33 Megalithic Culture Meaning, Chronology and Origins

1. Introduction

The term “megaliths” refers to the monumental constructions of pre and proto-historic cultures found at several contexts in the world. The word itself derives from the Greek words for the scale – Megathos, meaning large; and the material – Lithoi, that is, stone, of their construction. So basically, the term “megalith” means “built of large stones.” As we will see below, not every megalith is built of large stones, but the term continues to be in use, because of its popularity out of being used for a long time! The very first megaliths to be noticed worldwide were conspicuous on the landscape they occupied by virtue of their large size, inspiring the name. As our understanding of megaliths progressed and more diminutive examples of the same form of cultural expression were discovered, the term had been in use for such a long time and had gained such popularity with even the general public, apart from archaeologists, that it continued to be used for all scales of monuments, and some which did not have lithic appendages too, as long as it was deemed that they were of the same cultures that authored the larger megaliths. We will discuss this in greater detail below and in the next module, which discusses the form of megaliths.

As regards distribution, megaliths are found at many sites all over the world. Megalithic monuments are found at many places in Europe – from the East Mediterranean to Western Europe and Scandinavia. In Asia, they are found in Afghanistan, the Indian subcontinent, Korea and even in Japan. Naturally, as befitting this phenomenon of similar looking constructions in stone at widely separated locations in the world, there has been a lot of speculation about where this phenomenon of “megalithism” could have originated, and how it could have possibly spread. Inspired by the very similar forms of megaliths worldwide, early scholarship revolved around “diffusion theories” that were controversial to say the least. Compounded by poor estimates of relative chronology, especially in the Indian subcontinent, interpretations along the line that the megalith-building activities originated in one place and spread by sea-route, held sway. Today, these diffusion theories have fallen out of favour with the archaeological community, modern archaeologists favouring a scenario where independent origins at widely separated locations is plausible. However, a satisfactory explanation for the occurrence of such startlingly similar forms over locations separated by large distances remains elusive.

2. Objectives

In this chapter, we shall examine what is meant by the term “megalith” and the phenomenon of “megalithism” in general.

We shall also cast an eye on the distribution of megaliths in the world, the chronology of erection of these monuments at various places in the world and what is the state of discussion about possible origin and spread of this cultural phenomenon.

3. Megaliths: the meaning of this cultural tradition

The megaliths of the world are arguably the earliest monuments created by humankind. Though almost certainly there might have been earlier monuments, for instance the Deccan ashmounds, created in perishable material like timber, megaliths are the earliest monumental constructions of humankind that seem to have survived to the present time.

World over, the construction of megaliths seems to be related to the cult of the dead – either memorials, or actual burials, though there are some types of megaliths that defy an explanation as to their purpose. Megalithism cannot be generally ascribed to any particular stage in the technological development of humankind – the cultural practice of erecting megaliths seems to have occurred at different phases of technological development at different locations. For instance, in Europe, they are supposed to have been erected in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age, while in the Indian subcontinent, they are popularly ascribed to the Iron Age.

Several archaeologists have speculated on the role that early stone monuments played in the societies that erected them. Speaking of the megalithic monuments in England – such as the earthen long barrows of southern England, the stone chambered cairns of Scotland and the large henge monuments, some of which, like Stonehenge and Avebury contain circles of standing stones, the renowned prehistorian Colin Renfrew says: “It served henceforth both as burying place and as a social focus for the territory. ” He avers that the small group of occupants of a territory in the Neolithic would need to invest a great deal of their time to put in the 10,000 work hours that he estimates would be needed to complete a cairn or a long barrow. They might even enlist the help of occupants of neighbouring territories for the project, rewarding them by feasting and local celebration. The monument, when completed, might have become the locus for further annual celebrations and feast days. Thus, the monument is seen as creating a community that would not have come into being had it not been for the activities centred upon it.

The role of the monument, thus, is tied up with its inherent capacity to impress us with its material presence, as well as to enhance a sense of place. “The insertion into the landscape of the memories associated with a great monument reinforces the process of making the landscape as much a social as a physical reality” says Renfrew, in his influential book Prehistory: the Making of the Human Mind.

