Creating World Views: Work-Expenditure Calculations for Funnel Beaker Megalithic Graves and Flint Axe Head Depositions in Northern Germany

2.1 Megalithic Monuments

Characteristic, especially for the TRB North Group, is a relatively early construction phase of monumental non-megalithic graves, from c. 3800 BCE onwards, followed by a phase involving the construction of megalithic graves of different types, from 3600 BCE onwards (Figure 2; Müller, 2019, p. 38). The predominant regional variants of the grave types are markers for the archaeological groups of the northern and central part of what is today Germany, which influenced each other (especially important for the study region are the Wartberg, Walternienburg, and Bernburg groups; Schierhold, 2012).

Figure 2

Models of available 14C-dates for Funnel Beaker graves in northern Germany and Scandinavia (reproduced from Mischka, 2014, p. 132; Persson & Sjögren, 1995, p. 73).

In the area of the Funnel Beaker North and West groups, which is the focus of this article, the non-megalithic and megalithic burial monuments were being constructed during the Early Neolithic (EN; 4100–3400 BCE) and the Middle Neolithic (MN; 3400–2800 BCE). These monuments comprise different subtypes (Figure 3), which will be briefly presented below.

Figure 3

Selection of the most important megalithic grave types in the study area: (a) non-megalithic long-barrow (Schirren, 1997, p. 121); (b) small dolmen (“Urdolmen”) (Schuldt, 1969c, p. 24); (c) extended dolmen (Schuldt, 1969c, p. 27); (d) passage grave (Schuldt, 1970d, p. 62).

The earliest building activities are marked by the construction of non-megalithic long barrows, which consist of (in some cases massive) mounds and usually contain only a single or very few burials within the mound area (Figure 3a). Some contain multiple graves (e.g. Sprockhoff, 1954), especially in forested areas, where long barrows are better preserved than in areas that underwent intensive agriculture (Hinz, 2014, p. 192). None of these very early graves are collective graves. Many of the long barrows in which the deceased were placed lack megalithic elements, instead showing evidence of wooden constructions (Behrens & Darvill, 2021, p. 138; Rassmann, 2010). Some of the non-megalithic long barrows have a kerb, which can be dated to EN II on the basis of the ceramic types found within the enclosure. Also in EN II (around 3600 BCE, Hage, 2016, p. 196; Sjögren, 2011, pp. 107–8), the first megalithic burial chambers appear in the northern part of Germany (Figure 3b). Among the earliest forms are the so-called Urdolmen (termed “small dolmen” in English), which comprise burial chambers formed by four boulders and a capstone. Due to the small interior size of the burial chamber and its inaccessibility, it can be assumed that this type of dolmen was designed and used for single individuals or at most a few individuals (Behrens & Darvill, 2021, p. 133). In addition to the small dolmen, other types developed, such as polygonal, extended, rectangular, and “great dolmen” (Figure 3c). Because it is difficult, in general, to precisely date the construction phases of megalithic tombs, the chronological relationships between these different grave types are difficult to infer, precluding clear statements regarding their chronological placement (Furholt & Mischka, 2019). Often, the only ¹⁴C dates available are from the burials within the mound and the phases of use of the chambers, giving a terminus post quem for the tomb’s construction. To date, the construction phase itself requires absolute dates from the area of the stones’ sockets or from the construction layers, but in many cases, there is no datable material available from these parts of the tomb, either because the excavations took place a long time ago and there is nothing left to sample or because the monuments are not excavated and protected by heritage legislation. Fortunately, on the basis of the recent ¹⁴C data from the stone sockets or the construction layers from some tombs, researchers have been able to establish that the construction of extended dolmens slightly post-dates that of small dolmens (cf. Furholt & Mischka, 2019; Mischka, 2014; Persson & Sjögren, 1995). In general, compared with small dolmens, extended dolmens are characterised by larger internal dimensions of the burial chamber, which result from a larger number of orthostats and capstones (usually two). A defining feature is the upright orthostats, in contrast to the lying orthostats of the small dolmens. Many extended dolmens also have pseudo-passages or entrances created by a gap between two orthostats, so that in many cases this type of megalithic tomb can be classified as re-accessible. The presence of entrances opens up the possibility that larger dolmen types were used for collective burials. The peak of this development towards larger numbers of burials is reached with the great dolmens, which occur mainly in the eastern (Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania) and sporadically in the western (Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony) parts of northern Germany. In contrast to extended dolmens, great dolmens have three to five capstones and sometimes a kind of antechamber or short passage integrated into their architecture. They were used for collective burials. The last grave type discussed here, which can also be clearly chronologically classified as the last emerging type of Funnel Beaker megalithic grave, is the passage grave (Figure 3d). Passage graves are characterised by an entrance on the long side and clearly are re-accessible collective graves. The number of burials can be extremely high, as shown by grave sites from Sweden with up to 130 buried individuals (Ahlström, 2009). Due to the permanent accessibility of the grave, however, post-Funnel Beaker burials cannot be ruled out. Evidence of Young and Late Neolithic, as well as Bronze Age, access and re-use is very frequent (cf. Blank, Sjögren, & Storå, 2020, p. 89; Schuldt, 1972), but there are a few known examples of undisturbed megalithic graves, for example in Forst Prora, Germany (Terbeger, 2011).

All of the grave types mentioned exhibit a very wide range of forms and designs, resulting from their diverse architectural features, not only on a supra-regional, but also on a local level. For example, they can have different floor pavements in the burial chambers, which, especially in the case of great dolmens and passage graves, were sometimes also used to internally subdivide the burial chamber. Furthermore, they can have mounds of greatly varying dimensions, which can be round, oval, or rectangular in shape. During relatively recent excavations, it was possible to document different mound construction phases at individual sites, and these excavations clearly show that after an initial construction phase, further changes and alterations to the chambers and possibly to the existing initial mounds could occur (cf. Behrens, 2014; Brozio, 2016; Mischka, 2022). In addition, some mounds are provided with kerbs.

