by Chris Fowler
Megalithic art is also a notable feature of chambered tombs in northern and north-western France. Here, too, there is evidence for the use of painted decoration, although many of the motifs were carved on decorated menhirs which were later dismantled and incorporated in tombs. In some cases, separate pieces of one standing stone were incorporated into tombs several kilometres apart. As in Portugal, the earliest megalithic monuments in Brittany were probably standing stones, though these may have been contemporary with long mounds containing closed megalithic chambers, for which a mid-fifth millennium date can be proposed (Scarre 2011). The early long mounds range from structures of modest scale with small internal burial cists, such as Le Manio 2 (35m in length), to the gigantic ‘Carnac mounds’ (up to 120m long and 10m high). Carnac mounds such as the Tumulus de Saint-Michel cover megalithic chambers containing rich grave assemblages, including exotic variscite beads from north-west Iberia and jadeitite axes from the western Alps.
In Brittany, the closed chambers of the early long mounds were succeeded after two or three centuries by the first passage graves, either of megalithic construction and roofed by capstones, or with dry stone walls and corbelled vaults. In north-west France both types appear to be contemporary or nearly contemporary: they occur side by side, for example, in the multi-chambered cairn of Barnenez. Megalithic art in the form of recycled menhirs is found in passage graves alongside much rarer examples of freshly carved art, such as the dense geometric designs covering 23 of the 29 orthostats at Gavrinis (Le Roux 1992).
Knowledge of funerary practices in the famous Brittany tombs is hampered by the poor preservation of human bones. Skeletal preservation is much better in the chalk and limestone basins to the south (Poitou-Charentes) and east (Paris basin), where sequences of funerary activity can be analysed by AMS dating. Excavations at Condé-sur-Iffs in Normandy and Prissé-la-Charrière in Poitou-Charentes have revealed that whilst many passage graves were re-used in later stages of the Neolithic, the original interments were often relatively few in number. At Condé-sur-Iffs, individual bodies were laid out alongside each other and left undisturbed (Dron et al. 2003). At Prissé-la-Charrière, the sequence begins with a simple closed chamber within a dry-stone surround, proceeding through successive stages of enlargement and elaboration and culminating in a massive 100m-long mound of cellular construction (Scarre et al. 2003). This mound also incorporated two passage graves (one pre-existing), demonstrating that the relationship between long mounds and passage graves is not the simple succession that has sometimes been supposed.
The passage graves of north-western France were most likely constructed in the period 4200–3800 BC. In the mid-fourth millennium a new phase of chambered tomb construction saw an emphasis on elongated chambers with entrances on either the long axis (variously known as ‘allées couvertes’ or ‘allées sépulcrales’) or from the side (‘sépultures à entrée latérale’). The Breton ‘allées couvertes’ are associated with a new repertoire of carved motifs (discussed later) which included paired female breasts and is also encountered in the ‘allées couvertes’ and rock-cut tombs of the Paris basin, where good bone preservation revealed that these chambered tombs sometimes contained remains of several hundred individuals (e.g. some 250 skulls at La Chaussée-Tirancourt; Masset 1997). Many French passage graves were reopened at this period and large numbers of new interments introduced (see also Fowler and Scarre, this volume). In numerical terms, however, the most striking feature of this late Neolithic phase is the construction of hundreds if not thousands of megalithic tombs, generally of modest dimensions, on the limestone plateaux of the Causses in south-central France.
It is important to emphasize that the Neolithic chambered tombs of France and Iberia were not the only monuments of their period. As well as the decorated standing stones of both regions, there were many undecorated standing stones and stone settings, notably the ‘cromlechs’ of the Alentejo and the famous stone rows of Brittany that reached their apogee in the Carnac alignments. Chambered tombs were only one element in a wider family of monuments which owed their particular character to the way in which they drew on elements of the natural landscape—megalithic blocks—for their construction. Furthermore, the patterned use of different stone types within individual monuments highlights the symbolic significance that the stones and their sources must have possessed for their builders.
