The Funnel Beaker Culture in action: Early and Middle Neolithic monumentality in Southwestern Scania, Sweden (4000–3000 cal BC)

Full text

Journal of Neolithic Archaeology
j-n-a.org
61
JNA 24/2022
Article history:
Received 19 October 2021
Reviewed 22 November 2021
Published 25 October 2022
Keywords: Early and Middle Neolithic,
Southwest Scania, long barrows, free-
standing façades, megaliths, settlements
Cite as: Magnus Andersson, Magnus
Artursson, Kristian Brink: The Funnel
Beaker Culture in action: Early and Middle
Neolithic monumentality in Southwestern
Scania, Sweden (4000–3000 cal BC)
JNA 24, 2022, 61 – 97 [doi 10.12766/jna.2022.4]
Authors´ addresses:
Magnus Andersson
Magnus.Andersson@Arkeologerna.com
(Swedish National Historical Museums)
Magnus Artursson
Magnus.artursson@gu.se
(Department of Historical Studies,
University of Gothenburg)
Kristian Brink
Kristian.brink@sydsvenskarkeologi.se
(Sydsvensk Arkeologi AB)
25 October 2022
doi 10.12766/jna.2022.4
CC-BY 4 .0
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action: Early and
Middle Neolithic monumentality in Southwestern
Scania, Sweden (4000–3000 cal BC)
Magnus Andersson, Magnus Artursson, Kristian Brink
Abstract
One of the most discussed issues in European archaeology is the signi-
cance and context of monumentality and the construction of long barrows
and megaliths in the Neolithic. The construction of monuments in Neolithic
Europe can, due to their often signicant size and complexity, be interpret-
ed as signs of collective building eorts, but the social and political back-
ground may vary from more egalitarian to highly stratied societies. Dur-
ing the last 20 years of surveys and archaeological excavations in southwest
Scania, Sweden, new archaeological results have been produced, reveal-
ing many hitherto unknown settlements, central places for feasting, long
barrows, megaliths, free-standing façades and other types of monumen-
tal constructions. This has disclosed a much more complex picture of the
Early Neolithic (4000–3300 cal BC) Funnel Beaker Culture societies in the re-
gion. Large-scale excavations have documented a hierarchy of monumen-
tal places in Early Neolithic southern Scandinavia, probably reecting dif-
ferent uses of monuments, mirroring a social hierarchy in polities. Recently,
another central place has been excavated at Flackarp, south of Lund, Swe-
den, containing at least nine dolmens and free-standing façades, further
supporting this hypothesis.
Introduction
In studies of the European Neolithic, the signicance and context of monu-
mentality and the construction of long barrows and megaliths have played
a major role for a long time (Schulz Paulsson 2017). Research has concen-
trated on topics concerning the organisation of societies involved in mon-
ument building and the socioeconomic mechanisms behind this phenom-
enon. It is highly likely that the construction of monuments can be seen as
the material expression of social organisation and political structure (Arturs-
son et al. 2016; Andersson/Artursson 2020). Based on ethnographic studies,
the Neolithic monuments have often been seen as the outcome of com-
plex and competitive feasting and economic inequality (Hayden 2014; 2018),
though at the same time as signs of “recursive relations of mutual aid and
solidarity and wide networks of social relatedness and kinship” (Wunder-
lich 2020, 139).
Monuments in Neolithic Europe can, due to their often signicant size
and complexity, be interpreted as signs of collective building eorts, but
the social and political background may have varied from more egalitarian
to highly stratied societies. Thus, the monuments in themselves do not in-
dicate a pronounced hierarchical economic and social structure. Instead, to
JNA

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
62
JNA 24/2022
get a fuller picture of the social structure in monument building societies, a
wider and more detailed study of dierent factors has to be made (Søren-
sen 2014; 2015; 2016; 2020; Andersson/Artursson 2020; Artursson et al. 2016;
Furholt et al. 2019).
In political economy models, monumentalisation in Neolithic Europe can
be interpreted as attempts by aspiring leaders to centralise social, political
and economic power. According to this approach, control of economic sur-
plus and feasting at central gathering and burial places, and the construc-
tion of dierent kinds of monuments, was used by “aggrandisers” to take
control of polities (Hayden 1995; 2014; Earle 2002). However, this top-down
approach has been criticised as being too one-sided and simplied, and ar-
guments have been produced that emphasise the importance of integrat-
ing top-down and bottom-up perspectives on the construction of power.
According to some researchers, “an array of interacting agents, manoeu-
vring within the structure of developing and established political econo-
mies, represents diverse interests and draws upon multiple sources of pow-
er at a variety of social scales” (Furholt et al. 2019, 157). This argument can
be considered important, as countervailing forces – power and resistance –
probably interplayed at dierent levels in an intricate way in the process of
creating more or less stratied polities in Neolithic Europe.
According to B. Hayden (2014; 2018), based on historic and ethnograph-
ic studies, a close connection exists between feasting, monument building,
import or production and the circulation of prestige goods, oerings and
sacrices and the establishment and management of exclusive social insti-
tutions, so called “secret societies”. The denition of the concept “secret so-
ciety” is disputed, but generally it relies on the degree to which a group or
organisation insists on secrecy. It usually involves the retention and trans-
mission of secret knowledge as well as the denial of membership or knowl-
edge of the group. In many cases, the building of monuments is connected
to the striving of individuals for membership in secret societies in the form
of dierent feasting events in order to obtain formalised merits to rise in
social and ritual position. Often, membership in secret societies demands
a number of “feasts of merit” stretching over a considerable time period.
Moreover, the material cost and investment can be enormous, sometimes
including personal sacrices in the form of oerings of close relatives, e. g.
in some instances the rstborn son (Hayden 2018, 339). Critically important
to Hayden’s model is that secret societies are used to control knowledge
concerning rituals, myths and religion with resulting social stratication.
Such secret knowledge would become manifest both in the special con-
structions in central places, burials and the ceremonies and paraphernalia
of these secret societies.
In this context, it is interesting to note the apparent contradiction be-
tween the notion of secrecy and covert rituals in “secret societies”, on the
one hand, and the emphasis on ostentation, displays and large-scale feast-
ing in Funnel Beaker Culture (FBC) societies on the other. If our interpreta-
tion is correct, public displays and rituals seem to have been combined with
concealed actions in small, restricted groups with exclusive rights and privi-
leges. Thus, in some sense it is not so much a question of total secrecy, as of
restricted access to membership in certain groups where the essential ide-
ological, religious and ritual secrets have been presented and performed.
Interestingly, all of the above mentioned factors typical for secret socie-
ties can be identied in the Scandinavian FBC:
• Ritual feasting and large-scale social gatherings.
