A northern viewpoint
There is a recurrent tension in studies of the megalithic monuments of Western Europe. In the 18th and 19th centuries many of the first antiquarians to write about them decided that they must be the work of a megalithic people: the Comte du Caylus attributed them to “les hommes du Nord”; Nicolaus Westendorp to the Celts; and more recently in the mid-20th century Gordon Childe attributed them to the activities of “megalithic missionaries” (Caylus 1766; Westendorp 1822; Childe 1950). In Northern Europe, Montelius sought to derive megalithic tombs through diffusion from the Eastern Mediterranean (Montelius 1899), and diffusionist models continued to dominate during the following decades, albeit the direction of travel was reversed from south–north to north–south (Sjögren 2003, 33–35).
In contrast to this assumption that these megalithic monuments were in some way part of a unitary phenomenon have been the many regional studies that have sought to understand groups of tombs or standing stones within a more restricted geographical setting. It has even been proposed that they had independent multi-regional origins at different places within the west European arc (Renfrew 1976). As the longdistance movement of materials such as Alpine greenstone axes and Iberian variscite becomes clearer, along with genetic and other analyses supporting the role of population movement in the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition, the argument for a pattern of independent regionalised origins has become more difficult to sustain. Neolithic communities were not static, isolated entities, out of contact with the rest of the world. At the same time, the variable chronology and character of Neolithic monuments in Northern Europe, Britain, France and Iberia obliges us to interpret them within their regional contexts. Looking outwards, however, a regional perspective also brings new insights into the megalithic pattern as a whole. Features long studied by specialists in one region may have passed unnoticed in another; while gross differences between megalithic traditions in different regions may not have received the attention and interpretation they deserve.
What then might be learned by reviewing the megalithic monuments of Western Europe from a north European perspective?
Chronology and typology
One of the key advances in the understanding of megalithic monuments in Northern Europe (Britain and Ireland, southern Scandinavia, the northern Netherlands, and north Germany) has been the improvement in chronological resolution. In southern England in particular, the multiplication of radiocarbon dates coupled with Bayesian modelling has led to detailed chronologies of both chambered tombs and causewayed enclosures (Bayliss and Whittle 2007; Whittle et al. 2011). This has confirmed earlier studies (e.g. Saville 1990) that had argued that the duration of funerary use of these monuments was much shorter than had previously been supposed, in most cases lasting for only three or four generations. It also shows that the construction of these monuments had followed closely upon one another over a period of three or four centuries. Thus the first burials in the Ascott-under-Wychwood chambered long cairn in the 38th century cal BC were followed shortly afterwards by those at Fussell’s Lodge, then at Hazleton within 20–95 years after Ascott, and at West Kennet less than 55 years after Hazleton (Whittle et al. 2007).
Chronologies of this precision are rarely available outside the chalk and limestone regions where skeletal material is well preserved, and hence the indications of short use-lives are currently limited to those regions. Whether they can be applied more generally across the megalithic monuments of Western and Northern Europe, and assumed even in areas of acid soils and geology where human remains do no usually survive, has yet to be determined. Even where human remains are preserved, the resulting radiocarbon dates must be interpreted with caution. Evidence from Schleswig-Holstein suggests that megalithic tombs may sometimes contain older remains transferred from other sites (e.g. Flintbek LA 3, Dolmen II: Mischka 2011, 89), and the duration of tomb use cannot always be inferred directly from the dispersion of radiocarbon dates, even with the assistance of Bayesian analysis.
It is not only in southern Britain, that dating evidence indicates a relatively short phase of primary use for megalithic burial chambers. Radiocarbon dates from interments in three separate chambers within the Prissé-la-Charrière long mound in western France also fall within a short period of two centuries, and suggest that the entire development of the monument, from a small closed chamber, to a short rectangular long mound within a rock-cut ditch, and finally to the massive 100m long mound incorporating two separate passage tombs, may been comprised within that relatively short period (Scarre et al. 2003). Thus even where a complex sequence of modification and enlargement can be demonstrated, the individual stages may have followed each other very rapidly.
The contrasting case is where large numbers of monuments of strikingly similar morphology are concerned. Examples at the opposite ends of Europe are many of the jættestuer/gånggrifter or passage tombs of southern Scandinavia and the seven-stone antas of western Iberia. The former take a variety of forms, but one classic variant consists of a narrow elongated chamber set within a mound and accessed via a passage in one of its long sides. The resulting T-shaped plan is highly distinctive and is encountered in large numbers of passage tombs in northern Netherlands, southern Scandinavia, and northern Germany. Not all Scandinavian passage tombs are so distinctive in their morphology, and many of the dolmens – the other major category of Scandinavian tomb – do also have passages and would in other regions of Western Europe be classified as passage tombs. But the T-shaped varieties have highly distinctive and repetitive plans.
