Prehistoric Europe, §IV_ Neolithic in Oxford Art Online

8/10/2019 Prehistoric Europe, IV_ Neolithic in Oxford Art Online

1/31

11/15/2014 Prehistoric Europe, IV: Neolithic in Oxford Art Online

http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/T069317pg4?print=true

Oxford Art Online

article url: http://www.oxfordartonline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/art/T069317pg4

Prehistoric Europe, IV: Neolithic

IV. Neolithic.

The dates given to the Neolithic period in Europe vary, depending on the definition adopted (see1 below) or the region in question. Most of the developments discussed in this article, however,

fall within the periodc. 6500c. 2000 BC.

1. Introduction.The Neolithic period in Europe was initially defined by two characteristic classes of artefacts thatcame into common use at this time: polished stone tools (although chipped stone tools alsoremained in use) and pottery. The first finds, however, came from sites that were difficult to connectwith each other in the absence of such chronometric techniques as radiocarbon dating. For instance, while the extraordinary preservation conditions of the Swiss Lake Dwelling sites (see2(II)(B) below) investigated in the mid-19th century provided a detailed glimpse of economy andcraft production within a small geographical range, the focus elsewhere was on funerary sites,

such as megalithic tombs (see 2(IV)(B) below), which yielded complete vessels. Other sites, foundin the course of construction or agriculture, were excavated haphazardly. It was not until the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th that archaeologists began to notice recurringregional patterns of finds as museums were established and collections became available for scholarly examination. In the 1880s the German prehistorian Friedrich Klopfleisch (183198)distinguished the earliest Neolithic pottery style of central Europe, which he termedLinearbandkeramik (Linear Pottery) for its curvilinear incised decoration, and in the early 1900sthe first systematic excavations took place at some of the deeply stratified sites in south-easternEurope, such as VINA, near Belgrade, Serbia; these provided chronological sequences that couldbe extrapolated to assemblages further afield.

After World War I, the British prehistorian V. Gordon Childe constructed the first Europe-wide

synthesis of Neolithic artefact types, chronological sequences and data on subsistence andsettlement. Childe was among the first scholars to view European prehistory as an integratedwhole, rather than as a collection of national prehistoric sequences, and one of hisaccomplishments was the establishment of the Danubian sequence of Neolithic cultures, whichfor the first time systematized the threads of connections between south-eastern and north-westernEurope (Childe, 1925 and 1929). For archaeologists at this time the concept of an archaeologicalculture was of particular importance, finding its most elaborate expression in the study of theNeolithic period and Bronze Age of Europe. A culture, defined as a set of recurring types of artefacts within a geographic region, is an essentially archaeological unit of analysis, but the termgradually took on behavioural and social implications and emerged as denoting quasi-ethnicgroupings of the people behind the artefacts. Other accomplishments of the inter-war yearsincluded the excavation of large Neolithic settlements, such as those at Kln-Lindenthal in

Grove Art Online

Prehistoric Europe, IV: Neolithic

About the Index

Show related links


2/31



Neolithic funerary architecture, viewof court tomb at Ballymacdermot,Ireland,

Germany and Brze Kujawski in Poland, which provided some of the first accurate data on thetimber architecture used in temperate Europe during this period. Previously, only small segmentsof settlements had been investigated, a practice that provided little information on the scale andinternal organization of such sites.

After World War II it became clear, as archaeological research developed in the Middle East (seeANCIENT NEAR EAST, III, 1), that a definition of Neolithic culture based simply on the appearance of new artefact types was inadequate. Post-war prehistoric archaeology, especially following 1960,focused more on social and technological problems and less on the use of typology and ceramic

styles to construct chronologies. The advent of radiocarbon dating made such efforts at chronologylargely irrelevant. Thus, although it had been recognized by the mid-19th century thatdomesticated plants and animals made their first appearance at this time, it was not until after thewar that the basic defining attributes of the Neolithic period became the origins and dispersal of agriculture, animal husbandry and sedentary village settlements. Neolithic Europe, although notthe location of the original domestication of the primary Old World food crops, was the scene of thedispersal of food production to regions remote from the native habitats of the wild progenitors of wheat, barley, sheep and goats.

During the 1950s and 1960s there was renewed interest in theEuropean Neolithic period, as archaeology turned towardsquestions of subsistence and settlement. Large rich sites, such asBylany in the Czech Republic, Sittard in the Netherlands, Karanovoin Bulgaria and Egolzwil in Switzerland, continued to be excavated.Each of these provided important evidence about architecture,community patterning and subsistence, as well as pottery decorationand stone tools. There was renewed interest in funerary practicesand architecture, including the excavation of large cemeteries, such

as Nitra in the Slovak Republic, and of numerous megalithic tombs in north-western Europe (seefig.). At the end of the 1960s, the recalibration of the radiocarbon timescale ( see I above) causeda revision in many traditional perceptions of Neolithic Europe as always having been the recipientof cultural developments from the Near East. For instance, megalithic tombs were now seen to bea largely indigenous development (see also MEGALITHIC ARCHITECTURE), and a strong case couldalso be made for the independent development of copper metallurgy in south-eastern Europe. At

the same time, the study of the European Neolithic period shifted away from the definition andstudy of archaeological cultures as static units towards the study of cultural processes, such as thetransition from huntinggathering to agriculture, the adoption of such technical innovations asanimal traction and metallurgy (see 6 below) and the analysis of funerary practices to determinesocial organization. By studying the archaeological record as an integrated whole, and with theaddition of information from such allied sciences as pollen analysis, hypotheses about the forcesthat propelled cultural change can be tested.

Various theoretical frameworks guide this undertaking. In the 1970s economic factors were seenas the prime movers of cultural changes; more recently, a theoretical approach that drawsextensively on the interpretation of structures and symbols has gained popularity. Thisdevelopment parallels the emergence of critical theory and hermeneutics in the humanities as awhole, and thus a fundamental debate has developed as to whether this field of study moreproperly belongs to the sciences or to the arts. The European Neolithic period has provided thearena for much of this debate, for its rich record of settlement and mortuary remains offersopportunities for interpretation from many different perspectives.

By the 1990s, however, the following basic outline for the Neolithic period in Europe becamestandard: sedentary agricultural communities first appeared in Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria c.6500 BC and agriculture, animal husbandry and sedentary life subsequently spread throughoutEurope from this region, through a combination of colonization by farming peoples and theadoption of agriculture by indigenous foragers. The main dispersal into Europe took two routes:one along the northern Mediterranean coast and the other up the Danube into central Europe. Innorthern Europe and along the Atlantic coast, colonization as a mechanism of cultural changebecame less important, and the adoption of settled farming by local huntergatherers was the
http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/img/grove/art/F017476


3/31



primary process involved. Byc. 3500 BC, virtually all the inhabitants of Europe were farming,herding and using pottery to some degree, and subsequent cultural changes were generally insitu developments. Within this broad sketch, however, there was tremendous regional andtemporal variation in architecture, pottery, stone tools and ornamentation.

Bibliography J. Lubbock: Pre-historic Times (London, 1865)

V. G. Childe:The Dawn of European Civilization (London, 1925/R 1957)

V. G. Childe:The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford, 1929)

S. Piggott: Ancient Europe (Chicago, 1965)

R. Tringham:Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe, 60003000 BC (London, 1971)

A. C. Renfrew:Before Civilization (New York, 1973)

S. Miliskauskas:European Prehistory (New York, 1978)

C. Scarre, ed.: Ancient France (Edinburgh, 1983)

K. Jazdzewski:Urgeschichte Mitteleuropas (Wrocaw, 1984)

A. Whittle:Neolithic Europe: A Survey (Cambridge, 1985)

J. Guilaine and others, eds: Premires Communauts paysannes en Mditerrane occidentale (Paris, 1987)

P. Bogucki: Forest Farmers and Stockherders: Early Agriculture and its Consequences in North-central Europe (Cambridge, 1988)

A. Whittle:Problems in Neolithic Arc haeology (Cambridge, 1988)

J. Preuss: Archologische Kulturen des Neolithikums, Archologie in der Deutschen DemokratischenRepublik , ed. K. Herrmann (Stuttgart, 1989)

L. Hodder:The Domestication of Europe (Oxford, 1990)J. Thomas: Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge, 1991)

R. Tringham: Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains,Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory , ed. J. Gero and M. Conkey (Oxford, 1991), pp. 93131

R. Ehrich, ed.: Chronologies in Old World Arc haeology (Chicago, 1992)

P. Bogucki, ed.: Case Studies in European Prehistory (Boca Raton, 1993)

Peter Bogucki

2. Architecture.

(i) Introduction.