• Construction of monumental graves and other ritually specialized
features.
• Import or production and distribution of dierent kinds of prestige goods
like axes of unusual size or made in exclusive stone materials, and copper
axes and other copper items.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
63
JNA 24/2022
• Oerings and sacrices of axes, ceramics, animals and humans in wet
lands and in some cases on dry land.
This could indicate that “secret societies” played an important role in the
transformation of polities, and that they were used to manipulate and to
take control of political power and institutions.
Of course, there are alternative models that could explain the presence of
the above-mentioned factors. Several models presented earlier have em-
phasised the importance of a more collective ideology and less hierarchical
organisation in FBC societies. The question is then if all these factors could
also be present in other, more egalitarian forms of societies, i. e., are they ex-
clusive to hierarchical societies or are they a more generally occurring phe-
nomena in trans-egalitarian societies? It is of course hard to give a denite
answer to this question, but it is probably unlikely that all factors would be
present if the FBC societies had been more or less egalitarian. Thus, accord-
ing to our view, the agreement of characteristics of “secret societies” pre-
sented by Hayden (2018) and the fundamental traits of FBC polities are too
great to be a coincidence.
Therefore, to summarise, “secret societies” were probably an important
part of the strategies of aggrandisers in FBC societies to control and manipu-
late social and political power. In trans-egalitarian societies, as the Early Neo-
lithic FBC in Scandinavia could be characterised, a dynamic admixture of so-
cial, political and ritual instruments seems to have special importance to es-
tablish new institutions and to convert social bonds and relationships. Both
open and hidden agendas are in operation and it is often hard to identify
the true meaning and importance of actions and symbols, as this is an in-
herent trait in institutions like “secret societies”. They are also exclusive in
nature, making them into powerful tools to establish stratied polities, in
many cases disguised behind deceptive symbols and rituals of communi-
ty and equality.
The chronology of long barrows and megaliths in Scandinavia
It is often problematic to get a correct 14C-dating of long barrows and mega-
liths, much due to their often complicated construction and long life-cycle,
from their erection and usage to their nal destruction. Materials have been
mixed over thousands of years when the monuments have gone through
changes in construction and use. When an archaeological excavation of the
destroyed and ploughed-out monuments is nally made, the mix of materi-
als can be hard to entangle (Andersson et al. 2016).
Usually, the introduction of long barrows in Scandinavia is set to ca.
3800 cal BC, although there are some earlier 14C-dates within the time span
4000–3800 cal BC (Andersson et al. 2016; Sørensen 2020). The type of mega-
liths that follows, dolmens, are often usually considered to have been in-
troduced at ca. 3500 cal BC. Accordingly, dolmens were built from ca.
3500 cal BC onwards for ca. 300–400 years in southern Scandinavia (for a
discussion see Sjögren 2011; Schulz Paulsson 2017; Blank 2021), which also
sets the timeframe for the Scania dolmens. However, there are some indi-
cations of dolmens that were already built between 3600 and 3500 cal BC
in southern Scandinavia, but this has not been certied yet (Andersson et
al. 2016, 28–38; 54; 79; Brink 2016; Schulz Paulsson et al. 2016). Finally, pas-
sage graves have traditionally been considered the latest type of Early
and Middle Neolithic burial monuments. Their introduction is-dated to ca.
3300 cal BC (Sjögren 2011; Schulz Paulsson 2017).
A survey of the 14C-dates of the excavated Early and Middle Neolithic mo-
numents in southwestern and western Scania (Andersson et al. 2016) shows
that there is a wide time range for the erection, usage and nal destruction

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
64
JNA 24/2022
of dierent types of monuments, and it is often hard to get a good date for
the original planning and construction of an individual monument. The mix
of materials is generally too big and the range of 14C-dates is usually con-
siderable, from the Early Neolithic to modern times. The monuments have
often been reused and rearranged, and most of them have nally been
completely torn down, destroyed and ploughed out. A few of the excavat-
ed Early and Middle Neolithic monuments in southwestern and western
Scania have quite early 14C-dates, placing the presumed date for the erec-
tion of some of the long-barrows and megaliths 100–200 years earlier than
what is generally accepted (Sjögren 2011; Schulz Paulsson 2017). Some of
these dates can be explained as inltrations and redepositions of materi-
al from earlier deposits and activities in the area (Table 1). The question is
how well-established the chronology of Early and Middle Neolithic monu-
ments in Scandinavia really is? Is it possible that the introduction of the dif-
ferent types of monuments in reality took place 100–200 years earlier than
presumed?
To sum up, long barrows and megaliths are notoriously hard to date us-
ing 14C-analysis as they are complex constructions, often erected in areas
that were previously used for other purposes. Often, the ll in the covering
mounds contains material from older settlements and activity areas, and in
some cases, the monuments even cover earlier houses, huts, hearths and
pits. This, of course, produces a lot of problems with secondarily deposit-
ed nd material and organic remains such as charred plants and seeds. Fur-
thermore, the tearing down of monuments and the destruction of individ-
ual features have produced a multitude of inltrations and deposits of later
materials, obstructing the correct dating of the time of construction. The re-
mains of the destroyed monuments excavated in western and southwest-
ern Scania, where mostly just stone-packings and imprints of the standing
stones are preserved, are not ideal for collecting suitable samples for 14 C-
analysis. Almost no reliable, locked contexts are available, which makes the
dating of the time of construction hard to determine (cf. Schulz Paulsson
2017, 163).
The Funnel Beaker Culture in southwestern Scania – recent ex-
cavations and new results
The last 20–25 years of surveys and archaeological excavations in south-
west Scania, Sweden (Fig. 1–2), mainly conducted within developer-fund-
ed archaeology, have provided interesting new results, producing a much
more complex picture of the Early Neolithic (EN) FBC societies in the region
(4000–3300 cal BC). On a macro scale, these results concern settlement pat-
terns, landscape use and the scale of monumental landscapes, and on a mi-
cro scale, they concern, for example, huts and houses, settlement organisa-
tion, monumental places and depositional practices on dierent types of
sites. New kinds of monuments have been discovered, such as free-stand-
ing façades (standing stones or wooden poles) without graves, both in con-
nection with other monuments and in settlements of dierent size and
complexity (Artursson et al. 2003; Rudebeck 2010; Andersson et al. 2016;
Brink 2016; Andersson/Artursson 2020).
