Nordic megalith architecture
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (March 2022) |
Nordic megalith architecture is an ancient
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]
Context
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 the megalith complexes.[2] This divided over the course of more than 8,000 years into various sects.[3]
The characteristics of the sites are determined regionally – for example, Bornholm only has passage graves – but was primarily resource-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.
Building worker theory
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 and
Elements
Schuldt divided the architectural elements into:
- Chamber structure (Kammeraufbau) – wall and roof design
- Wall infill (Zwischenmauerwerk)
- Entrance and threshold stone (Zugang und Schwellenstein)
- Chamber flooring (Kammerdielen)
- Chamber layout (Kammereinrichtung)
- Mound, enclosure and guardian stones(Hügel, Einfassung und Wächtersteine)
Chamber design
Design variations
There is a considerable difference in chamber design between sites where the
The
Corbelling
In Denmark, several sites have corbels (Überlieger), usually doubled, supporting the capstones. In one of the sites at Neu Gaarz and Lancken-Granitz in Mecklenburg it is partially double-corbelled. The Rævehøj of Dalby on the Danish island of Zealand 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.
Capstones
The finished
Floor plan
The floor plan of chambers is rarely square, but may be slightly oval, polygonal, rectangular (also bulging), diamond-shaped or trapezoidal.
Infill
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. On Zealand the chamber of a passage grave on Dysselodden 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.
Entrances
Flooring, underfloor area
Floor coverings were obligatory in all chambers and were usually separated by the
The floor material varies tremendously from placed to place, but often consists of carefully laid cobbles over which a coat of clay was applied. In addition to red sandstone, in the form of grus and slabs, flint, flint grus, clay alone, gravel, or gneiss and slate 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 at Sassen, Germany in Mecklenburg 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).
Rooms or sections
Use of fire
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]
Mound and enclosure
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.
In
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, a Huenenbett ("giant's bed") in German and a
Dimensions
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 on
For comparison, the longest German barrow is located in the
See also
- Guardian stone
- Stone row
- Stone ship
- Megalith
- Types of Mecklenburg megalithic tomb
- Megalithic architectural elements
Notes
- ^ In the case of the Hohe Steinen in Wildeshausen, the ends and the middle were installed as three-point supports, the eight stones in between in two-point supports.
- ^ Often a barrow in Albersdorf, Holstein, is cited as the longest in Germany, at 160 metres. This is based on a typographical error in Ernst Sprockhoff's Atlas of Megalithic Germany - Schleswig-Hostein. The barrow is actually only 60 metres long, and is recorded as such in the State Register as LA53.
References
- ^ a b Müller (2009), p. 15.
- ^ Johann Karl Wächter: Statistics of the existing pagan monuments in the Kingdom of Hanover p. 9
- ^ Childe (1947), p. 46.
- ^ Laux, Friedrich (1979) Die Großsteingräber im nördlichen Niedersachsen. In: Heinz Schirnig (ed.): Großsteingräber in Niedersachsen (= Veröffentlichungen der Urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover. 24). Lax, Hildesheim, ISBN 3-7848-1224-4, pp. 59–90
- ^ Schuldt & Gehl (1972), p. 106.
Literature
- Probleme der Megalithgräberforschung [Entries on the 100th anniversary of Vera Leisner]. New York: de Gruyter. 1990. ISBN 3-11-011966-8. (Madrider Forschungen 16).
- Childe, Vere Gordon (1947). History. London: Cobbett Press.
- Müller, Johannes (2009). Neolithische Monumente und neolithische Gesellschaften. Varia Neolithica VI (in German). Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran, Archäologische Fachliteratur. pp. 7–16.
- Rzepecki, Seweryn (2011). The roots of megalithism in the TRB culture. Łódź: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersitetu Łódzkiego. ISBN 978-83-933586-1-8.
- Schuldt, Ewald; Gehl, Otto (1972). Die mecklenburgischen Megalithgräber: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Architektur und Funktion (in German). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
- ISBN 3-7749-1326-9.
- Sprockhoff, Ernst (1938). Die nordische Megalithkultur. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. (Handbuch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands 3).
- ISBN 3-7749-0195-3. (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°. No. 9).
- Walkowitz, Jürgen E. (2003). Das Megalithsyndrom: Europäische Kultplätze der Steinzeit (in German). Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran. ISBN 3-930036-70-3.
- Zich, B. (1999). "Vom Tumulus zum Langbett". Archäologie in Deutschland (in German). 3: 52.