NEOLITHIC CHAMBERED TOMBS IN NORTHERN GERMANY, HOLLAND, AND SOUTHERN SCANDINAVIA
Undoubtedly, megaliths are the most tangible prehistoric remains in northern Europe, dramatic and enticing structures with a particularly powerful presence in the generally flat landscapes. In contrast to other regions, their construction belongs to a clearly defined cultural horizon—the Funnel-necked Beaker culture (Trichterbecherkultur; c. 3700–3100 BC)—although many continued in use throughout the later Neolithic and even into the Bronze Age. Whilst many tombs had been destroyed by the nineteenth century (for example, only 54 of the 254 originally recorded tombs survive on the island of Rügen), there are records for well over 12,000 megalithic tombs—more than half of them from Denmark—and an estimate of about 40,000 having been built originally would not be an exaggeration (Midgley 2008).
North European megaliths are by no means evenly distributed. There are zones of dense concentrations—for example on the Falbygden plateau, along the coastal regions of Scania, on the Danish islands, in Mecklenburg, or on the Drenthe plateau—interspersed with a rather more even spread, as well as areas largely devoid of megaliths (Bakker 1992; Ebbesen 1985; Schuldt 1972; Sjögren 2003). Clustered and scattered distributions reflect historical developments within individual regions, and variations in topographical locations—whether along the coasts, focusing on moraine ridges, river valleys, or easily navigable passes—similarly reflect geographical and local social conditions.
In conventional terms, the classification of megalithic chambers in northern Europe follows the Scandinavian sequence, whose origins reach as far back as Ole Worm’s early attempts at typology (Worm 1643). J.J.A. Worsaae (1843) continued the use of earlier terms such as the Stendysse (dolmen) and the Jættestue (passage grave); dolmens could be further divided into Langdysse (dolmen in a long mound; Fig. 43.1a) and Runddysse (dolmen in a round mound; Fig. 43.1b). Modern scholarship has come a long way from the earlier concern with inventories, descriptions, and typological ordering, and later twentieth century studies have shown that megaliths sensu stricto represent only one of many facets of Neolithic burial traditions in northern Europe. Indeed, most of the dead were relegated to future oblivion, their bodies placed in inconspicuous flat graves, pits, and ditches and known to us today only through accidents of archaeological discovery.
FIG. 43.1. North European dolmens: (a) reconstructed long dolmen at Munkwolstrup in Schleswig; (b) round dolmen at Bautahøj on Zealand.
The monumental sequence in northern Europe, as understood at present, begins with earthen longbarrows which, towards the end of the fifth millennium BC, formed veritable cemeteries across the North European Plain and, slightly later, expanded further north, where barrows tend to be found singly or in pairs. These monuments, with their timber chambers, wooden façades and huge earthen mounds, form the prelude to the emergence of megalithic architecture (Midgley 2005). The closed and early open dolmens, well established by 3700 BC, are thus replicas of these timber chambers, whose own architectural variety must have been considerably greater than the surviving vestiges suggest. The simple rectangular dolmen was the commonest form across the whole of northern Europe and, in its closed version, was built of four to six boulders of roughly equal height, and one massive capstone placed longitudinally upon them; normally such chambers are only large enough for one extended human body (Fig. 43.2; Andersen 1997, Nielsen 1984). The transition from a closed to an accessible chamber, at a time when both timber and stone chambers were still used, was not merely an architectural but also an important functional change. It facilitated repeated access to the interior via an opening and, l
ater, a stone-built passage, and was accompanied by a profound change in burial custom, with a focus for ceremonies outside the entrance.
FIG. 43.2. Burial and accompanying grave goods from the long dolmen at Bogø, Zealand.