2.2 Depositions with Flint Axe Heads

The first appearance of Neolithic groups in central Europe, in the sixth millennium BCE, was accompanied by the practice of depositions. From the beginning, stone tools, dominated by adze heads, shaft-hole axe heads, and axe heads, represented the central theme of the depositions, and they continued to do so until the Funnel Beaker period and beyond (Müller & Schirren, 2022). It may seem logical to explain this focus on shaft-hole axe heads and axe heads as being due to the landscape-altering abilities of these tools, as they were used to cut down trees, which ultimately made the construction of houses and monuments possible and resulted in cleared areas suitable for habitation and cultivation. However, as noted above, the stone tools found in the Neolithic depositions were in many cases too large, and thus too unwieldy or fragile, for cutting trees. Yet traces of use seen again and again on even the largest specimens suggest that some of the pieces must have been put to some kind of use before they were deposited – a use that can no longer be elucidated today (Müller, in press; Müller & Schirren, 2022). Finally, the heavy stone tools also represented weapons, and such weapons have been used as part of inter-personal violence since the Linear Pottery period in the sixth Millennium BCE (Peter-Röcher, 2007).

The number of sites, the size of the area of distribution, the number of different materials the objects are made of, and the variation in the locations they were placed in reached a peak in the Funnel Beaker culture. Deposition sites include settlements, the surroundings of monumental graves (both non-megalithic long barrows and megalithic tombs), and causewayed and palisade enclosures (Nielsen, 2004). However, the majority of deposition locations are far away from Funnel Beaker culture structures. Termed external depositions, these account for 91% of the depositions. In total, more than 1,300 depositions, with objects made of stone (heavy tools and blades), amber (beads and raw amber), pottery (vessels), copper (axe heads and various rings), and bone (human and animal skeletons and skeletal remains) have been identified in the Funnel Beaker area.^[2] Objects of different materials were rarely combined in the depositions. Around 78% of all external depositions of the Funnel Beaker period contained axe heads made of stone, mainly of flint (96%), so that the flint axe heads can be understood as the central theme of these depositions (Figure 4). In the external depositions, they were deposited unhafted, usually in pairs or threes and in various positions (lying or standing in different orientations) as well as arrangements (next to each other, on top of each other, or in certain patterns). However, there is also evidence of individually deposited axe heads. Among the pointed-butted, thin-butted, and thick-butted axe head types, which succeed each other, although there is a temporal overlap of the first two types (Klassen, 2004, pp. 210–211), the thin-butted type is the most frequently represented in the depositions, mainly because it had the longest period of use, ranging from EN Ib to MN II (3800–3000 BC). The average length of the deposited thin-butted flint axe heads, at more than 20 cm, clearly exceeds that of settlements or graves in most regions. Especially in Denmark and Sweden, axe heads of up to 50 cm in length were deposited (Müller, in press; Nielsen, 1977).

Figure 4

The deposition of Wingst, dist. Cuxhaven, in the Elbe–Weser triangle, consists of unpolished unground and particularly labour-intensive, polished ground, thin-butted flint axe heads. A total of 91 h of working time has been accumulated in the hoard (photo: M. Müller, © Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover).

While grinding of the cutting edge would suffice to turn the item into a functioning tool, the Funnel Beaker period pieces show completely ground broad sides and even, in the case of the thin-butted axe heads, all-over grinding, which is an essential feature of these Funnel Beaker period axe heads. The all-over grinding seems to have had only a limited practical effect, and it has been argued that the reasons behind the decision to invest additional time in their manufacture were aesthetic or social – or perhaps even the greater similarity with contemporary axe heads made of copper (Klassen, 2004, pp. 212, 214). As will be discussed in more detail below, the grinding process for these flint axe heads is lengthy, and the time required increases significantly with the size of the surface to be ground. In addition to the finished ground axe heads, however, unground pre-forms are frequently found in the depositions, in a proportion ranging between 42% and 70% across types. Especially the longest among the thin-butted flint axe heads that were deposited were ground all over with above-average frequency (77%). Their manufacture was particularly difficult and would have required many years of experience. The fact that these axe heads, which were extraordinarily time-consuming to make, were exclusively deposited and thus forever removed from circulation, speaks to a world of thought that can no longer be deciphered today. In view of their display of special skills and much invested time, they have been interpreted as a special gift to higher powers, i.e. as a sacrifice (Müller, in press; Nielsen, 1977, pp. 120–121; Rech, 1979, p. 78).

2.3 The Data Set

A total of 1,008 megalithic monuments and 65 depositions and single finds form the data set of the analyses presented here (Figures 5–7), relying on the data published by, among others, Behrens (2020), Behrens and Darvill (2021), Behrens et al. (2024), Müller (in press), and Wunderlich et al. (2019); a literature review; historical maps; data held by local state heritage offices; and archive visits by the authors. The three regions – Rügen, Westmecklenburg, and the so-called Elbe–Weser triangle – were chosen for our case study because they represent different regional communities within the Funnel Beaker area, which can be differentiated by, i.a. pottery styles (summarised by Lorenz, 2018) or megalithic construction traditions (Laux, 1991; Schuldt, 1972). The boundaries of these areas correlate with modern country borders, which are formed by almost unmodified waters and moraine ridges.

Figure 5

Distribution of megalithic graves and depositions in the Elbe–Weser triangle (source: depositions – Müller, in press, megalithic graves – ADABweb Heritage Department Lower-Saxony, archive of the communal archaeology district Cuxhaven, Sprockhoff, 1975). Labelled sites are mentioned in the article.

Figure 6

Distribution of megalithic graves and depositions in Westmecklenburg (source: depositions – Müller, in press, megalithic graves – Behrens & Darvill, 2021). Labelled sites are mentioned in the article.

Figure 7

Distribution of megalithic graves and depositions on the island of Rügen (source: depositions – Müller, in press, megalithic graves – denkmalGIS Heritage Department Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, historical map of F. v. Hagenow, 1829, Sprockhoff, 1967, and reports of the Jahrbücher für Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Labelled sites are mentioned in the article.

The temporal divisions for the megalithic tombs coincide with tomb types (Figure 2), whereas those for the axe heads coincide with the periods of use of thin-butted (EN Ib–MN II) and thick-butted (MN III–MN V) axe heads.

4.1 Preparation of the Construction Site

The first work step in the first phase is the clearing of the required area. This calculation can be problematic. For example, there are sites, such as Rastorf LA 6 (Steffens, 2009; Müller, 2017), where the ground plan of a Funnel Beaker period house was found below a megalithic grave that had been extended. The position of the house and the megalithic grave in relation to each other suggests that the grave directly referenced the (earlier) house (cf. Müller, 2017, p. 38; 2019, p. 45). In cases such as Rastorf LA 6, clearing of the area prior to tomb construction may not have been. Plough marks around and underneath megalithic grave monuments have been documented at several sites (e.g. Brozio, 2016; Flintbek, Mischka, 2022), similarly implying that clearing of the area may not have been necessary. However, since the state of the land prior to the construction of most of the graves either cannot be clarified or has not (yet) been clarified, it is assumed here that clearance of the forest was necessary. Supporting this assumption are several pieces of evidence that attest to a spatial separation of settlement and burial landscape during the Funnel Beaker period on a regional scale (including Brozio, 2016; Hage, 2016; Behrens, Karle, & Wolters, 2022). Due to the uncertainty of what values to assume, a calculation of the effort required for the removal of shrubs and the like is omitted; the clearance work refers to the felling of the trees alone and assumes a standard diameter trunk. As mentioned earlier, the felled trees could be used to aid in the construction work, for example, to build a sledge for the boulders or, in the case of entire trunks, “rails” for the sledge to glide on.