In total, more than 40 destroyed and ploughed out EN long barrows and
megaliths have been excavated in Scania (Appendixes 1 and 2). The major-
ity is situated in the southwestern part of the region. During the spring and
summer of 2019, a complex site with nine dolmens and other ritual Early Ne-
olithic constructions was excavated at Flackarp to the south of the city of
Lund, southern Sweden (Fig. 3). The excavation yielded important data con-
cerning the megalithic Funnel Beaker Culture (FBC) in the area, complement-
ing recent excavations to the northeast of Lund (Andersson/Artursson2017;
Scania
0 200km
Sweden
Fig. 1. Southwest Scania in southern-
most Scandinavia (Graphics: M. Anders-
son/Arkeologerna).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
65
JNA 24/2022
Fig. 2. Excavated long barrows, façades
and megaliths in Scania, with the sea
level at the time about 3 m higher than
today (note that still existing monuments
are not included; see Appendix 1–2).
Andersson et al. 2016). The site at Flackarp has produced yet another con-
centration of façades and dolmens, probably representing a central place in
this region. Placed at a crossroad between a north-south and an east-west
running pathway, probably with its roots in the beginning of the Early Neo-
lithic, just to the south of a ford over the Höje River, the Flackarp site can be
seen as a typical example of a central place with important ritual and social
functions for a regional polity.
The Neolithic landscape around the city of Lund
An increasing number of excavations where Neolithic remains dominate
have been carried out around the city of Lund, southern Sweden, during
the last 20 years. This has improved our knowledge signicantly and made it
possible to reconstruct neolithisation in the region. Alongside the new site
at Flackarp, several sites just to the northeast of Lund in the areas of Östra
Torn and Östra Odarslöv have been excavated: Max IV, Brunnshög, ESS, Sci-
ence Village and Kunskapsparken (Brorsson 2010; Ericson/Hellerström 2011;
Carlie/Lagergren 2012; Andersson et al. 2016; Kronberg 2016; Andersson
2019).
An opportunity to increase knowledge about the Neolithic in the area
even more could be to study the locations of surface-surveyed sites with
nds from the time period in the National Heritage Board’s database for ar-
chaeological sites and monuments and on historical maps. Probably no in-
ternational counterpart exists that is comparable to the surveys of ancient
0 20 km
Dolmen
Long Barrow
Passage grave
Flat-earth grave
Uncertain
Megalithic grave
Free-standing façade
without graves
Scania
Sweden
1
7
18
21
15
514
10
17
13
23616
8
12 19
9
4
11
20

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
66
JNA 24/2022
monuments which have taken place in Sweden since the 1930s. The National
Heritage Board’s revised survey of ancient monuments in Scania 1985–1987
led to a tripling of the number of known antiquities. The reason for this was
that this time the survey, unlike previous ones, also registered settlements
and remains of or information about burial mounds more systematically.
The number of still visible, standing megaliths in Scania is unfortunate-
ly very small, approximately around 100, but studies of the degree of pres-
ervation of megalithic tombs, partly through analyses of old eld names
on 18th and 19th century maps, indicate that the destruction of monuments
in southwestern Scania was much more extensive than previously imag-
ined. Other parts of Scania also have many mentions of megaliths as well
as Bronze Age mounds that show a completely dierent landscape com-
pared to what we see today. In other words, the landscape has been radi-
cally transformed by an increase in intensied land use and the industriali-
sation of agriculture in the 19th and 20th centuries. Watercourses have been
culverted, wetlands have been drained, lakes have been sunk and smaller
roads removed.
As the exploitation pressure increased signicantly, not least in south-
western Scania, during the 1990s and 2000s, a large number of destroyed
Fig. 3. Flackarp to the south of the city
of Lund in Scania, southern Sweden
(Graphics: M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
0
3 km

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
67
JNA 24/2022
and ploughed-out monuments has been excavated, which has radically ex-
panded our knowledge of monumental graves and other types of ritually
used constructions. The number of long barrows, façade tombs, free-stand-
ing façades and megaliths in the area seems to have been much greater
than previously assumed (Fig. 4).
Previous studies have shown that when the Neolithic economy was es-
tablished in Scania during the Early Neolithic, a period of settlement expan-
sion began with increasingly settled ways of living and a probable popula-
tion increase (Andersson 2004; Andersson et al. 2016). When more stable
and new settlement areas were established, the creation of new landscape
spaces was required; in other words, local groups had to mark their identi-
ty by creating new places, possibly at previously known topographical land-
marks (Andersson 2004). Within this context, the western European tradi-
tion of building long barrows and megaliths was adopted. For the rst time,
major interventions were made outside settlements, elds and pastures,
transforming the environment in many ways.
The construction of monuments meant that even larger areas were
cleared and that the landscape acquired a dierent appearance. Not just
6
45
1
3
Dolmen
Long Barrow
Passage grave
Flat-earth grave
Uncertain
Megalithic grave
Free-standing façade
without graves, between 1–5
Free-standing façade
without graves, between 5–10
Free-standing façade
without graves, more than 10
2
10 km0
Fig. 4. Terrain model that shows the
location of megaliths in southwestern
Scania, with the sea level at the time
about 3 m higher than today. Flackarp is
marked by no. 6, and just to the south-
east the dolmen/s at Uppåkra RAÄ 15 : 1
are visible. 1 Döserygg; 2 Almohov;
3Östra Torn; 4 Science Village; 5 Östra
Odarslöv (ESS); 6 Flackarp (Graphics:
M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
68
JNA 24/2022
the construction of dierent types of buildings and the establishment of
well-dened farmsteads, but presumably also the clearance of vegetation
meant that special bonds to these places were forged, and much of the
landscape was socialised through these measures. The spatial consolida-
tion of local societies probably also meant improved possibilities to increase
power for local and regional leaders, establishing control and ownership
over important central places and creating new networks and socio-politi-
cal instruments and institutions (Andersson 2004).
The megaliths in Scania have traditionally been considered to be concen-
trated at coastal areas. Six central regions can be discerned; the Råån Valley
in northeastern Scania, the valleys at Saxån-Välabäcken and the Löddeå-
Kävlinge River in western Scania, the Höje River and the Sege River around
Malmö-Lund, South-West Scania, Österlen in southeastern Scania and Ham-
marsjön-Ivösjön-Vramsån in northeastern Scania (Andersson 2004) (Fig. 5).
Interestingly, Neolithic settlements, sacricial sites and stray nds of dier-
ent types of axes also display a geographical distribution concentrated in
the coastal zone, with just a few examples in the interior (Karsten 1994; An-
dersson 2004), which is why these areas should be seen as central for social
and political organisation during the time period.
Fig. 5. Distribution of megalithic graves
in Scania, southern Sweden. Denser
hatching indicates concentrations
(revised after Andersson 2004, 170).
