Megalithic monument

Scientists have been exploring several possible locations for Atlantis, which is, according to Plato, »the island beyond the pillars of Hercules«: Malta, Cuba, the Bahamas, Santorini etc. At he moment, they arestudying the theory regarding the original location of the Pillars of Hercules which allows for the possibility that Atlantis was located in today's South Adriatic Basin. Atlantis was an ancient kingdom, a state with a perfect social system, the cradle of civilization, an island »beyond the pillars of Hercules«. This is what Plato, a classical Greek philosopher, wrote about Atlantis in his dialogues »Timaeus« and »Critias« in about 350 BC. Critias, who was a Greek politician and writer, relates in his papers on the state, law and justice that in 571 BC Athenian statesman Solon visited Egypt and met with priests in the town of Sais where he was told a story about »an island named Atlantis, the heart of a great and wonderful kingdom«. Plato wrote that »there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank in the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea«. There are numerous ancient accounts of the catastrophe of such extent. Even though they are dominated by mythical themes, the narrations contain convincing descriptions of the sinking which can be analyzed and confirmed scientifically. Up until 250 BC Greek writers placed the Pillars of Hercules near Sicily. After subsequent discoveries of new territories the mythological sites moved away and were placed on the fringes of the then known world. Ancient Greek mathematician and geographer Eratosthenes »transferred« the Pillars of Hercules to Gibraltar while nowadays the scientists are exploring the possible locations of the sunken island on Malta, Santorini and 'beyond' in the Atlantic Ocean: on Cuba, the Bahamas, Iberia etc. Eratosthene's world (reconstruction)

I recently had the opportunity to review Alex Gibson’s thought provoking volume, 'Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe'. That review, to which the reader is directed for further commentary, identified as a weakness the uneven spread of regional case studies, and in particular the omission of studies from the West Country, Wales and North West England, which are so important in understanding the Irish Sea Zone. The aim of this paper is to address this with regard to the material from the North West of England, and in particular Cumbria. This paper is therefore meant to be read in conjunction with Gibson’s edited volume.

Megalithic monuments are seen as memorials, which receive the souls of ancestors and in the same time they are commited to healing practices, mainly relating to conception, suggesting that they are seen as a facility associated with the reincarnation of souls. These archaic beliefs are associated not only with dolmens and menhirs, in most cases they are associated with natural rock formations, characterized by something unusual and impressive. Significantly, in many places
around the world similar rock monuments, apart of their relationship with the Beyond are associated with health related practices and practices related to fertility.

This paper discusses a form of Neolithic monument found in Ireland and western Britain. It is argued that ‘dolmens’ are a distinctive type of monument, where the key characteristic is the use of enormous capstones which were lifted up and displayed on smaller upright supporters. These monuments were not built in order to create a chamber area, but were displays of important stones and astonishing feats of engineering. Considerable social prestige could be gained or lost through the construction of these monuments, and the paper details some examples which clearly ended in disaster. Finally, this paper suggests that dolmen construction originated in France, amongst communities who had a long tradition of building with big stones. The idea that these monuments were part of a Neolithic package introduced into Britain some time around 4000 BC is also challenged.
Cet article traite d’une forme de monument néolithique découvert en Irlande et dans l'ouest de la Grande-Bretagne. Les « dolmens » seraient un type distinctif de monument, dont la caractéristique première serait l’utilisation d’énormes pierres de recouvrement soulevées et juchées sur des supports verticaux plus petits. Ces monuments n’étaient pas érigés pour créer une chambre mais pour exposer des pierres importantes et d’étonnantes prouesses techniques. La construction de ces monuments pouvait faire acquérir ou perdre un important prestige social et cet article illustre en détail quelques exemples ayant clairement tourné à la catastrophe. Enfin, cet article suggère que la construction de dolmens puise ses origines en France, au sein de communautés jouissant d’une longue tradition dans la construction avec de grosses pierres. L’idée que ces monuments faisaient partie d’un « package » néolithique introduit en Grande-Bretagne vers l’an 4000 avant J.-C. est également remise en cause