The second work step in the first stage is the preparation of the actual building site. This includes the preparation of the sockets for the orthostats of the burial chamber as well as the kerb, if these have been documented archaeologically, as well as the removal of the topsoil, at least in the chamber area (e.g. Behrens & Reichler, 2012; Mischka, 2022, p. 83). The removal of the soil resulting from this work step represents the last activity in the preparation of the construction site and is calculated based on a standard distance of 100 m.

4.2 Excavation, Procurement, and Transport of Raw Material

The second stage of work, which could have taken place before, in parallel with, or after preparation of the construction site, involves the procurement and transport of the necessary raw materials, in the form of different types of stone: boulders for the burial chamber and the kerb (if present) and smaller stones for dry-stone walling (between the standing stones or wedged between the standing stones and the capstones) or to pave the floor of the burial chamber. An element frequently encountered within the study area is floor paving within the burial chamber made of burnt and crushed or fire-cracked flint.

With regard to the smaller stones, it can be assumed that at least some of them had to be quarried, which is why the extraction of the total volume of documented stone packings and dry-stone walling is calculated here. Only those stones that are actually preserved archaeologically are included in the calculations, but since these probably make up only a small proportion of the original stones, a certain margin for possible calculation errors is justifiable here and has therefore been included. For example, some of the stones may have merely been collected, not quarried. As was the case with the boulders, the quarried and collected stones had to be transported to the building site. Here, too, a standard distance of 1 km is assumed.

The transport of the erratics for the burial chamber and the kerb naturally accounts for a significant proportion of the work. The calculations regarding the transport of the stones are based on an estimate of the weight of the stones. Here, too, errors in estimating cannot be avoided. This is due to the fact that the volume of the stones is difficult to determine exactly and that in many cases the type of rock used is not mentioned in the literature (exceptions include Gehl, 1972). In cases where we know the types of rock, they are usually granites and gneisses. It is impossible to determine either the origin of the stones or the former density of the erratics in the Neolithic landscape and therefore impossible to determine the distance over which the boulders needed for construction had to be transported. Therefore, a standard value must be used here. Based on the work of Bekkema (2013, p. 115), a distance of 1 km is used for this purpose. Although the calculations of necessity involve estimates, the results are internally consistent due to the uniformity of the calculations.

4.3 Construction of the Burial Chamber and the Funerary Monument

Finally, in the last construction phase, the actual work on the burial chamber as well as the mound, if there was one, takes place. The most labour-intensive part of this phase is the erection of the standing stones and the laying of the capstones. Here, again, the estimated weight of the stones is used for the calculations. After the construction of the actual burial chamber, there are various smaller architectural elements that require further work. In all cases, this is the construction of dry-stone walls between the standing stones or the wedging of small stones between the standing stones and the capstones (cf. Behrens & Reichler, 2012, p. 196; Dehn, Hansen, & Westphal, 2004, p. 163). Dry-stone walls have not been preserved or scientifically documented in all megalithic tombs; however, it can be assumed that they were usually present. Further working steps may include the laying of floor coverings (e.g. burnt flint or stone slabs). The chamber may have been additionally sealed with clay or similar sealant, or by stone packings (e.g. Wanna, Cuxhaven; Behrens et al., 2022, p. 463; Burtevitz, Rügen; Behrens & Reichler, 2012; Denghoog, Sylt; Wunderlich, 2014). However, this step is only included in the calculations if there is clear evidence for it. The construction of pits within the chamber is not deemed to be part of the actual building process and is therefore excluded from the calculations.

The last major work step of the third phase is the construction of a round mound or long barrow, which generally consists of earth. If there was no longer any archaeological evidence of a mound that may have existed in the past, the construction of a mound was not included in the calculations, as it cannot be ruled out that some of the burial sites never had a mound (as is the case in Wanna, Cuxhaven – Behrens et al., 2023). It should be noted that recent excavations have documented extensions of the original burial mound (e.g. Brozio, 2016; Mischka, 2011). At some sites, the mound was constructed centuries after the burial chamber (Behrens & Reichler, 2012). To what extent these modifications can therefore still be counted as part of the primary construction phase of the burial chamber is debatable. Since the time slices used here cover several centuries anyway and the calculations only refer to the final stage of a monument, the mound constructions are added to the working process here, regardless of the time lag. In the case of preserved kerbs, the assumed volume of the mound was estimated on the basis of the area encompassed within the kerb. This results in a minimum value for the calculations, which can, however, be considered reliable as an approximate value.

5.1 Selection of the Raw Material

The so-called Nordic flint, which is the raw material used for most of the axe heads in the Funnel Beaker period depositions, is concretions composed mainly of silica (Shephard, 1972, pp. 20–35) in horizons of Cretaceous limestone, especially of the Upper Cretaceous (Vinx, 2011, p. 346). The flint mined or collected during the Funnel Beaker period comes from primary and secondary sources. Both sources can yield flint that is of high quality and flint that is of inferior quality for the production of tools (Högberg & Olausson, 2007, p. 23). Primary (i.e. intact, undisturbed) sources of Nordic flint occur in Denmark, southern Sweden, and northern Germany, namely in Rügen and in Helgoland (Högberg & Olausson, 2007, p. 18). Secondary sources occur in an area stretching from the northern Netherlands through northern Germany to Pomerania and consist of glacially displaced flint in varying concentrations. These secondary sources are mostly a mixture of different flint types that were eroded from different primary sources during the ice ages (Högberg & Olausson, 2007, p. 19). The people selecting raw material suitable for axe heads had to bear in mind that the shape of the flint concretions, also called flint nodules, significantly influences the appearance of the end product (Lüth, 2003, pp. 1–2). For the production of very large axe heads of the thin-butted form, it was necessary to obtain nodules from primary flint sources (Olausson et al., 1980, pp. 183–184). For the production of other types of axe heads, secondary sources could also provide flint of the required quality and size (Högberg & Olausson, 2007, p. 23).