The recently excavated remains of destroyed and ploughed-out monu-
ments have, in most cases, been found inside these central regions, but
some exceptions include the façades and dolmens excavated at Flackarp
southwest of Lund, and also the façades and dolmens at Östra Odarslöv and
Östra Torn northeast of Lund, found in the peripheries of two central re-
gions. Therefore, a discussion of earlier settlement models may be appro-
priate.
The Neolithic settlements in the Lund area are located between two of the
central regions; the Kävlinge River in western Scania and the Malmö region

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
69
JNA 24/2022
in southwestern Scania. Topographically, at least the megalithic complex at
Östra Odarslöv is part of the Kävlinge River water system (Fig. 4; Andersson
et al. 2016; Andersson/Artursson 2017; Andersson 2019), while the dolmens
at Flackarp should be linked to the region in the southwest.
The new picture that has emerged through recent years of archaeological
investigations of monumental sites suggests a much more open landscape
during the Early Neolithic, with many long barrows, free-standing façades
and megaliths of dierent types. This shows that the population and popu-
lation density in central regions were probably much larger than previous-
ly concluded and that the social and political structure as a result of this was
probably more complex. This could also mean that the central regions were
not as clearly delimited as previously considered and that the total number
of megaliths in Scania was signicantly greater than previously assumed.
The Flackarp site
Just a few kilometres southwest of Lund, in Flackarp, the remains of three
Early Neolithic free-standing façades and nine dolmens were excavated
in the spring and early summer of 2019 (Andersson et al. 2021). They were
excavated as the result of a construction project extending the railway
Malmö-Lund from two to four tracks. The façades and dolmens were locat-
ed in a tight cluster above the Höje River (Figs. 3; 6), but since the excavation
area did not cover the entire potential topographic position, more remains
might be located just outside the trenches. Four of the dolmens have only
been partially documented since the railway cuts through the area, and re-
mains are possibly preserved under the present-day railway bank (Fig. 7).
The dolmens were likely destroyed and the stones used as building materi-
al in the 1800’s at the latest (see below pp. 76 –77).
Although suering plough damage, leading to missing wall and roof slabs
of chambers and most kerb stones, dolmens were recognised by round or
rectangular pavings of small stones and ints placed around the tomb. Gaps
in the pavings and dark impressions in the earth with supporting stone-
packings show where kerb stones originally stood. The burial chambers
were indicated by impressions or pits for the wall slabs.
From the dolmen area, there is evidence of earlier activities as well as ac-
tivities possibly contemporaneous with the dolmens (Fig. 8). Two huts, nos.
1 and 2, document settlement activities before the area was turned into a
burial ground. They had oor areas of ca. 9 and 10 m2, respectively. Char-
coal from a hearth in hut 2 was 14C-dated to the Early Neolithic I (Ua-64550:
3940–3690 cal BC, 2 σ), while charcoal from hut 1 was dated to the late Mid-
dle Neolithic (Ua-64551: 2870–2490 cal BC, 2 σ) (see Table 1 for all 14C-dates).
The huts were, however, considered contemporaneous, belonging to the
Early Neolithic I based on context and construction type (Andersson/Arturs-
son 2017; Andersson et al. 2016).
Further indications of activities in the Early Neolithic I are two 14C-dates
made on charcoal from contexts in dolmens 2 and 8. Two façades, nos. 1
and 3, were identied, whereby façade 1 must have been erected before
the construction of dolmen 2, as the megalith had been placed on top of
the façade (Fig. 7). Early-Middle Neolithic pottery was found in façade 3.
Near dolmen 5, a feature interpreted as a low temperature oven was exca-
vated (Fig. 7). 14C-analysis of charcoal dates it to the later part of the Early Neo -
lithic I (Ua-64552: 3710–3540 cal BC, 2 σ). Contemporaneity with the huts
cannot be excluded, but the nd of a piece of decorated ceramics from the
oven rather points towards a dating to the Early Middle Neolithic, thus indi-
cating contemporaneity with the dolmens.
In the nearby area, located to the south and slightly higher than the dol-
mens, activities from the Early Neolithic to the Early Middle Neolithic were

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
70
JNA 24/2022
Fig. 6. Flackarp. Excavated area with fea-
tures mentioned in the text. See Figure
7 for a detailed plan of the dolmen area
(Graphics: M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
Dolmen 1
Façade 1
Dolmen 3
Dolmen 4
Hut 1
Hut 2
Oven
Dolmen 5
Dolmen 7
Dolmen 8
Dolmen 6
Dolmen 9
Menhir 2 Menhir
A107883
N
0 30 m
Railway
Pit
Trench
Hearth
Layer
Stone
Stone impression
Stone packing
Post hole
Menhir 1
Façade 3
Dolmen 2
A7803
Menhir
Façade 4
A107844
Flat earth grave
Building
Façade 2
Dolmen 1
Dolmen 2
Dolmen 3
Dolmen 4
Dolmen 5
Dolmen 9
Dolmen 6
Dolmen 8
Dolmen 7
Hut 2
Hut 1
Menhir
Menhir
Menhir
Façade 3 Oven
Façade 1
N
0 400 m
Features from Early Neolithic
Features from Early Neolithic II – Middle Neolithic II
Features from Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age
0 40 m
Fig. 7. The Flackarp dolmen area. Grey
marking shows the probable size of the
dolmens (Graphics: M. Andersson/
Arkeologerna).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
71
JNA 24/2022
Fig. 8. Flackarp. Reconstruction
of phase 1 with huts and façades
(Drawing: R. Holmgren).
identied in the form of a at earth grave with the nearby façade 2, as well
as the remains of some kind of building interpreted as a hut (Fig. 6). This
building was however larger than hut 1 and 2 and had a completely dif-
ferent construction. It was dated to the Early Neolithic I through three 14C-
dates (Ua-64549: 3970–3790 cal BC, 2 σ; Ua-65538: 3780–3650 cal BC, 2 σ; Ua-
64548: 3950–3710 cal BC, 2 σ), and the nd of a fragment of a grinded stone
axe placed in the wall trench of the hut, which was lled with crushed int.
Apart from this, nds were scarce and do not indicate intense activities in
the area. This larger hut, with a oor area measuring ca. 27 m2, may have
been contemporaneous with huts 1 and 2 in the dolmen area.
The at earth grave and the façade may be contemporary or slightly older
than the dolmens, as indicated by a 14C-date from the at earth grave (Ua-
64584: 3650–3380 cal BC, 2 σ). The façade was dated through pottery of Ear-
ly/Middle Neolithic character.
