practices of dead bodies and material culture connected to these structures (see 2012). Generally,
this new emphasis on the depositional practices is associated with an enlargement of the chamber size. This
strengthens the collective nature of these burials. The
individual body is less highlighted than in the smaller
chambers of the early period. In many cases, it could be
shown that older interments are more or less pushed
aside to make space for the next bodies ( 2001).
These characteristics – namely a preconceived and stable shape of structures, the enlargement of the chamber sizes and a new emphasis on collective burials – are
present in three different types of megalithic monuments: the passage grave, the gallery grave and the
large dolmens. Fig. 14 shows that these types are largely regionally distinct. Gallery graves are found in the
south-west of our working area, Westfalia and Hesse.
Passage graves are mainly found in the centre, in Lower
Saxony (and they extend into the Netherlands,
1992), Schleswig-Holstein and western Mecklenburg.
Large dolmens are found mostly in Mecklenburg and
on the Isle of Rügen. Looking into Southern Scandinavia, there is a corresponding picture, in the sense that
passage graves are essentially the only variant of a large
chamber, and large dolmen chambers as known from
Mecklenburg are widely unknown ( 2009)
We have shown that both gallery graves and passage graves date after 3400/3350 cal BC, with the possible exception that the passage grave might be older
in Southern Sweden, which is thus a candidate for its
area of origin ( 2010). In the same
way, the large dolmens seem to be generally younger,
although there might be exceptions like Burtevitz 1
on Rügen (see / 2012), where two
charcoal dates indicate a construction already around
3500 cal BC. However, here the main phase of usage
also lies after 3400 cal BC and extends into the 3rd millennium cal BC.
It is thus fair to conclude that the three types of
large-chambered megalithic graves represent three
distinct, regionally-determined cultural variants of the
same principle, namely a more stable architecture and
a more collective burial rite.
This trend in the burial architecture and rituals correspond well with the developments in settlement and
social organisation. As we have seen above, the settlement pattern in the early Neolithic period from 4100 to
3350 cal BC seems to comprise small hamlets or individual farmsteads. It is only after 3350 cal BC that the
institution of the village appears in Northern Germany and south Scandinavia. Despite having a millennia-long tradition in the European Neolithic south of
our working region, this institution does not reach the
Funnel Beaker area for more than 700 years. The switch
from a social system organised in single farmsteads or
small hamlets to villages with several hundred inhabitants reflects a major change in social relations. Structurally, a connection can be made between the small,
dispersed settlement sites and the small-scale building
activities on early monuments. It is conceivable that
the building activities documented – for example – in
each phase of Flintbek LA 3 could be carried out by the
inhabitants of one or two farmsteads, or a hamlet, and
that a cemetery like Flintbek – where several of those
small-scale building projects formed spatial clusters –
could well function as a meeting place and an arena for
interaction between these small autonomous units.
Additionally, regional centres are probably represented by the enclosures, periodical places of gathering and collective rituals. After 3400 cal BC, a process
of collectivisation is seen in the switch to one communal burial monument in each of the Flintbek grave
clusters (see et al. in press), a trend that
can be seen in the whole region through the rising
935
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
Passage grave
Gallery grave
Large dolmen
0
50
100 km
1: 3.000.000
Fig. 14 . Regional patterns of the three variants of large chambered megalithic grave monuments in Northern Germany (after
Schafferer in press, Schierhold 2012).
importance of large collective burial chambers, whether passage graves, gallery graves or large dolmens. At
roughly the same time – potentially later than visible
in the burial monuments – a collectivisation is also
visible in the settlement structure. Although the concept of the village is surely known among the farmers in the Funnel Beaker period (see also /
, this volume, who argue for the enclosure as
a ritual representation of the village idea), the practical construction of uniform and well-structured houses, densely packed within a village represents a major
social transformation, which will inevitably involve a
significant increase in collectivity. Settlement-wide
decision-making and (collective or centralised) cooperation will take over most of what must have been autonomously-organised decisions and practices in the
earlier system. Thus, it makes sense to connect the collectivisation of burial rituals and the collectivisation
visible in the settlements as effects of the same social
process, namely a strengthening of larger social groups,
extending the reach of single farms or small agglomerations of farms (cp. also 2010).
lAnd-use ANd populATIoN esTImATIoNs
As a consequence of our argumentation, the data
for human impact on the vegetation and the reading
of summed radiocarbon dates as indicators for human activities might be viewed in a different light.