Gods, deities, symbolism, deposition, cosmology and intentionality are all features of the study of early ritual and cult. Archaeology has great difficulties in providing satisfactory interpretation or recognition of these elusive but important parts of ancient society, and methodologies are often poorly equipped to explore the evidence. This collection of papers explores a wide range of prehistoric and early historic archaeological contexts from Britain, Europe and beyond, where monuments, architectural structures, megaliths, art, caves, ritual activity and symbolic remains offer exciting glimpses into ancient belief systems and cult behaviour. Different theoretical and practical approaches are demonstrated, offering both new directions and considered conclusions to the many problems of studying the archaeology of cult and ritual. Central to the volume is an exploration of early Malta and its intriguing Temple Culture, set in a broad perspective by the discussion and theoretical approaches presented in different geographical and chronological contexts.

Several issues are discussed in this paper: 1) the different implementation (and distribution) of the megaliths in each zone (or rather within) and its role in controlling the territory, 2) the diversity of megalithic manifestations and their role in justification of the social order, 3) the chronology of the phenomenon, from the discussions on its origin to its many «ends». Finally we propose that «collectivism» was a way of masking the social differences which began to be exhibited from 2500 cal BC.

South India has prolific presence of megalithic monuments. We see rich variety in typology of the megaliths. The megalithic culture is usually dated between 2000 BC and 300 BC in India. The monument construction, the mode of burial, the burial offerings and the ethnographic data, suggest their veneration of the dead. There is ample evidence suggesting link between the megalithic monuments and the celestial bodies like the Sun, moon and the stars. We also notice
some of the earliest stone statues in association with the megaliths.

A rare Chalcolithic rolled-gold bead-like ornament dated to c. 2400–2200 cal. BC was found in association with sherds of early Beaker ware in an Early Bronze Age Collared Urn burial dated
to c. 1545–1450 cal. BC. The grave was located at Pendleton, Lancashire. This paper reports on the AMS radiocarbon dates for the burial context along with X-ray composition analysis of the
gold ornament, which shows the object had a high platinum content consistent with alluvial, placer, deposits possibly originating in Brittany, France rather than the British Isles. This
unparalleled rolled-gold ornament is compared to the corpus of British and French rolled-gold ornaments and contemporary goldwork and a provenance, manufacture and biography of the find is explored. Both curation and fragmentation are considered in the context of a dated Beaker ware assemblage from the local domestic site of Lower Brockholes, Preston, as well as existing corpora of Beaker and Collared Urn ware from the region.

Abstract:

A new medieval culture, called the “Shay culture,” has recently been described in Ethiopia: it is characterized by hypogean and megalithic funerary structures, collective burial practices, and a highly distinctive material culture including funerary potteries. These characters undisputedly define a “Pagan” culture, in a region and at a time (10th-14th c. AD) where Pagans could only face the expansion of Christianity and the development of neighbouring Muslim polities. While documenting some aspects of this cultural entity on archaeological grounds, this articles invites to re-envision the Ethiopian Pagans no longer as “pre-“ Christians and/or “pre-“ Muslims but as historical competitors with, and economic partners of, their neighbours.

Résumé
Une nouvelle culture médiévale, appelée « Shay » a récemment été décrite en Ethiopie ; elle est caractérisée par des structures funéraires hypogées et mégalithiques, des pratiques d’ensevelissement collectif et une culture matérielle hautement reconnaissable, notamment la poterie funéraire. Ces caractères définissent indiscutablement une culture « païenne », dans une région et à une époque (les Xe-XIVe s. AD) où ces Païens firent face à l’expansion du christianisme et au développement de formations politiques islamiques. Tout en documentant certains aspects de cette culture sous le jour de l’archéologie, cet article invite à ré-envisager ces Païens éthiopiens non plus seulement comme des « pré- » chrétiens ou des « pré- » musulmans, mais comme des acteurs en compétition historique et en partenariat économique avec leurs voisins.

