Menu

New Vistas on the Distant Past

Who moved the megaliths?

From the majestic stone temples of Malta to the massive mound of Newgrange, megalithic monuments have captured the imagination of millions. How were such huge stones moved? Who built these structures? What was their purpose? They are the grandest monuments from the times before history. The people who made them left no written records. Naturally speculation has run wild. Over the centuries they have been attributed to giants, magicians or aliens. What a lack of faith in our own species! Gradually science has begun to find answers to the puzzles. A picture emerges of Neolithic farmers banding together, not simply to dispose of their dead in a dignified way, but to honour them. Human flesh is mortal, but stone may stand eternal as a symbol of the departed. Thus communities could create a sense of continuity.

The first megalithic monuments

Spectacular discoveries in recent years have illuminated the very start of mankind's love of monuments. The earliest carved megaliths in the world have been found in the cradle of farming. Before cultivation even began, abundant resources in the region where the Levant meets Anatolia encouraged hunting and foraging groups into a more settled lifestyle. Eventually some lived in permanent settlements. It is here at Göbekli Tepe, in what is now Turkey, that the world's first megalithic monument has been uncovered. Its most recent building phase has been radiocarbon dated c. 8000 BC, with an earlier phase ending c. 9000 BC. Circles of T-shaped pillars are adorned with animal reliefs. These are similar to those at a later monument in Nevali Çori, 30 kilometers to the north-west of Göbekli, suggesting a continuity of population from Mesolithic to Neolithic. Archaeologist Klaus Schmidt found that the most common bone remains at Göbekli Tepe are those of aurochs, an extinct species of ox. Aurochs were massive and terrifyingly strong. Just one required a communal effort to hunt. A hunting band capable of that feat would have to be large and well-organised, capable also of building such a monument. Schmidt sees it as the world's first temple. Some of the T-shaped pillars have carved arms, and so may represent stylized humans. ^{1S. Scham, The world's first temple, Archaeology, vol. 61, no. 6, (November/December 2008); G. Chandler, The beginning of the end for hunter-gatherers, Saudi Aramco World, vol. 60, no. 2 (March/April 2009), pp. 2-9; T. Watkins, New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia, Antiquity, vol. 84, no. 325 (September 2010), pp, 621-634. For an alternative interpretation, see E. B. Banning, So fair a house: Göbekli Tepe and the identification of temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East, Current Anthropology, vol.52, no. 5 (October 2011), pp. 619-660.}

Continuity and community

It is a much smaller and later monument from Zincirli in Turkey that provides the clue to purpose. This 8th-century BC stele depicts a high official named Kuttamuwa at his funerary banquet. Kuttamuwa himself tells us so. The text on the stele in Samalian Aramaic states that Kuttamuwa fashioned the stele during his lifetime, and that at its inauguration in the mortuary chapel offerings were made to various gods, including the storm-god Hadad and the sun-god Shamash. The most enlightening line explains that one of the offerings was a ram for my soul that is in this stele. It is the first inscription to make clear that ancient people of the Near East could visualise their soul being transferred to a memorial stone after death. The concept of food offerings is here too. We encounter it in a variety of ancient religions. The word for soul used here is nebesh. ^{2J. D. Schloen and A. S. Fink, New excavations at Zincirli Höyük in Turkey (Ancient Sam'al) and the discovery of an inscribed mortuary stele, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vol. 356, no. November 2009, pp. 1-13; E. Bonn-Muller, Insight into the soul, Archaeology, online feature (19 November 2008).} The related word in Hebrew is nephesh, commonly used for the personal memorials found widely in the ancient Semitic world, from Syria to Yemen.

Many people today are comforted by a gravestone. It sets down the name that they want remembered. It will not crumble to dust before their eyes. It has a reassuring solidity. It provides a place to commune with the lost one, at least in thought or prayer. In short it gives a kind of enduring life.