Basic characteristics of the dolmens are presented in Table 2. The deni-
tion as a round- or a long-dolmen is based on the shape of the kerb. Two
round dolmens, nos. 3 and 6, ve long dolmens, nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and two
dolmens completely lacking traces of kerb stones, nos. 1 and 9, were docu-
mented within the narrow excavation trenches (Figs. 7; 9–12). Two of the
dolmens, nos. 7 and 9, were poorly preserved, and in the case of dolmen
7, only a small part could be documented inside the trench (Fig. 7). In ve
cases, open chambers and passages could be identied. In the others, this
could not be determined due to poor preservation, or because only limited
parts of the dolmens were located within the trenches. No intact oor lev-
els in the grave chambers could be identied, which means that all traces of
burials have been destroyed by modern farming.
The largest and best-preserved dolmens were nos. 5, 6 and 8 (Figs. 9–12).
Notably, dolmen 5 and 8 both had passages from the chamber to the kerb
and beyond. This indicates areas of activity outside the kerb, although not
supported by any evidence of depositions (see Andersson et al. 2016 and
Brink 2016 for evidence of depositions at dolmen kerbs in southwest Scania)

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
72
JNA 24/2022
Lab.nr 14C y BP cal 2 σ Feature Context Material
Ua- 6 4551 4 090 ± 32 2870 –249 0 BC He ar th A717 28 Hut 1 Alder
LuS-14 027 4965 ± 45 3935–3645 B C Pit A2794 (trial excavation) Hut 2 Alder
Ua-64550 4996 ± 32 39 40–3 690 BC He arth A7174 9 Hut 2 Hazel
Ua-64549 5091 ± 38 3970 –3790 BC Post hole A70550 Building/large hut Sallow/Willow
Ua-65538 4934 ± 34 3780 –3650 BC Post hole A70570 Building/large hut Rowan/Apple/Hawthorn
Ua-64548 5 035 ± 35 3 950 –3710 B C Pit A70952 just outside the wall
trench Building/large hut Rowan/Apple/Hawthorn
Ua- 64547 4981 ± 33 3940–3660 BC Kerb stone trench A68970 Dolmen 2 Hazel
Ua-65534 3586 ± 82 2 20 0–1 690 BC Kerb stone pit A69838 Dolmen 2 Grass
Ua-65539 3537 ± 33 1960–1750 BC Chamber stone pit A70991 Dolmen 2 Hazel
Ua-64585 3478 ± 34 1900–1690 BC Hearth A69454 close to the chamber Dolmen 3 Emmer/spelt wheat
Ua-64586 3817 ± 45 24 60 –214 0 B C Kerb stone pit A71123 Dolmen 4 Emmer/spelt wheat
Ua-64587 7590 ± 39 6500 –639 0 BC Chamber stone pit A67219 Dolmen 4 Cereal (unidentied, and likely
contaminated or incorrect)
Ua- 65537 4377 ± 34 3100 –2910 BC Kerb stone pit A70356 Dolmen 4 Maple
Ua-65536 1836 ± 30 8 0–250 AD Kerb stone pit A53235 Dolmen 4 Oak
Ua-64588 1198 ± 29 710– 940 AD Chamber stone pit A55405 Dolmen 5 Barley
Ua-64554 1648 ± 39 350–550 AD Chamber stone pit A110579 Dolmen 6 Barley
Ua-64540 2673 ± 31 900–790 BC Hearth A108427 by the kerb Dolmen 7 Maple
Ua- 64542 4126 ± 32 2880 –2570 BC Hearth A108957 in the passage by
threshold stones Dolmen 8 Oak
Ua-64544 50 60 ± 33 3960–3780 BC Passage stone pit A108991 Dolmen 8 Hazel
Ua-64541 3880 ± 39 2470 –2210 B C Stone pit A107883 Menhir, next to kerb
of dolmen 6 Charcoal (unidentied)
Ua-64539 2456 ± 30 76 0 –41 0 BC Stone pit A111045 with base of larger
stone Menhir, near dolmen
6 and 9 Ash
Ua-65533 2877 ± 31 120 0 –9 30 BC Stone pit A111045 with base of larger
stone Menhir, near dolmen
6 and 9 Wedding bread
Ua-64584 4767 ± 35 3650–338 0 BC Stone-packing A5184 In at earth grave
A3470 Emmer/spelt wheat
Ua-64552 4873 ± 32 3710 –35 40 BC A50639 Oven, near dolmen 5 Rowan/Apple/Hawthorn
Ua-64534 3299 ± 33 1 66 0 –150 0 B C Post hole A7803 House Animal bone (mammal)
Table 1. Flackarp. 14 C results from Neolithic–Bronze Age contexts (see also Strandmark/Artursson 2019).
Dolmen nr Type Delimited Chamber, ca. m2Opening towards Passage Kerb
1Dolmen Yes 1.30 –No No
2Long dolmen No 2.25 (estimated) – – 8 m w ide
3Round
dolmen Yes 1Southeast Yes, but not extending all the way
to the kerb ca. 6.5 m in diameter
4Long dolmen No –East/northeast Yes, but not extending all the way
out to the outer kerb 12 m long
5Long dolmen Yes 2Northnortheast-
north Yes, from the chamber to the kerb
and possibly beyond the kerb 16.5 m long and
10.5 m w ide
6Round
dolmen Yes 3.50 Northwest Indications are present ca. 10 m in diameter
7Long dolmen No – – – ca. 16 m long
8Long dolmen No 2.10 Northeast Yes, from the chamber to the kerb
and also beyond the kerb 9.4 m wi de
9Dolmen Yes – – – No
Table 2. The Flackarp dolmens. Cells marked with (-) indicate that data is lacking because of poor preservation or because the
dolmen was not delimited within the trench.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
73
JNA 24/2022
Finds were generally scarce, and primarily found in the stone-packings
surrounding the chambers (Fig. 12). These stone-packings were interpreted
as the only remains of mounds once covering the dolmens. The int mate-
rial from dolmens 5 and 8, 1.8 and 1.2 kg, respectively has been analysed for
chronology and technological/functional aspects, providing dierent re-
sults. The material from dolmen 5 is chronologically mixed with both Neo-
lithic and later material. Dolmen 8, however, contains int material of pri-
marily Neolithic origin. The nd material is otherwise limited and only a few
nds can be attributed to the time of building and the initial use of the dol-
mens. Two small, decorated pieces of pottery from dolmen 8, dated to the
Fig. 9. Flackarp. Dolmen 5 (Graphics:
M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
0 5 m
Opening
Chamber
Impression of chamber stone
Impression of kerb stone
Stone
Layer
Stone packing
Recent trench
Chamber
Opening
Impression of chamber stone
Opening
Stone
Impression of stone
Stone packing
0 4 m
Fig. 10. Flackarp. Dolmen 6 (Graphics:
M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
74
JNA 24/2022
0 10 m
Chamber
Opening
Stone
Impression of chamber stone
Pit
Layer
Trench
Impression of stone
Stone packing
Post hole
Hearth
Fig. 11. Flackarp. Dolmen 8 (Graphics:
M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
Fig. 12. Flackarp. Aerial photo of dol-
men8 (Photo: J. Lundin/Arkeologerna).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
75
JNA 24/2022
Fig. 13. Flackarp. Reconstruction of
phase 2 with dolmens and façades
(Drawing: R. Holmgren/ARCDOC).