"Megalithic Monuments and Cult Practices, Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium - Blagoevgrad, 12-15 October 2016"

Assemblage techniques, front plate design and entrance openings of Thracian dolmens
have not been the subject of a special study so far, although many specialists comment their
features. The present report aims to fill some gaps in the description of the Thracian megalithic
monuments. Several specific characteristics of technical and of ritual-aesthetic nature of the
Thracian dolmens are revealed and analyzed in detail. The assemblages between lateral, front and
cover plates as well as the engraved decoration of some front plates represent peak achievements in
the dolmen construction practice all over the world.

La publication des actes du colloque « Mégalithismes et monumentalismes funéraires : passé, présent, futur » reprend les trois grands thèmes de ces rencontres internationales en offrant une large place aux études récentes du mégalithisme en Europe ainsi qu’à l’ethnoarchéologie et aux questions de valorisation et de conservation de ce patrimoine fragile.

Les contributions d’experts internationaux montrent tout l’intérêt de voir au-delà du monument afin de comprendre son insertion dans le paysage et sa relation avec les autres structures archéologiques. Sur cette question, les outils sont aujourd’hui aussi nombreux que variés : études paléoenvironnementales, prospections multi-méthodes (LiDAR, géophysique), analyses spatiales (SIG) ou encore fouilles extensives.

Les questions d’organisation du territoire, à travers les interactions entre mégalithes et enceintes par exemple, sont au cœur des recherches actuelles. Innover dans la façon d’étudier un cairn ou une chambre funéraire est un autre axe de réflexion développé dans cet ouvrage.

De nouvelles méthodes d’analyse, en France et en Espagne, offrent aujourd’hui une restitution fiable de la chaîne opératoire dédiée à la construction mégalithique. Les études des architectures en pierre sèche et des parois mégalithiques, s’appuyant sur des modèles 3D haute résolution, participent au renouveau de nos connaissances sur l’organisation du chantier et des conditions d’utilisation du monument.

L’apport de l’observation ethnographique à l’interprétation des faits archéologiques est abordé au travers des exemples asiatiques et africains pour échafauder des scénarios interprétatifs sur les sociétés anciennes européennes. Des éléments de réflexion sont proposés au sujet du fonctionnement des carrières, du déplacement de monuments ou encore de l’organisation du territoire et notamment des liens forts avec l’habitat.

Enfin, les dernières contributions sont dédiées à la valorisation des monuments en France. Des exemples de travaux d’inventaire, de restauration et de restitution au grand public mettent en lumière les avancées dans ce domaine.

Travaux du Projet Collectif de Recherche « Milieu et peuplement en Languedoc occidental du Néolithique à l’âge du Bronze », sous la direction de Muriel Gandelin, et de l’ANR « Monumentalités, espaces et compétitions sociales en Europe Atlantique », sous la direction de Vincent Ard et Vivien Mathé

English abstract

This book focusses on the past, present and future of recent studies of megalithism in Europe, including enthoarchaeology and the conservation of these monuments. The book contains contributions from international experts that focus on the monuments and their surroundings to better understand their place within the wider landscape.

New innovative methods and techniques are explored (most notably 3D) that allow architectural analyses that were previously not possible and which greatly increase our knowledge base. Ethnographic research contributes to the interpretation of archaeology as is illustrated through Asian and African examples. These data substantially contribute as a source of interpretative scenarios for European megalithism.

The final chapters in this book are dedicated to the promotion of these monuments in France through projects focussing on the finds they contained, their restoration and making them available to the general public.

The relationship between the need to preserve archaeological sites and the needs of mass tourism has often proved problematic, as the various papers in this volume demonstrate. The aim of this chapter is to further refine the problem and to show how an integrated approach, which combines the requirements of both archaeology and the tourist industry, is being implemented in Malta for the purpose of promoting sustainable local development.