Similarity of design and of constructional technique implies a unified knowledge base and would be consistent with a relatively short chronology. Direct dating of these tombs has been difficult since most of them lie in areas of acid geology where human remains do not preserve well, and furthermore several of those within the limestone catchment of Vastergötland, where human remains are preserved, appear to have been re-used during the later Neolithic (Sjögren 2011).
A breakthrough came with the dating of layers of birch bark interleaved between the courses of drystone work within several Danish passage tombs. These showed a relatively narrow chronology of construction, lying within a period of two or three centuries between 3300 and 3000 cal BC (Dehn and Hansen 2006). They are consistent with AMS dates on human remains (Sjögren 2011). Available AMS dates indicate that many of the Scandinavian “dolmens” were built during the same three centuries, although some might be two centuries older (c. 3500 cal BC). Thus dolmens and passage tombs in south Scandinavia were first built five to seven centuries after the first Neolithic communities became established in Northern Europe, and continued to be built for only a few generations, but in impressive numbers: some estimates suggest as many as 25,000 megalithic tombs may once have existed in south Scandinavia (Ebbesen 1985; Midgley 2008, 29–31).
Despite the short but intensive period of construction, which may have seen the building of one megalithic tomb per year across an extensive area of Northern Europe, the structures share one important feature with those of other regions of Western Europe. They were regularly subject to modification and reconstruction by their builders, a feature that even here seems to be deeply embedded with the megalithic tradition [Chap. 6: Dehn].
In the case of the T-shaped passage tombs, chronology and typology are both tightly defined. The same may be true of the seven-stone antas of western Iberia. These tombs are typical of regions such as the Central Alentejo and typically consist of chambers of seven megalithic slabs leaning inwards against each other and supporting a single capstone. The number of orthostats varies, but the use of seven uprights is a widespread and consistent feature, a morphological regularity that may be evidence of a strong regional tradition. These tombs appear to date to the 4th millennium, and may (like the T-shaped passage tombs) have been built in a short burst of activity, although direct chronological evidence is limited, and extensive series of AMS date are not yet available (Boaventura 2011, 162). It is interesting to note that many of the passage tombs of Denmark also share a numerical characteristic, with seven pairs of orthostats in the passage.
Thus despite their prominence and permanence, many megalithic tombs in both Northern and Southern Europe may have been the outcome of “events” lasting only two or three centuries. Furthermore, in none of these regions do they fall at the beginning of the Neolithic but several centuries later: three centuries or so in the case of the British long mounds; seven centuries or so in the case of passage tombs in Brittany and Scandinavia, and as much as a millennium and a half in the case of the seven-stone antas of Iberia. They are the product of particular social dynamics that we are only now beginning to grasp. Thus the study of tomb chronologies in Northern Europe may have identified regularities that are more widely applicable.
Orthostats, standing stones and petrified people
The megalithic monuments of Western Europe span a wide range of climate and geology, from the limestones of Andalusia to the glaciated boulder clays of the North European Plain. The varying geologies have of course dictated the materials that were locally to hand for the construction of megalithic monuments, but even in northern Europe, where some monuments are built in areas with exposed bedrock outcrops (e.g. Västergötland) and others in moraine landscapes, offering very different challenges and opportunities in terms of the materials available, the fundamental concept and intention appears to be the same. Of course, in some cases materials were brought from a distance. Extreme examples of the latter are the Stonehenge bluestones and the Grand Menhir Brisé at Locmariaquer, but most megalithic transport probably involved distances of only 1–2km (Bevins et al. 2012; Cassen 2009; cf. Thorpe and Williams-Thorpe 1991). Studies in the moraine landscapes of Northern Europe have also indicated predominantly local origins, as in the geological study comparing the stone blocks of Kong Svends Høj and other passage tombs in the region with locally available stones in dikes, piles, and quarries. The conclusion was that the materials for the tomb were locally derived (Dehn et al. 1995, 141–158). This does not exclude the possibility, however, that significant stones may have been transported over longer distances.