Early Neolithic II–Middle Neolithic II, indicate activity in this period. Notably,
only 36 g of pottery was found in dolmen 8 and 70 g in dolmen 5.
None of the 14C-results from contexts connected to construction parts
(chamber, kerb stone pits, etc.) date the expected phase of construction
or initial use of the dolmens (Table 1). Therefore, it is not possible to draw
more detailed conclusions on the exact dating or internal chronology of the
structures (Fig. 13).
Continued use of the dolmen area at Flackarp is evident from several 14C-
dates (Table 1). In the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, continued
manifestations in the area are clearly seen. At least three large menhirs were
erected during the Late Neolithic or the Early Bronze Age, and at the base
of two of these standing stones several int sickles were deposited (Figs. 7;
14). In one case, immediately to the southeast of dolmen 6, four sickles were
deposited together in the foundation pit of the menhir (A107883). Erecting
these menhirs was likely an endeavour that was undertaken by people liv-
ing in a nearby farmstead or village. A posthole, A7803, likely the remains of
an Early Bronze Age long house that was 14C-dated to 1660–1500 cal BC (Ua-
64534, 2 σ), was found 150 m to the south of the dolmen area (Fig. 6). The rest
of the presumed long house was probably destroyed by the construction
of the railway. Topographically, the building was located a bit higher com-
pared to the dolmen area, thus the inhabitants had a good view of the old
burial ground and of the menhirs they had placed there (Fig. 15).
Not far from the long house, close to façade 4, yet another menhir was
erected in the Late Neolithic or the Early Bronze Age as indicated by the nd
of a fragment of a int sickle. In the Early Iron Age, a well was dug immedi-
ately between dolmens 7 and 8, probably indicating a more practical rela-
tion to the area by people living on the nearby farmsteads.
Fig. 14. Flackarp. Flint sickles deposited
at the base of the menhir to the south-
east of dolmen 6 (Photo: M. Artursson/
Arkeologerna).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
76
JNA 24/2022
Döss Agir – a megalithic complex from the Early Neolithic
Based on the large number of megaliths at Flackarp, the site can be char-
acterised as a regional central place with dierent types of functions. It has
probably been important for the entire megalithic area that can be iden-
tied between the Höje River in the north and the Sege River in the south
(see Fig . 4).
We know that more megaliths and other Early Neolithic monuments were
directly adjacent to the excavated areas at Flackarp. In historical maps, there
are several mentions of places with dierent types of megaliths and burial
mounds that today have no visible remains. In the National Heritage Board’s
database for archaeological sites and monuments the site Uppåkra RAÄ 15:1
is described as:
“The area around the marked location, approximately 150 × 150 meters
in size, is called ‘The Nearest Dolmen’ in the map from 1807. The eld to
the west is called ‘The Outermost Dolmen’ in the same map and in the sur-
veying act. – Sjöborg talks about an ancient monument at a small height
‘between St. Uppåkra and Flackarp at Lund, west of the highway. The roof
block is gone, the chamber has a rectangular shape 4 cubits long, 2 1/2 wide
and 2 high, with the entrance to the east, a round border chain 9 cubits in di-
ameter, and outside its entrance 2 stone boulders’. – In 1798 the mound was
disassembled and destroyed and the stones were used as material for a mill
dam at Höjebromölla” (RAA 2018a; our translation).
Nils Henrik Sjöborg’s description published in 1822 thus refers to a pre-
sumed position for at least two megalithic graves (“Nearest dolmen” and
“Outermost dolmen”) which were situated approximately 800 m southeast
of the dolmens in Flackarp (Fig. 4). His description of the presumed megalith
(“The Nearest Dolmen”) seems to refer to a round dolmen where the cham-
ber measured about 2,4 × 1,6 m in size and 1,2 m high without a roof block.
The chamber was surrounded by a round kerb with a diameter of approxi-
mately 5,4 m. There appears to have been an opening in the kerb marked by
two erected stones. It is likely that there had been a short passage into the
Fig. 15. Flackarp. Reconstruction of
phase 3 with dolmens, façades and
menhirs (Drawing: R. Holmgren/ARC-
DOC).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
77
JNA 24/2022
chamber, a construction feature that has been observed in several places in
Scania (Fig. 16; Andersson et al. 2016).
Other written sources mention megaliths in the surrounding area, close
to the dolmens at Flackarp. In “Lunds stifts landebok” (Ljunggren/Ejder
1950, 482), an area within “The Eastern Field” is mentioned with the name
“Döss agir”, which can be translated as “The Dolmen Field”. The now excavat-
ed area in Flackarp is assumed to be located within the “The Eastern Field”,
which makes it likely that there had been a large number of megaliths in
the area.
Additionally, about 500 m southeast of the dolmens at Flackarp, and only
just over 200 m northeast of Uppåkra 15:1, is the site Uppåkra 20:1. The lo-
cation is described in the National Heritage Board’s database for archaeo-
logical sites and monuments as: “Mound, remains of, about 20 m in diame-
ter and 0.3 m high. In the surface moderately with stones, 0.1–0.2 m” (RAA
2018b; our translation).
In a map from 1776, the place is called “Stenkullen” (“The Stone Hill”). Dur-
ing an archaeological test investigation in 1991, two survey trenches were
laid over the remains of the mound. In one of the trenches, a stone-packing
was found. The archaeologist in charge interpreted this as the remains of a
non-determined grave (Olsson 1998). The name “The Stone Hill” combined
with our experience from recent years of excavations of megaliths, where
stone-packings are common, makes it very reasonable to presume that this
is the remains of yet another megalith.
The number of megaliths in the immediate area can thus be assumed to
have been large, also shown by the results of the excavations now carried
out along the railway (Figs. 7; 17). Similar environments with concentrations
of long barrows, megaliths and other monumental Neolithic constructions
have been surveyed and excavated recently, for example at Almhov and
Döserygg in southwestern Scania (Gidlöf et al. 2006; Gidlöf 2009; Rudebeck
2010; 2011; Andersson/Wallebom 2011), Sarup on Funen (Andersen 2015;
2016), Djursland in Jutland (Klassen 2014) and Flintbek in northern Germa-
ny (Furholt/Mischka 2019; Müller 2019; Mischka 2022). They can all be inter-
preted as important regional centres with social and ritual functions, placed
strategically from a communicative aspect (for a discussion see Andersson
et al. 2016).