5.2 Testing of the Quality

In the second step of axe head production, the selected flint nodules (Figure 9(1)) were tested for their quality. For this purpose, a few test blows were made, by which an experienced flint knapper can hear whether there are superficially invisible cracks or larger fossil inclusions in the nodule and whether the material can be processed well. Unsuitable material was discarded.

5.3 Preparation of the Core

During preparation of the core, protrusions and irregularities were removed from the nodule with a percussion stone using direct, hard blows, in order to create an even surface.

5.4 Making of the Blank

A blank is a rough-hewn piece of flint, in this case, elongated and box-shaped (Figure 9(2)), which has not yet reached the final shape (Ebbesen, 1980, p. 301; Hoika, 1987, p. 44), in this case of an axe head. However, on the basis of reassembled flake sequences from workshops, it has been shown that very skilled flint knappers had already determined the cutting edge and neck end at this stage (Hein & Lund, 2021, p. 218). During this step, the prepared core was fashioned into an approximately right-angled shape, using the hard, direct percussion technique (Hein & Lund, 2021, p. 214; Weiner, 1980, pp. 219–220) in combination with the indirect punch technique, which involves striking a hammer on a piece of antler or bone that has been applied, like a chisel, to the piece being worked on. In addition, most of the cortex and remaining protruding irregularities were removed. This step also served to reduce the weight of the preform. The pieces were then transported from the quarrying sites as blanks (Olausson et al., 1980, p. 193).

5.5 Rough Pre-Working

During rough pre-working (Figure 9(3)), large, thin flakes were removed from the broad and narrow sides of the axe head blanks using the punch technique. In this way, the final shape of the tool was worked out continuously, not stepwise, and the surface of the preform became steadily finer.

5.6 Fine Pre-Working

During fine pre-working, the sides of the piece were straightened by alternating pressure retouching with bone or antler (Figure 9(4)), and the cutting edge was fashioned by direct soft percussion. This pre-working was particularly advantageous for the subsequent step (i.e. grinding) if the pre-working was particularly fine, as less material would have to be ground off. It was necessary to produce a ready-to-grind preform that was as finely worked as possible, which could only be done by very experienced flint knappers (pers. comm. Harm Paulsen). During this pre-working step prior to grinding, care had to be taken to ensure that the flake negatives were as flat as possible on the surface.

5.7 Grinding

The grinding was usually done on a grinding stone made of quartz sandstone, with only the constant addition of water. With all types of axe heads that were intended for use, at least the cutting edge area had to be ground. This served to stabilise the cutting edge (Hein & Lund, 2021, p. 133) and, to a lesser extent, the blade. A smooth, even surface is better able to distribute the pressure of use than a surface in relief, and deep flake negatives in the flint surface represent a predetermined breaking point. However, in order to rid the surface of the flint axe heads from all negatives (Figure 9(5)), a step that has been applied to some of the thin-butted pieces from the depositions, a considerable amount of force and time was required. The type of flint, the grinding stone used, and the pressure applied all played a decisive role in the progress of the grinding process. Although the first coherent grinding surfaces are already formed after one working hour, it takes increasingly longer to enlarge these surfaces. The reason for this is that initially only the exposed parts of the axe head surface are ground down and the surface in contact with the grinding stone is therefore still relatively small. As the surface now successively ground down to the deeper-lying areas, the contact surface on the grinding stone increases, as does the friction. When almost the entire surface of an axe head side has been ground, only a few deeper-lying negatives remain. To capture these, the entire axe surface must be ground down to that level (Olausson, 1983, p. 5), a feat that was accomplished for many axe heads in the Funnel Beaker period. The additional time required compared with the time required for axes where these negatives were preserved must have been considerable.

6.1 Landscapes of Stone: Work Effort Relating to the Construction of the Megalithic Tombs

Although there are a large number of non-megalithic and megalithic monumental graves within the study area (n = 1,008), it was only possible to calculate the workload for 97 (9.6%) of them. The size of the sample is the result of the predominantly very poor preservation of the graves, which, in turn, is the result of various factors, including the location of many graves on modern farmland and the historical use of the stones as building material (cf. Behrens & Hüser, 2021; Midgley, 2008, p. 28).

6.1.1 Elbe–Weser Triangle

In the Elbe–Weser triangle, the workload could be calculated for 51 of a total of 379 graves, which corresponds to a comparatively high proportion of 13.5%. The workload shows a continuous increase with each subsequent time slice and an increase in the dispersion of the values (Figure 10a). It must be mentioned that no grave site can be clearly attributed only to the EN. Therefore, the work-expenditure calculations start with monuments associated with the EN–MN transition. Of these, 29 graves are great dolmens (n = 4), extended dolmens (n = 12), or dolmens of an indeterminate type (n = 13). In almost half of these cases, either no mound or kerb have ever been build, are preserved, or the preserved mound or kerb has not been documented. In a few cases (n = 4), round barrows or evidence of them were found, and in half of these cases (n = 2) a kerb was found as well. In nine other cases, the grave was covered by a long mound, which in almost all cases (n = 8) was provided with a kerb. Due to this latter architectural feature, the grave sites show a rather wide dispersion in terms of the amount of work associated with them, ranging from around 5,000 to more than 15,000 person-hours. The passage graves, which follow the dolmens and date to the MN, make up a large part of the data set, with 22 monuments. The minimum value documented in this context, 5,029 person-hours, is even lower than that of the extended dolmens and great dolmens. However, the maximum value, of 36,551 person-hours, is significantly higher. In clear contrast to the dolmens, for the passage graves, mound constructions are documented or preserved in only a few cases (n = 7). Five of them are round barrows (two of which have kerbs) and two of them are long barrows. For both long barrows, a kerb has been documented. This shows that the amount of work invested in the burial chambers themselves probably increased greatly over the course of the MN. The spatial inverse distance weighting (IDW) interpolation^[4] of the labour input (Figure 11) shows a clear spatial focus in the southwest of this study region. Although the spatial distribution of the graves is quite even across this study region, the higher-effort graves (around 10,000 person-hours) are found mainly in the northwest and the southwest. In the east of the Elbe–Weser triangle, on the other hand, where there is also a larger accumulation of burial sites suitable for the calculations, the values are lower, at around 5,000 person-hours.

Figure 10

Boxplots of the calculated time investments in the megalithic graves of the regions investigated: (a) Elbe–Weser triangle, (b) Westmecklenburg, (c) Rügen.

