Megalithkultur - Megalithkultur

QS Pre- and Early History
Due to deficiencies in the content, this article was entered on the quality assurance page of the WikiProject Prehistory and Early History . This is done in order to bring the quality of the articles from this topic to an acceptable level. Please help to eliminate the shortcomings in this article and please participate in the discussion !
Mohenjo-daro Priesterkönig.jpeg

Megalithic culture (from ancient Greek μέγας mégas "large" and λίθος líthos "stone") is an archaeological and ethnographic term that has been controversial in the history of research. In particular, the common origin of all megalithic cultures has been questioned. [1]

The term megalithic culture has several meanings:

  1. In connection with the name of an ethnic group ("tribe") or an archaeological culture , it can refer to all cultural phenomena associated with the construction and use of monuments made of large stones ( megaliths ). In 2001 Dominik Bonatz spoke of a megalithic culture in Nias (Indonesia). [2] Childe (1946) speaks of various megalithic cultures . [3]
  2. The idea of ​​a culture with large stone construction, which is spread over great distances, sometimes worldwide, which was created by diffusion and is connected to one another by other features. Temporal differences between the various megalithic phenomena are explained by the duration of the migration and the distances covered. This theory is primarily associated with the name of the English cultural anthropologist William James Perry (1887–1949). Oscar Montelius (1843–1921) and Sophus Müller also used it in a narrower geographical context(1846–1934) developed a migration model for the spread of the megalithic culture, which should have advanced from the Orient via North Africa to Western Europe and from there further north and east. [4] Carl Schuchhardt (1859–1943) reversed the direction of spread and derived the Greek tholoi from Western European models. [5]
  3. The idea that building with large stones (or large stone structures) is associated with a particular ideology, even if building traditions are not necessarily genetically related. The ethnographer Adolf Ellegard Jensen (1899–1965) associates large stone buildings with a “pronounced cult of the dead and ancestral service”. [6] This idea is related to Frobenius' culture morphology .
  4. "Megalithic culture" was used as a synonym for funnel beaker culture or rather its north, west and east group. However, the term was associated with the idea of ​​a “megalithic people”. According to Ernst Wahle [7] and Hermann Güntert , this was the result of a mixture of immigrant Germans and the "megalithic people". Güntert equates the " battle ax people " with the Indo-Europeans ; they would have subjugated the "megalithic peasant nobility" who had introduced agriculture in this area. [8] Güntert assumed that this megalithic people spoke a language that was linked to Basque , Etruscan and "Aegean “was related; However, some of their words would have survived, including in the New High German words Flint, Felsen, Halle and Burg . [9]

Karl Josef Narr points out that ethnography and archeology work with different definitions of “megalithic culture”. He points out that "the prehistoric megalithic does not coincide with any group of forms that can be worked out by archaeological means, nor can it be proven with some probability to be rooted in such a complex." [10]

Current research on the expansion of megalithic structures

Map with find regions in yellow

The possibility of determining the age of the plants widespread in Western Europe and the Mediterranean using the radiocarbon method brings the hypotheses back into the vicinity of a coherent origin.

„There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of megaliths in Europe. The conventional view from the late 19th and early 20th centuries was of a single-source diffusion of megaliths in Europe from the Near East through the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast. Following early radiocarbon dating in the 1970s, an alternative hypothesis arose of regional independent developments in Europe.“

B. Schulz Paulsson: Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 11. Februar 2019.[11]

“New analyzes revealed striking indications of a gradual spread of the megalithic idea out of a center of origin, which was probably before 4500 BC. Began in northwestern Europe. " [12]

According to her information in the journal »PNAS« ( Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ), the Neolithic researcher Bettina Schulz Paulsson from the University of Gothenburg had “2410 sites with carbon dating based on samples in the Context of the megalithic buildings and artifacts of the same age from neighboring cultures (determined). [...] Apparently the earliest megalithic structures emerged in the northwest of what is now France in the early 5th millennium BC. In only around 200 to 300 years. " [12]

Ein Muster „von drei Ausbreitungswellen mit Ursprung in Nordwestfrankreich“ seien über Seerouten zu bestimmen:[12] „‚They were moving over the seaway, taking long distance journeys along the coasts‘, says Schulz Paulsson. This fits with other research she has carried out on megalithic art in Brittany, which shows engravings of many boats, some large enough for a crew of 12.“[13]

Schulz-Paulsson found a total of 35,000 megalithic objects. The monuments examined are located in Scandinavia, the British Isles, Brittany, northern Spain, Corsica and Sardinia, as well as southern Italy and Malta. Very early forms can be found in the Paris Basin ( Passy type ).