The megalithic monuments of the world encompass a wide variety in form – ranging from the chambered cairns and long barrows mentioned above to dolmens, passage graves, “henge” monuments with or without an accompanying circle of standing stones, single menhirs and arrangement of menhirs in various patterns etc. Some of these will be dealt with cursorily here. A detailed discussion of the variety in form among the Indian megaliths will be taken up in a separate module, with some regional variations and endemic forms discussed in another module.

4. Megaliths of the World

We will now discuss the forms assumed by megaliths in different parts of the world.

4.1 The Menhir

The menhir or the single standing stone is the commonest megalith type seen across the world. In some sense, it is the simplest way to mark a spot of importance – either a burial, or in memory of a person, or an event that occurred at a given spot.

A number of menhirs are also sometimes arranged in patterns like grids or other formations to form stone alignments. Carnac, at Brittany in France, and Hanamsagar, in northern Karnataka in India are two examples of stone alignments with very large numbers of menhirs. In the British Isles, various arrangements of menhirs – single standing stones, short stones rows of three standing stones and larger alignments are noticed.

Unlike individual menhirs, whose possible purpose might be inferred from the context in which they are encountered, the purpose for the large stone alignments like those at Carnac and Hanamsagar were erected are not clearly understood.

4.2 The Stone Circle

After the menhir, the stone circle is the most widely occurring megalith type in the world. Once again, it makes perfect sense to mark a spot, maybe of a burial, with a ring of stones on the surface. Often, the stone circle encircles a cairn heap and might serve the structural purpose of retaining the shape of the cairn, too. Usually, the circle consists of undressed boulders manoeuvred into position; however, rings of standing stones which are dressed are also encountered, the most famous examples being, of course, Stonehenge (which, however, is a unique monument) and Avebury.

4.3 The Cairn

A large variety of monuments go by the name “cairn ” – ranging from the simple heaped up mound of earth or stone, to the large chambered cairns which have burial chambers accessed by long stone slab-lined passages within the body of the cairn. The most spectacular example of the latter is the monument at Newgrange, which, however, has been erroneously restored in modern times. Cairns are often surrounded by stone circles.

4.4 The Dolmen

Once again, a wide variety of monuments go by the name of “dolmen”, which basically means a chamber constructed of stone slabs or boulders and surmounted by a large horizontal capstone, raised above the ground to form a tomb or memorial. The antiquity of this perhaps most widely used term in connection with megaliths dates back to the early 1800s, according to Glyn Daniel, and was used by the local peasants of Locmariaquer (in Brittany, France) to describe megalithic burial chambers in the region.

Though taken in general to indicate any monument, where a large horizontal slab is held up either by other vertical slabs or by rough boulders, there are many sub varieties under this heading and variants in India are discussed in separate modules.

4.5 Other miscellaneous forms

There are many other forms, mostly variants on the theme of the structures mentioned above, loosely grouped under this heading without any formal basis, which may occur in different parts of the world. In Scotland, near Aberdeen, the endemic variant of the stone circle called the Recumbent Stone Circle is encountered – wherein one long horizontal stone member flanked by two uprights forms part of an otherwise normal stone circle. Another variant called the Axial Stone Circle is seen in Ireland. The Kudakkals and Topikals, which are endemic to Kerala in India, will be discussed in Module 37. Variations in the theme of the dolmen and the chambered cairn that go by the names of passage grave or chambered tomb etc. may occasionally be encountered, too. The Rock Cut Burial, which does not strictly live up to the etymological meaning of the word megalith (in the sense that it is not built of large stones), is encountered at various places in the world – such as Europe, India, Japan, etc.

5. Chronology

The chronology of the megaliths worldwide is a work in progress and there are large uncertainties in the dating of megaliths at different locations in the world, notably in the Indian subcontinent.

The earliest megaliths seem to be the tall stone slabs, up to 3m in height, erected at Nabta Playa – a natural basin in southern Egypt, which were erected sometime between 7000 BCE and 3000 BCE.