Within the SPP, Ingo Feeser (/ 2014;
2015; et al. 2016) used a principal component
analysis to identify landscape openings. He describes
an increase of human impact around 3600 cal BC and
a decrease at 3300/3200 cal BC. This discrepancy of a
less visible human impact in phases of the constructions of passage grave and the emergence of larger villages particularly leads to an important question: Does
936
the pollen data reflect not so much an overall decrease
in human activity but rather a spatial re-arrangement
of activities or a spatial concentration of activities,
caused by the changes in the settlement pattern from
dispersed single farmsteads to concentrated villages
(and fewer but more frequently used passage graves)?
The »settlement and enclosure islands« in the forested
areas could be too small for the locally-produced pollen to reach the off-site drilling sites providing the data
sets. Feeser worked out that especially Schleswig-Holstein is only characterised by high uncertainties in the
second half of the 4 th millennium, whereas for western
Mecklenburg the trend is stable.
Martin Hinz and colleagues estimated the population numbers by using sum calibrations of 14C dates
for more than 1, 300 sites form western Sweden, Skane,
Northern Jutland and Northern Germany ( et al.
2012). For each site, they integrated a sum calibrated
value in the calculation to avoid a bias from a differential intensive research activity. The general assumption is that the numbers of 14C dates or the number
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
of dated sites per period reflects human activity and
thus relates to population density.
In accordance with the palynological data, these
curves suggest a decrease of human activity and
thus population density during the time of the passage graves and the large villages. Could it be that the
concentration of settlement activity at the local scale
reduces the human impact at a regional scale? Moreover, would this settlement concentration reduce the
total site number and thus affect the 14C dates’ potential to be taken as a proxy for the estimation of population size? Alternatively, do we have to consider a
social interpretation for the »discrepancy« of the different data? Perhaps the re-organisation of the society
that we witness around 3300 cal BC – this collectivisation of both settlement and burials – affected the
agricultural productivity in a negative way, leading
the way to the marked social changes visible in the
centuries after 3000 cal BC with the emergence of
corded ware/single graves.
conclusIons
Based on the study of the dating of burial monuments at both the local level at the Flintbek cemetery and the regional level of Northern Germany (the
SPP data), we can state that the megalithic long barrows and small single dolmen were built in the time
between 3650−3400 cal BC. After 3350 cal BC, the passage graves, gallery graves and large dolmens constitute the preferred burial architecture. These three
types of graves represent three regionally-distinct variants of the same principle, namely the concentration
and collectivisation of burial activities. Parallel to this
process, settlement patterns change towards the establishment of more concentrated and collective organisation, namely villages fall into this period. In
settlements and burials, we observe what we describe
as »collectivisation«, processes of stabilisation, concentration and enlargement. We interpret this phenomenon as a strengthening of larger social groups acting in
a more coordinated, collective or centralised cooperation and less as autonomous small-scale social units.
We argue that this archaeological evidence could
change the current interpretations of the archaeobotanical data and the population estimations based
on the number of 14C dates. The latter could reflect
larger and thus less scattered social units instead of
a decreasing absolute population number or a decrease of human pressure on the environment after
3400 cal BC. The concentration of activities possibly
prohibits the pollen from entering the sediment traps
of our pollen data archives. On the other hand, more
concentrated settlement activities would also result
in fewer sites and thus the number of sites – often
taken as a proxy for population estimations – would
not be the appropriate method. However, as an alternative option, we could also think of a decrease of
agricultural activity associated with this re-organisation of the society around 3350 cal BC, leading to the
marked social changes visible in the centuries after
3000 cal BC.
REfEREncEs
Andersen 1997: N.H. Andersen, The Sarup Enclosures.
Sarup 1. Jutland Archaeological Society publications 33/1
(Moesgaard 1997).
Bakker 1992: J.A. Bakker, The Dutch Hunebedden. Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. International
Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 2 (Ann
Arbor 1992).