The forms taken by megalithic monuments will hence have been dependent in some measure on the size and qualities of locally available stone blocks. The relationship between monuments and source materials is not unidirectional, however, nor is it deterministic: tombs were not built in the way they were, just because certain materials were locally available. The concept of the megalithic monument itself was very likely inspired by the natural features of the landscapes in which they were built. They may indeed represent the replacement of the veneration of natural “monuments” by the construction of artificial monuments (Scarre 2009; 2012).
In that context one of the most striking features of the north European monuments is the exclusive focus on chambered tombs. Dysser (or “dolmens”) and jættestuer (or passage tombs) are constructed of glacial erratic boulders. These erratics had often been split, presumably by natural glacial action, and the smooth fracture plane that resulted was positioned by the builders facing into the chamber interior. Elsewhere in the megalithic domain, chambered tombs form only one of the varied series of megalithic monuments, among which standing stones are a conspicuous component. Standing stones are themselves a broad category, including unworked stone slabs set upright, the finely smoothed menhirs with carved motifs of Iberia and north-western France, and the statue-menhirs of southern Europe. The latter are overtly anthropomorphic, and many have suggested that standing stones more generally may represent people, a line of argument that draws support from Madagascan ethnography in particular (Bueno Ramírez 2010; Jorge 1998; Bloch 1995; Scarre 2009; 2010).
In a number of regions, standing stones are particularly common. A recent survey counted no fewer than 1122 sites with prehistoric standing stones as compared with 1182 Neolithic funerary monuments in Brittany. Those sites, however, do not comprise only single standing stones. The majority consist of multiple stones in settings that culminate in the well-known stone rows of the southern Morbihan. Altogether, a total of at least 6800 standing stones potentially of Neolithic age were documented (Laporte et al. 2015). The numbers for Britain are similar (Swarbrick 2012: 896 prehistoric sites with 1228 standing stones, although some of the details are to be regarded with caution). In Britain, once again, and in Ireland, many more standing stones are assembled into circles and alignments (Burl 2000). In Iberia, likewise, standing stones may be single isolated features, or (in Portugal) elements of the stone enclosures known locally as cromlechs (Calado 2002; 2006). Although the dating of standing stones remains a challenge, and some of the prehistoric examples may have been erected in more recent periods, evidence suggests that the majority belong to the Neolithic. This is supported by the re-use in the construction of megalithic burial chambers of what had originally been individual standing stones, a practice documented in Iberia, France and Britain. Furthermore, in northwest France and southwestern Iberia, the limited chronological evidence that is available suggests that standing stones may have been the oldest of all megalithic monuments, pre-dating the earliest burial chambers. It is hence possible to envisage early Neolithic societies in which ambitious individuals coopted members of the community to drag stones from distant quarries and set them upright, as reported of the holy men of the Angami Naga people of Assam in the early 20th century, or more recently of the Kusasi of northern Ghana and the Merina of Madagascar (Hutton 1921; Mather 2003; Kus and Raharijoana 1998).
It is all the more striking that among the thousands (originally tens of thousands) of megalithic monuments in Northern Europe, standing stones are rare. Furthermore, the few standing stones that are known have not been dated. In Germany, there are no confirmed Neolithic examples in the northern provinces of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen and Schleswig-Holstein (Groht 2013). It is hard to imagine that standing stones could survive in the intensively cultivated Danish landscape. Indeed, within Denmark, it is only on the island of Bornholm that standing stones are present in large numbers, but most of these are of Iron Age date, and this island is the only area in present-day Denmark with bedrock outcrops. Recent episodes of destruction may account for the absence of standing stones elsewhere. Nineteenth century descriptions of ancient monuments describe several monoliths and ship settings that have since completely disappeared. Single standing stones were easier to remove and reuse to build bridges and houses than those incorporated into the structure of megalithic tombs. To conclude – we do not know if standing stones were a common feature in Northern Europe, but if so, we cannot expect them to be preserved. At present, however, the absence of standing stones is a feature that sharply differentiates Northern Europe from Britain and Ireland, France, and Iberia.
Unity in diversity?
That brings us back to the fundamental tension cited at the beginning of this short review: the recognition, despite occasional arguments to the contrary, that the megalithic monuments and chambered tombs of Neolithic Western and Northern Europe share in some degree a common origin; and the evident diversity in form, activity and chronology that makes specific linkages difficult to identify.