Knowledge of Neolithic architecture has improved during the 20th century as excavationtechniques have developed. Habitation mounds (tells), with their stratified deposits, were originallyviewed primarily as chronological yardsticks, and small vertical sections were excavated to getpottery for typological and chronological studies. Similarly, the open sites of temperate Europewere first excavated in small sections, providing limited glimpses of pits and postholes. Not until


4/31



wide-area excavations were conducted on these sites was it possible to study full structures andeven partial plans of settlements. While almost no sites are ever fully excavated, scholars nowhave a good idea of the types of structures used and the internal arrangements of settlements. Atthe same time, understanding of funerary architecture, both megalithic and non-megalithic, hasimproved, and advances have also been made in the study of ceremonial architecture.

The emergence of sedentary agricultural communities brought with it the earliest durablearchitecture in Europe. Building materials varied according to the local environment; for instance,in Mediterranean Europe, baked-mud and stone were commonly used, while in the forests of temperate Europe, timber-post construction was better suited to local conditions. This variation inmaterials, together with changing excavation techniques, has had an impact on the archaeologicalvisibility of architectural remains in different areas. For example, in south-eastern Europe, baked-mud architecture has tended to form mounds, or tells, much as in the Near East, while in centralEurope, the large open sites of the Linear Pottery, Lengyel and Rssen cultures ( see 1 above)provide almost no surface indications and can lie undetected a metre or less below fields. Earlyresearchers, such as V. Gordon Childe, took this difference to indicate that the tell sites wereoccupied by more sedentary communities, while the open sites were intermittently settled.Subsequent research, however, has shown that the difference lies simply in the nature of thedifferent construction materials and their degree of preservation.

From c. 4000 to c. 2000 BC remarkable structures, built from enormous slabs of stone, wereconstructed throughout western Europe. This MEGALITHIC ARCHITECTURE (anc. Gr. megas lithos ;large stone), the functions of which are often debated, is unparalleled at this time in the ancientworld in its massiveness and permanence. Although all megalithic architecture shares thecharacteristic of large stone structural elements, it is possible to identify several basic types of structure based on function and shape. In general, there are two main divisions among thewestern European megaliths: tombs ( see (V)(B) below); and standing stones ( see (IV)(B) below),represented by large blocks of stone erected singly or in patterns. The open architecture of singlestones ( see MENHIR), alignments, and HENGE construction contrasts markedly with the closedforms of the chambered tombs and lacks their clear funerary function, although some menhirshave burials at their bases.

While the earlier longhouses and earthen long barrows of central and western Europe may oftenhave had larger single dimensions, the megaliths dominated the landscape of later Neolithic

Atlantic Europe and in many places continue to do so. There are remarkable concentrations innorth-western France, eastern Ireland, northern Scotland, southern England and parts of northerncontinental Europe. Some of the megalithic tombs of Brittany were apparently among the earliestsuch monuments: calibrated radiocarbon dates for the BARNENEZ passage grave place it c. 4300BC. The building of the open monumentsstanding stones and hengesseems to have takenplace somewhat later, between c. 3000 and c. 2000 BC.

(ii) Settlements.

The early Neolithic settlements of south-eastern and central Europe have been the focus of mucharchaeological investigation. Although a few early Neolithic cemeteries are known, these havebeen overshadowed by many large and complex settlements such as NEA NIKOMEDIA in Greece,Karanovo in Bulgaria, Bylany in the Czech Republic and Kln-Lindenthal in Germany. Later in theNeolithic period in north-western Europe, however, there was an overall diminution in the size andcomplexity of many settlements that has caused them to be neglected in favour of funerary sites.

As a result, it is difficult to make many generalizations about Neolithic settlement architecture inEurope, although the following points apply. First, in almost all cases Neolithic houses wereseparate, individual structures, in marked contrast to the agglomerated architecture of contemporaneous sites in the Near East ( see MESOPOTAMIA, II and SYRIA-PALESTINE, II) and tomany settlements of early agriculturalists elsewhere in the world. They were, however, similar tothe indigenous dwellings of the North American woodlands and many tropical forest regions,suggesting that the availability of timber played a role in the development of architectural forms.


5/31



Neolithic settlement architecture,isometric reconstruction of a houseat Nea

Second, there is evidence of the widespread use of a common repertory of constructiontechniques, with adaptations to local environmental and social requirements. Early in the Neolithicperiod, there was an extraordinary variability in house forms, which reached its most extremeexpression in the exceptionally large longhouses of the Linear Pottery, Lengyel, and Rssencultures. Afterc. 4000 BC, however, the prevailing tendency was towards small, rectangular structures rarely more than 15 m in length. The fundamental unit of social and economic behaviour appears to have been a group, which could be tentatively termed a household, that inhabited oneof these houses. Many productive activities took place within houses in addition to sleeping, diningand recreation, and in general it is rarely possible to identify structures, such as granaries or

stables, that served some special purpose. Finally, the tradition of demarcation and fortification of residential sites in Europe has considerable antiquity, reaching in many areas well back to thebeginning of the Neolithic period.

(a) Early developments, mid-7th millennium BClate 5th.

Southern and eastern.

The earliest Neolithic settlements of Greece, the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria (c. 6500 BC)bear striking similarities to contemporaneous settlements of the Near East in their use of baked-

mud construction, albeit with significant differences. The houses of south-eastern Europe weregenerally built from mud daubed over a light wooden frame, whereas mud-brick was the commonbuilding material of Anatolia and Syria-Palestine; however, some evidence of mud-brickconstruction was found in the earliest phase ( c. 6500 BC) at Anza in Macedonia. Moreover,Neolithic sites in central Turkey are characterized by attached rooms separated by party walls,while those of south-eastern Europe normally have free-standing single-roomed structures of varying dimensions, generally with between 40 and 70 sq. m of floor area. House models suggestthat the roofs were pitched, in contrast to the flat roofs used in the Near East. Within the houseswere hearths and ovens. At KARANOVO, there is evidence for the painting of the mud plaster withred and white pigments.

Nea Nikomedia, a low tell in Thessaly, Greece, was excavated in the

early 1960s, revealing seven structures, six of which have beenidentified as dwellings (see fig.); each of these measured c. 78 msquare. Their walls were framed with sapling posts set into the soil c.1 m deep and c. 1 m apart, with the intervening spaces filled withbundles of reeds. This post-and-reed framework was plastered withmud mixed with chaff on the interior and with white clay on theexterior. The seventh structure is larger, measuring c. 12 m square;its heavier construction and a number of figurines found in its interior have led to its interpretation as a shrine. At other sites, similar free-standing square houses were grouped into hamlets and villages of up to several dozen structures; it is claimed that 60 such dwellings

existed at Karanovo I, although it is difficult to say how many were occupied at one time. Some

planning was apparent; at Karanovo I two intersecting streets provided the settlement with someinternal organization. Sites with single structures are also known, but these are rare. It is difficult toknow how many people lived in one settlement, but some of the larger sites could have housed100200 individuals.

In the first Neolithic settlements of the Danube basin, which belonged to the StarevoKrsCriculture, baked-mud construction was abandoned in favour of timber architecture. STAREVOsettlements did not form tells, although they sometimes represent the lowest level on a site thateventually became a tell, such as the mound of Vina near Belgrade, Serbia. Instead, most are flat,open sites along river terraces. Relatively little is known of StarevoKrsCri houses, however,particularly in contrast with the subsequent occupation of this area by the Vina culture and thenext development in the spread of agriculture into temperate Europe, the Linear Pottery culture


6/31



(see below).

Settlements of the VINA culture, which superseded the Starevo culture in the northern Balkans,fall into several types. Some, like Vina and Gomolava, have formed tells. Many others, however,are extensive flat sites where 1 m or more of occupation debris has built up over many hectares;Selevac, south of Belgrade, is an example of this type. Finally, the settlement of Opovo representsyet another type, with smaller structures and perhaps a smaller area. Gomolava, Selevac andOpovo have all provided good data on Vina architecture. At Gomolava, the older Vina houseswere relatively large rectangular structures with dimensions in the region of 154 m, with timber-

post construction and packed clay floors. In the later phase of Vina settlement, the houses weresmaller (e.g. 8.65.0 m; 7.04.4 m) but had two or three rooms and thick walls of wattle and daubconstruction. Their baked clay floors, built upon log bases, had been renewed several times, andthey included ovens. At Selevac, there was a change in house construction from the use of lightwooden frames to heavier wooden frames with dense post walls and finally to solidly constructedbuildings with log frames and planking covered by clay. During these construction phases,habitation shifted across the site to produce 53 ha of archaeological debris. The houses at Opovo,north of the Danube, are smaller (l. c. 67 m) and simpler, with frames of small vertical poles filledwith wattle and daub; these did not have baked clay floors. Nonetheless, it is clear from all thesesites that Vina construction techniques represent adaptations to temperate European conditions.

There is some evidence for decoration and furnishing within Vina houses. At Gomolava, somehouses were decorated with bucrania (foreparts of cattle skulls with the horns), which werecovered with clay. These were usually on the oustide of the house, but sometimes inside. At somesites, walls were painted inside and out with blue or red pigments, and decorative plaques havebeen found in some houses. In these sedentary agricultural communities, the house became thefocus for much human behaviour, including social and economic activity and symbolic expression.