Behrens/Reichler 2012: A. Behrens/S. Reichler, Neue Grabungsergebnisse zur Baugeschichte trichterbecherzeitlicher Großsteingräber auf Rügen. In: / 2012 ,
193 – 209.
Brozio 2016: J.P. Brozio, Megalithanlagen und Siedlungsmuster im trichterbecherzeitlichen Ostholstein. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 9 (Bonn 2016).
The phasing of megalithic construction activities and its implications
Dibbern 2012: H. Dibbern, Das Albersdorfer Grabenwerk
– eine mehrphasige Anlage mit ritueller Funktion. In:
/ 2012 , 271 – 296.
Dibbern 2016: H. Dibbern, Das trichterbecherzeitliche
Westholstein: eine Studie zur neolithischen Entwicklung
von Landschaft und Gesellschaft. Frühe Monumentalität
und soziale Differenzierung 8 (Bonn 2016).
Ebbesen 2009: K. Ebbesen, Danske jættestuer (Kopenhagen 2009).
Feeser/Dörfler 2014: I. Feeser/W. Dörfler, The glade effect:
Vegetation openness and structure and their influences on arboreal pollen production and the reconstruction
of anthropogenic forest opening. Anthropocene 8, 2014,
92–100.
Feeser/Dörfler 2015: I. Feeser/W. Dörfler, The Early Neolithic
in pollen diagrams from eastern Schleswig-Holstein and
western Mecklenburg – evidence for a 1000 years cultural adaptive cycle? In: J. Kabaciński/S. Hartz/D.C.M. Raemaekers/T. Terberger (eds.), The Dąbki Site in Pomerania
and the Neolithisation of the North European Lowlands
(c. 5000–3000 cal BC). Archäologie und Geschichte im
Ostseeraum 8 (Rahden (Westfalen) 2015) 291–306.
Feeser et al. 2016: I. Feeser/W. Dörfler/M. Czymzik/S. Dreibrodt, A mid-Holocene annually laminated sediment
sequence from Lake Woserin: The role of climate and
environmental change for cultural development during
the Neolithic in Northern Germany. The Holocene, 2016,
0959683615622550.
Furholt 2012: M. Furholt, Monuments and Durable Landscapes in the Neolithic of Southern Scandinavia and
Northern Central Europe. In: M. Furholt/M. Hinz/
D. Mischka (eds.), »As time goes by« Monuments, Landscapes and the temporal Perspective. Proceedings of the
Open Workshop 14 th–18th of March, 2001: Socio-environmental dynamics over the last 12 .000 years: the creation
of landscapes II. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 206 (Bonn 2012) 115 – 131.
Furholt et al. 2012: M. Furholt/M. Hinz/D. Mischka (eds.),
»As time goes by« Monuments, Landscapes and the temporal Perspective. Proceedings of the Open Workshop
14 th–18th of March, 2001: Socio-environmental dynamics
over the last 12 .000 years: the creation of landscapes II.
Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 206 (Bonn 2012).
Furholt et al. in press: M. Furholt/M. Hinz/D. Mischka, Putting things into practice: Exploring the consequences of pragmatic theory for archaeology. In: J. Müller/
M. Weinelt (eds.), Human Development in Landscapes
(Bonn in press).
Hage 2012: F. Hage, Das trichterbecherzeitliche Gräberfeld
von Borgstedt. In: Hinz/Müller 2012 , 227 – 245.
Hage 2016: F. Hage, Büdelsdorf und Borgstedt: Grabenwerk,
nichtmegalithische und megalithische Grabbauten einer
trichterbecherzeitlichen Kleinregion. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 11 (Bonn 2016).
Hinz/Müller 2012: M. Hinz/J. Müller (eds.), Siedlung, Grabenwerk, Großsteingrab. Studien zu Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Umwelt der Trichterbechergruppen im
nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Frühe Monumentalität und Soziale Differenzierung 2 (Bonn 2012).
Hinz et al. 2012: M. Hinz/I. Feeser/K.-G. Sjögren/J. Müller,
Demography and the intensity of cultural activities: an
evaluation of Funnel Beaker Societies (4200 – 2800 cal BC).
Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 , 3331 – 3340.