Next in terms of antiquity seem to be the European megaliths, “scattered through western Europe from Scandinavia and Scotland down to the Mediterranean (and extending into North Africa), as described by Clive Ruggles. The earliest of these are ascribed to the fourth millennium BCE, maybe even earlier and the practice is believed to have continued till a few centuries before the coming of the Roman Empire. Many of these are recognised as prehistoric tombs, some are suspected to be “temples” where sacred rites took place and some – like the stone alignment comprising of hundreds of menhirs at Carnac mentioned earlier, “seem to defy explanation.”

In Britain, the period of megalith construction has been rather confidently estimated to last from the Neolithic (later part of the fourth millennium BCE) to the earlier part of the Bronze Age (second millennium BCE).

In the Indian subcontinent, the vast majority of megalithic structures are part of what is known as the “south Indian megalithic burial complex.” This culture is believed to have been extant during the south Indian Iron Age (variously ascribed to begin at 1200 BCE or 1000 BCE or even later) and have lasted into the first few centuries of the Common Era. However, even outside southern India, there are notable clusters of megalithic activity in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, the Kashmir Valley, Kumaon and Jharkand. It is not clear whether these monuments are part of the same cultural phenomenon that led to the south Indian megaliths. For instance, it is widely supposed that the Kashmir megaliths (mostly menhirs, at a handful of sites in the Valley like Burzahom and Gurfkral) are distinctly different culturally. In the north-eastern region of India, megalithism is a living practice, though, once again, there seems to be no cultural continuity with the prehistoric practice of megalithism in the rest of the country.

6. Origins and possible spread

Ever since the widespread occurrence of megalithic monuments became well-known, there has been speculation about how the practice might have originated and spread. Underlying this stream of reasoning is an unstated assumption that similar looking structures can result only from ideas or people travelling from one place to another, which today we know may not be the only possibility. Early on, there was considerable controversy over the claim that the ideas for the megaliths in Britain and Ireland came from the continent of Europe. In more recent times, it has been recognised that at least part of the British and Irish megalithic tradition is essentially “home grown” with certain monument types like the “henge” and the “cursus” monuments having no parallels elsewhere. Chris Scarre, a renowned prehistorian of the British Isles, says that “… the examples found in Britain and Ireland form part of a broad west European family of Neolithic monuments based around a network of interregional contacts.”

With the discovery of megaliths in various parts of the world and the similarity of some of them in aspects of form, the debate about the origin and spread of megalithic traits received new impetus, and led to the development of various hypotheses to explain this similarity. The reporting of the Indian megaliths, from Babington’ s report of megaliths in Kerala in 1824 onwards, added to this discussion. In the words of V. Gordon Childe: “Megalithic tombs and related monuments constructed usually of large slabs or blocks of stone, either in their natural form or roughly quarried and trimmed, are more abundant in the Deccan and South India than any other category of ancient structures. That fact in itself gives them a special claim to the attention of Indian archaeology. But they have a potential importance also in a wider context; for many of them show a similarity, seemingly amounting to kinship, with megaliths in other parts of the world – in the lands bordering upon the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, in the Caucasus, in Iran. The significance of this apparent interrelationship over many thousands of miles of the earth’s surface cannot yet be appraised, but the problem is one which stirs the imagination. A preliminary need is more knowledge of the character and distribution of the megaliths of India…”

Early views of the origins and possible spread of megalithism had the practice originating in the east Mediterranean and spreading out northwards via a sea route, along the coast of Western Europe into Scandinavia. But, as Ruggles puts it, with reference to the megalithic tradition in Britain and Ireland – “From the archaeological point of view, it is important to realize that this category of monument does not reflect a particular cultural development, but rather a practice of construction using large stones that emerged among the early farmers of the Neolithic period and spread, developing all the time in various ways, until it faded out toward the end of the Bronze Age.” He also mentions how several regional practices representing variations upon the broad megalithic theme seem to have emerged and then faded away within a short period of time compared with the two millennia or so that the whole megalithic tradition persisted in Britain and Ireland.

With regard to the Indian megaliths, which are ascribed to the Iron Age (roughly 1200BCE) and later, this kind of a “diffusion theory” about the spread of megalithism, ascribes the trait as migration of people or ideas from the south Russian/Caucasian region, Palestine, north Ethiopia and the Makran coast.

