Abstract
Megalithic tombs have since long been a focus of debate within the archaeological research field, not least regarding their emergence, use life and the various bursts of building activity in different regions and periods. The aim of this study is to investigate the temporal span of the main burial sequences in the conventional megalithic grave types of southern Sweden, with special focus on the less studied gallery graves. In Scandinavia, megalithic tombs are divided into three main types: dolmens, passage graves and gallery graves. Here, this prevailing typological seriation was tested. The study was based on 374 14C dates from unique individuals selected from 66 tombs. The form, layout and dating of the different types of tombs were studied in order to examine regional and chronological variation in the use of megaliths. By comparing sum plots, KDE models, individual 14C dates and typology of artefacts, the existing chronologies were evaluated. The 14C dates from dolmens and passage graves more or less agreed with the conventional chronology, while the presence of early skeletons in gallery graves was unexpected. The results indicate that megalithic graves appeared more or less simultaneously in southern Sweden and were first used around 3500–3300 cal BC. The dolmens and passage graves were used contemporaneously, although the proportion of early dates supports a slightly earlier start of the dolmens. Some of the gallery graves may also have been introduced at this time, although reburial of old bones cannot be ruled out.
Highlights
The emergence and spread of megalithic graves in Europe has been in focus of a long lasting and still ongoing debate (e.g. Chapman 1981; Childe 1925, 1950; Joussaume 1985; Montelius 1905; Müller 1998; Renfrew 1973; Schulz Paulsson 2017; Sherratt 1990)
It is commonly accepted that dolmens and passage graves in South Scandinavia were built at the transition between the early and the middle Neolithic periods (3500–3000 cal BC), in the cultural setting of the Funnelbeaker/Trichterbecher complex (TRB) (Mischka 2014; Persson and Sjögren 1995; Schulz Paulsson 2010, 2017; Sjögren 2003, 2011)
Gallery graves, which frequently have been ignored in megalithic research, are mainly assigned to the Late Neolithic (LN, 2200–1700 cal BC), even though a few MNB types are known from Danish contexts (Ebbesen 1985; Iversen 2015) and possible MN gallery graves in Sweden have been proposed (Algotsson 1996; Blank 2016)
Summary
The emergence and spread of megalithic graves in Europe has been in focus of a long lasting and still ongoing debate (e.g. Chapman 1981; Childe 1925, 1950; Joussaume 1985; Montelius 1905; Müller 1998; Renfrew 1973; Schulz Paulsson 2017; Sherratt 1990). It is commonly accepted that dolmens and passage graves in South Scandinavia were built at the transition between the early and the middle Neolithic periods (3500–3000 cal BC), in the cultural setting of the Funnelbeaker/Trichterbecher complex (TRB) (Mischka 2014; Persson and Sjögren 1995; Schulz Paulsson 2010, 2017; Sjögren 2003, 2011). As a result of the introduction of 14C dating, it was uncovered that the TRB was followed by a non-megalithic phase in the late Middle Neolithic (MNB, 2800–2200 cal BC), which complicated theories of a continuous development from passage graves to gallery graves. According to recent aDNA research, migration was an important factor for the spread of the TRB complex (e.g. Linderholm 2008; Malmström et al 2015; Skoglund et al 2012, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
