 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(March 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Nordic megalith architecture is an ancientarchitectural style found inNorthern Europe, especiallyScandinavia andNorth Germany, that involves large slabs of stone arranged to form a structure. It emerged in northern Europe, predominantly between 3500 and 2800 BC. It was primarily a product of theFunnelbeaker culture. Between 1964 and 1974,Ewald Schuldt inMecklenburg-Western Pomerania excavated over 100 sites of different types:simple dolmens, extendeddolmens (also calledrectangular dolmens),passage graves,great dolmens,unchambered long barrows, andstone cists. In addition, there arepolygonal dolmens and types that emerged later, for example, theGrabkiste andRöse. This nomenclature, which specifically derives from the German, is not used in Scandinavia where these sites are categorised by other, more general, terms, as dolmens (Dysser, Döser), passage graves (Ganggrifter, Jættestuen) and stone cists (Hellekister, Hällkista).
Neolithic monuments are a feature of the culture and ideology of Neolithic communities. Their appearance and function serves as an indicator of their social development.[1]
In the last years, information on Neolithic monuments has significantly increased in northern Germany.[2] InSchleswig-Holstein, 3,212 megalithic monuments and 958 long mounds are reported. InMecklenburg-Western Pomerania, nowadays 5,991 megaliths are reported (in contrast to 648 in 2010). 1,155 inLower Saxony. Altogether, 11,162 megaliths are known from these regions and with addingBrandenburg andSaxony-Anhalt, we end up with 11,648 megaliths in northern Germany. In Denmark 5,001 monuments are registered, but probably many more exited once, 101 in the Netherlands, 18 in Poland, and 639 in Sweden.Johannes Müller suggests that originally in these regions, more than 75,000 megaliths have been erected.[2]
Neolithic monuments are expressions of the culture and beliefs of Neolithic societies. Their origin and function are regarded as indicators of social development.[1] A religious movement was suspected early on to be behind themegalith complexes.[3] This divided over the course of more than 8,000 years into various sects.[4]
The characteristics of the sites are determined regionally – for example,Bornholm only has passage graves – but was primarilyresource-independent. Structurally, all the essential elements are anticipated in the Breton megalithic tradition, which is about 500 years older, but contrary to earlier assumptions there is nothing to suggest an architectural influence.
One explanation for the different forms - in addition to the basic requirement of the availability of resources and technical progress - is the building worker theory advocated by Friedrich Laux andEwald Schuldt (1914-1987). According to Laux, there are different "building traditions" or "building schools" behind this pattern of distribution.:[5] "If you also find stone chambers in a very small geographical area that have matching building elements, e.g. threshold stones made in the same way, and in some cases are almost identical in size, then one is inclined to think of construction crews who moved around in the local region and carried out orders. Their work probably included the procurement of the selected building material as well as the processing of the boulders themselves." And since the construction of such chambers with their inwardly inclined wall stones requires a certain knowledge of statics, one can always assume there would be a responsible master builder who would be in charge. On the basis of their technical construction, Ewald Schuldt concluded as early as 1972 that the monuments were executed under "the guidance of a specialist or groups of specialists".[6] Evidence of this is e.g. Sk 49 Skabersjö dolmen sn RAÄ 3, a dolmen inSchonen with a triangular enclosure, typical of Poland but entirely atypical of Scandinavia. In addition, there were and are regionalist approaches that assume an independent development of megalithic construction in the European areas, whereby one does not exclude the other.
Schuldt divided the architectural elements into:
There is a considerable difference in chamber design between sites where thecapstones are exclusively supported at three points and those where one or more capstones are supported at two points (forming atrilithon).[a] Theglacial erratics selected for the walls and roofs, in addition to being the right size, had at least one relatively flat side. Sometimes these were made by splitting a stone, probably by means of heating and quenching. At the narrow end of great dolmens, slabs made of redsandstone were also used, instead of erratics, for walls and infill sections, usually filling in gaps between the supporting stones ororthostats.
Theorthostats, which were only dug into the ground a little way in the phase after the simple dolmens, were given the necessary purchase on the ground by basal slabs (Standplatten) and stone wedges (Keilsteine). By slighting tilting them towards the interior and packing them on the outside with compressed clay or stones, the orthostats of the trilithons were given greater stability, whilst the supporting stones at places with three-point supported capstones were essentially placed vertically.
InDenmark, several sites havecorbels (Überlieger), usually doubled, supporting the capstones. In one of the sites at Neu Gaarz and Lancken-Granitz inMecklenburg it is partially double-corbelled. The Rævehøj of Dalby on the Danish island ofZealand has a three- to four-corbel design, where the inside height of the otherwise less than 1.75 metre high chamber reaches over 2.5 m in height. In Liepen (Mecklenburg) and at several other places it is corbelled in the area of the roughly 0.5 m projecting corbel block.
The finishedcapstones rarely have a weight exceeding 20 tons. By contrast in the rest of the megalithic region, weights of over 100 tons occur (e.g. theBrowneshill Dolmen inCounty Carlow inIreland and theDolmen de la Pierre Folle (150 tons) nearMontguyon in theCharente inFrance).