The German natural scientist Helmut Tributsch (Freie Universität Berlin), who also included historical considerations in his research and came to similar conclusions as Schulz-Paulsson in the 1980s, pointed to megalithic buildings “on the coastline of North Africa between Morocco (stone circle) and Tunisia "Out:" But they have not yet been investigated. " [14]

Interpretations

Spiritual and religious interpretations

For Andrew Sherratt , megalithic buildings are the main characteristic of peasant cultures. B. the funnel cup culture (TBK) of Northern Central Europe and represent their values ​​and a mythical-theistic world of faith . [15] Megalithic systems were endowed with a sanctity that was adopted by subsequent cultures and represented a meaning that the placefor the peasants, were the scene of regular rituals and ceremonies and were erected in the hope that they would last forever over the annual cycles of life, as places with the function of a collective memory and sacred landscaping, the sometimes developed into central sanctuaries with a strong bond for the community. [16] [17] Only the initially far more mobile cord band ceramists replaced this tradition and went over to small, individual graves. The circular structures of the British Isles, the so-called Henge monuments, in turn have astronomical references. [18]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica [19] , the custom can possibly be based on a cult of the dead and ancestors, to whom such stones gave a certain durability and monumental shape. In some cases it was believed that the ancestors lived in them. Individual stones like the menhirsbut are more difficult to explain. However, where they were brought into human form, they could have been symbols of the seat of the ancestors. A uniform interpretation of all megalithic monuments is not possible, however, and it is certainly also wrong to speak of a regular megalithic religion; rather, in the case of megalithic monuments, it is better to speak of a great manifestation of ideas that could have been quite different but where the cult of the dead played an important role. [20] Hermann Müller-Karpe takes a similar opinion , especially after evaluating accompanying finds, idols, and anthropomorphic onesSteles, ritual objects and iconographic objects such as bull horns, etc., which in his opinion reveal a dead cultic meaning for the Iberian megaliths, together with a religious hope of salvation that "incorporated the hope of eternity in a new way in the form of an explicit afterlife". [21] In addition, they were apparently places where the transformation of the dead to ancestors took place, but where the world of the dead was separated from that of the living, whereby it is often noticeable that when graves are laid there is no visual connection to the places of residence and areas of the living. [22]

Klaus Schmidt judges the megalithic complexes with their large sculptures in the early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia : "When looking for comparisons for the anthropomorphic pillars of the Stone Age, one quickly comes across the European menhirs and their Middle Eastern counterparts, the mazebas (Hebrew plural: Mazbot) of the Semitic culture. It should be noted that menhirs and mazebas are most likely to be used as the dwelling of a number, without it being possible to prove that the Stone Age pillars correspond to the content of the stone age pillars- a revered deity or a dead spirit - can be interpreted. ”From this he draws the conclusion that Göbekli Tepe is to be seen as a“ monument of the cult of the dead ”. [23]

Correspondingly, Victor Maag judges the much younger Chalcolithic megaliths of Palestine (around 4000 BC) that the megaliths were sacred sites that were adopted by later peoples of Palestine such as the Canaanites and Israelites and adapted to their own views. From the creators of Mazzeben, which of them so-called "people of the spirits of the dead", they would have taken the custom to sleep there, to get prophetic dreams, as for example in the Hebrew Bible and the Ephraimitic cult legend of the patriarch Jacob is described , the one at the stone of Bethelthe god El appeared (dream of the ladder to heaven, Gen. 28, 10-22), after which the stone became the cult center. However, such a menhir was probably only erected for outstanding dead. “Dolmens were built for them as stone houses, a single large rock tooth or a slab of rock was set up for them to settle in, or their grave was surrounded with a cromlech as a barrier because the former 'power' of the deceased could be felt on it . In this magical circle - at least through a corresponding ritual - the dead were banned so that they would not stroll around. Whole clans may also have buried their dead in individual Cromlechs. Such cromlechs - the Semites they met in Palestine called them Gilgal("Circle") - often include one or more Mazzeben, which, in his opinion, makes his explanation more probable. " [24]