Figure 11

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the megalithic graves in the Elbe–Weser triangle.

6.1.2 Westmecklenburg

For what is now Westmecklenburg, it was possible to carry out work-effort calculations for 26 of the 216 (12%) megalithic graves. The significantly lower density of Funnel Beaker period graves compared with the other two regions in our study becomes very clear when we look at the IDW interpolation mapping (Figure 12; Behrens & Darvill, 2021). It is striking here that many of the grave sites considered come from two concentrations; these include the grave sites of Barendorf and Naschendorf (Schuldt, 1970a,b,c,d) and those of Domsühl and Mankmoos (Hollnagel, 1966; Schuldt, 1969a,b,c). Both concentrations are located in the northern part of the study region, not directly near the coast but inland, within an area that has a better soil quality than the adjoining areas to the south (Ratzke & Mohr, 2005, p. 33). South of the two concentrations, the amount of work could only be calculated for a few of the monuments, and only a small amount of hours was necessary for these monuments. What is interesting about both concentrations in the northern area of Westmecklenburg is that they include graves that were built very elaborately as well graves that were built with little effort, so that the two extremes can be seen very clearly here. It can be assumed that the good preservation of the concentration of graves at Barendorf and Naschendorf is due to them being located within a forested area (Schirren, 1997, pp. 147–149). Comparative finds from Denmark show that the construction of megalithic graves in clusters was certainly a common practice (Gebauer, 2014, p. 103; 2020, p. 222) and that an internal dynamic of the construction of the graves is often visible (Mischka, 2011, 2022).

Figure 12

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the megalithic graves in Westmecklenburg.

The distribution per time slice of graves that are suitable for the work-effort calculations is quite even (Figure 10b). The EN graves comprise five small dolmens and one chamberless long barrow, EN–MN graves comprise nine extended dolmens or great dolmens and three indeterminate dolmens, and the MN graves, which number eight, are all passage graves. The variability in grave types is thereby much higher than in the other two regions used as case studies here.

The individual labour input values for the EN megalithic graves show a wide distribution, varying between 3,478 and 35,877 person-hours, with a median value that, at ca. 10,000 person-hours, is only slightly higher than the median of the EN–MN graves, which have a median value of ca. 8,000 ph. The factor that contributed to the highest value, an outlier of 35,877 person-hours, is the presence of a kerb around the burial mound, which is lacking in the other five EN graves. The graves of the EN–MN transition have not only a lower median value but also a narrower distribution of values. The values range from 2,624 to 19,403 person-hours, with a stronger weighting in the low to middle range of the value distribution, which is less influenced by outliers than it was in the EN and the MN. There is, however, a clear change at the beginning of the MN, with the construction of the passage graves. In direct comparison with the graves of the earlier time slices, the working time invested in these graves begins in the higher range of the value distribution (8,515 person-hours), but for the most part lies between 20,000 and 35,000 person-hours, with a median of around 27,000 person-hours. One outlier in this dataset peaks has a value of 77,736 person-hours. The passage graves show a wider dispersion of the recorded values and these are, overall, elevated compared with the graves built during the EN and the EN–MN transition.

6.1.3 Rügen

Finally, on the island of Rügen, only a very small proportion of the known or presumed Funnel Beaker period graves (n = 413) could be used in our calculations (n = 20; 4.8%). The distribution of these is clearly concentrated in the northern and eastern areas of the island and includes only graves that can be classified as EN–MN (Figure 10 and 13): 1 passage grave and 20 dolmens, of which 16 are great dolmens and 4 are indeterminate dolmens. Burial sites with a high to very high determined labour input are distributed over the entire area, including in the vicinity of sites with a low to medium labour input. This results in a spatially very heterogeneous picture, which shows only a slight concentration of grave sites in the south-eastern area of Rügen. A look at the distribution of values per time slice paints a picture that is again very clearly different from that of Westmecklenburg (Figure 10c). It is striking that only one passage grave has been documented for Rügen so far; the vast majority of the data set (n = 19) consists of great dolmens, which are here placed in the EN–MN transition. The amount of work involved in the construction of these tombs shows a very wide distribution, ranging from only 376 to 58,506 person-hours, and a median close to 12,000 ph. The range for the MN tombs is much smaller, with values between 5,851 and 28,163 person-hours, and a median close to 9,000 ph. This decrease in the median value and the lower range of time investment is connected in part with the small number of tombs that can clearly be attributed to this phase. What is surprising is the small size and thus the low labour input of the passage grave of Nipmerow (5,851 person-hours), which can only be described as a rather modest grave complex in comparison with the dolmen complexes.

Figure 13

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the megalithic graves on the island of Rügen.

6.2 Flint Axe Heads from Depositions: Representations of Invested Time

The manufacturing steps necessary for the production of flint axe heads took different amounts of time, which can only be reconstructed today on the basis of archaeological experiments (Hansen & Madsen, 1983, pp. 50–51; Hein & Lund, 2021, p. 134; Olausson, 1983), even though these values are always to be understood as averaged and idealised, in that they disregard any differences, mentioned above, regarding the materials used and the level of experience of the knapper. Although the experimental data are still insufficient due to the paucity of published experiments, trends in the amount of time that would have been required for flint axe head production can be read from those experiments that have been published. In this way, an approximation of the time spent working on the production of the deposited axe heads can be obtained. Differences in the amount of grinding of the different types of axe heads deposited during the Funnel Beaker period have the greatest influence on the time-expenditure calculation, whereas type differences have less of an effect on the time spent knapping a pre-form in preparation for grinding. Across all types, in general, this work step of manufacturing the preform accounted for a significantly smaller time share compared with grinding. The required production time depended above all on the length of the axe head. For example, two person-hours were needed to create a 20 cm-long pre-work of a thin-butted flint axe head and 15 person-hours to complete its all-over grinding. In the case of a 30 cm-long axe head, it took 3 hours to produce the pre-work ready for grinding, but already 30 person-hours to complete the grinding (Müller, in press). The calculations can be used to compare the depositions based on the time invested in the production of the axe heads, in a general way, as an alternative to comparing them based on the number of objects. In doing so, we see, for example, that for a deposition with eight unground, approximately 20 cm-long axe heads, considerably less work time was accumulated than for a deposition with only one all-over ground 30 cm-long axe head. In addition, the calculations can be used to compare the time investment for in the production of the axe heads and the time accumulated in the construction of the megalithic structures for different regions. However, only a two-part time phase distinction will be possible for the axe head depositions, which were made on the basis of the periods of use of thin-butted (EN Ib–MN II) and thick-butted flint axe heads (MN III–MN V). In addition to the identified depositions, single finds of flint axe heads with a length of more than 20 cm, for which a settlement or burial context could be reliably excluded, were also included in the investigations. Some of these finds are suspected to belong to hoards that, due to various reasons, could only be partially recovered, whereas others are suspected to be single-object depositions.