Today, diffusion theories do not find much favour with archaeologists, who deem it perfectly plausible that independent origins can result in similar forms. In fact, the fact that different cultures might independently arrive at similar forms may speak more about the architecture of the human mind than cross-cultural “fertilisation” of ideas! This view is particularly reinforced by the fact that earlier burial traditions of urn or pit burials continue much in the same manner even after surface markers of stone that we call megaliths enter the picture. This is taken as evidence suggesting an indigenous origin for the Indian megaliths.

It is interesting to note, in this context, that Kathleen Morrison has obtained a date for a charcoal sample from Mortimer Wheeler’ s excavation of the Brahmagiri megaliths (in north Karnataka), which suggests that the practice of erecting megaliths might have well started in the south Indian Neolithic, in the third millennium BCE.

However, till a focussed investigation provides us with reliable dates for most of the megalithic sites known, it would be very difficult to confirm or rule out at least “modified” diffusion theories – that of ideas, in the spread of the megalithic tradition.

7. Megalithic astronomy

Speculation that megaliths might have had something to do with the rising and setting positions of astronomical bodies like the sun, moon and the stars date back to the seventeenth century, when antiquarians inspecting British megaliths first came up with such claims. However, it was in the early 1900s, that a reputed astronomer called Norman Lockyer postulated a carefully formed hypothesis based on scientific observation that several ancient monuments may be oriented upon points of astronomical interest on the local horizon. The connection between megaliths and astronomy became firmly rooted in popular perception after another astronomer, Gerald S. Hawkins published his popular and controversial book “Stonehenge Decoded”, where he proposed that the well-known monument of Stonehenge, in Wiltshire, southern England, was a prehistoric “observatory” with numerous alignments of astronomical importance and a built in “eclipse predictor.”

But by far the most detailed and extensive work in this field was undertaken by Alexander Thom, who, during the 1950s to the 1970s surveyed and mapped megalithic monuments in Britain and elsewhere and came up with a hypothesis that they were observatories with high precision astronomical alignments to the rising and setting points of the sun, moon and certain stars.

These theories, however, have not been found to be true. Today, with modern analyses of Thom’s and others’ claims, it is understood that the kind of high precision alignments that were proposed would not be possible due to various problems – such as day-to -day variations in atmospheric refraction, extinction of the light from stars near the horizon, etc. This is not to say that the various cultures that erected megaliths did not have knowledge of astronomy. The modern view of astronomical alignments in megaliths is that in many cases they do incorporate alignments that already well known, for symbolic or ceremonial purposes.

For instance – the orientation of the axis of Stonehenge to sunrise on Summer Solstice (the longest day in the year) is accepted as intentional and its purpose might have been “as a display of power, showing that this monument, erected with a huge input of human labour from exotic materials (stone brought from great distances), was in harmony with nature ”, according to the renowned archaeoastronomer Clive Ruggles. The converse alignment, to sunset on Winter Solstice day (the shortest day in the year) might have been the real focus of the monument, too, since the ceremonial avenue approaching the monument faces this direction. Another established astronomical orientation is concerned with the Neolithic passage tomb at Newgrange, in Ireland, where the rays of the rising sun on Winter Solstice shines along a twenty meter long passage to illuminate the central chamber, which contains fragments of bones and grave goods.

Modern research in archaeoastronomy favours megalithic monuments intentionally, “consistent anthropologists, to encapsulate relationships of architecture,” according to Ruggles.

8. Discussion

low-precision alignments incorporated in with the human tendency, identified by cosmological significance in monumental Megalithic monuments, found at several places in the world widely separated in space, and probably time too, represent some of the earliest monuments of humankind surviving today. At certain sites, like Woodhenge, there is clear evidence for early structures involving timber posts and excavations at Stonehenge also have revealed evidence for timber posts having been part of the structure in an early phase, before the large uprights of sarsen stone were erected. It is quite possible that monumental structures in perishable materials might have existed all over the geographical range where megaliths are found, however it is these enigmatic structures in stone that represent the earliest monuments that have withstood the ravages of time and the elements.