Sociological Interpretations

Studies and experiments have shown how high the technical knowledge of the builders of dolmen may have been. In a 1979 experiment, it took 200 people to pull and erect a 32-ton block of stone that was still much lighter than the 100 tons of other monuments. [25] However, it is not certain that this corresponds to the prehistoric methods. The transport of such blocks, often many kilometers from the quarry to the place of construction (at Stonehenge up to 380 km), required sophisticated logistics that were only available to a well-organized larger community. [26]However, Andrew Sherratt points out that large buildings like the European megalithic tombs could in principle also have been built by small communities without a hierarchical social structure. [27]Whether large, hierarchically organized or small, less stratified groups: the social significance of this collective work must have been considerable. Large buildings that only large and well-organized groups of people could build are to be understood as a collective effort. In any case, the place and events must have been so significant for the community that the individual showed that enormous amount of work in the collective, without which some facilities would be inconceivable and in this sense they are also considered monuments to settling down with in some cases supraregional importance they sometimes connected neighboring communities with one another through rituals or even covered the land like a network, whereby they each had a line of sight to one another, such as the Swedish and North German megalithic tombs of the 4th show before Christian millennium. They thus served as ritual centers of a new religion conditioned by the rural way of life, with the help of which the megalithic farmers had seized the arable land that they now had to feed. And they served as markers of the territory that had to be asserted against other groups, as Colin Renfrew in particular suspected. But whether the economic transition to agriculture and animal husbandry, the so-calledNeolithic revolution , which was the sole trigger for the megalithic, remains questionable, especially for its early phase on the Atlantic coast of northern Europe, because there are no settlements here that could be assigned to megalithic buildings. [28]

Rather, conversely, the astronomical-calendar knowledge that was available to mankind in the late Paleolithic and early Neolithic ages seems to have been the main reason for the Neolithic revolution. With the development of the agricultural productive forces, which became possible with it, and the population explosion that followed this development, the possibility arose to set up the megalithic rows of stones, the cromlechs and the megalithic visures, which record the astronomical level of knowledge of the priest-astronomers and their verifiability and institutionalize the annual preparation of the new calendar. [29]

The fact that relatively few burials were found in some of the tombs may also indicate that a social and probably also religious hierarchy existed in some regions; in certain places ( Bougon in France and Knowth in Ireland) this is particularly evident. Regulated clearing processes are also conceivable, and in acidic soils, such as in large parts of Ireland and in the northern European lowlands, bone preservation is not to be expected anyway. Klaus Schmidt sees the buildings by Göbekli Tepe as the beginnings of a society based on the division of labor , one of the preconditions for a peasant economy. [30] In Wessex it sinksChris Scarre observed a process of concentration in the late Neolithic that culminated in Stonehenge, which took millions of hours to build. [31]

According to more recent studies, other factors could also have played a role in its use. Stonehenge, for example, is believed to have played a role as a medical center to which the sick made pilgrimages to seek healing, as the medical knowledge of the time was also concentrated here in terms of personnel. [32]

Technical and astronomical-mathematical interpretations

For the natural sciences are religious and sociological interpretations whether their speculative nature in general back: "Quite apart from such rather functional interpretation of experiments is of acknowledged megalithic a surprising designing true to scale and regularity have been detected in elevation and location."