A total of 44 Funnel Beaker period depositions with flint axe heads and 21 single finds of flint axe heads with a length of at least 20 cm are present in the three study areas. Calculation of the manufacturing time required was possible for a total of 28 of the depositions (65%) and 17 of the single finds (81%). For the finds that could not be evaluated, information on the type, length or surface treatment of the axe heads was missing. All hoards for which a calculation on at least one axe head could be performed (n = 11) were included, even if the calculation was not possible for all the axe heads of the same find complex because, for example, not all axe heads of a deposition ended up in a collection or objects were lost after their arrival in a collection, before they had been comprehensively described or measured. Furthermore, the calculations also included mixed depositions that contained axe heads as well as other objects (no workload calculation was carried out for the other objects).

6.2.1 Elbe–Weser Triangle

In the Elbe–Weser triangle, there are two single finds of flint axe heads and six hoards for the time slice EN I–MN II (Figure 14) and three single finds and four hoards for the time slice MN III–MN V (Figure 15). The boxplot diagrams of the respective time slices (Figure 16) are similar to each other, but the later phase shows a slight tendency towards a higher number of person-hours invested. The highest time investment, of 91 person-hours, and at the same time the highest of all three regions in total, is shown by the Wingst hoard (see Figure 4), from the early time slice, from the north-east of the district of Cuxhaven. Only four of the seven thin-butted axe heads of this hoard, which has a time investment that is above average for the Funnel Beaker period, were completely ground; the other three were unground. In this study area, 60% of the single finds and hoards show time an investment of less than 15 person-hours. A high time value, of 20 person-hours, is accounted for by the single find of a thick-butted flint axe head of 27.4 cm length. A total of five hoards represent an accumulated investment of more than 15 person-hours, which is similar to Westmecklenburg (see below) and less typical of the Elbe–Weser triangle. Most hoards and single finds of this region occur during the Funnel Beaker period, in the Cuxhaven area, while in the time slice MN III–MN V, some finds occur farther south of this concentration. Far away from all other depositions was the hoard from Fischerhude, in the district of Verden, but the fact that it is comprised of a thin-butted and a thick-butted flint axe head, which belong to different time periods, makes us question the coherence of the ensemble.

Figure 14

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the depositions in the Elbe–Weser triangle for the time slice EN I–MN II.

Figure 15

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the depositions in the Elbe–Weser triangle for the time slice MN II–MN V.

Figure 16

Boxplots of the calculated time investments in the axe head depositions of the regions investigated, separated by time slice.

6.2.2 Westmecklenburg

In Westmecklenburg, two single finds and four hoards were available for evaluation for the time slice EN I–MN II (Figure 17), and only one single find and two hoards for the time slice MN III–MN V (Figure 18). The ensembles of the later time slice represent more invested time (cf. Figure 16), but because there are few hoards in total for this slice, just one of these (Seehof), with a number of hours of 50, served to raise the average considerably. It consisted of three thick-butted axe heads and one chisel head. With the exception of one of the axe heads, all of the objects are lost today; a higher time accumulation of this deposition can therefore be assumed.

Figure 17

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the depositions in Westmecklenburg for the time slice EN I–MN II.

Figure 18

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the depositions in Westmecklenburg for the time slice MN III–MN V.

Five of the six hoards, have an accumulated time of more than 15 h, which distinguishes them from the hoards from Rügen (see below). The hoards of the time slice EN I–MN II do not exceed a net time of 24 h. In the spatial distribution, regional differences are evident. However, their significance should not be overestimated, due to the small number of finds from the late period. The above-mentioned deposition with the highest time accumulation lies far away from the other sites.

6.2.3 Rügen

For the island of Rügen, three single finds and six hoards could be included for the time slice EN I–MN II (Figure 19) and six single finds and six hoards for the time slice MN III–MN V (Figure 20). The boxplot diagrams of the two time slices (Figure 16) show that depositions of flint axe heads with time investments of between 1 and 49 person-hours are present on Rügen. On average, slightly more time was invested in the depositions of time slice MN III–MN V than in those of time slice EN I–MN II. Depositions with a time investment of more than 40 person-hours are the exception in both time slices and are located in the early phase on the Wittow peninsula and in the late phase on the Mönchgut peninsula. While the hoard from Bohlendorf, on the Wittow peninsula, owes its high time values mainly to a completely ground thin-butted axe head more than 32 cm long (the other, similarly long axe head of the hoard is unground), the hoard from Mariendorf, on the Mönchgut peninsula, had five, but smaller, thick-butted flint axe heads. The time investment of most depositions and single finds of the entire Funnel Beaker period of Rügen was, on average, less than 15 person-hours. We already noted above that these two time slices show different distributions and concentrations of depositions and single finds.

Figure 19

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the depositions on Rügen for the time slice EN I–MN II.

Figure 20

IDW interpolation of the work-expenditure calculations for the depositions on Rügen for the time slice MN III–MN V.

7.1 Megaliths vs Axe Head Depositions Through Time

With regard to the social meaning and importance of megalithic graves, the question arises whether megalithic grave building practices are a standardised and uniform or, instead, a differentiated tradition. Perhaps, the concept of an impulse, which is taken up by individual communities to a certain extent and at a certain time, is the most suitable concept for answering this question. Differences in the execution of this shared impulse are noteworthy, since the areas considered here are not far apart geographically and, in the case of Westmecklenburg and Rügen, even belong to the same designated subgroup of the TRB (TRB North Group; cf. Müller, 2019, p. 38).

The same kind of shared impulses can be assumed for the depositions. In comparison with southern Scandinavia, especially in the north of Germany, we see local interpretations of the idea of deposition practices. However, there was less variety in the depositions compared with the megalithic graves. The most widespread form of deposition in the Funnel Beaker area, encompassing most of the sites, consisted of depositions of flint axe heads. If they were not available, they could be replaced, usually by a larger number of other stone objects (Müller, in press). All in all, the regulations governing depositions remained very restricted for many centuries. It can be assumed that the general idea of making these depositions originated from an external impulse, namely the Neolithic groups that migrated to northern Europe during the initial phase of the TRB (Müller, 2023; also Sørensen, 2014).