However, the megalithic monuments at Flackarp are only a part of the
larger network of constructions and remains of activities in the Neolith-
ic landscape. In addition to the megaliths, there are a number of other
known ancient remains in the immediate area that have advanced our
knowledge of the Neolithic landscape, mostly indications of settlements
in the vicinity of the monuments (Fig. 17). Several surveyed and/or archae-
ologically excavated sites from the Neolithic have been documented in
the area. Immediately to the northeast, close to the Höje River, the site
Flackarp 29:1 is located, registered as a settlement with nds of int tools.
Just 100 m to the southeast of Flackarp 29 :1 is the site Flackarp 40:1, where
eight pits, one post hole, some int debris and a int scraper were found
(Wallin 1990). The dates of these are uncertain, but the int material indi-
cates a settlement from the Neolithic. From the settlement Flackarp 39 :1,
about 200 m to the north of the destroyed dolmen Uppåkra 15 :1, there are
datable nds in the form of a thin-butted axe and a sherd from a Funnel
Beaker, which are both contemporaneous with the dolmens (Bergenstråh-
le 1996a; 1996b).
Within the excavated area in Flackarp, pottery of FBC character was
found in a pit in the north-eastern part of the area. Close by, a posthole
was excavated during the preceding test investigation and subsequently
14C-dated to 3965–3760 cal BC (LuS-14029, 2 σ). Since indications of mega-
liths were missing within this part of the area, it is possible that the nds
and dating may indicate settlement activities close to the Höje River and its
Fig. 16. Nils Henrik Sjöberg’s drawing of
“The Nearest dolmen”. This was pub-
lished in 1822 together with a unique
and detailed account of the disassem-
blage of the dolmen in 1798 (after Sjö-
borg 1822, 90 Fig. 6).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
78
JNA 24/2022
surrounding wetlands. In addition, there are some registered Stone Age set-
tlements northeast of the Höje River, e. g. Lund 148:1 (Fig. 17).
These settlements are probably only a small part of a network of Neolith-
ic sites along the water systems around the Höje River. Although Flackarp,
based on the number of now excavated megaliths, can be described as a
regional central place with importance for a larger region, it is highly likely
that there also were settlements in the area, adjacent to crossing commu-
nication routes and the ford over the Höje River. During the Early and the
Middle Neolithic, the sea water level measured up to 4–5 m higher than to-
day, and this means that a sea bay cut like a wedge into the low land area
around the Höje River. The Flackarp area could thus be regarded as coastal.
The water systems, formed by the Höje River with wetlands and the sea bay,
surrounded the area and naturally constructed the landscape backdrop for
a local community (Figs. 17–19).
Consequently, there are communicative aspects to the choice of loca-
tion for the ritual and burial central place at Flackarp. The presumed ancient
road that goes between Uppåkra and Lund, passed south of this area. The
route is included in the mapping carried out by Gerhard Buhrmann (1684)
in the 17th century. Given the monumental remains in the Lund area, a com-
munication route in various forms is likely to be traced back to the Neolithic
and the Bronze Age (Figs. 18–19).
The location of the megaliths is probably deliberately chosen in connec-
tion with the local communication systems. The accumulation of megaliths
and Bronze Age mounds in the area around Flackarp likely has to do with
their proximity to the ford over Höje River at Källby, located just north of
the excavated area. It is also worth noting that Flackarp is possibly located
at a crossroad. There is a tendency that the monuments, in addition to the
northeast-southwest orientation, also have a northwest-southeast align-
ment if we study the orientation of dolmens 5, 6, 8 and 9 (Fig. 7). Thus, the
megaliths at Flackarp were located at a special communication point in the
landscape – adjacent to water systems, at a meeting point between land
and water. In addition to the old road that went in a northeast-southwest di-
rection, there was a water system that tied Flackarp with the sea to the west.
Through these landscape features, one could easily move in several direc-
tions. All in all, we can identify the contours of a Neolithic communication
network, where the central place at Flackarp served as an important node
in the landscape.
The link between monumental graves, often from several dierent time
periods, and particularly important stretches of roads or crossroads is well
substantiated today in Scania. The local and regional importance of roads
may have enabled those responsible for them to gain power over materi-
al things and power over knowledge of distant places. In this way, roads
can be considered as monuments in themselves. Crossroads were natural
meeting points and were probably symbolically charged places (cf. Rude-
beck 2002; Rudebeck/Ödman 2000). Places where communication routes
met thus appear to have been of particular importance.
The area around Flackarp is located, as mentioned, in the borderland be-
tween two Neolithic regions, namely Saxån-Välabäcken and Lödde å-Käv-
lingeån in western Scania and the southwest Scanian region (Fig. 4). It is also
interesting to see that the old communication route continues to the north-
east, passing Flackarp over the Höje River and goes further on towards the
Östra Odarslövs area, thus connecting two megalithic central areas. The Neo-
lithic settlements and ritual and burial sites in the Östra Odarslöv area can
be considered to have been an important local community that has been
extensively excavated during the last 10–15 years.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
79
JNA 24/2022
The Early Neolithic settlements and monuments at “Puggängarne”
To the northeast of Flackarp, at Östra Odarslöv and Östra Torn, several re-
mains of profane and sacred character were located around a wetland
called “Puggängarne” (“The Frog Meadows”), which during the Neolithic
spread out across the extension of the valley of the Sularps River, a tribu-
tary of the Kävlinge River water system. The ancient road, which is included
in the mapping carried out by Gerhard Buhrmann (1684), passed right next
to this place.
The large number of archaeological excavations in the area make it pos-
sible to reconstruct a picture of how the landscape was organised around
“Puggängarne” during the Early and the Middle Neolithic. The excavation at
Kunskapsparken, Östra Torn in 2018 revealed a number of façades, i. e., re-
mains of free-standing, erected stones or wooden posts without adjacent
graves (Andersson 2019). The excavations at ESS, Östra Odarslöv in 2013
documented an Early Neolithic settlement and a megalithic burial ground
consisting of ve façades, a at earth grave marked with a façade and three
dolmens (Andersson/Artursson 2017). At Science Village, another megalith-
ic burial area was found with façades and dolmens together with a connect-
ing avenue of standing stones (Kronberg 2016). Also, Early Neolithic settle-
ment remains with pottery production have been documented at Max IV
(Brorsson 2010; Ericson/Hellerström 2011). In addition, Early Neolithic set-
tlements, ceramic deposits and a palisade enclosure from the Middle Neo-
lithic B have been excavated at Brunnshög (Ericson/Lagergren 2009).