Possibly the examined burial chamber

What is certain is that “under no circumstances [...] the builders of the megalithic monuments (were) at work without a concept or just randomly. [...] Even in the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, a comparatively highly developed measurement and construction technology must have been available. " [33]

The physicist Norman Lockyer , discoverer of helium and founder of the British science newspaper Nature, was the founder of archaeo-astronomy with his book "The Dawn of Astronomy" (1894). This science, which aims to clarify the beginnings of astronomy, has come to the conclusion that many megalithic structures fulfilled an astronomical function. Lockyer not only examined the astronomical orientations of ancient temples, but also z. B. occupied with the astronomical sense of the Stonehenge megaliths. With the advent of the computer, the work of archaeo-astronomers was greatly facilitated, so that archaeo-astronomy has undergone a strong development since the end of World War II. [34]

Long grave Manio I
The author refers to an investigation that a building ensemble near Kermario near Carnac took as its starting point: A hill there was piled up over a stone burial chamber with a side length of 26.8 meters:

Probably the mentioned 'single stone for the long grave'

“In the case of a neighboring grave monument, the long grave Manio I, there are several stone settings in arch form over circles with diameters of 11.6 m and 37.9 m. Now it is astonishing that all these numerical values ​​or basic measures can be derived from one another using comparatively simple calculations: This results in 26.8 x3/4 = 11.6 and 26.8 times 2 = 37.9. The product 37.9 x2 = 53.7, on the other hand, results in a new measured value that occurs several times in the Manio I megalithic complex. For example, it is identical to the distance between a large single stone (menhir) and the long grave and also designates the radius of a further construction circle of 2 x 53.6 = 107 m. "

Stone row by Petit-Ménec

Extended investigations
The investigation considered such results “very unlikely given the arbitrary geometry of the megalithic builders” and examined other megalithic monuments in the area around Carnac: “The largest megalithic stone circle in continental Europe, northeast of Manio I [...] has a radius of approximately 116 m. At a short distance from it a stone arch (or unfinished cromlech) is known, which belongs to a circle with a radius of 379 m. The distance from the center of this circle to Manio I is about 1160 m, the distance from there to the westernmost point of the stone lines of Petit Ménecpretty much exactly 1070 m. The two last-mentioned stretches simultaneously form the larger cathetus and the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle, the sides of which are astonishingly accurate in a ratio of 5:12:13 to each other and even result in a Phythagorean triangle. " [35]

See also

literature

General

  • Karl W. Beinhauer, Gabriel Cooney, Christian E. Guksch, Susan Kus (eds.): Studies on megalithics. State of research and ethnoarchaeological perspectives. The Megalithic Phenomenon. Recent Research and Ethnoarchaeological Approaches (= contributions to the prehistory and early history of Central Europe. Volume 21). Verlag Beier & Beran, Weißbach 1999, ISBN 3-930036-36-3 .
  • Glyn Edmund Daniel , Poul Kjærum (Ed.): Megalithic graves and ritual. Papers presented at the III. Atlantic Colloquium, Moesgård 1969 (= Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskabs skrifter. Band 11). Gyldendal, Copenhagen 1973, ISBN 87-00-08861-7 .
  • Glyn Daniel, John Davies Evans, Barry W. Cunliffe, Colin Renfrew: Antiquity and Man. Thames & Hudson, London 1981, ISBN 0-500-05040-6.
  • Timothy Darvill, M. Malone: Megaliths from Antiquity. Antiquity, Cambridge 2003, ISBN 0-9539762-2-X.
  • German Archaeological Institute , Madrid Department (ed.): Problems of megalithic grave research. Lectures on the 100th birthday of Vera Leisner. W. de Gruyter, Madrid 1990, ISBN 3-11-011966-8 ( limited online version ).
  • Emil Hoffmann: Lexicon of the Stone Age. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-406-42125-3 .
  • Roger Joussaume : Dolmens for the dead. Megalithisms around the world. Hachette Literature, Paris 1985, ISBN 978-2-01-008877-3 (= Dolmens for the dead. Megalith-building throughout the world. Cornell University Press, London 1988, ISBN 978-0-8014-2156-3 ).
  • Wolfgang Korn : Megalithic Cultures in Europe. Enigmatic monuments of the Stone Age. Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 978-3-8062-1553-3 .
  • Jean Pierre Mohen, Jean Guilaine: Megaliths. In: The great image atlas of archeology . Orbis Verlag, Munich 1991, p. 46 f., ISBN 3-572-01022-5 ; Original edition: Encyclopaedia Universalis, Paris 1985.
  • Hermann Müller-Karpe : Fundamentals of early human history, Vol. 1: From the beginnings to the 3rd millennium BC Chr. Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-8062-1309-7 .
  • Mark Patton: Statements in Stone, Monuments and Society in Neolithic Brittany. Routledge, London 1993, ISBN 0-415-06729-4.
  • Sibylle von Reden: The Megalithic Cultures. DuMont, Cologne 1978, 1982, ISBN 3-7701-1055-2 .
  • Chris Scarre (Ed.): World Atlas of Archeology. Südwest Verlag, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-517-01178-9 . OA 1988 Times Books Ltd.
  • Andrew Sherratt (Ed.): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archeology. Christian Verlag, Munich 1980, ISBN 3-88472-035-X .
  • Jürgen E. Walkowitz: The megalithic syndrome. European cult sites of the Stone Age (= contributions to the prehistory and early history of Central Europe. Vol. 36). Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach 2003, ISBN 3-930036-70-3 .
  • The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15. Auflage. Encyclopedia Britannica Corp., Chicago 1993, ISBN 0-85229-571-5.

Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean

  • G. Camps: The Moroccan dolmens. In: Libyca. Band 13 (1965), Algier, S. 235–247. ISSN 0459-3030 .
  • Francisco Javier Fernández Conde: The Church of Asturias in the High Middle Ages . Oviedo 1972.
  • Antonio C. Floriano: Restoration of Christian worship in Asturias at the beginning of the Reconquest . Oviedo 1949.
  • Joachim von Freeden : Malta and the architecture of its megalithic temples. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1993, ISBN 3-534-11012-9 .
  • Heinz Günter Horn (Ed.): The Numider. Horsemen and kings north of the Sahara. Rheinlandverlag, Cologne 1979.
  • Philine Kalb: Megalithics on the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa. In: Karl W. Beinhauer (Ed.), Among other things: Studies on megalithics. State of research and ethnoarchaeological perspectives. In: Contributions to the prehistory and early history of Central Europe. Langenweißbach 21.1999, 115-122.
  • Georg Leisner , Vera Leisner : The megalithic tombs of the Iberian Peninsula. The south . Roman-Germanic research, volume 17. Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 1943.
  • Georg Leisner, Vera Leisner: The megalithic tombs of the Iberian Peninsula. The west . Madrid Research, Volume 1, 1st delivery. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 1956.
  • Georg Leisner, Vera Leisner: The megalithic tombs of the Iberian Peninsula. The west . Madrid Research, Volume 1, 2nd delivery. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 1959.
  • Vera Leisner: The megalithic tombs of the Iberian Peninsula. The west . Madrid Research, Volume 1, 3rd delivery. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 1965.
  • Vera Leisner, Philine Kalb: The megalithic tombs of the Iberian Peninsula. The west . Madrid Researches, Volume 1, 4th delivery. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 1998, ISBN 3-11-014907-9 .
  • Sigrid Neubert : The temples of Malta. The mystery of megalithic buildings, second edition, Gustav Lübbe Verlag, Bergisch Gladbach 1994. ISBN 3-7857-0758-4 .
  • Klaus Schmidt : You built the first temple. The enigmatic sanctuary of the Stone Age hunters. Verlag CH Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-406-53500-3 .