For the megalithic tombs, the most chronologically diverse picture is found in Westmecklenburg. In the northwestern part of this study sub-area, mainly small and extended dolmens were erected, although these occur in larger cemeteries. In the southwest, mainly chamberless long barrows occur, which, even though they are non-megalithic, evidently represent a particularly large investment in person-hours, already in the EN. In the southeast, on the other hand, many smaller cemeteries occur, mostly built on individual moraine ridges or slopes. All types of graves are found here, from small dolmens to passage graves, with the passage graves being exceptionally elaborate constructions. In this study sub-area, we see an early and very intensive absorption of the impulse “monumental burial construction,” which had a significant influence on the way communities formed diverse megalithic cemeteries. Interestingly, the distribution of depositions in the EN correlates with the early dolmen, which occurs in the northwestern area of Westmecklenburg, while no depositions are known so far from the chamberless long barrow area in the southwestern area. The picture in the Elbe–Weser triangle is completely different; here, no clear EN impulse can be detected in the construction of graves, at least not in the form of small dolmen or non-megalithic long barrows. The depositions correlate with the distribution area of megalithic tombs with extended and polygonal chambers. One exception here is the elaborate hoard of Wingst, as here the erection of megalithic graves started sometime after the first depositions.

During the EN–MN transition, a growing variability of the grave types can be grasped, therefore apparently a more individualised pattern of the construction processes appeared. For the Elbe–Weser triangle, only the southwest of the working area stands out regarding the work expenditure. Here, very elaborate and labour-intensive grave constructions can be found, and the dynamic impulses of the EN and MN that can be detected in Westmecklenburg through the massive investment of labour in the construction of the grave complexes are only paralleled in the MN.

The island of Rügen presents yet another different picture of the internal dynamics of megalithic grave construction. These dynamics are partly predetermined by the natural environment, which influences in particular the concentration of megalithic graves, which are in found the east and south of the island. In the east of the island, mainly great dolmen were erected, which represent the most elaborate type of dolmen. In contrast to this, there are hardly any graves present in the north, on the Wittow peninsula, although those that are present represent a high labour input. In the south, on the other hand, there are plenty of graves, but they were built quite uniformly and show hardly any differentiation, even in the amount of work involved. Here, specific spatial dynamics can be inferred, which seem to indicate either a pattern highlighting individual large graves or a pattern highlighting a high number of small graves.

Once again, the special role of external constructions (mounds and kerbs) should be pointed out. These could represent a second wave of construction activities at already existing grave complexes, and the amount of work involved could be considerable. Even though the burial chambers generally represent by far the most labour-intensive part of the construction process, a significantly later erection or extension of mounds, and especially of a kerb, would cause a substantial difference in the effort calculations. Subsequent alterations could have reduced the necessity for a large group to be involved in the tomb construction process. However, since, as mentioned, the burial chambers accounted for the bulk of the work, the majority of the work had to be done within a short time. If we were to shift the assignment of the tomb complex to the time period that coincides with these subsequent alterations, this would likely not result in any shifts in the assignment to time slices, because the time slices are broad.

Although, in general, a strong decline in the depositions of stone tools can be observed during the MN in the entire Funnel Beaker area (Müller, in press), this decline was not observed in the regions of Rügen and the Elbe–Weser triangle. In addition, it was found that the average accumulated time spent on the depositions exceeds that of the early Funnel Beaker time. More importantly, the increased time spent in the late phase of the TRB parallels the calculations presented here of the person-hours spent on the megalithic graves in these regions, with the exception of Rügen. As far as the depositions are concerned, developments in the north of Germany, represented by the selected study sub-areas, differ from developments in the southern Scandinavian core zone of the Funnel Beaker area, where most of the axe head depositions show a high accumulation of invested production time during the EN and beginning of the MN. Nevertheless, even during the late Funnel Beaker period (3000–2800 BCE) exceptional depositions were present, as the hoard of Knud (southern Denmark) shows, with its almost one hundred objects, of which 91 are flint axe heads and axe head pre-works (Nielsen, 1979, p. 38, no. 13). Coinciding with the general decline in the number of depositions in the late MN, there is an emergence of pottery depositions placed directly in front of megalithic graves in the early MN, adding a new aspect to the phenomenon of depositions. Although there is evidence for pottery depositions in front of what is termed the façade of EN non-megalithic long barrows (Madsen, 1979; Müller, in press), this specific deposition practice takes on completely new dimensions with the passage graves, where up to several hundred pottery vessels were placed in front of and near the grave’s entrances, very probably over a period of several decades (i.a. Ebbesen, 2011; Madsen, 2019; Müller, in press; Wunderlich, 2014). The strict separation of burial spaces and deposition spaces that existed during the EN is softened or shifted with the beginning of the MN. Intentionally destroyed stone implements were being deposited at the kerbstones of the megalithic graves in parallel with the pottery depositions (Ebbesen, 1975, pp. 162–166). The location of depositions with stone implements was shifted to stone piles directly in front of the megalithic sites from MN III onwards, while the pottery depositions declined strongly (Ebbesen, 2008; Müller, in press; Strömberg, 1968). A large proportion of both kinds of deposition events has so far remained undiscovered due to a lack of investigation of the areas in front of the megalithic tombs, but we can nevertheless discern a change in depositional practice dynamics in the course of the MN – a change that also involved an increase in time investment and a shift in the location of the external depositions.

If we compare the IDW interpolations of the depositions with those of the megalithic graves, we see a general pattern of distribution and work expenditure, but we also see differences within that general pattern. The centres of high time investment in these two categories of features rarely coincide. In the Elbe–Weser triangle, the focus of the highest time investment for the depositions is in the northeast and south, that is, east of the area of the triangle for which the highest labour input for graves was calculated (Figures 11, 15, and 16). In Westmecklenburg and on Rügen, the distribution of the graves and the depositions with the highest time investment is also not congruent, with the exception of the Wittow peninsula, in the north of Rügen (Figures 12, 17, and 18 for Westmecklenburg and 13, 19 and 20 for Rügen). Even if, as described at the beginning, most of the depositions with axe heads were deposited away from graves and settlements (external depositions), this alone cannot serve to explain the difference in distribution. In other words, very time-intensive depositions are not necessarily linked to the regions with the greatest manpower invested in megaliths, and thus, other dynamics must be behind the orchestration of these deposits.