In 2017-2019 an archaeological survey has been conducted in Shida  Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti Regions, Georgia. During the work almost 30 menhirs, some of them with images of animals and solar symbols were documented. Some menhirs with images were photographed especially for later photogrammetric proceedings. This article presents the results of study of menhirs by means of photogrammetric method. Also, the distribution map of menhirs recorded during the survey is given. Drawings and sketches which were made in earlier years have been corrected.

The current mainstream model of history proposes that 4 th Dynasty King Khafre had the Great Sphinx carved from the bedrock of the Giza Plateau in approximately 2500 B.C.E., and that the entire statue including its head, neck, and body was sculpted from the three raw substrate limestone layers of the Mokattam Formation de novo at the same time. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that the Great Sphinx is older than the date commonly ascribed to its construction, and that the head and neck were merely remodeled from a prior sculpture to create the face of the Great Sphinx sometime during the Old Kingdom. The following archaeo-sculptural analysis of the Great Sphinx subjects the monument to a detailed reconstructive examination to demonstrate the existence of a previously unreported contour signature, which suggests a modification to a prior sculpted structure that was partly removed and/or altered. This discovery provides a basis for an empirical method, which may aid in the relative dating of the stone layers belonging to the neck and body of the Great Sphinx to determine if they were indeed created at the same time or in different eras.

As part of the Sarup Project, an Early Neolithic site was excavated at Frydenlund, 2 km east of Sarup,
revealing a settlement covering an area of about  1000 m2, together with extensive nds dating from TN
Ic, c. 3600 BC. On the settlement were the remains of one, or possibly two, houses of Mossby type
which had been demolished and covered by two barkaer structures. One (structure A) comprised a large
stone pavement, while the other (structure B) was a post-built enclosure standing in a trench. Both had
a façade trench at their western gable, and in each of these stood three  90 cm wide planks thought to
have extended as much as  7 m above ground level. In the middle of barkaer structure B was a plank-built
cist containing diverse grave goods. e cist had been placed directly over the remains of a house which,
shortly before, must have been demolished and removed. No burial feature was found in barkaer structure
A, but several artefacts suggested some form of similar deposition. The large finds assemblage from
the site is presently under analysis.

Megalithism is the practice of huge stones associated with burial practices. To study about Megaliths, an interdisciplinary approach is needed in collaboration with History and Archaeology. This article is a brief report of the exploration conducted at Enadimangalam Grama Panchayath in Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist, Kerala during the field season 2018. The major objective of the research was to explore the unreported megalithic sites in Enadimangalam in a systematic manner and to report it. The systematic survey and explorations carried out at Enadimangalam Grama Panchayath during 2018 by the researcher discovered nine sites. These sites were reported to the authorities. A detail description of the reported sites were elaborated in this article. From this study, we can say that Enadimangalam area have a predominant Megalithic background and is assumed to be one of the largest sites so far discovered. It is observed that the area is very vast which is bounded with hills and valleys which comprises more than a thousand acres of land. This indicates that the Megalithic monuments are widely distributed in this area and that itself shows the enormity of the settlement.

Um elemento caracterizador do Megalitismo, além da universalidade do fenómeno, é a sua permanência no tempo inserindo-se ainda hoje no âmbito do imaginário cultural colectivo. O melhor exemplo dessa sobrevivência é a sua utilização diacrónica como local de enterramento durante mais de três milénios. Um estudo em grande escala, que ultrapasse as visões mais locais no que diz respeito às reutilizações funerárias pós-megalíticas como fenómeno recorrente, oferece a possibilidade de fazer uma análise profunda das complexas transformações de tipo social, económico e ideológico que foram geradas ao longo da Pré-história recente. A região do Alto Douro, unidade geográfica definida pela fronteira luso/castelhano-leonesa e pelo próprio rio Douro como eixo ordenador do território, é  um bom contexto onde, partindo do registo dos “usos pós-megalíticos”, podem-se analisar as mudanças que aconteceram durante o III e II milénio BC.