Western Europe

Central and Northern Europe

  • Ingrid Falktoft Andersen: Guide to Denmark's antiquity . 1994, ISBN 87-89531-10-8 .
  • Lars Bägerfeldt: The megalithic tombs in Sweden. Type, time, space and social environment. 2. Aufl., Arkeo Förlaget, Gamleby 1992, ISBN 91-86742-45-0 .
  • Jan Albert Bakker : The TRB West Group. Studies in the Chronology and Geography of the Makers of Hunebeds and Tiefstich Pottery (= Cingula. Volume 5). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1979, ISBN 978-90-70319-05-2 ( Online ).
  • Jan Albert Bakker: The Dutch Hunebedden. Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor 1992, ISBN 1-879621-02-9.
  • Hans-Jürgen Beier : The megalithic, submegalithic and pseudomegalithic buildings as well as the menhirs between the Baltic Sea and the Thuringian Forest. Contributions to the prehistory and early history of Central Europe 1. Wilkau-Haßlau 1991, ISBN 978-3-930036-00-4 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen : The younger funnel cup culture on the Danish islands. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen 1975, ISBN 87-500-1559-1 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Funnel cup culture in North Jutland. Studies of the time of burial. The Royal Nordic Antiquarian Society, Copenhagen 1979, ISBN 87-87438-16-5 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Stordyssen in Vedsted. Studies of the funnel cup culture in Southern Jutland. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen 1979, ISBN 87-500-1889-2 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Bornholm's dolmens and burial chambers. In: Bornholms Historiske Samfund. Volume 18, 1985, pp. 175–211 ( Online ).
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Stone dolmens and hunting lodges. Odense University Press , Odense 1993, ISBN 87-7492-918-6 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Danske dysser - Danish dolmens. Attica, Copenhagen 2007, ISBN 978-87-7528-652-2 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Denmark's megalithic tombs. Volume 2. Catalog Attica, Copenhagen 2008, ISBN 978-87-7528-731-4 ( online ).
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Danish graveyards. Attica, Vordingborg 2009, ISBN 978-87-7528-737-6 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Denmark's megalithic tombs. Band 1/1. Attica, Vordingborg 2011, ISBN 978-87-7528-784-0 .
  • Klaus Ebbesen: Denmark's megalithic tombs. Band 1/2. Attica, Copenhagen 2011, ISBN 978-87-7528-785-7 .
  • Barbara Fritsch et al .: Density Centers and Local Groups - A Map of the Great Stone Graves of Central and Northern Europe. In: www.jungsteinsite.de. October 20, 2010 ( PDF; 1.6 MB , XLS; 1.4 MB ).
  • Albert Egges van Giffen : The Hunebedden in the Netherlands. 3 Bände, Oosthoek, Utrecht 1925.
  • Peter Vilhelm Glob : prehistoric monuments of Denmark. Wachholtz, Neumünster 1968.
  • Svend Hansen : Jaettestuer i Danmark. Construction and restoration. Ministry of the Environment, Forest and Nature Agency, Hørsholm 1993, ISBN 87-601-3386-4 .
  • Jürgen Hoika: Megalithic Graves in the Funnel Beaker Culture in Schleswig-Holstein. In: Przegląd Archaeologiczny. Band 37, 1990, S. 53–119.
  • Eberhard Kirsch : Finds from the Middle Neolithic in the state of Brandenburg. Brandenburg State Museum for Prehistory and Early History, Potsdam 1993.
  • Eberhard Kirsch: Contributions to the older funnel cup culture in Brandenburg. Brandenburg State Museum for Prehistory and Early History, Potsdam 1994.