Many prehistoric monuments were built to house burials. Newgrange is a passage tomb. It is such a huge construction that it remained intact for thousands of years. Smaller burial mounds created by balancing a capstone over two or more upright stones, with a covering of earth, have often had their overburden washed away to expose the megalithic skeleton. They are generally known as dolmens, or portal tombs. The dolmen is such a simple idea that it is not surprising to find it so widespread. Varieties of dolmen can be found from the westernmost shores of Europe to India, Indonesia and China. Illustrated here is an example from Johfiyeh, Jordan. The greatest concentration of dolmens, however, is in Korea. The prehistoric cemeteries at Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa contain hundreds of dolmens from the 1st millennium BC.

Megalithic monuments could have other functions too. There has been much discussion of their possible symbolism, ritual or astronomical use.^{3D. Lewis-Williams and D. Pearce, Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, cosmos and the realm of the gods (2009).} They might act as territorial boundaries or meeting points. Within living memory stone circles in northwest Cameroon were used for the deliberations of village elders.^{4Raymond N. Asombang, Interpreting standing stones in Africa: a case study in north-west Cameroon, Antiquity, vol. 78, no. 300 (June 2004), pp. 294–305.} These functions are not mutually exclusive. They have in common the concept of community and shared culture. The more massive the monument, the more certain it is that it could only have been built by communal effort, which speaks of a communal purpose.

Circles of death

The idea of a circle of stones representing ancestors seems to have flowed out of the Near East in fits and starts. Slab-like, stylised anthropomorphic stelae appear in the Kemi Oba culture of the Crimea (c. 3700-2200 BC). The original context of many is lost. They seem to have been re-used as grave covers by later cultures. Yet a few sites have revealed stelae arranged in a large circle, suggesting some form of sanctuary.^{5J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997), pp. 544-6.} The idea seems remarkably similar to Göbekli Tepe, yet thousands of years later. From the steppe the idea of honouring the ancestors with such stelae spread to Italy, France and Iberia. See The Stelae People. Yet only in Sardinia and Corsica do such stelae occur with stone circles.^{6J. Robb, People of stone: stelae, personhood and society in prehistoric Europe, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 16, no. 3 (September 2009), pp. 162-183.}

Similar figures appear in Saudi Arabia, as do stone circles, but not the two together. Were it not for the few circles with some representation of the human form, we might have no suspicion that great circular monuments could (among other things) commemorate the dead. The tradition of anthropomorphic stelae died out in the West, but continued unabated for millennia in the Eurasian steppes. Meanwhile stone circles appear as far apart in time and space as Nubia (c. 5500 BC) and Orkney (c.2500 BC), Ireland (c. 900 BC) and Senegambia (300 BC). Many of the megaliths forming the circle at Nabta Playa in Nubia have roughly sculpted shoulders, hinting that they they too may honour the dead, though more attention has been paid to the circle's possible use as a calendar.^{7J. McK Mahille et al., Astronomy of Nabta Playa, African Skies, no. 11 (July 2007), pp. 2-7.}

Dating

One problem is dating such monuments. The stones themselves cannot be radiocarbon dated. That method is only suitable for organic material, such as an associated burial. Monuments with nothing datable clearly linked with the actual construction are a challenge. The temptation to use any organic material in the vicinity may overwhelm caution. Dates have been urged by Göran Burenhult for Carrowmore in Ireland that would have it built by the sparse population of pre-farming forager groups. Other archaeologists view that as a most unlikely scenario. Enough secure radiocarbon dates have now been gathered to trace the Western tradition of megalithic monuments from Portugal (5000 BC) to Brittany (4500 BC) and thence to the British Isles (4000 BC) and Scandinavia. Apart from Portugal, these are the dates that farming itself arrived. The concept was travelling with farmers. Portugal therefore comes under scrutiny as the apparent seed-bed of the Atlantic brand of megalithic monument. Farming arrived in southern Portugal around 6000 BC. But the first megaliths are not associated with the best-known Neolithic culture to arrive there - the coastal makers of Impressed Ware. Instead they first appear inland, in the southern lowlands of Alentejo, that provide some of the best agricultural land in the country. The culture that built them appears to be a simple farming type, with Mediterranean links. ^{8C. Scarre, P. Arias, G. Burenhult, M. Fano, L. Oosterbeck, R. Schulting, A. Sheridan and A. Whittle, Megalithic chronologies, in G. Burenhult (ed.), Stones and Bones: Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC (2003), pp. 65-111.}