Although architecturally simple, the open dolmens were sophisticated constructions, employing elements in use throughout the time of megalithic building and culminating about 3300/3200 BC in elaborate passage graves (Bakker 1992; Hansen 1993; Schuldt 1972; Sjögren 2003). In the north European continental nomenclature, a passage grave is a chamber entered by means of a passage which, in contrast to an open dolmen, is at an angle to the long axis of the chamber, thus leading from one of its long sides (Fig. 43.3). Whilst most passage graves are rectangular or oval, there are many regional variants in ground plan, three-dimensional appearance, and, perhaps most significantly, the application of a great store of skill and knowledge in handling raw materials, solving architectural challenges, and understanding the symbolic meaning of both.
FIG. 43.3. Plan of the passage grave chamber at Kong Svends Høj, Lolland (after Dehn et al. 1995).
The building of megalithic tombs—the chambers and the covering mounds—was one of the great Neolithic crafts. Master builders and their apprentices combined great technological expertise with profound knowledge of the different properties of building materials, as well as the esoteric knowledge of the rituals and symbolic requirements needed for the megaliths to function. They made huge boulders stand on end, split and symbolically arranged halved stones as orthostats, skilfully manoeuvred capstones many tonnes in weight over loose piles of stones, employed sheets of folded birch bark to protect the fragile slabs from the shock of the heavy capstones, and made the chambers impervious to water (Fig. 43.4).
FIG. 43.4. (a) Passage grave of Rævehøj, Zealand, displaying an intermediary stone layer supporting capstones. (b) ‘Twin stone’ capstone on the Poskær Stenhus dolmen, Djursland peninsula.
Size mattered, but perhaps not always in the way we understand it today. Sometimes it was expressed through length and width, for example on the Hümmling and around Osnabrück, in Lower Saxony, where the presence of massive glacial boulders resulted in the creation of some of the largest chambers; that of König Surbold, destroyed in the late eighteenth century, was 17m long and up to 6m wide (Laux 1989; Midgley 2008, 75, fig. 3.24). Elsewhere, size seems to have been expressed more subtly by increasing the basic architectural units of construction: the number of pairs of orthostats, the positioning of capstones, or a different volume created by a polygonal or trapezoidal shape.
The pinnacle of the megalithic construction in this region has to be the twin passage grave, of which about 30 survive in Denmark. Here, two chambers—each with its own passage—were built sharing a common wall of one or two orthostats (Dehn and Hansen 2006a, b; Dehn et al. 1995, 2000). The most sophisticated chambers in this category are, in fact, mirror images in shape and ground plan, emphasizing once again both the skill and ingenuity of the builders and the symbolism associated with Neolithic concepts of duality.
The refinement of burial architecture went hand in hand with the elaboration and complexity of funerary ritual. Whilst the accessibility of the chambers facilitated repeated use of the interior, the different patterns of deposition of human remains within the megalithic chambers demonstrate different ways of dealing with the dead. The initial emphasis on individual burials within timber chambers and early dolmens—accompanied by a stereotypical set of grave goods such as collared and/or lugged flasks, flint blades, and axes—slowly gave way to greater concern with the dead in their ancestral capacity. The original deposits within open dolmens and passage graves involve selected fragments of human remains. Subsequently, some chambers may have become family vaults, with complete bodies placed within them, although elements of secondary burial—bone rearrangements, skull displays, and manipulation of other body parts—may have continued (Midgley 2008, chapter 4; see also Sjögren, this volume).
NEOLITHIC CHAMBERED TOMBS IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND
There are a wide variety of chambered tombs in Britain and Ireland, but prior to their construction, a number of wooden mortuary structures existed, some preserved under later stone structures, for example at Pitnacree, Lochhill, and Slewcairn, all in Scotland (Noble 2006, 71–101). These wooden structures vary in size and shape from quite simple boxes to much larger architectural forms, and were used for the deposition and/or exposure of human remains (Kinnes 1992b; Whittle et al. 2007). There was also an early Neolithic non-megalithic tradition in Britain, where long cairns and barrows were built but without stone chambers (Kinnes 1992a).