  • Dariusz Król: Chamberless Tombs in Southeastern Group of Funnel Beaker Culture. Rzeszów 2011, ISBN 978-83-7667-107-9 (online).
  • Jørgen Jensen : Denmark's Antiquity. 1. Stone Age. 13,000–2,000 BC Gyldendal, Copenhagen 2001, ISBN 87-00-49038-5 .
  • Magdalena Midgley: TRB Culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain. University Press, Edinburgh 1992.
  • Magdalena Midgley: The Megaliths of Northern Europe. Routledge, London/New York 2008, ISBN 978-1-134-26450-6.
  • Johannes Müller : Megaliths and Funnel Beakers: Societies in Change 4100-2700 BC (= 33. Kroon-Voordracht. ). Amsterdam 2011 ( online ).
  • Johannes Müller: Large stone graves, trench works, long mounds. Early monumental buildings of Central Europe (= Archeology in Germany. Special issue 11/2017). Theiss, Stuttgart 2017, ISBN 978-3-8062-3464-0 ( online ).
  • Ingeburg Nilius : The Neolithic in Mecklenburg at the time and with special consideration of the funnel beaker culture. Museum of Prehistory and Early History, Schwerin 1971.
  • Joachim Preuss: The Altmark group of deep engraving ceramics (= publications of the State Museum for Prehistory in Halle. Volume 33). German Science Publishing House, Berlin 1980.
  • Jutta Roß : Megalithic graves in Schleswig-Holstein. Investigations into the structure of the tombs based on recent excavation findings. Publishing house Dr. Kovač, Hamburg 1992, ISBN 3-86064-046-1 .
  • Seweryn Rzepecki: The Roots of Megalithism in the TRB culture. Łódź 2011, ISBN 978-83-933586-1-8 (Onlineversion).
  • Kerstin Schierhold : Studies on the Hessian-Westphalian megalithic. Research status and perspectives in a European context (= Münster contributions to prehistoric and early historical archeology. Volume 6). Leidorf, Rahden / Westf. 2012, ISBN 978-3-89646-284-8 .
  • Waldtraut Schrickel : Western European elements in the Neolithic grave construction of Central Germany and the gallery graves of West Germany and their inventories. Bonn 1966, ISBN 978-3-7749-0575-7 .
  • Waldtraut Schrickel: Catalog of the central German graves with Western European elements and the gallery graves of Western Germany. Bonn 1966.
  • Ewald Schuldt : The Mecklenburg megalithic graves. Research on their architecture and function. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1972.
  • Ernst Sprockhoff : The Nordic megalithic culture (= manual of the prehistory of Germany Volume 3). de Gruyter, Berlin / Leipzig 1938.
  • Ernst Sprockhoff: Atlas of the megalithic tombs of Germany. Part 1: Schleswig-Holstein. Rudolf-Habelt Verlag, Bonn 1966.
  • Ernst Sprockhoff: Atlas of the megalithic tombs of Germany. Part 2: Mecklenburg - Brandenburg - Pomerania. Rudolf-Habelt Verlag, Bonn 1967.
  • Ernst Sprockhoff: Atlas of the megalithic tombs of Germany. Part 3: Lower Saxony - Westphalia. Rudolf-Habelt Verlag, Bonn 1975, ISBN 3-7749-1326-9 .
  • Märta Strömberg : The megalithic tombs of Hagestad. On the problem of grave structures and grave rites (= Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Volume 8). Bonn / Lund 1971.
  • Christopher Tilley: The Dolmens and Passage Graves of Sweden. An Introduction and Guide. Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London 1999, ISBN 978-0-905853-36-9.
  • Bernward Wember : Big stones on Rügen: stone myth and megalithic culture. A treasure trove of the Stone Age . Reprint-Verlag, Bergen auf Rügen 2007, ISBN 978-3-939915-00-3 .