Northern and central.

Beginning in the plains of Hungary and spreading through the Czech and Slovak Republics, Austria, Germany and Poland into France, Belgium and the Netherlands, the Linear Pottery cultureis one of the most remarkable phenomena of prehistoric Europe. There are several reasons for this, one being the rapidity of the dispersal of Linear Pottery settlements throughout the regionover only a few centuries; another is the extreme uniformity in artefacts and architecture over thisvast area. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the Linear Pottery culture, however, wasthe construction of large settlements containing traces of timber longhouses measuring up to 45 mlong, the largest known buildings in the world at this time (c. 5000 BC). Known only from theimprints of upright posts in the subsoil, these Linear Pottery longhouses were multipurposestructures, providing shelter for humans and livestock as well as storage and working space. Theyare rectangular in plan, ranging from 745 m in length and 57 m wide. The posts were arrangedin five rows, two forming the exterior walls and three providing interior support for the roof. In theexterior walls, the spaces between the posts were filled with woven twigs and branches andplastered with mud taken from elongated pits dug alongside the walls. While there is no direct dataon roof construction, straw and reeds are two likely materials, although the massiveness of theinterior posts suggests that split logs or boards might have been used.

In the western part of the Linear Pottery area, houses were characteristically composed of recurring modules, distinguished by the patterns of interior posts. Some have only one suchmodule, while the larger great houses have three. In older houses, the basic module of thesingle-unit houses and the central element of the three-unit houses has a distinctive Y-shapedpattern in the interior post plan, the significance of which is still undetermined. East of the Rhineand Main drainages, this modular construction is absent, but it clearly had a functional significancewhere it occurs.

The settlements of the Linear Pottery culture occur primarily in the valleys of the smaller rivers of this region, in small clusters of sites at which several houses were standing at any single moment.They usually occur at the point where the floodplain begins to slope up towards the adjacent


7/31



watershed. Sometimes they are located on the terraces of such major rivers as the Danube andthe Vistula. Studies have indicated that they were occupied for periods of up to several centuries,with longhouses being repeatedly rebuilt on the same locations to create a palimpsest of houseoutlines in the loess subsoil. Hundreds of Linear Pottery settlements with longhouses are nowknown across central Europe. Some of the most extensively studied include Sturovo in the SlovakRepublic; Bylany in the Czech Republic; Olszanica in Poland; Hienheim, Schwanfeld, Kln-Lindenthal, Langweiler 2, 8 and 9 and Esbeck-Schningen in Germany; Elsloo and Sittard in theNetherlands; Darion in Belgium; and Cuiry-ls-Chaudardes in France, but there are many otherstoo numerous to mention here.

During the second half of the 5th millennium BC, the Linear Pottery houses with their oblong planswere succeeded by the trapezoidal longhouses of the Rssen, Stroke-ornamented Pottery andLengyel cultures of central Europe. These houses typically have a narrow end oriented towardsthe north (in eastern-central Europe) or west (in west-central Europe), with the long side wallsflaring outwards towards the other, wider, end. In the case of the Lengyel culture, the practice of setting posts in individual postholes was replaced by the use of continuous bedding trenchesaround the perimeter of the house. Excavations at Brze Kujawski and Osonki in north-centralPoland have revealed large settlements with overlapping bedding trenches of trapezoidal houses.

At Bochum-Hiltrop in the Rhineland, a Rssen culture house 64.5 m long with a narrow end of 3.4m and a wide end of 8 m was excavated, and house lengths of over 50 m are frequentlyencountered in this region.

Mediterranean.

Many of the earliest Neolithic settlements of the Mediterranean littoral are cave sites; open sitesmay have existed but would have been lost to rising sea levels. However, during subsequentNeolithic settlement in the region a progressive elaboration and diversification of settlement formoccurred. In Greece, the square, one-roomed houses of the SESKLO period (c. 6000 BC) becamesomewhat more elaborate than the earlier post-and-baked-mud structures. Mud-brick was usedmore widely as a building material, and the structural posts replaced by internal buttresses in thedwellings known as Tsangli houses after the site where they were first noted. Village plans, asexemplified by the site of Otzaki, were more concentrated. The Sesklo period also saw the first

appearance of the MEGARON plan, comprising a main room with a central hearth opening out ontoa porch that was to characterize later periods in Greek prehistory. The Late Neolithic period inGreece, which began c. 5000 BC, is called the Dimini period. The type-site ofDIMINI is a tightly-nucleated settlement of megara surrounded by stone walls; a more elaborate structure, sited in agreat central court, suggests social differentiation. The Dimini period settlement at Sesklo has asimilar layout, although not as compact as Dimini itself.

In southern Italy, approximately contemporaneous with the Linear Pottery longhouses of centralEurope (c. 5200 BC), large settlements (villaggio trincerato ) appeared on the Tavoliere Plain of

Apulia. Many of these have been discovered through aerial photography. Within the boundaryditches that enclose these extensive sites are numerous smaller enclosures which contain smallclusters of huts. These compounds are generally interpreted as individual farmsteads. Some sites

have only a few such compounds, while others, such as Passo di Corvo, have several hundred.The architecture of the huts themselves is sadly difficult to determine from the fragmentary featuresdug into the soil. On the dunes of Calabria, dispersed rectangular houses measuring 45 m34m and built from clay daub over a wooden framework have been found at such sites as Piana diCuringa, while at Azzolini near Molfetta in Eastern Italy about 40 round pavementsc. 3 m indiameter are presumed to represent the floors of houses.

(b) Later regional types, late 5th millennium BCc. 2000 BC.

CucuteniTripolye.


8/31



Neolithic model house fromPopudnia, Ukraine, clay

In the late 5th millennium BC, contemporaneous with the late Vina sites of the western Balkansand the Rssen and Lengyel longhouses of temperate Europe, a number of extraordinarysettlements sprang up in Bulgaria, Romania and the steppe zone of Moldova and Ukraine. Thecultural affinities of these communities, based on their distinctive pottery types, are found under several rubrics. In Bulgaria and southern Romania, the Gumelnia culture is found, while in north-eastern Romania and the steppe zone there is a single cultural entity known as Cucuteni on theRomanianMoldovan side and Tripolye on the Ukrainian; many archaeologists therefore use theconstruction CucuteniTripolye. During the 1970s and 1980s, a series of Gumelnia sites wereexcavated by Henrietta Todorova and her colleagues in north-central Bulgaria. These settlements,

including Ovarovo, Golyamo Delevo, Vinitsa and Polyanitsa, were remarkably similar in their architecture and internal organization. They consisted of multi-roomed houses built using thesame technique used at such Early Neolithic Balkan sites as Karanovo I, in which baked mud wasapplied over a framework of upright timbers. The houses measure c. 155 m and were set soclose to each other that in some cases the walls were nearly abutting. Each house had one or more hearths or ovens and an internal row of posts to support the roof; house models confirm thatthe roofs were pitched. The internal layout of these sites is of great interest. The houses wereclustered in small groups of 35 distinct units set apart by narrow lanes. The whole settlement wasdensely packed within a squarish palisade and ditch system ( see (III) below) with gates at themiddle of each side.

The Cucuteni and Tripolye sites of the south-eastern European steppes are much more extensive,

although they often display a degree of planning as well . Many CucuteniTripolye sites occupypromontories overlooking the river valleys of the steppe zone. They often cover c. 23 ha, with 2040 structures in use at any one time. At Kolomiiina I in Ukraine,c. 60 houses were arranged in acircle around a central space containing two additional houses. Within the CucuteniTripolyeculture as a whole, houses averaged 1012 m in length, slightly longer in the later phases, and 58 m in width. Cucuteni houses in Romania and Moldova also tend to be shorter than the Tripolyehouses in Ukraine; the houses at Kolomiiina ranged in length from 4.0 to 22.6 m. Onecharacteristic the CucuteniTripolye houses share with Vina settlements is the use of baked clayfloors covering a layer of timbers. This form of floor construction, referred to as ploadki , appearsto have been in widespread use in south-eastern Europe during the 5th millennium BC. It isdifficult to tell whether the floors were baked during construction, by the use of the ovens within thehouses, or by the conflagrations that eventually destroyed many of these dwellings.

The use of clay to construct interior fixtures of the CucuteniTripolyehouses has provided good evidence of the internal use of space.Further evidence comes from the discovery of house models, suchas that from Popudnia, Ukraine (see fig.). Cucuteni-Tripolye housesappear to have been divided into between two and four rooms of roughly equal size, each having one or more funnel-shaped ovensbuilt of reeds plastered over with clay. Another feature of each roomwas a low platform of unknown function with a cruciform or quadrilobate plan in the centre of the floor. Along the walls were claybenches. The house model from Popudnia also shows large

vessels, which were probably used for storage, along the walls.

Swiss lake dwellings.