937
Hoika 1987: J. Hoika, Das Mittelneolithikum zur Zeit der
Trichterbecherkultur in Nordostholstein. Untersuchungen zu Archäologie und Landschaftsgeschichte. OffaBücher 61 (Neumünster 1987).
Hoika 1990: J. Hoika, Megalithic Graves in the Funnel Beaker Culture of Schleswig-Holstein. Przegl¹ d Archeol. 37,
1990, 53 – 119.
Hoika/Meurers-Balke 1994: J. Hoika/J. Meurers-Balke (eds.),
Beiträge zur frühneolithischen Trichterbecherkultur im
westlichen Ostseegebiet (Symposium Schleswig 1985)
(Neumünster 1994).
Jensen 2001: J. Jensen, Danmarks oldtid. Stenalder 13.000 –
2 .000 f. Kr. (Kopenhagen 2001).
Jensen 2006: J. Jensen, Danmarks Oldtid. Stenalder 13.000 –
2 .000 f.Kr. (Kopenhagen 2006).
Lull et al. 2015: V. Lull/R. Micó/C. Rihuete-Herrada/R. Risch,
When 14C dates fall beyond the limits of uncertainty:
An assessment of anomalies in Western Mediterranean
Bronze Age 14C Series. Radiocarbon 57/5, 2015, 1029–1040.
Madsen 1994: T. Madsen, Die Gruppenbildung im frühesten
Neolithikum Dänemarks und ihre Bedeutung. In: /
- 1994, 227 – 38.
Meadows et al. 2015: J. Meadows/M. Hüls/R. Schneider, Accuracy and reproducibility of 14C measurements at the
Leibniz-Labor, Kiel: A first response to Lull et al., »When
14
C dates fall beyond the limits of uncertainty: An assessment of anomalies in Western Mediterranean Bronze
Age 14C Series«. Radiocarbon 57/5, 2015, 1041 – 1047.
Meurers-Balke/Weninger 1994: J. Meurers-Balke/B. Weninger, 14C-Chronologie der frühen Trichterbecherkultur
im norddeutschen Tiefland und in Südskandinavien. In:
Hoika/Meurers-Balke 1994, 251 – 287.
Midgley 1992: M.S. Midgley, TRB Culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain (Edinburgh 1992).
Mischka 2011a: D. Mischka, Das Neolithikum in Flintbek,
Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernförde, Schleswig-Holstein – Eine
feinchronologische Studie zur Besiedlungsgeschichte einer Siedlungskammer anhand von Gräbern (Habilitation
University Kiel 2011).
Mischka 2011b: D. Mischka, The Neolithic burial sequence
at Flintbek LA 3, north Germany, and its cart tracks: a
precise chronology. Antiquity 85/329, 2011, 742 – 758.
Mischka 2012: D. Mischka, Temporality in the monumental
landscape of Flintbek. In: et al. 2012 , 133 – 143.
Mischka 2013: D. Mischka, Die neolithische Besiedlungsgeschichte im Raum Flintbek und die Bedeutung der
Wagenspuren vor dem Hintergrund neuer Datierungen. In: S. Kadrow/P. Włodarczak (eds.), Environment
and subsistence – forty years after Janusz Kruk´s »Settlement studies...« Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 11 (Bonn 2013) 117 – 138.
Mischka 2014: D. Mischka, Flintbek and the absolute chronology of megalithic graves in the Funnel Beaker North
Group. In: M. Furholt/M. Hinz/D. Mischka/G. Noble/
D. Olausson (eds.), Landscapes, Histories and Societies
in the Northern European Neolithic. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 4 (Bonn 2014), 125 – 144.
Müller 2010: J. Müller: Ritual Cooperation and Ritual Collectivity: The Social Structure of the Middle and Younger
Funnel Beaker North Group (3500 – 2800 BC). Journal of
Neolithic Archaeology. Issue: Megaliths and Identities 10.
Persson/Sjögren 1995: P. Persson/K.-G. Sjögren, Radiocarbon
and the chronology of Scandinavian megalithic graves.
938
Journal of European Archaeology 3/2, 1995, 59 – 88.
Schmütz 2017: K. Schmütz, Die Entwicklung zweier Konzepte? Grosssteingräber und Grabenwerke bei Haldensleben-Hundisburg. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale
Differenzierung 12 (Bonn 2017).