One element which both units and divides is the symbolic legacy of the Bandkeramik long house, which is widely claimed to underlie the early long mound traditions of northern Europe, Britain, and northern France (e.g. Midgley 2005; Scarre 2002; 2003; Laporte and Marchand 2004; Bradley 2001). The parallel was proposed over half a century ago, and has received support from the positioning of long mounds directly over former Bandkeramik longhouses at Balloy in France (Duhamel 1997). In Northern Europe, such a direct superpositioning has not yet been encountered but long mounds appeared in areas of southern Poland where Bandkeramik long houses had been built only a few centuries earlier. The link between the two appears very strong. In Denmark, Niels H. Andersen [Chap. 12] has discovered a number of houses under long mounds around Sarup, and others may hitherto have escaped attention. The phenomenon may be much more common than has hitherto been recognised, especially in areas where structural remains of Neolithic houses have proved difficult to identify. Furthermore recent discoveries in north-western France have extended the distribution of Villeneuve-Saint-Germain longhouses into Central Brittany, providing a potential inspiration for the long rectangular tertres that are an early component of the Breton monumental tradition (Blanchet et al. 2010; Tinévez et al.2015).
For Britain, the relationship is more problematic. Formal similarities between the Early Neolithic long mound and those of northern Europe have long been noted (Madsen 1979), but the ceramics of earlier Neolithic Britain belong to the Carinated Bowl tradition of northern France and Belgium, an area from which long mounds that could be ancestral to the British series are largely absent. Thus the connection with the Bandkeramik longhouse tradition is at best remote, and rather than seek direct antecedents it may be more realistic to conclude that the British earlier Neolithic drew on a number of sources (Thomas 2013, 335; Scarre 2015).
Britain nonetheless seems to fall within the longhouse/long mound zone, in contrast to Iberia and France south of the Loire where a tradition of circular Neolithic houses prevails, linked perhaps to a Mediterranean-focused Cardial Early Neolithic (Laporte and Marchand 2004). Yet this fracture line does not find expression in other features of the west European megalithic tradition. Thus if long mounds are restricted to northern France and regions to the north, megalithic art is found in Iberia, northern and western France, Britain, and Ireland, with a further group of decorated tombs around Halle in central Germany (Schierhold 2012). How far megalithic art can be considered a unified or connected phenomenon is difficult to assess. There are parallels in motifs and techniques between different areas, and notably between Brittany and Iberia where an early phase of art involving crooks and axe blades appeared on standing stones (Calado 2002). Geometric motifs are widespread, but could perhaps be attributed to transfer from other materials such as textiles, rather than direct transmission between the different regions. Recent discoveries of painted megalithic art in Brittany and Orkney show that similar motifs may have been present (but no longer preserved) in monuments of other regions [Chap. 15: Bueno Ramírez et al.]. At present, however, megalithic art is unknown from the extensive series of monuments in northern Europe; a surprising feature, perhaps, given the elaborately decorated TRB pottery that is often found deposited in front of the passage tombs.
The widening distribution of megalithic art provides a pendant to the northern focus of the longhouse/long mound parallel, and draws the centre of gravity back to southern Europe. It was here that 20th century archaeologists such as Forde and Childe sought the origins of the European megalithic chambered tomb tradition (Forde 1930; Childe 1950). Despite the difficulty of dating these structures, especially in areas where associated human remains are rarely preserved, it seems that Iberia and north-west France were the locus of the earliest manifestation of this tradition, during the 5th millennium BC. It was only later, in the 4th millennium, that similar structures began to be built in Britain and Northern Europe. The presence of megalithic art and other features connects the British tradition to the Atlantic seaways and the south, but despite morphological parallels the direct link with Northern Europe is hard to document. That there was such a link, however, it is difficult to deny. The practice of burying the dead at ground level within a stone chamber, one furthermore that was often built of megalithic blocks, was often furnished with a passage to provide permanent access, and frequently opened to the east or southeast, is hard to account for in any other way.
References
Bayliss, A. and Whittle, A. (eds.). 2007. Histories of the Dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1) (Supplement).
Bevins, R. E. and Ixer, R. 2013. Carn Alw as a source of the rhyolitic component of the Stonehenge bluestones: a critical re-appraisal of the petrographical account of H. H. Thomas. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 3293–3301.
Blanchet, S., Forre, P.. Fromont, N., Hamon, C. and Hamon, G. 2010. Un habitat du Néolithique ancien à Betton “Pluvignon” (Ille-et-Vilaine). Présentations synthétique des premiers résultats. In: Billard, C. and Legris, M. (eds) Premiers Néolithiques de l’Ouest. Cultures, réseaux, échanges des premières sociétés néolithiques à leur expansion. Presses Universitaires de Rennes: Rennes, pp. 15–39.