A drop in water levels in the Alpine zone of central Europe in the mid-19th century exposed tracesof prehistoric human habitation along rivers and lakes. The quality of preservation at these siteswas extraordinary, yielding numerous wooden artefacts, netting, cloth, seeds and bones, inaddition to the posts of many small timber structures. These Swiss lake dwelling sites arousedconsiderable interest in the study of European prehistory, and for a number of years they formedthe benchmark for the study of central European Neolithic technology and economy. The locationof these settlements prompted early researchers to hypothesize that they were built out over thewater on piles with gangplanks connecting them to the nearby shore. Subsequent research on the


9/31



rise and fall of lake levels has shown that these were in fact shoreline sites built in zones whichwere subsequently inundated. A more accurate term for the structure would therefore be piledwellings (GermanPfahlbauten ). The question of whether they were built on completely dry landor on damp boggy ground is still open to discussion, however, with current opinion leaning towardthe latter. In addition to Switzerland, similar sites are found in France, Germany, Austria and Italy,with analogous settlement types as far away as Alvastra in south-central Sweden. Techniques for the investigation of such sites have been steadily improving, particularly in terms of the tracing of the relationship between the archaeological deposits and the lake-marl deposits. Pile dwellingswere built during a long period in central Europe, beginning in the Middle Neolithic period (c. 4000

BC) and continuing into the Bronze Age (afterc. 2000 BC). Although there is variation from one settlement to the next, the overall pattern seen at pile dwellingsites in central Europe is of small rectangular houses, each with one or more central hearths,arranged in rows fronting a lake with their roofs pitched perpendicularly to the shoreline. AtEgolzwil in Switzerland the houses averaged 9.0 m long and 3.7 m wide, with the largest 11.0 m inlength. Other sites have yielded evidence of houses with similar dimensions. These houses havetimber floors, and at many sites there are also timber pathways outside the houses. They are setclose to each other, sometimes barely a metre apart, and there is an impression of considerableuniformity, structure and compactness. The extraordinary preservation conditions at such sites asThayngen-Weier in northern Switzerland have allowed glimpses of the carpentry skills used in theconstruction of pile dwellings. In several houses the beams that carry the timber flooring were

mortised into the upright piles. Both the piles and the beams are surprisingly slender, in strikingcontrast to the massive post construction of the Linear Pottery longhouses ( see (A) above). It hasbeen suggested that at least some of the structures at Thayngen-Weier were used as workshopsand animal stalls, on the basis of their size and the absence of hearths, as well as claims for preserved fodder, dung and house fly remains.

Stone structures in southern France.

Although many of the earliest Neolithic settlements in southern France were in rock shelters andcaves without substantial additional architecture, open settlements were built soon after theestablishment of sedentary agricultural communities. Relatively little is known of the architecture of

these early sites, however, and it is only from the middle of the Neolithic period (c. 4000 BC) thatsubstantial traces of structures, most often with stone as the preferred building material, have beenpreserved.

Among the sites of the Chassey culture of south-western France found near the city of Toulouse,several have yielded evidence of stone structures whose purpose is unclear; the two best-studiedof these are Villeneuve-Tolosane and Saint-Michel-de-Touch. Villeneuve-Tolosane has over 700circular and rectangular stone structures. The circular structures range up to 2.4 m in diameter andoccur in only one part of the site. They overlap the more numerous rectangular structures, whichare up to 11 m long and almost 2 m wide. The rectangular buildings, which appear archaeologically as patches of cobbled pavement, are laid out in roughly parallel or end-to-endpatterns. Often found beneath the cobbled pavements are the charred remains of timbers laidlengthwise under the structure. Sometimes the cobbled patches are at the bottom of shallow pitswith baked clay sides. Similar features occur at Saint-Michel, where there are about 300 roundand rectangular structures.

French archaeologists L. Mroc, Jean Clottes and F. Rouzaud have interpreted these remains ashut foundations, although no vertical postholes or hearths were found, either in the cobbled areasor around them. Nonetheless, this residential hypothesis seems to be the most widely accepted. J.P. Giraud and Jean Vaguer have proposed that these sites were the remains of large hearths or smoke-pits used for cooking communal feasts or for the large-scale smoking or drying of meatsand fish; thus, there is a possible seasonal or ritual dimension to these buildings. This hypothesisalso has its flaws, for it does not explain why such facilities were needed on such a large scale,nor where their users lived.


10/31



Later in the Neolithic period, more settlements with stone architecture were constructed acrosssouthern France. Longhouses of dry-stone masonry measuring between 715 m long and 1.53.5m wide are found at a number of sites in south-eastern France, such as Boussargues and LaConquette. They occur in groups ranging in size from 35 structures to 3050, with most fallingbetween 5 and 15 houses located closely together.

British Isles.

The first Neolithic settlements of the British Isles are approximately contemporaneous with thecentral European lake dwelling sites and the large Late Neolithic settlements of eastern Europe.However, the study of Neolithic settlement architecture in the British Isles has tended to beneglected in favour of the study of funerary monuments: the fact that most settlements lack theimpressive timber construction of the Linear Pottery longhouses or the extraordinary preservationconditions of the lake dwelling sites has contributed to this neglect. In addition, many sites withconsiderable traces of Neolithic habitation, such as Broome Heath and Hurst Fen in England,have yielded only scatters of postholes and distributions of pits, from which it is difficult toreconstruct house shapes and dimensions.

Neolithic houses in the British Isles appear to have taken various shapes and dimensions,consistent with the local variability in the process of the adoption of agriculture and a sedentary

lifestyle by foraging peoples. At Fengate in eastern England, a single Neolithic house dating to c.3500 BC, in which four foundation trenches formed a 7.08.5 m rectangle, was uncovered.Elsewhere, circular or D-shaped houses are indicated, although rectangular structures appear tohave been more common. At Ballynagilly in Co. Tyrone, Ireland, a rectangular house measuring6.56.0 m had parallel foundation trenches with a posthole at each end. In these trenches werethe burnt ends of split oak timbers similar to those used at Lengyel culture sites in north-centralPoland at roughly the same time. Two hearths and two additional postholes were found in theinterior of each house. Traces of somewhat later bedding-trench houses were found atBallyglass, Co. Mayo, where one multi-roomed structure measuring 136 m was accompanied bytwo smaller structures. At Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, a number of sites excavated in the 1930s haveyielded traces of both rectangular and round structures. These are poorly dated, but appear tohave been constructed towards the end of the Neolithic period.

No discussion of Neolithic settlement architecture would be complete without mentioning theextraordinary stone buildings dated to c. 31002500 BC at SKARA BRAE, Rinyo and Knap of Howar in Orkney and related stone architecture in the Shetland Isles. Of these, Skara Brae is the best-known due to i ts good preservation: it was covered by a combination of Neolithic debris and beachsand until exposed by a storm in 1850. After some early investigations, the site was excavated byV. Gordon Childe in the 1930s. The ten houses at Skara Brae are built from stone and areinterconnected with stone-roofed passages; in some places the preserved walls are almost 2.5 mhigh. The houses, measuring 4.6 m across, generally have similar rectangular plans with roundedcorners. It is unclear how their roofs were constructed, although whale bones or driftwood coveredby brush or turf are among the possibilities. The most intriguing feature of the Skara Brae housesis their interior features, which include central hearths and built-in furniture, which has beeninterpreted to include seats, beds, storage compartments and tanks for holding shellfish, all madeof stone slabs. Other Orkney and Shetland settlements have yielded fewer houses but with similar stone architecture. (For discussion of prehistoric lite dwellings in Europesee also PALACE, I, 3.)

(iii) Fortifications.

Another aspect of European Neolithic architecture is the enclosure of settlements with ditches,earthen embankments and palisades. This practice began in many regions at some of the earliestNeolithic settlements (e.g. at Linear Pottery sites in central Europe) and continued beyond the endof the Neolithic period into the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Although the settlement at Kln-Lindenthal, excavated in the early 1930s, was enclosed by an


11/31



earthwork, few other Linear Pottery sites with fortifications were investigated until the late 20thcentury. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, a number have come to light, particularly in central andwestern Germany and Belgium. At Darion, in the Hesbaye region of Belgium, a palisade and ditchsystem enclosed a Linear Pottery settlement and, it appears, some open space which might haveincluded gardens and fields. Gaps in the ditch backed by multiple stretches of palisade createdwhat appear to have been gates. This practice of enclosing settlements with banks, ditches or palisades was repeated across Europe throughout the Neolithic period. In 1992, a deep ditch andpalisade system with a gate was discovered at the Lengyel site of Osonki in Poland. At Gumelniasites such as Polyanitsa, Bulgaria, multiple ditches (and, presumably, banks made from the soil

excavated to create a ditch system) enclosed the settlement, leaving little open space in theinterior. Elsewhere, segments of ditches take advantage of natural barriers, such as the fortifiedpromontories of many Tripolye sites (e.g. Polivanov Yar and Vladimirovka in the Ukraine). On theTavoliere Plain of southern Italy, large ditches in up to eight concentric circuits enclose areas of over 30 ha, with interior ditched compounds 1221 m across. Elsewhere in the Mediterraneanbasin, stone walls sometimes take the place of banks and ditches. At DIMINI in Greece, thefortifications consist of six concentric walls of undressed limestone, which create a maze-like set of gates and passages to the central habitation area. In the Iberian Peninsula, the Late Neolithicsettlement of VILLANOVA DE SO PEDRO in the Tagus Valley, Portugal ( c. 3000c. 2000 BC), wasprotected on three sides by steep slopes and on the fourth by three stone-built ramparts studdedwith bastions. However, the most elaborate defences are at LOS MILLARES in Almera, Spain (c.3000c. 2000 BC), which was guarded by forts and ramparts with towers and gateways.