An ingenious method of dating was used at Newgrange in Ireland. An organic putty in the passage roof-slabs could be carbon-dated. It gave dates around 3120 BC. However the circle of monoliths around the tomb was added later, probably in the Bronze Age.^{9C. Scarre, P. Arias, G. Burenhult, M. Fano, L. Oosterbeck, R. Schulting, A. Sheridan and A. Whittle, Megalithic chronologies, in Göran Burenhult (ed.), Stones and Bones: Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC (2003), pp. 65-111; G. and M. Stout, Newgrange (Cork University Press 2008), p. 9 and chapter 8.} Tools or pottery can provide another clue. The characteristic Neolithic pottery of Britain and Ireland is the indigenous Grooved Ware, whereas metal-working arrived with a new type of pottery from the Continent - Bell Beaker. The fact that the Bell Beaker people carried on using, and enhancing, a site such as Newgrange suggests that they felt a common bond with the ancestors interred there. Rather than a complete break in tradition, there is a blending of new and old. At Newgrange a hybrid type of pot was found: a cross between Grooved Ware and Bell Beaker.^{10R. Cleal and A. MacSween (eds.), Grooved ware in Britain and Ireland (1999), p. 31.}

The effort of creation

The most impressive megalithic monuments were often built in phases. Stonehenge provides another example. English Heritage radiocarbon-dated this famous site, using carefully selected samples of datable material, such as antler bones used to dig the ditch. The earliest structure was a bank and ditch created sometime around 3000 BC, probably enclosing a ring of stones later resited closer to the centre. Around 500 years later an ambitious remodelling created the monument we see today. What was the purpose of all that effort? Often overlooked in the theorising is the fact that Stonehenge was a large cremation cemetery, in use from its inception. The predominance of adult males over women and children buried suggests that it was a place of privilege, probably a royal site.

Its builders c. 2500 BC seem to have gathered seasonally at a camp in nearby Durrington Walls. Isotopes from the cattle they ate show that the cattle were driven from as far away as southwest England or Wales. It seems that whatever elite was memorialised at Stonehenge could call upon labour from far and wide. The earliest Bell Beaker burials mark a change. The Amesbury Archer came from the Continent. With Bell Beaker came a decline in large-scale public works. Silbury Hill at Avebury and the Stonehenge Avenue were two of the last great monuments to be built. The Bell Beaker folk formed a far-flung network, but were initially thinner on the ground. The man-hours needed to create their own characteristic round barrows could be provided by lineage-sized groups, unlike the mass labour required for Stonehenge. ^{11R. Cleal, et al., Stonehenge in its Landscape: the twentieth-century excavations, English Heritage Archaeological Report 10 (1995); M. Parker Pearson with C. Cox Willis, Burials and builders of Stonehenge: social identities in Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Britain, paper read at European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting, 13th to 15th of May 2010 in Kiel, Germany, published online 26 November 2010: http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/artikel.htm}

Megalithic art

The stone circles at Göbekli Tepe were embellished with carvings of fierce animals. Europe has a more peaceful type of megalithic art - abstract patterns with spirals and cup-and-circle motifs predominating. Interlocking spirals were cleverly contrived with no beginning or end. This style is associated with the passage grave tradition of the Atlantic seaboard, though the majority of passage graves cannot boast any ornamentation. ^{12A. Mazel et al (eds.), Art as Metaphor: the prehistoric rock-art of Britain (2007), p. 124; A. Halpin and C. Newman, Ireland: an Oxford archaeological guide to sites from earliest times to AD 1600 (Oxford University Press 2006), p. 8.} A huge concentration of art is found at just one site - Knowth in Ireland, where this astonishing finely-carved flint mace-head was found inside the passage grave.

The predilection for spirals appears in the Mediterranean too. Late Neolithic tombs in Sardinia are decorated with them. One at Sa Pala Larga, Bonorva has brightly painted spirals. Another in the same complex has a carved bull's head and spirals. This stone altar in the megalithic temple complex at Tarxien in Malta is decorated with elegant spiral carvings. The earliest temples in the Malta group are on the little island of Gozo and date to c. 3600 BC. The three temples at Tarxien represent the final flowering of Maltese temple building c. 3000-2500 BC. Spirals are found from first to last, but are particularly abundant at Tarxien. On another altar from Tarxien the spirals appear as inter-linked shoots. Were they intended to represent eternal life? If so it is ironic that the temple-builders abruptly disappeared from Malta, leaving the island uninhabited for decades. Still they are fondly remembered by the Maltese tourist industry. So they have earned themselves an everlasting fame.