Last but not least, at the EN–MN transition, we see a shift in work expenditure from coastal to inland sites in the distribution of both megalithic monuments (Westmecklenburg and Elbe–Weser Triangle) and hoards (all regions) for the investigated Funnel Beaker sub-areas. For Rügen, this process has also been observed for settlement sites (Behrens, 2020) and may be connected to new ways of economic exploitation (Terberger, Burger, Lüth, Müller, & Piezonka, 2018), an argument that has also been made for, i.a., the Danish island of Sjælland (Zealand; Schülke, 2008).

7.2 Social Aspects

The cemeteries documented in Westmecklenburg play an essential role in our understanding of the social significance of the burial sites. The clusters of graves show use over what was probably several centuries, which indicates that the same place was visited again and again. “Use” in this context means not only the expansion of and interaction with the cemetery, but also the alteration and expansion of individual graves, as well as presumably other activities, such as the deposition of pottery.

The dynamics observable in these clusters (Wunderlich, Hinz, & Müller, 2019, p. 303f.) are helpful in interpreting the monuments. As is the case in other regions (Gebauer, 2020), these clusters form monumental cemeteries, the burial capacity of whose megalithic graves far exceeds the needs and means of a single, small settlement community. We may therefore assume that these clusters of graves had a central function for several surrounding settlements or farmsteads. Differences in the size of the grave mounds and burial chambers, as well as in the number of graves per cluster, indicate that competition and social signalling played a part in addition to cooperation (Wunderlich, Hinz, & Müller, 2019, p. 303f.). Thus, a dualistic role of megalithic graves for a given community emerges, that of a place of social cohesion, which was created and maintained during the building process itself and the subsequent (presumably) regular gatherings, and that of a space of socio-political practices that included competitive behaviour. A similar dualism can be observed for the great dolmens in the south of Rügen, which were in use through to the end of the Funnel Beaker period (Behrens & Reichler, 2012; Lorenz, 2018). Thus, the deposition sites, which were created along the margins of the settled area, could have served as places of remembrance even if the hoards were no longer visible. The quantity of deposited objects, which averaged between two and four for the axe heads and only rarely exceeded the quantity that would be expected for meeting the needs of a Neolithic household, does not initially suggest that a large number of people were involved in the deposition events. Additionally, in the case of the longest axe heads, it can be assumed that only a few people from the respective communities even had the skill and experience to make them.

Nevertheless, the Funnel Beaker period depositions can only be understood as a collective phenomenon. The widespread distribution of the depositions can lead to the conclusion that comparable ideas existed throughout Funnel Beaker society. In this context, the repeated acts of deposition, as well as the erection of monumental graves, had a reinforcing effect on group cohesion and were perhaps understood by the group members as an enacted and comprehensible expression of these common ideas. It is a prerequisite for collective memory that feelings and ideas are held in common in the consciousness of the entire community (Halbwachs, 1991, p. 11), even if only a few people were involved in the act of the deposition. Repeated reports by the participants can bring events into the collective memory of group members who were not personally involved in them (Gladigow, 1984, p. 39; Halbwachs, 1991, pp. 35–36). In this way, deposition sites become collective memory sites whose existence and significance can be passed down through the generations through oral narratives.

The question of whether megalithic graves involved collective construction can ultimately only be answered by comparing them with known settlement sites. The Oldenburg-Dannau area settlement known as LA 77 (Brozio, 2016), which dates to MN Ib–MN III/IV (3270–2990 calBCE), is located near the study sub-areas we have considered here (Brozio, 2016, pp. 104–109). Estimates of the original settlement size suggest that between two and five houses can be assumed to have been in use simultaneously in MN Ib, which is the phase of interest here. This number of houses can be translated very roughly to 10–100 residents, of whom about 60% (i.e. minus children, old people and sick people) can be considered fully able to work.^[5] Assuming a high degree of freely available time (8–10 hours per day), this means, considering the working time of about 2,000–3,000 person-hours for small graves, that the construction of small graves could have been completed in the course of a week for a MN settlement community. For the large burial sites, with their working time of 30,000–50,000 person-hours, which were primarily erected during the MN, grave construction would have taken several months even with the maximum assumed settlement size, provided no other activities were taking place during this time.

Of course, these numbers are only estimations, but they are intended to show that the assumption that a burial complex of the kind discussed above was built by a single hamlet (which were the common type of Funnel Beaker–period settlements during the EN) does not necessarily seem reasonable. It seems much more plausible that different houses and settlement communities would have cooperated in their construction, which would be reflected not only in the size of cemeteries but also in the ritual acts carried out at the graves.

Here, we come back to the potential role of cattle for transportation. As stated above, there is a clear connection between cattle and megalithic monuments, which are archaeologically documented. The question of whether animals were used for the transportation of stones cannot be answered right now, although their use for at least the transport of smaller stones seems reasonable. As we show above, the working step involving the highest amount of person-hours is dragging the boulders to the construction site. This step can be managed by human power alone with the help of a sledge, which might prove particularly useful in forested areas, due to its flexibility. Although a reduction of work effort might be possible with the use of cattle, it is doubtful that it would have completely obviated the need for a collective effort by humans – if such obviation was even intended.

Interpreted in this way, the collective effort both of deposition practices and of megalith building was a means to actively shape landscapes and create centres of social gathering – and to maintain these centres through constant interaction and change. This is reflected in a very specific way of using and understanding space documented in Funnel Beaker contexts (for example, for the island of Rügen) and a network of settlement sites, burial sites with megalithic tombs, and axe head depositions. When talking about the perception and use of space in Funnel Beaker contexts, we therefore have to think in terms of a highly differentiated landscape that was (re)created not only by the intensifying agricultural activities and by the settlements themselves, but also by an increasing network of cemeteries, of burials, and of locations that were used for deposition practices. All these aspects are of course interrelated. It is no coincidence that we see an intensification of land clearance for agricultural activity at the same time as we see an increase in the number and size of megalithic monuments. We may also imagine that the cooperation involved in the erection of monuments was important in the framework of the adoption and intensification of farming, as this cooperation facilitated the maintenance of cohesion and social security. A certain degree of competition should not be ruled out; indeed, competition may have been part of the dynamic described above. Of equal importance in the cooperative framework, especially in the sense of a common cosmology, will have been areas and locations that were designated for depositions, above all of axe heads, as these woodworking tools were connected to such factors as skill and knowledge, as well as to the economic sphere. While we today may view these aspects as more or less independent, we should always remember that all these differently used places were part of Neolithic people’s daily life, and of a dynamic that, in its totality, may be seen as the process of humans dwelling within their surroundings.