It is not known whether the widespread presence of such fortifications implies a threat of warfare or simply represents a prudent precaution against potential human and animal marauders and theescape of livestock, or how effective these ditches, banks and palisades would have been againsta determined attacking force. Although the extent of Neolithic warfare is unclear, mass gravessuch as those at Bronocice in Poland and Talheim in Germany suggest that life was not entirelypeaceful. (See also MILITARY ARCHITECTURE AND FORTIFICATION, II, 1.)

(iv) Ceremonial.

A number of Neolithic sites probably had a ceremonial function. These occur in widely dispersed

parts of Europe, with important examples in central Europe, the British Isles and Denmark. Whilesome resemble fortifications, they seldom contain traces of settlement and frequently provideevidence for ceremonial practices. Among the best-known are those where imposing megalithicstructures still remain visible (see (B) below).

(a) Non-megalithic.

Shortly afterc. 4000 BC, a number of hilltop enclosures appeared across central Europe. Whilesome of these constructions, largely belonging to the Funnel Beaker and Michelsberg cultures,enclosed settlement traces and could possibly have been fortifications, many enclosed emptyspaces with multiple banks and ditches. Some are very large: for instance, the enclosure at the

Dlauer Heide near Halle in central Germany surrounds an area of 25 ha, and that at Wallendorf,Germany, 10 ha. At the Dlauer Heide, there is a single large open area at the top of the hill, asmaller enclosure on a spur and a series of burial mounds along the ridge leading away from theenclosure; short segments of palisade occur in several places around the main enclosure.

Another form of Neolithic ceremonial architecture, termed the rondel, comprises a set of concentric ditches and/or palisades enclosing an open space without habitation remains. About adozen such sites are known in central Europe; most were discovered in the 1980s and 1990s. AtQuenstedt near Halle in central Germany, five concentric palisades are set 56 m apart; the inner ring encloses an area of c. 3544 m and the outer ring measures 95 m in diameter. Threepassages cut through the palisades to the interior space, and the termini of the palisades turninward towards the central space along these corridors; it has been claimed that these passages


12/31



had an astronomical orientation. At Tetice-Kyjovice in Moravia, a deep ditch with an outer diameter of 65 m enclosed two concentric inner palisades. Four passages cut through the ditchand palisades at the cardinal points; as at Quenstedt, an astronomical orientation is claimed for this arrangement.

Similar to the rondels of central Europe are the causewayed camps of the British Isles (moreappropriately called causewayed enclosures, since their role as locations of habitation isuncertain at best). About 40 causewayed camps are known, largely on the chalk downs and river terraces of southern England. Often, they are associated with earthen long barrows ( see (V)(A)

below) of the first farmers of the British Isles. These sites have one or more ditches, roughlycircular in plan, interrupted at several points by unexcavated portions, which form the causewaysinto the interior. The presence of the causeways and the locations of the sites suggest that theseearthworks did not fulfil a defensive function, and they are therefore most commonly interpreted asceremonial or ritual sites. At several enclosures human remains have been found in the ditchesand interiors.

Hambledon Hill in southern England, one of the better-known causewayed camps, actuallycomprises a complex of two enclosures and several embankments covering an area of c. 60 ha.The larger enclosure encompasses c. 8 ha, with ditches that were recut many times, while thesmaller outer enclosure had a more elaborate timber palisade. Both enclosures yielded evidenceof occupation in their interiors, in the form of pits and the remains of ceremonial feasting. Theditches of the main enclosure contained an extraordinary quantity of human remains: about 70individuals were found in the fifth ditch that has been excavated. These human remains includedisolated crania, disarticulated torsos and occasional complete skeletons. They had apparentlybeen exposed to the elements and largely defleshed prior to their deposition in the ditch. Some of the intact skeletons appear to have met a violent end; one was found with an arrowhead amongthe ribs. The interpretation of the site is therefore that it served as a mortuary centre to whichdeceased individuals were brought and exposed to the elements prior to the deposition of their remains in the ditch system. There were also signs of feasting at the Early Neolithic causewayedcamp at Windmill Hill in Wiltshire, southern England.

AVEBURY circle, 3 km to the south-east of Windmill Hill, is apparently of Late Neolithic date, a 6 mhigh chalk bank and corresponding ditch. Subsequent construction of a stone HENGE monumentwithin the Avebury circle probably occurred during the Bronze Age (see V, 2(II) below). Not far from

Avebury, in Wiltshire, is Silbury Hill, an enormous conical mound of chalk and earth, about 40 mhigh and 160 m in diameter at the base. It was built during the Late Neolithic,c . 2800 BC. Itspurpose is unknown, for investigations have failed to turn up any evidence of a burial in its fill. Theeffort to build Silbury Hill, estimated by R. J. C. Atkinson at 18 million person-hours, would haveexceeded even the Avebury henge. About 10 km south of Avebury are the Late Neolithic hengemonuments of Woodhenge and Durrington Walls. Much like the rondel at Quenstedt, Woodhengeis a round structure with a bank, ditch and six concentric circles of posts. At the centre the grave of a three-year-old child, who apparently had been sacrificed, was found. Durrington Walls is anenormous ditched circle, within which are several round structures of multiple concentric circles of posts. In many respects, these wooden structures anticipate and echo the stone construction seenat Stonehenge ( see (B) below), the greatest ceremonial site of late 3rd-millennium Europe.

(b) Megalithic.

Menhirs.

The most characteristic Neolithic ceremonial monuments are individual upright stones (seeMENHIR), usually undressed or rough-hewn and measuring up to several metres in height, set onend into the ground. Some appear to have been shaped more carefully (although there are casesof modern sculpting of prehistoric menhirs) and many were positioned on hills, where they wouldhave been visible from a distance. Menhirs have an Atlantic distribution, from southern France to


13/31



Scotland, but perhaps the greatest concentration is in Brittany, north-western France, where theyoccur both as solitary standing stones and as parts of alignments and stone circles. As many havebeen toppled, it is sometimes difficult to know whether a solitary menhir might not have been partof a larger set of standing stones in prehistoric times. Some of the Breton menhirs were of anextraordinary size. At Locmariaquer, a broken toppled monolith known as the Grand Menhir Brisweighing 350 tonnes is estimated originally to have measured 23 m in length. If this stone ever stood upright, it would have been a commanding feature of the local landscape. A 10 m high stoneremains in situ at Plouarzel. In Ireland, the Long Stone, at Punchestown, Co. Kildare, measures 7m high, and menhirs of 5 m and more are fairly common throughout the Atlantic zone.

Alignments and stone circles.

Menhirs often occur in l inear or circular groups termed alignments and stone circles, althoughthe latter are not usually perfectly round but often oval or semicircular .

An alignment is a row of three or more menhirs set apart at distances ranging from 1 m or less toover 10 m. Such rows can stretch for many metres and contain dozens of stones, although thereare also many smaller alignments with ten stones or fewer. As many stones have been destroyedover the years, it is possible that what appear to be individual menhirs were once part of alignments. The most elaborate alignments occur in Brittany, exemplified by the complex atCARNAC

, which consists of several major avenues composed of multiple rows of stones. For instance, the Mnec alignments at Carnac include 11 parallel lines totalling 1099 granite stonesthat reach for over 1 km. Other Breton alignments, while smaller than those at Carnac, arenonetheless impressive and often contain multiple parallel rows of stones. Elsewhere, alignmentsare relatively less complex: in northern Ireland, for example, the longest comprise 2030 stones.