Schulz Paulsson 2010: B. Schulz Paulsson, Scandinavian
Models: Radiocarbon dates and the origin and spreading
of passage graves in Sweden and Denmark. Radiocarbon
52/2−3, 2010, 1002 – 1017.
Rinne/Müller 2012: C. Rinne/J. Müller, Grabenwerk und Großsteingräber in einer Grenzregion. Erste Ergebnisse des Projektes Haldensleben-Hundisburg. In: / 2012,
347–376.
Rück 2012: O. Rück, Die baalbergezeitliche Kreisgrabenanlage Belleben I (Salzlandkreis, Sachsen-Anhalt). In: /
2012, 247 – 265.
M. Furholt/D. Mischka
Sjögren 2011: K.-G. Sjögren, 14C-Chronology of Scandinavian megalithic tombs. Menga. Revista de Prehistoria de
Andalucía 1, 2011, 103 – 119.
Steffens 2009: J. Steffens, Die neolithischen Fundplätze von
Rastorf, Kreis Plön – Eine Fallstudie zur Trichterbecherkultur im nördlichen Mitteleuropa am Beispiel eines
Siedlungsraumes. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 170 (Bonn 2009).
Zich 2005: B. Zich, Flintbek. In: E. Aner/K. Kersten/
K.-H. Willroth (eds.), Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit
des nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen 19, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde (südlich des Nord-Ostsee-Kanals) und die kreisfreien
Städte Kiel und Neumünster (Neumünster 2005) 31 – 84 .
Martin Furholt
Institute for Pre- and Protohistory
Kiel University
Johanna-Mestorf-Straße 2
D-24118 Kiel
Germany
martin.furholt@ufg.uni-kiel.de
Doris Mischka
Institute for Pre- and Protohistory
Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg
Kochstr. 4/18
D-91054 Erlangen
Germany
doris.mischka@fau.de
Related papers
«Chi l’armonia del ciel brama d’udire». Letteratura e musica nell’Accademia degli Inquieti di Milano
"'Pinger cantando'. Arti sorelle a Milano tra Cinque e Seicento", a cura di R. FERRO - B. MORONI, Città di Castello, I Libri di Emil, 2024, pp. 129-164
Від редакторів
Art Stylistics, Technics and Meanings in Early Iron Age Eurasia / ed.: Stanislav Zadnikov, Iryna Shramko, Walenty Pankowski — Kharkiv; Kotelva: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, HCR “Bilsk”, Maydan, 2023., 2023
Protection Devices for Aircraft Electrical Power Distribution Systems: State of the Art
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2000
Geoarchaeological reconnaissance of the Banja Luka and Doboj area of northern Bosnia and Herzegovina
Solvation and glass transition in supercooled organic solutions of alkaline perchlorate and alkaline tetrafluoroborate
AIP Conference Proceedings, 2013
St. Thomas Christians and the Indian Ocean Trade, 800-1800, Pius Malekandathil
Pius Malekandathil, "St.Thomas Christians and the Indian Ocean Trade, 800-1800 " in Klaus Koschorke, Ciprian Burlacioiu and Philip Kuster(ed.), Early South-South Links in the History of World Christianity (16th -Early 19th Century), Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2024, pp. 165-187 , 2024
Periodontal healing after non-surgical therapy with a modified sonic scaler: a controlled clinical trial
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2006
Effect of Vitamin K-dependent Protein Precursor Propeptide, Vitamin K Hydroquinone, and Glutamate Substrate Binding on the Structure and Function of γ-Glutamyl Carboxylase
Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2010
Spiritual Care und Pflegewissenschaft. Ein Beitrag zum aktuellen Diskussionsstand im deutschsprachigen Raum
Spiritual Care, 2017
SOSYAL TURİZM UNUTULUYOR, TURİZMİN TEK AMACI DÖVİZ KAZANMAK MIDIR? SOCIAL TOURISM IS FORGOTTEN, IS THE ONLY PURPOSE OF TOURISM TO EARN FOREIGN EXCHANGE
Socrates Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 2022
Related topics
- Find new research papers in:
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- Health Sciences
- Ecology
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science