From around 3800 BC (Whittle et al. 2007) people started to construct megalithic chambered tombs. As these sites were built in stone, many have been preserved in the landscape, giving us a good sense of their overall distribution. They were not constructed in all parts of Britain and Ireland in the early Neolithic (Fig. 43.5), but are found in discrete clusters. In Britain, this includes a spread of sites in the Cotswold–Severn region, the west coast of Cornwall and Wales, and a large number in western Scotland from Dumfries and Galloway up to and including the Outer Hebrides. In eastern Scotland there is a distinctive cluster from the Black Isle up through Sutherland and Caithness, with further concentrations on the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Other islands in Britain have chambered tombs, including the Isle of Man and the Isles of Scilly, although sites on the latter are not securely dated (Robinson 2007). In Ireland, early Neolithic chambered tombs are found in large numbers throughout the north and in smaller clusters in pockets in the south. It is clear, then, that broad swathes of Britain and Ireland saw monumental construction in the early part of the Neolithic.
FIG. 43.5 Map of the British Isles indicating regions with dense concentrations of Neolithic chambered tombs.
All early Neolithic chambered tombs share one thing: the presence of a chamber for the deposition of material culture, often, but not always, including the remains of the dead. There are considerable differences, however, in the shape and size of the chamber: some are massive, enabling people to walk in, move around, and deposit large quantities of material culture, including human and animal remains and pottery. Others are much smaller, would not have been large enough for people to enter, and could only ever have held a limited amount of material. In addition, some stone-built chambered tombs have multiple chambers—some built in sequence over time, others constructed in one go. How chambers were created also varies between regions: some sites employed massive slabs to create simple box-like chambers, for example amongst the Clyde cairns of western Scotland (Cummings 2009). At other sites the chambers were created using smaller stones for dry-stone walling and corbelled roofs as in the Hebridean cairns (Henshall 1972). Diversity in the British and Irish sequence is not restricted to the size and shape of the chamber. Some chambers were set within long cairns or mounds, whilst others were in round cairns. Cairns could have large forecourt areas at one end, where a façade of tall stones created an area where people could gather and conduct rituals. There is evidence of this at many sites, for example at West Kennet in Wiltshire and Cairnholy I in Dumfries and Galloway. But again this was not a universal feature: some sites have no defined area for the gathering of people. In terms of architecture, then, the British and Irish sequence sees considerable diversity.
Two of the main forms of early Neolithic chambered tomb in Ireland highlight the kinds of architecture people were constructing at this time, and how these sites could vary in form. Approximately 230 court cairns are known from throughout the northern part of Ireland; these are large and impressive sites. The chamber area consists of a series of small ‘boxes’ used for deposition (see Herity 1987). Access was most likely gained by removing the roof slabs. The outermost chamber was connected to the outside of the monument via a large and impressive stone-built façade, which also created an open ‘court’ area for people to gather. The entire structure was encased within a large stone cairn (see de Valera 1960). For
example, at Ballymacdermot, Co. Armagh, a series of box-like chambers lead to a semi-circular court suitable for many tens of people to congregate. Similar monuments are found in Britain, and whilst the precise architectural configuration varies, some general themes are the same: one or more large chambers, a forecourt area, and the presence of a large long cairn or mound. These features are shared at Cotswold–Severn sites, the Clyde cairns of western Scotland, and those in Caithness, Sutherland, and Orkney (see Henshall 1963).
At the same time that the court cairns were being constructed, ‘portal dolmens’ were also being built in Ireland. They are less numerous and more dispersed than court cairns: approximately 170 are known from the whole of Ireland, whilst variants are also found in west Wales (Cummings and Whittle 2004) and Cornwall (Bradley 1998a; Kytmannow 2008). They are found primarily in the south, although their distribution overlaps with court cairns in places (Shee Twohig 1990, figs 12 and 21). It is their form, however, which really sets them apart from court cairns and similar monuments. Their main feature is a large stone ‘box’, often capped with a massive slab or boulder, some weighing in excess of 50 tonnes. In contrast, the chambers beneath were often small and would not have been easily accessible once constructed. Few have forecourts and most are located in small round cairns.