Alignments are often associated with stone circles in megalithic complexes, while elsewhere stonecircles occur alone. At Carnac, there is a stone circle at each end of the Mnec complex, and other Breton alignments are also associated with stone circles. A complex arrangement of standingstones at Beaghmore, Co. Tyrone, in Ireland, comprising seven stone circles and eight alignmentsdistributed over an area of 0.5 ha, has survived considerable destruction. The Callanish stonecircle on Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, consists of 13 wafer-like standing stones of localgneiss, the tallest measuring 4.75 m high. Rows of stones radiate from all four sides of the circle:that on the north consisted of parallel rows of stones measuring up to 82 m long, forming anavenue 8 m wide, while short rows to the south, east and west form a cross. Within the circle is asmall passage grave. Stone circles without associated alignments are found throughout thecoastal regions of France and the British Isles. At Er Lannic, now an island in the Gulf of Morbihan,France, a double oval of menhirs averaging 2.3 m high was associated with a large monolithoriginally 7 m high. One group containedc. 50 stones, the other c. 30. The Rollright Stones inOxfordshire, England, comprise 77 weathered limestone blocks set in a circle measuring 31 m indiameter, although several of the current stones may actually be fragments of an original smaller number of larger stones.

Henges.From the stone circle it was a short developmental leap to the latest of the standing stonemegalithic monuments, the HENGE. Essentially, these are simply stone circles enclosed by a bankand ditch. Thus one architectural form graded into another, suggesting related functions and rolesin prehistoric society.

While the best known megalithic henge is STONEHENGE, it is important to realize that there are anumber of other such monuments throughout the British Isles. Ring of Brodgar on mainlandOrkney, for instance, is the largest stone circle in Scotland. Measuring 104 m in diameter, itoriginally consisted of 60 standing stones, of which 27 remain. This stone circle is enclosed with ahenge ditch measuring 10 m across and 34 m deep, cut into the sandstone bedrock. An outlyingstanding stone, known as the Comet Stone, is 137 m to the south-east. Nearby, the Stones of


14/31



Malta, Hagar Qim, temple complex,detail of passage stone with

Neolithic funerary architecture, viewfrom the west showing passagegrave

Stenness comprise a henge 70 m in diameter, defined by a 7 m wide ditch and containing 12standing stones; as at Brodgar, there is an outlying stone. These two monuments form a megalithiccomplex with the passage grave at MAES HOWE (see (V)(B) below).

Stonehenge itself is the central structure in a complex of megalithic monuments on Salisbury Plainin Wiltshire, southern England. It was constructed in several phases, with the great lintelledstructure preceded by smaller arrangements of standing stones and ditches. The earliestconstruction phase ( c. 3200 BC) consisted of a bank and ditch c. 115 m in diameter, with anoutlying standing stone (the Heel Stone) of the type found at Brodgar and Stenness. Almost 1000

years later, a double horseshoe arrangement of 82 bluestone blocks, each weighing c. 4 tonnes,was erected in the centre of the complex, but after a century or so these were removed and 30sandstone blocks (sarsens) were erected in an outer circle c. 30 m in diameter with continuouslintels. This circle encloses five pairs of uprights with lintels (trilithons) in a U-shapedarrangement. Thus Stonehenge represents part of an architectural tradition that has links to other megalithic henges such as Brodgar and Stenness, stone circles, alignments and menhirs, andthrough them to the megalithic tombs and non-megalithic constructions that transformed theNeolithic landscape of western Europe.

Temples.

An extraordinary complex of Late Neolithic drystone structures isfound on the islands of the Maltese archipelago, about 80 km southof Sicily. They are considered to have been temples, for they lackevidence of mortuary use. Instead, they consist of clusters of apsidallobes, with each lobe about 58 m in diameter. These lobes arearranged in pairs, with an apse on each side of a court, or with threelobes opening off of a court in a trefoil plan. A good example of aMaltese temple is at Ggantija, on the island of Gozo. Around thecomplex of apsidal courtyards, the largest of which measures 23 mfrom apse to apse, is a wall of limestone slabs at a height of eightmeters. At Tarxien, on the island of Malta, the complex consists of four temples, built over several centuries between c . 3300 and 2500

BC (see fig. ). The so-called South Temple at Tarzien, c . 3000 BC, is richly decorated with carvedrunning spirals (see fig. ) and the lower part of a huge statue of a woman estimated to have beenwell over 2 m tall originally. Nearby is the subterranean rock-cut tomb of Hal Saflieni, in which theremains of nearly 7,000 individuals were found in its 20 chambers. Spiral carvings and statuaryfound in the Hal Saflieni tomb echo the motifs in the above-ground temples. (For further discussionof the ceremonial architecture of Neolithic Europe,see TEMPLE, I, 3 and MALTA, II.)

(v) Funerary.

Neolithic funerary practice took several basic forms, includingindividual burials in single graves, either in cemeteries or within

settlements ( see fig. ); single burials under burial monuments, either megalithic or non-megalithic; multiple interments in graves or inburial monuments; cremation; and, rarely, exposure and defleshingat ceremonial sites. Cemetery and settlement burials did not usuallyproduce constructions which could be termed architectural: thebody was simply placed in a shallow pit in whatever position (either crouched or extended) was preferred at a given time and place, and

it is unknown whether surface traces of such pit burials were visible after the grave was filled andovergrown by vegetation. Cremation was rarely practised in the Neolithic period, althoughcremated bones are found in some burial monuments and open cemeteries. Defleshing issometimes associated with mortuary monuments in which human bones were collected for massburial, as in the hypoges of the Paris basin. Several Neolithic cultures, however, practised the
http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/img/grove/art/F017474http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/img/grove/art/F017503


15/31



interment of their dead under various forms of funerary monuments constructed of earth, stone or combinations of these materials. There is a broad range of variation in such monuments. The moststriking are the megalithic tombs of the Atlantic seaboard and north-western Europe, but there arealso non-megalithic forms, including barrows (tumuli) of various shapes and dimensions, woodenTotenhtten (mortuary buildings) and rock-cut tombs (hypoges ). Beneath these were varioustypes of subterranean structures, including stone or timber cists and niches cut into the earthenwalls of the burial pit.

(a) Non-megalithic.Barrows, also known as tumuli orkurgan s, are perhaps the commonest form of non-megalithicNeolithic funerary architecture that has been preserved above ground to some degree. Among theearliest types are the earthen long barrows of northern and north-western Europe, in which long,narrow mounds of earth covered primary interments and in turn were themselves sometimes thelocation of secondary burials. The dimensions of earthen long barrows vary considerably; in theBritish Isles, they are generally 40100 m long, while some of the Kuyavian tombs in Poland areup to 130 m in length. Some of these have timber or stone revetments that outline the barrow andkeep the fill in place. For instance, in the earthen long barrows of the Funnel Beaker culture of northern Germany and Poland, kerbs of large stones outlined the structures; they did not, however,provide the primary structural members as in true megalithic tombs. The Kuyavian tombs, dating to

c. 3500 BC, have trapezoidal plans, reminiscent of those of the Lengyel longhouses of only a fewcenturies before, which are often found near by. The primary burials are found under the wider end, which is normally on the east. Long barrows often contain stone or wooden chambers for theprimary interments; the Haddenham long barrow in Cambridgeshire, eastern England, had aburial chamber measuring 7 m long and built from massive oak planks. At Wietrzychowice inPoland, the primary interments were made within small chambers outlined by stones. Suchbarrows did not house all the dead in the society, but were presumably reserved for individuals of different status. There is also evidence indicating that the sites of long barrows were used for ritualpurposes before the construction of the burial monument: at Fussels Lodge in Wiltshire, southernEngland, a wooden funerary structure, dated by radiocarbon analysis to 4100 BC, had been builton the site, perhaps to house bodies in the process of being defleshed.

The practice of building timber funerary structures is found in certain regions, although it isprobable that traces of many such buildings have disappeared altogether. In addition to the tracesat Fussels Lodge, Neolithic funerary structures occurred during the 4th millennium BC in centralGermany, where they are called Totenhtten . At Buchow-Karpzow near Berlin, traces of such astructure were accompanied by the remains of many different animal species, including cattle, andnumerous pottery fragments. The funerary structure and the corpses within it had been burnt,completing the picture of complex ritual behaviour at this location. Towards the end of the Neolithicperiod, burial under round barrows became a predominant form of interment across a wide part of Europe from southern Russia to the Netherlands. This practice is associated with the Corded Warepottery culture, which has led some scholars to interpret the distribution of this burial rite asadditional evidence for migrations from the east at this time. However, such arguments aretenuous and viewed sceptically by many authorities. In southern Russia and Ukraine, Late

Neolithic round barrows are called kurgan s. Beneath the kurgan s are various forms of subterranean construction, including burial pits in which a horizontal niche for the body was cutinto the side of the pit at its base (Catacomb Graves), and burial pits lined with wood (Timber Graves). In central and north-western Europe, Corded Ware culture barrows, typically c. 1015 min diameter, hold single burials with a variety of grave goods. Corded Ware culture flat cemeteriesare also known, suggesting that the barrow burial was reserved for special individuals.