Bloch, M. 1995. People into places: Zafimaniry concepts of clarity. In: Hirsch, E. and O’Hanlon, M. (eds) The Anthropology of Landscape. Perspectives on Place and Space, eds. Clarendon Press: Oxford, pp. 63–77.
Boaventura, R. 2011. Chronology of megalithism in southcentral Portugal. In: Sanjuán, L. G., Dcarre, C. and Wheatley, D. (eds) Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: absolute chronology and rare rocks in European megalith. Junta de Andalucía: Antequera, pp. 159–175.
Bradley, R. 2001. Orientations and origins: a symbolic dimension to the long house in Neolithic Europe. Antiquity 75, 50–56.
Bueno Ramírez, P. 2010. Ancestros e imágenes antropomorfas muebles en el ámbito del megalitismo occidental: las placas decoradas. In: Cacho, C., Maicas, R., Galán, E. and Martos, J. A. (eds) Ojos que Nunca se Cerran. Ídolos en las primeras sociedades campesinas. Ministerio de Cultura: Madrid, pp. 39–77.
Burl, A., 2000. The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany. Yale University Press: New Haven.
Calado, M. 2002. Standing stones and natural outcrops. The role of ritual monuments in the Neolithic transition of the Central Alentejo. In: C. Scarre (ed.) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society During the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Routledge: London, pp. 17–35.
Calado, M. 2006. Les menhirs de la péninsule ibérique. In: Joussaume, R., Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds) Origine et Développement du Mégalithisme de l’Ouest de l’Europe, Musée des Tumulus de Bougon: Bougon, pp. 613–635.
Cassen, S. (ed.) 2009. Autour de la Table. Explorations archéologiques et discours savants sur des architectures néolithiques à Locmariaquer, Morbihan (Table des Marchands et Grand Menhir). Université de Nantes: Nantes.
Caylus, A. C. P. comte de, 1766. Recueil d’Antiquités Egyptiennes, Etrusques, Grecques, Romaines et Gauloises, Tome VI. Paris.
Childe, V. G. 1950. Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Kegan Paul: London.
Dehn, T., Hansen, S. and Kaul, F. 1995. Kong Svends Høj. Restaureringer og undersøgelser på Lolland 1991. Nationalmuseet: Copenhagen.
Dehn, T. and Hansen, S. I. 2006. Birch bark in Danish passage graves. Journal of Danish Archaeology 14, pp. 23–44.
Duhamel, P. 1997. La nécropole monumentale Cerny de Passy (Yonne): description d’ensemble et problèmes d’interprétation. In: Constantin, C., Mordant, D. and Simonin, D. (eds) La Culture de Cerny. Nouvelle économie, nouvelle société au Néolithique. Actes du Colloque International de Nemours, 9-10-11 mai 1994. Musée de Préhistoire de l’Ile de France: Nemours, pp. 397–448.
Ebbesen, K. 1985. Fortidsminderegistrering i Danmark. Fredningssty-relsen: København.
Forde, C. D. 1930. Early cultures of Atlantic Europe. American Anthropologist 32, pp. 19–100.
Groht, J. 2013. Menhire in Deutschland. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt: Halle.
Hutton, J. H. 1921. The Angami Nagas, with some notes on neighbouring tribes. Macmillan: London.
Jorge, V. O. 1998. Interpreting the “megalithic art” of Western Iberia: some preliminary remarks. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 00, pp. 69–84.
Kus, S. Raharijoana, V. 1998. Between earth and sky there are only a few large boulders: sovereignty and monumentality in central Madagascar. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, pp. 53–79.
Laporte, L. and Marchand, G. 2004. Une structure d’habitat circulaire dans le Néolithique ancien du Centre-Ouest de la France. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101, pp. 55–73.
Laporte, L., Daire, M.-Y., Kerdivel, G. and López-Romero, E. 2015. Back and forward. Neolithic standing stones and Iron Age stelae in French Brittany. In Díaz-Guardamino, M., García Sanjuán, L. and Wheatley, D. (eds) The Lives of Prehistoric Monuments in Iron Age, Roman and Medieval Europe. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 141-61.
Madsen, T. 1979. Earthen long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the Early Neolithic mortuary practice in Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, pp. 301–320.
Mather, C. 2003. Shrines and the domestication of landscape. Journal of Anthropological Research 59, pp. 23–45.
Midgley, M. 2005. The Monumental Cemeteries of Prehistoric Europe. Tempus: Stroud.