The megaliths of Malta are a remarkable feat of engineering predating their better-known counterparts of Stonehenge in the west and the Egyptian pyramids to the east. Although far from ignored they have yet to benefit from the detailed treatment afforded to sites such as those in the Boyne Valley, Ireland; Orkney, Scotland; or of course, Stonehenge. Lomsdalen’s study may be seen as an attempt to address this imbalance by re-aligning studies of Malta’s Neolithic. There have already been detailed surveys of both megalithic monuments, notably by John Evans; and a contextual landscape study by Reuben Grima, who applied contemporary landscape theory and GIS analysis to the monuments’ topography. What Lomsdalen contributes is different, his focus is on a single monument complex, Mnajdra, albeit discussed in the light of what is known about the other ‘temples’. The benefit of this approach is that of depth over breadth. It is only by devoting an entire study to a single monument that space can be devoted to the intricacies of each specific ‘room’ within the structure.

L'obiettivo di questo lavoro è di mettere in evidenza alcuni labili indizi provenienti dal territorio setino relativi alla possibile presenza di strutture dolmeniche in località Monte Forcino, rappresentati da alcune immagini fotografiche pubblicate negli anni '90.

The megalithic tombs are not only monumental static structures but were alive, because their presence in the landscape involves a constant transformation of their meaning. There were changes in the way of
using the burial space, in the funeral offerings, in the form of burials or even in the way of understanding the megalithic monument. These transformations are connected with the end of the collective identity in a process of increasing individualism. However, some features remain in the reuse of those places, like their presence in the time and space or the conscious monumental character for any user. So, would it be possible to suggest any models of behaviour for the way of reusing the megalithic graves during the recent prehistory?

This brief work is a review of two studies concerning orientations for Megalithic structures in the Mondego Basin of Central Portugal (Hoskins et al. 1998; Silva 2015). Methodological and interpretive differences are discussed, as well as the potential archaeoastronomical value of both approaches.

In this paper we try to identify two levels of intention that were responsible for the variations that can be observed in the construction of megalithic burials, at least in northern Germany. On the one hand, there may have been shared or divergent ideas about the function of megalithic tombs within a social or ritual landscape. On the other hand, at a local scale this idea may have been implemented in various forms, probably in response to very different individual situations under which the actual practice of construction took place. This suggestion is demonstrated through the example of a single group of monuments (Borgstedt) and through the investigation of differences in the construction of such monuments in the area of present-day Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein.

LAGARDA MATA, Ferran (2014). Las “Naus” o Navetas (funerarias) de Menorca.
Homenaje a F. Hernández Sanz, J. Flaquer i Fàbregas, Ma. Ll. Serra Belabre y C. Veny i
Melià. Alfajarín: 2014.
228 Páginas A4 con 266 Ilustraciones en color y B/N. Idioma: Castellano. PVP: 50,00 €
ISBN: 9788496810396

ABSTRACT In the present study, an attempt is being made to date samples from three archaeological sites in the Mediterranean using surface luminescence dating techniques. The methods are well established and this study is an effort to apply it to monuments that have not being dated with these methods before. Megalithic structures are eligible for absolute dating using OSL approaches in routine-based procedures. The structures that were chosen for dating are Osirion and Seti A' Temples in Abydos, Egypt, and a precipitate from a Saudi Arabian rock art site. OSL ages obtained for the Saudi Arabia monument refer to geological episodes that ascribe at the Middle Bronze Age (middle 2 nd mill. BC) while for the two Egyptian monuments, the results report for ages during the Middle Kingdom Age and of a younger date, spanning from the begin-ning till the end of 2 nd mill. BC indicating original or later architectural phases.