Thefloor plan of chambers is rarely square, but may be slightly oval, polygonal, rectangular (also bulging), diamond-shaped or trapezoidal.
Whilst the sidestones at many smaller sites stand close together, the infilled gaps (Zwischenmauerwerk) between orthostats of great dolmens and passage graves are more than one metre wide. OnZealand the chamber of a passage grave onDysselodden is quite the reverse. Here, the orthostats, which are above the height of a man, are so precisely matched that a sheet of paper cannot be inserted in the cracks between them.
Floor coverings were obligatory in all chambers and were usually separated by thethreshold stone (Schwellenstein) from the, usually uncobbled, entrance passage. Theante-chamber of great dolmens was usually left bare. In several cases the passages were also covered. In these cases, the original chamber was sometimes enhanced by a secondthreshold stone nearer the entrance.
The floor material varies tremendously from placed to place, but often consists of carefully laid cobbles over which a coat ofclay was applied. In addition to redsandstone, in the form ofgrus and slabs,flint, flint grus, clay alone,gravel, orgneiss andslate slabs were occasionally used. Sites also occur where pieces of broken pottery or combinations of several materials are used. The thickness of the floor covering varies from three to ten centimetres. The floor atSassen, Germany inMecklenburg is unique. Here, thin red sandstone slabs have been placed vertically and not covered with a clay layer. The flooring apparently formed the final stage of building. How important floor coverings were, is demonstrated by the fact that subsequent users neither removed nor replaced them, nor did they cover them with a further layer. Floor coverings were especially in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sweden also divided into sections (Quartiere).
According to E. Schuldt, the chambers were thoroughly cleaned when they were removed and fire was kindled in them.[citation needed] Singular fire and scorch marks on the bones indicate, however, that fires were burned during the successive occupation of these structures and not just in the process of their consecration or removal.[citation needed] 17 of the 106 sites investigated by Schuldt had glowing red floors.[citation needed]
The Neolithic mound over the megalithic site was usually made of earth. Its material always came from the immediate neighbourhood and was often interspersed with stones. Pebble mounds (Rollsteinhugel) are those covered with a layer of pebbles. Such coverage was detected in Mecklenburg at about 50% of the sites studied, a few (Serrahn (Kuchelmiß) and Wilsen) still have their complete pebble layer.
InCuxhaven county, there are megalithic sites covered by peat that have come to light today thanks to the lowering of the water table. These megaliths have no mound covering them. They are considered by some researchers as evidence that not all megalithic chambers were covered over. At these sites, however, it is unclear whether the mound fell a victim to erosion very soon after it had been made.
The long rectangular enclosure of the mound, with more or less large boundary stones, is widespread in Nordic megalith architecture. It is called a stone enclosure in English, aHuenenbett ("giant's bed") in German and ahunebed in Dutch. There are also circular, D-shaped (Lübeck-Blankensee, Gowens/Plön) and trapezoidal enclosures, of which 17 (with five different types of chambers) have been excavated in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The geometry of the enclosure is independent of the type or shape of the chamber that they surround. The dolmens or passage graves lying within stone enclosures may be rectangular, trapezoidal or somewhat oval in shape. The chambers in the enclosures can be oriented longitudinally (mostly in enclosures with simple dolmens) or transversely (transverse chambers - mostly in megaliths with passages) within the mounds. One example is themegaliths of Grundoldendorf, in the municipality of Apensen, in the county ofStade. There are also cases where several dolmens and passage graves lie within one enclosure (Ellested onFyn (5),Waabs atEckernförde (3). There are also different types of chamber in the same enclosure. InIdstedt a chamber was found in a round mound of 10 m diameter, which in turn was the starting point for the expansion of the megalith into an enclosure, only traces of which were left, however.
The enclosures can surrounded the actual mound very closely on all sides or, for example, can be 168 metres long and 4–5 metres wide surrounding a small simple dolmen (Lindeskov onFunen). Lindeskov is the second longest stone enclosure in Denmark (after theKardyb Dysse between Tastum and Kobberup - 185 metres long). These extraordinary lengths occur as early as the pre-megalithic monuments of theFunnelbeaker culture. For example, one of the sites (No. 86) atBřezno (German:Briesen) inNorth BohemianLouny (German:Laun) a system of the "Niedźwiedź type" (NTT), at least 143.5 m long, even though the exact location of one end of it is indeterminable.
For comparison, the longest German barrow is located in theSachsenwald forest inSchleswig-Holstein and measures 154 metres long.[b] TheVisbeker Braut ("bride of Visbeck") is 104 metres long, the longest barrow inLower Saxony. In Poland, the longest enclosure is anunchambered long barrow (kammerloses Hünenbett), 130 metres long. A 125-metre-long enclosure, also for an enclosure without a chamber is the longest inMecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Only 47 metres long, is the one atSteinfeld, the longest inSaxony-Anhalt.Westphaliangallery graves also classified as belonging to the Northern Megalithic Architecture, because they were also built by members of theFunnelbeaker culture, and are even shorter (maximum 35 metres). Sites with a single round enclosure for dolmens (Runddysse sacrifice stone,Poskær Stenhus orRunddysse of Vielsted) are smaller and rarely reach 20 metres in diameter.