Midgley, M., 2008. The Megaliths of Northern Europe. Routledge: London.
Mischka, D. 2011. Flintbek LA 3, biography of a monument. In: Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Müller, J. (eds) Megaliths and Identities. Early Monuments and Neolithic Societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic. Rudolf Habelt: Bonn, pp. 67–94.
Montelius, O. 1899. Der Orient und Europa. Einfluss de orientalischen Cultur auf Europa bis zur Mitte des letzten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Stockholm.
Renfrew, C. 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In: De Laet, S. J. (ed.) Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe. De Tempel: Brussels, pp. 198–220.
Saville, A. 1990. Hazleton North. The excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn group. English Heritage: London.
Scarre, C. 2002. Contexts of monumentalism: regional diversity at the Neolithic transition in north-west France. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, pp. 23–61.
Scarre, C. 2003. Diverse inspirations: landscapes, longhouses and the neolithic monument forms of northern France. In: Burenhult, G. (ed.) Stones and Bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000–3000 BC. BAR S1201, Archaeopress: Oxford, pp. 39–52.
Scarre, C. 2009. Stones with character: animism, agency and megalithic monuments. In: Cooney, G, O’Connor, B. and Chapman, J. (eds) Materialitas: working stone, carving identity. Prehistoric Society Research Papers 2: Oxford, pp. 9–18.
Scarre, C. 2009. Stony ground: outcrops, rocks and quarries in the creation of megalithic monuments. In: Scarre, C. (ed.) Megalithic Quarrying. Sourcing, Extracting and Manipulating the Stones. BAR S1923, Archaeopress: Oxford, pp. 3–20.
Scarre, C. 2010. Rocks of ages: tempo and time in megalithic monuments. European Journal of Archaeology 13, pp. 175–193.
Scarre, C. 2012. Significant stones, significant places: monumentality and landscape in Neolithic western Europe. In: Papadopoulos, J. K. and Urton, G. (eds) The Construction of Value in the Ancient World. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology: Los Angeles, pp. 51–65.
Scarre, C. 2015. Parallel lives? Neolithic funerary monuments and the Channel divide. In: Anderson-Whymark, H., Garrow, D. and Sturt, F. (eds) Continental Connections. Exploring cross-Channel relations from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age. Oxbow Books: Oxford, 78-98.
Scarre, C., Laporte, L. and Joussaume, R. 2003. Long mounds and megalithic origins in western France: recent excavations at Prissé-la-Charrière. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67, pp. 235–251.
Schierhold, K. 2012. Studien zur hessisch-westfälischen Megalithik. Forschungsstand und perspektiven im europäischen Kontext. Leidorf: Rahden.
Sjögren, K.-G. 2003. “Mångfalldige uhrminnes grafvar …” Megalitgravar och samhälle i Västsverige. Göteborgs Universitet Institutionen för Arkeologi: Gøteborg.
Sjögren, K.-G. 2011. C-14 chronology of Scandinavian megalithic tombs. In: Sanjuan, L. G., Scarre, C. and Wheatley, D. (eds) Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: Absolute Chronology and Rare Rocks in European Megaliths. Junta de Andalucia: Antequera, pp. 103–119.
Swarbrick, O. 2012. A Gazetteer of Prehistoric Standing Stones in Great Britain. BAR 558, Archaeopress: Oxford.
Thomas, J. 2013. The Birth of Neolithic Britain. An Interpretive Account. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Thorpe, R. S. Williams-Thorpe, O. 1991. The myth of long-distance megalithic transport. Antiquity 65, pp 64–73.
Tinévez, J.-Y., Hamon, G., Querré, G., Marchand, G., Pailler, Y., Darboux, J.-R., Donnart, K., Marcoux, N., Pustoc’h, F., Quesnel, L. and Oberlin, C. 2015. Les vestiges d’habitat du Néolithique ancien de Quimper, Kervouyec (Finistère). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 112, 269-316.
Westendorp, N. 1822. Verhandeling ter beantwoording der Vrage: welke volkeren hebben de zoogenoemde hunebedden gesticht? In welke tijden kan man onderstellen, dat zij deze oorden hebben bewoond? Oomkens: Groningen.
Whittle, A. Bayliss, A. 2007. The times of their lives: from chronological precision to kinds of history and change. In: Bayliss, A. and Whittle, A. (eds) Histories of the Dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1) (Supplement), pp. 21–28.
Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A. 2011. Gathering Time. Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxbow Books: Oxford.