A further type of non-megalithic funerary architecture is found in the Paris basin and belongs to theLate Neolithic SeineOiseMarne culture. These hypoges , sepulchres hollowed out of the chalk,are squarish or rectangular in plan, with access trenches leading from their entrances; some havea small antechamber before the main tomb entrance. Typically, hypoges contain collectiveburials: two tombs at Les Mournouards, for example, each contained c. 60 skeletons. Elsewhere,


16/31



Neolithic funerary architecture,detail of entrance to the passagegrave,

Megalithic dolmen at Poulnabrone,Ireland, view from the south-east,c.

clusters and concentrations of hypoges occur. Neolithic rock-cut tombs also occur elsewhere inEurope, as at ANGHELU RUJU in Sardinia, where the burial chamber was sometimes carved toresemble a house.

(b) Megalithic.

Several different types of megalithic tombs have been identified,largely on the basis of their ground plans: these include dolmens,

passage graves ( see fig. ), gallery graves and court graves. As manyhave common features, it is unclear whether there is anysignificance to these variations or whether the form chosen wassimply the most expedient at any given moment. The function of themegalithic uprights and roofing slabs was to create a burial chamber of some kind, so the term chambered tombs is frequently used withreference to megalithic tombs. It also accurately describes burialmonuments in which dry-stone masonry, rather than slabs, forms theburial chamber, as is the case at Quanterness and nearby tombs inOrkney. Such tombs, while not truly megalithic, clearly have similar

architectural features and served the same social function.

Dolmens.

The simplest form of megalithic tomb, known as aDOLMEN, comprisesthree or four large stones that support a single massive capstone,often weighing 3040 tonnes (see fig. ). Dolmens occur from Spainand Portugal to Denmark and Sweden (e.g. Hjortegaarden inDenmark, Trethevy Quoit in Cornwall, England, and Pentre Ifan inWales). An estimated 50,000 survive in situ , probably because thestones used are simply too large to have any practical value and thelabour required to demolish such a structure and remove theelements would be enormous. Although dolmens are simple, their

capstones raise the question of how such massive stones were moved into their resting placesupon the uprights. Various ideas have been proposed (see Atkinson). One involves the use of large levers to alternately raise each end of the stone, placing billets of wood under the raised endto keep it elevated. When the structure beneath supported the capstone at the desired height, theupright stones were set in place and the billets removed to lower the capstone upon them. Another suggests that the capstone was moved with human and animal traction to the top of a smallartificial mound, the uprights set in place, and the capstone lowered. Either way, the simpledolmens may have required the mobilization of more labour at a given moment than thearchitecturally more elaborate gallery graves and passage graves, which used smaller individualelements.

Gallery graves.

Gallery graves, sometimes termed alles couvertes , are distinguished by their rectangular plans.They consist of two parallel rows of uprights, bridged with capstones or lintels at a constant height,and there is no distinct chamber other than the covered space defined by the upright stones: in asense, a gallery grave is an elongated dolmen with multiple capstones. Gallery graves areparticularly characteristic of Brittany and the Paris basin in France, where they served ascommunal burial chambers sometimes for hundreds of bodies. At La Chausse-Tirancourt, for instance, at least 350 individuals were buried in two phases. In the first, c. 5060 bodies werearranged across the floor of the tomb; then, after a period of inactivity, 300 more individuals wereinterred side by side. Across much of the Netherlands and northern Germany, variant gallerygraves known as Hunebedden (e.g. Schoonord and Bronneges in the Netherlands, Thuine and


17/31



Neolithic funerary architecture,interior of burial chamber at LoughCrew,

Megalithic court tomb atCreevykeel, Ireland, view from thewest

Everstorter Forst in Germany) occur. Typically,Hunebedden have their long axis orientated eastwest, with an entrance in the southern side; some are up to 50 m long. To the south in easternGermany Steinkisten (e.g. Altendorf, Hiddingsen, Fritzlar, Atteln) are similar tombs, whichsometimes reach 30 m in length. Both Hunebedden and Steinkisten are also collective tombs.

Passage graves.

Passage graves are perhaps the most elaborate megalithic tombs.

They differ from gallery graves in that the parallel uprights andcapstones form a passage to one or more burial chambers ( see fig. ),which are situated either at the end of the main passage or openingoff the sides. In some cases, double or multiple passages in thesame burial mound are known. These passages vary in length froma few metres to over 30 m. Passage graves are widespreadthroughout Atlantic Europe, from Iberia to Orkney. They do notappear to occur in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia,although this may be an accident of preservation. Perhaps the moststriking examples occur in several areas: England (e.g. WestKennet), Ireland (e.g. LOUGH CREW, NEWGRANGE and KNOWTH), Orkney

(e.g. Quanterness and MAES HOWE), Brittany (e.g. Ile Longue,GAVRINIS and BARNENEZ), and the

western part of the Iberian Peninsula (e.g. El Minguillo andANTEQUERA (I)). A particular aspect of passage grave architecture is the frequent substitution of dry-stone walling or corbelling usingsmaller flat stones for the monolithic structural elements that give megalithic tombs their name. Insome cases, as at Newgrange, corbelling is used for the roofs of the central burial chambers, whilethe rest of the tomb uses megalithic uprights and capstones. Elsewhere, as at Quanterness, theentire structure is built from dry-stone masonry. Strictly speaking, such tombs are not trulymegalithic, but as their plans, internal organization and collective burial practices are identical tothe true megalithic tombs, it would be foolish not to consider them part of the same architecturaltradition. Indeed, the use of dry-stone walling and corbelling allowed the construction of architectural features not possible with large stone slabs: at Newgrange, the corbelling of theburial vault enabled its builders to reach a height of 6 m above the floor of the chamber, while theQuanterness tomb, which contained an estimated 400 burials, had a complex of side chambers inaddition to the main chamber.

Court tombs.

A series of megalithic tombs in Ireland and Scotland combine thepassage grave interior with an exterior forecourt (see fig. ). Nearly400 such court tombs are known in northern Ireland, while about 80occur in Scotland. In many cases the internal passage constructionis identical to that of a passage grave, with uprights, capstones andtransepts, while the walls that define the court and much of theexterior mound construction are built up from smaller stones in theform of a cairn; indeed, court tombs are often referred to as courtcairns. The entrance to the passage occurs at the deepest point of

the court. Sometimes the walls of the court curve inward in a lobster-claw shape, and in a fewcases they almost completely enclose the forecourt, as at Creevykeel, Co. Sligo, Ireland. In thecourt tomb at Shanballyedmond, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, the cairn was enclosed by a U-shapedarrangement of 16 upright stones. Another 2.3 m outside this, a second U-shaped arrangement of 34 postholes was found, its arms curving inwards to connect with the horns of the court structure. Itis possible that careful excavation of other court tombs could reveal similar complex architecture.Current evidence suggests that the court tombs were among the earliest megalithic monuments inIreland, built in the early 4th millennium BC; despite some attempts to find continental Europeanprecursors, it appears that they were an indigenous development.


18/31



Wedge tombs.

Wedge tombs are another distinctive Irish megalithic form, and are distributed widely throughoutthe island, particularly in the south and west. They are wedge-shaped in both plan and profile; ingeneral, they are higher and wider at the western end. About 470 are known in Ireland.

Architecturally, wedge tombs are perhaps the most complex of the megalithic tomb forms of theBritish Isles and display considerable variation. Two of the best-known are Island, Co. Cork, andBallyedmonduff, Co. Dublin. In these tombs, a horseshoe-shaped arrangement of upright stones intwo U-shaped loops enclosed a central space which was further demarcated with additionaluprights. At Baurnadomeeny, Co. Tipperary, the central chamber is formed by a tightly-spaceddouble wall of uprights. This was surrounded by two concentric revetments of boulders, whilefurther out a circle of upright slabsc. 15 m in diameter defined the limits of the cairn that coveredthe whole interior structure. The overall pattern of the cairn-covered tombs is either D-shaped, asin the case of Ballyedmonduff, or circular, as at Baurnadomeeny. Wedge tombs are generallyassociated with cremation burials, suggesting that they fall relatively late in the sequence of Irishmegaliths, about the Late NeolithicBronze Age transition (c . 2000 BC). They also appear to be anindigenous development in Ireland, perhaps from the earlier court tombs, although some scholarshave pointed to similarities with thealles couvertes of Brittany. .