Genetics of the megalith-builders

Ancient DNA is beginning to emerge from Neolithic sites across Europe and the Near East. Mainly this is mtDNA, passed down from mother to child. We have samples of H, K, L2a1 and T2b from the pre-pottery Neolithic of Syria. ^{13E. Fernández et al., Mitochondrial DNA genetic relationships at the ancient Neolithic site of Tell Halula, Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, vol.1, no. 1 (2008), pp. 271–273.} That is a strikingly different pattern from samples of the hunter-gatherers of northern Europe - overwhelmingly of U4 and U5. That makes it easy to detect new arrivals of Near Eastern ancestry. The first farmers of Central Europe, known by their pottery as Linear Band (LBK), brought a variety of haplogroups, including H, J, K, T, U3 and W, all already found in Near Eastern sites or suspected to be Near Eastern in origin from their distribution. An unexpected find was haplogroup N1a, rare in Europe today, but more common among these early farmers.^{14B. Bramanti et al, Genetic discontinuity between local hunter-gatherers and Central Europe’s first farmers, Science, (online September 3, 2009); see also H.Malmstromet al, Ancient DNA reveals lack of continuity between Neolithic hunter-gatherers and contemporary Scandinavians, Current Biology,vol. 19 (Nov 2009), pp. 1–5.} A later study attempted to locate the origins of the LBK N1a by comparisons with present populations, an exercise which risks confusing origins with Neolithic spread.^{15M. Gounder Palnichamy and T. Kumar Chaudhuri, Mitochondrial haplogroup N1a phylogeography, with implication to the origin of European farmers, BMC Evolutionary Biology (online 12 October 2010 ahead of print).}

N1a was also found in the one megalithic site so far tested: a large and well-preserved long barrow at Prissé-la-Charrière in western France. Radiocarbon dates place it c. 4200 BC. Resting on the carefully-laid pavement of limestone slabs were remains of at least 8 individuals, accompanied by a large Middle Neolithic vase-support, probably for the burning of aromatic or narcotic plants. Testing of the remains yielded three mtDNA results: N1a, U5b and X2.^{16Deguilloux, M-F. et al. (2010), News from the west: Ancient DNA from a French megalithic burial chamber, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (online ahead of print August 2010).} The U5b suggests that some mingling with pre-farming peoples had taken place by this time. By contrast X2 is thinly spread (about 2%) over Europe and the Near East, but the Druze - a religious minority group in the Near Eastern - has the highest frequency of haplogroup X found anywhere, (16% X1 and 11% X2), as well as a high diversity of X. Isolated by their religion, the Druze provide an insight into the genetic landscape of the Near East prior to the modern age.^{17M. Reidla et al., Origin and diffusion of mtDNA haplogroup X, American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 73, no. 5 (November 2003), pp.1178–1190; L.I. Shlush, et al., The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 5 (2008), e2105.}

Known and probable Y-DNA Neolithic markers are discussed under European Neolithic: genetic evidence.

Online databases

• The Megalithic Portal: world-wide site database.
• Stone Pages: archaeology of megalithic Europe: Britain, France, Ireland and Italy.

Notes

If you are using a browser with up-to-date support for W3C standards e.g. Firefox, Google Chrome and IE 8, hover over the superscript numbers to see footnotes online. If you are using another browser, select the note, then right-click, then on the menu click View Selection Source. If you print the article out, the footnotes will appear here.

• Introduction
• First Mediterraneans
• Mediterraneans
• Near Eastern Neolithic
• Phoenicians
• Megaliths
• Pottery
• Secondary Products
• Millet
• Wine
• Metal
• Steppe horsemen
• Search this site  
  

Page created by Jean Manco 4 January 2011. Last modified 07-10-2011 XHTML: CSS