By and large it is agreed upon that monument construction on a large scale could have happened only after a settled society generating enough surplus to spare man-hours for building activity was possible, and most monuments date back at the earliest to the Neolithic, though some evidence for large timber monuments in the Mesolithic is also known in Britain. Though when we talk about megaliths, we tend to immediately think of large structures like Stonehenge, Avebury, Carnac and Hanamsagar or Hire Benakal, many of the monuments are built on much smaller scales. It is believed that the smaller sized or smaller groups of monuments might have been the handiwork of smaller communities. The larger monuments or larger clusters of monuments, requiring several hundreds of individuals to fulfil the tasks of quarrying, transporting, shaping and erecting the stones for the monuments might have been the products of interaction between several communities which had come together for the purpose. It is likely that the larger sites must have been sacred places for the communities which lived in the nearby regions and the focus of ceremonies where the communities came together.

The appearance of the megalithic tradition at apparently different times in history at different places has fuelled the debate over where the practice could have originated and how it spread. Today it is believed that there might have been independent origins for this cultural practice at various centres, though some amount of “diffusion” of ideas cannot be conclusively ruled out.

A large fraction of the megalithic monuments worldwide were funerary or memorial in nature, pointing to a preoccupation with adoration of ancestors or a cult of the dead. However, there are notable exceptions like the extensive stone alignments at Carnac in France, or Hanamsagar and Vibhutihalli in India, which defy any simple explanation.

And lastly, it is almost certainly true that all settled societies practicing agriculture must have had a fairly good understanding of calendrical time and its relationship to the seasons. This, and the fact that several megaliths seemed to incorporate deliberate alignments to points of astronomical importance on the local horizon, led to a lot of fantastic claims laid to megalithic “observatories” which were used to keep track of time and the seasons. Today it is recognised that these claims hold little water, though certain low-precision alignments are indeed intentionally incorporated in the design and layout of many megalithic structures. These alignments, however, may represent only the incorporation of already existing astronomical knowledge in orienting the structures for ritual or symbolic purpose rather than the creation of structures to observe astronomical phenomena.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have looked at megalithic monuments in different parts of the world and tried to understand the meaning of these structures to the cultures that authored them. It has been understood that “megalithic” implies a cultural practice of erecting monuments, usually with large stones, rather than a specific phase of prehistory. In fact, the practice of megalithism seems to have happened at various locations at different times. Though this could have resulted due to the practice originating in a specific region and spreading to other regions, independent origins are also, and probably more, plausible. Though most megalith types are either tombs or memorials to the departed, there are some forms whose purpose is not immediately apparent. Though a case has long been made that some, if not most, megaliths have an astronomical purpose to their construction, it is highly unlikely that this is the case. There are several instances of seemingly intentional astronomical alignments being built into megalithic monuments, but these, in all probability are of symbolic or ritual purpose, rather than observational.

Web links

• http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index
•  http://saturniancosmology.org/files/barrows/megalithic-tombs.html
• http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/megaliths.htm#chronology
•  http://www.archaeoastronomy.com/
• http://www.cliveruggles.net/
• http://www2.cliveruggles.com/images/cliveruggles.com/documents/ras_stonehenge_factsheet.pdf
• https://www.boddunan.com/articles/miscellaneous/51-general-reference/3723-megalithism-megaliths-in-the-world-megalithic-europe-origins-in-europe-an-art-in-itself.html

5.3Bibliography

• Burl, A. 1976.The Stone Circles of the British Isles.Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
• Childe, V. G. 1948. Megaliths. Ancient India, IV,5-13.
• Daniel, G. 1937. The ‘Dolmens’ of Southern Britain. Antiquity, Vol. 11,Issue 42, 183-200.
• Heggie, D. C. 1981.Megalithic Science: Ancient Mathematics and Astronomy in Northwest Europe.Thames and Hudson, London.
• Moorti, U. S. 1994.Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio-Economic Perspectives.Ganga Kaveri Publishing House, Varanasi.
• Moorti, U. S. 2008. Megaliths, in Pearsall, D. M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
• Renfrew, C. 2007.Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind.Phoenix, London.
• Ruggles,  C.  2005.Ancient  Astronomy:An  Encyclopedia  of  Cosmologies  and  Myth.ABC-CLIO, Inc.California.
• Scarre, C. 2007.The Megalithic Monuments of Britain and Ireland.Thames and Hudson, London.
• Sherratt, A. 1990. The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-west Europe. World Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2147-167.