Individual evidence

  1. Tobias Kühn: Where the idea for Stonehenge came from , February 13, 2019. sueddeutsche.de Süddeutsche Zeitung . (Access: October 7, 2019).
  2. Dominik Bonatz: Change in a megalithic culture in the 20th century (Nias / Indonesia). In: Anthropos. 96/1, 2001, pp. 105-118, JSTOR 40465456 .
  3. V. Gordon Childe: The Distribution of Megalithic Cultures, and their Influence on ancient and modern Civilizations. In: Man. Band 46/4 (1946), S. 97, JSTOR 2793159.
  4. Oscar Montelius: The Orient and Europe . Erster Band, Stockholm 1899;
    Sophus Müller: The Stone Age of Southern Jutland. In: Yearbooks for Nordic antiquity and history. III. Series, Third Band (1913), pp. 169–322.
  5. ^ Carl Schuchhardt: Old Europe. Second edition, Berlin and Leipzig 1926.
  6. ^ Adolf Ellegard Jensen: Zimbabwe and the megalithic culture. In: Paideuma. Communications on cultural studies. Volume 1/3 (1939), p. 101.
  7. Ernst Wahle: German prehistory. Leipzig 1932, pp. 68 ff., 73 ff.
  8. Hermann Güntert: The origin of the Germanic peoples . Carl Winter, Heidelberg 1934, p. 97 f.
  9. Hermann Güntert: The origin of the Germanic peoples. Carl Winter, Heidelberg 1934, p. 95.
  10. Karl J. Narr: Archaeological information on the question of the oldest grain cultivation and its relationship to high culture and megalithic. In: Paideuma. Communications on cultural studies. Volume 6/4 (1956), p. 249.
  11. B. Schulz Paulsson: Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. In: James F. O’Connell (Hrsg.): Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Band 116 , No. 9, 11. Februar 2019, S. 3460–3465, doi:10.1073/pnas.1813268116, PMID 30808740.
  12. a b c Jan Osterkamp: Neolithic Age: A Common Root of the Megalithic Culture? In: Spectrum of Science . February 11, 2019 ( Spektrum.de ).
  13. Alison George: Sailors spread the ancient fashion for monuments like Stonehenge. In: New Scientist. 11. Februar 2019 (newscientist.com).
  14. Helmut Tributsch: "The glass towers of Atlantis" - memories of megalithic Europe. Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main and Berlin 1986, p. 145.
  15. Andrew Sherratt: The Upper Neolithic and the Copper Age. In: Barry Cunliffe (Ed.): Illustrated pre- and early history of Europe . Frankfurt am Main 1996, pp. 204-207, 217, 219.
  16. Ian Hodder: “Generalizing statements allow us to embed the interpretation of megalithic graves in systems of production and reproduction in order to connect the symbolic area associated with it with that of social life. But archaeologists have especially linked the social and ideological functions with the meanings of graves, forgetting that these do not first and foremost conceal and legitimize, but rather describe ways in which one can deal with death, this dealing with local traditions and with oneself again and again changing attempted solutions is based. We must therefore not expect the graves to have rigid meanings as constant in space and time. So tell z. B. many grave sequences of changing structures of meaning. Megalithic tombs have too often been separated from a local system of meaning,
  17. Korn, S. 152 ff.
  18. Andrew Sherratt: The Upper Neolithic and the Copper Age. In: Barry Cunliffe (Ed.): Illustrated pre- and early history of Europe. P. 221 ff.
  19. ^ Prehistoric Religion . In: Encyclopedia Britannica. 2012. The illustration is based on the theses of the British anthropologist and religious scholar EO James from the 1950s .
  20. Britannica, Bd. 26, S. 66, 2a.
  21. Müller-Karpe, pp. 223–228.
  22. Korn, p. 154, cited above. after Ina Mahlstedt.
  23. Schmidt, S. 117, 127.
  24. ^ Victor Maag: Syria - Palestine. In: Hartmut Schmökel (ed.): Cultural history of the ancient Orient. Mesopotamia, Hittite Empire, Syria - Palestine, Urartu. Weltbild Verlag, Augsburg 1995, pp. 566-570. ISBN 3-89350-747-7 .
  25. Korn, S. 46, 75 f .; Mohen / Guilaine: Megaliths. In: Bildatlas Archeologie , S. 46.
  26. Mohen / Guilaine: Megaliths. In: Bildatlas Archeologie , S. 46 f.
  27. Sherratt, S. 408.
  28. Korn, S. 32 ff., 65, 154.
  29. see e.g. B. Voiret, JP, 1989: Calendar, astronomy and heavenly religion in ancient China - on the origin of high culture and rule. In: Orientation, 53, No. 10, Zurich
  30. Klaus Schmidt: You built the first temple. The enigmatic sanctuary of the Stone Age hunters. Verlag CH Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-406-53500-3 . P. 246 ff.
  31. Chris Scarre (ed.): World Atlas of Archeology. Südwest Verlag, Munich 1990, ISBN 3-517-01178-9 . OA 1988, Times Books p. 106 f.
  32. ^ Stonehenge - The Healing Stones ( January 3, 2009 memento in the Internet Archive ), a BBC contribution from March 2008, accessed on July 6, 2011.
  33. Bruno P. Kremer: Geometry from the Stone Age , Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), Research and Technology , March 30, 1988. Italics in the original text.
  34. This development was z. Well illustrated, e.g. by James Cornell, see: Cornell, James, 1983: The First Astronomers. Birkhäuser, Basel. Numerous researchers (especially mathematicians) such as Aveni, Hawkins, Thom, Wood, Krupp, Müller, Brunner, Büchi, Schlosser, etc., have examined more and more megalithic systems with success for their astronomical functions, so that it is no longer possible today to study megalithic culture to speak without mentioning astronomy - and the calendars derived from it.
  35. It is also mentioned in the article that these “numerical values ​​and basic mass also occur (occur) in larger spatial contexts” and a stone circle discovered near Bonn “is very close to 11.6 m”. Also "in widely spaced megalithic monuments [...] the same basic mass is found again and again." (Kremer: Geometry of the Stone Age )