Bibliography F. Keller:The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and Other Parts of Europe (London, 1878)

V. G. Childe:Skara Brae: A Pictish Village in Orkney (London, 1931)

W. U. Guyan, ed.: Das Pfahlbauproblem (Basle, 1955)

A. J. C. Atkinson: Neolithic Engineering, Antiquity , xxxv (1961), pp. 292990

R. Rodden: An Early Neolithic Village in Greece,Sci. Amer. , ccxii (1965), pp. 8292

I. Smith:Windmill Hill and Avebury (Oxford, 1965)

B. Soudsky: Etude de la maison nolithique,Slov. Archeol. , xvii (1969), pp. 596

P. Ashbee: The Earthen Long Barrow in Britain (London, 1970)

R. Wyss: Das jungsteinzeitliche Jger-Bauerndorf von Egolzwil 5 im Wauwilermoos (Zurich, 1976)

G. Hawkins:Stonehenge Dec oded (London, 1979)

I. Kinnes:Round Barrows and Ring Ditches in the British Neolithic (London, 1979)

R. Mercer: Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape (Edinburgh, 1980)

C. Chippindale:Stonehenge Complete (London, 1983)

S. Tin: Passo di Corvo e la civilt neolitica del Tavoliere (Genoa, 1983)

M. Midgely:The Origin and Function of the Earthen Long Barrows of England (Oxford, 1985)

J. Winiger and A. Hasenfratz:Ufersiedlungen am Bodensee (Basle, 1985)

A. J. Ammerman, G. D. Shaffer and N. Hartmann: A Neolithic Household at Piana di Curinga, Italy,J. Field Archaeol. , xv (1988), pp. 12140

C. Burgess and others: Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe , 2 vols (Oxford, 1988)

R. Joussaume: Dolmens for the Dead: Megalith-building throughout the World (London, 1988)

J. Lning: Frhe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,Jb. Rm.-Ger. Zentmus. , xxxv(1988), pp. 2793


19/31



Megalithic art, the so-calledEntrance Stone, carved kerbstone,detail of

Carved altar stone with spiralmotifs fronting niche with post-and-lintel

A. McPherron and D. Srejovc:Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia (Pittsburgh, 1988)

A. Hampel:Die Hausentwick lung im Mittelneolithikum Zentraleuropas (Bonn, 1989)

N. Heger and S. Hiller, eds: Tell Karanovo und das Balkan-Neolithikum (Salzburg, 1989)

L. H. Keeley and D. Cahen: Early Neolithic Forts and Villages in NE Belgium: A Preliminary Report,J. Field Archaeol. , xvi (1989), pp. 15776

C. Malone: Avebury (London, 1989)

J.-P. Mohen: The World of Megaliths (New York, 1989)G. Wainwright:The Henge Monuments: Ceremony and Society in Prehistoric Britain (London, 1989)

M. Hneisen, ed.: Die ersten Bauern , 2 vols (Zurich, 1990)

E. S. Twohig:Irish Megalithic Tombs (Princes Risborough, 1990)

J. Pavk: Lengyel-culture Fortified Settlements in Slovakia, Antiquity , lxv (1991), pp. 34858

R. Tringham and D. Krstic, eds:Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia (Los Angeles, 1991)

R. Castleden: Neolithic Britain: New Stone Age Sites of England, Scotland and Wales (London, 1992)

M. S. Midgley:TRB Culture: The First Farmers of the North European Plain (Edinburgh, 1992)

Peter Bogucki

3. Sculpture, carving and painting.Viewed from a continent-wide perspective, sculpture and carving didnot play as large a role in European Neolithic culture as it did in theUpper Palaeolithic period (see II, 3(I) above) or in later times.Nonetheless, in particular cultures it was of extreme importance (see

fig.). Sculpture, in the form of ceramic statuary, figurines and models,is the predominant form of three-dimensional art, with carvingconfined to very specific contexts such as the decoration onmegalithic tombs (see (I) below). Painting also occurs in a limitedrange of contexts other than pottery (see 4 below), including traceson remains of the walls of dwellings (see 2(II) above) and onmegalithic monuments.

(i) Megalithic art.

Geometric, curvilinear and schematic art was applied to the Neolithic

megalithic monuments of western Europe, and occasionallyextended to statuemenhirs ( see (II) AND V, 5 below). Megalithicdecoration is occasionally found on ceremonial structures, such asstanding stones or the Neolithic temples of Malta, but it is generallyconfined to tombs. These comprise two broad categories: thepassage tombs, distributed in regions adjacent to the Atlantic anddating from the later 4th millennium BC to the 3rd, and the Frenchgallery graves (alles couvertes ) and related rock-cut tombs

(hypoges ) of the Paris basin, dating from the late 3rd millennium BC (see 2(III)(B) above). Tombsin Malta and Iberia and some central German gallery graves were also decorated. Monuments of afunerary or ritual nature frequently provided sacred areas where ceremonies inspired by ancestor cults and the connected themes of death, rebirth and fertility may have been conducted. Given the


20/31



Megalithic art, carved thresholdstone slab, Tarxien temple, Malta,3rd

Neolithic funerary architecture, viewfrom the east showing entranceto

contexts in which it occurs, and the fact that it could not always be easily viewed (some decoratedstones are effectively hidden), it seems likely that megalithic art was not simply ornamental butserved to strengthen the special nature of sacred areas, with the various patterns and motifshaving symbolic significance. In passage tomb art (see (b) below) certain motifs have beeninterpreted as symbolizing the sun and water, which were obviously of importance to earlyfarmers. Evidence that the design of some passage graves was influenced by astronomical andeven calendrical considerations ( see MEGALITHIC ARCHITECTURE, 1) has prompted attempts tointerpret motifs in terms of celestial bodies. Furthermore, decoration seems to occur in specificparts of passage tombs, hinting at distinct symbolic associations for different types of pattern:

angular motifs are most frequently found within the tomb, as atKNOWTH, Ireland, while kerbstonesaround the outside of the tomb tend to have curvilinear decoration, as at NEWGRANGE, also inIreland (see fig. ). In Brittany the axe is a prominent and readily identifiable figurative motif found inpassage grave art, and its symbolic importance is confirmed by numerous finds of finely craftedpolished stone axes (many of these show no evidence of having been used in other than aceremonial context) recovered from Neolithic sites.

(a) Ceremonial.

A significant concentration of decorated ceremonial monuments ison the island of Malta, which contains numerous megalithic temples

dating from the mid-4th millennium BC to the mid-3rd (see MALTA,II). Eight of these temples are decorated with carving, usuallyexecuted in relief on carefully smoothed and shaped stones. Thedecoration principally consists of curvilinear spirals, exemplified bythose at Tarxien ( see fig. ), or less accomplished figurative motifs,

including representations of animals, fish and plants. Another feature is pitting, which maycompletely cover the surface of a stone or serve as a background for motifs. The decoration isorganized and carefully balanced; it often occurs in key positions, such as at the entrances to siderecesses. Although the spiral designs on Maltese temples bear a superficial resemblance to other western European megalithic art, the compositions are more regular and the technique moresophisticated. Other ceremonial megalithic art includes some French and Iberian standing stonesthat are decorated with motifs related to those found in passage tombs ( see (b) below) known tobe roughly contemporary with the Maltese temples.

(b) Funerary.

Passage tombs.

Megalithic art is found on passage tombs (a variety of chamber tomb;see 2(III)(B) above and see fig. ) in three main regions: westernIberia, Brittany in north-western France, and Ireland. Less commonlyit occurs in north Wales and Orkney, Scotland. The art is largely non-figurative, but motifs vary between regions and stylizedrepresentations of objects occur, particularly in Iberia and Brittany. Adecorated stone may have a single motif occupying only a fraction of its surface, but in other cases the entire surface was decorated.

The greatest concentration of passage tomb art is in a limited area of eastern Ireland. About 560decorated stones from c . 50 tombs are known, most from the great cemeteries of Co. Meath, suchas Sliabh na Caillighe at LOUGH CREW and Brugh na Boinne on the River Boyne, which includesthe great tombs of Newgrange, Dowth and Knowth. Apart from the structural stones, a few stonebasins within these tombs are also decorated. The passage tombs in the hill country south of Dublin have a few decorated stones, and there are a few further south in Co. Kilkenny; and also inthe north of Ireland, especially in Co. Tyrone and Co. Antrim. The regional art of north Wales and


21/31



north-western England is closely related to that of the Meath group, from which it is probablyderived. This also appears to be true of the designs found both on the passage tombs of Orkneyand on building slabs and artefacts at the settlement of SKARA BRAE in the same region. In all theseareas the motifs employed may be divided into two groups: angular motifs such as triangles,lozenges and zigzags; and curvilinear motifs such as circles and spirals. There is no truerepresentational art, although it has been argued that some of the geometric patterns symbolizenatural phenomena; for example, it has been suggested that concentric circles or circles withradial lines represent solar symbols.

In Iberia about 160 decorated stones have been found in over 50 tombs. They are mainly found inthe west of the peninsula, particularly in northern Portugal; most of the examples of paintedmegalithic art are Portuguese, with a concentration around the city of Viseu. This painted artincludes such distinctive motifs as simple human figures and a saw-tooth pattern, and at Juncaisthere is a painting of a deer pursued by men and dogs. The carved megalithic art of Portugalemployed similar motifs to those found in other areas, including circles, triangles and serpentiformand U-shaped motifs, but also included a symbol resembling a handled vessel.

In western central France, eight tombs, most of them in Charente, have yielded nine decoratedstones. However, the greatest concentration is in Brittany, where about 50 tombs, mostly passagetombs, have yielded almost 250 decorated stones; 15 detached decorated stones from 8 siteswere also probably originally from passage tombs. Th

Documents

Prehistoric Europe, §IV_ Neolithic in Oxford Art Online