Based on the above-mentioned investigations, “Puggängarne” may have
been open water or wetland encircled by settlements and a system of
standing stones, façades and megaliths from the Early Neolithic and later
on (Fig. 17). Probably, there may have been even more of these settlements
and monuments in the area around the lake or wetland, which have not yet
been subject to archaeological excavations.
The area around “Puggängarne” belongs to the southeasternmost part
of Saxån-Välabäcken and the Lödde å-Kävlingeån region, conrmed by the
fact that Sularps River at Östra Torn is a part of the Kävlinge River water sys-
tem (see Figs. 17–19). The area probably constituted a local community with-
in this larger region.
Fig. 17. The Neolithic remains next to
the “Puggängarne” at Östra Odarslöv
and Östra Torn (Graphics: M. Anders-
son/Arkeologerna).
Östra Odarslöv (ESS)
Östra Torn
Puggängarne
Sularps River
Science Village
Brunnshög
Max IV
Lund
0 1 km
Stone Age settlement
Dolmen
Early Neolithic façade
Middle Neolithic palisade
Early Neolithic ceramic manufacturing
Wetland

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
80
JNA 24/2022
Puggängarne
Bay
Flackarp
Höje river
0 2km
Stone Age settlement
Dolmen
Uncertain dolmen
Early Neolithic façade
Wetland
Ancient road,
mapping carried out by
Gerhard Buhrmann
in the 17
th
century
Fig. 18. The megaliths in the northeast
and southwest of Lund and the ancient
stretch of the road. Notice that the posi-
tion for the bridge/ford over Höje River
in Buhrman's map does not exactly
match the presumed position of the
ford during prehistoric times (Graphics:
M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
Fig. 19. The distribution of megaliths
and burial mounds in the area of south-
west Scania, with the sea level at the
time about 3 m higher than today. The
regional centres of Flackarp and Östra
Torn are marked by circles (Graphics:
M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
0 9 km
The road network via Uppåkra,
Flackarp, Lund and past the
Östra Torn area according to
Buhrman's map from 1684,
marked as a grey line
Dolmen
Long barrow
Passage grave
Flat-earth grave
Uncertain megalithic grave
Free-standing façade
without graves, between 1–5
Free-standing façade
without graves, between 5–10
Free-standing façade
without graves, more than 10

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
81
JNA 24/2022
Early and Middle Neolithic monumentality in southwestern
Scania 4000–3000 BC
As discussed earlier, the number of megaliths in southwestern Scania was
probably much larger than earlier postulated. Calculations made for regions
in northern Germany (Müller 2019, 34) presume a density of 0,25 megaliths
per km2. Applied on central Early Neolithic regions of Scania, covering are-
as between approximately 400–800 km2 (Fig. 2), this would mean that eve-
ry reconstructed polity would have had 100–200 megaliths, numbers that
actually do t well with our new calculations based on results from excava-
tions made during the last 20 years (Andersson et al. 2016). For Scania, this
would mean that the total number of megaliths can be estimated to have
been at least 2000, or about 20 times that of the existing number.
Moreover, recent large-scale excavations document a hierarchy of monu-
mental places in EN southern Scandinavia. During EN I (4000–3500 cal BC),
numerous long-barrows, free-standing façades consisting of standing
wooden poles or stones, oering pits and other constructions occur that
were concentrated at certain central places, such as Almhov to the south
of Malmö (Rudebeck 2010; 2011), but also at smaller, local ritual places and
in settlements, such as Science Village (Kronberg 2016), Östra Odarslöv (An-
dersson/Artursson 2017) and Science Park (Andersson 2019) to the north-
east of Lund, producing a hierarchy of monumental places. Some types of
these ritual constructions can also be found in or near to contemporary set-
tlements, as the sites at Östra Odarslöv and Flackarp clearly show. During
EN II–MNAI (3500–3200 cal BC), a similar picture can be seen when it comes
to the distribution of dolmens, passage graves and single or groups/lines
of fundament pits for standing stones. In a few places, such as Döserygg
(Andersson/Wallebom 2011; 2013a; 2013b) to the south of Malmö and at
Flackarp (Artursson et al. 2021) to the south of Lund, large concentrations
of megaliths and other monumental constructions occurred. In comparison,
single or small groups of megaliths and façades were erected at local monu-
mental centres and at settlements (Andersson/Artursson 2020; Andersson
et al. 2016).
This hierarchy of monumental places probably reects a dierence in
the use of monuments, mirroring the existence of a socio-political hier-
archy in polities (Figs. 20–21; Andersson/Artursson 2020). The large cen-
tral places were used for feasting and burial rituals organised by leaders
to establish and maintain a stratied social order on a regional level, while
the local centres and the monuments in settlements were used for family-
or group-based religious and ritual activities. In some cases, a continuity
in the use of certain places can be seen from ENI to ENII, implying a well-
established social order supported by regular gatherings at local and re-
gional centres.
The combination of feasting and the involvement in “secret societies” can,
according to numerous historical and anthropological examples from all
over the world, produce complex social and ritual relations that can be used
to manipulate society in a hierarchical, non-reversable direction (Hayden
2014; 2018). The combination of feasting, construction of monuments and
the creation and involvement in “secret societies” can, according to Hayden
(2018, 286), be interpreted as a well-documented human behavioural arche-
type in trans-egalitarian or more complex societies like chiefdoms.
Another typical indicative phenomenon for the existence of “secret so-
cieties” is represented by sacrices of animals and humans, and also ritual
killings of humans, sometimes in elaborate ways and in combination with
more or less ritualised cannibalism (Hayden 2018). Remains of Early Neo-
lithic sacrices or depositions of animals in Scandinavia can often be found
in wetlands, bogs, small lakes and also in pits dug in dry land. In most cas-
es, the animals had been butchered and the bones were smashed to get to

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
82
JNA 24/2022
the marrow. This shows that they were the remains of ritual meals where
the bones were deposited in wet or dry environments, probably to activate
the magic power of the sacrices. It is very rare that entire animals were de-
posited, which shows that the meal and the consumption of the meat and
marrow were important to complete the ritual process. Bones in wetlands
are often found together with oerings of int or stone objects, such as
axes and other types of tools or weapons as well as ceramic vessels, which
in some cases have been lled with food or even amber pieces or jewellery
(for a discussion see Koch 1998; Berggren 2010).
Signs of the ultimate oerings in the form of human sacrices and ritual
killings from the Early Neolithic have been found at several places in south-
ern Scandinavia (Kaul 1994; Tilley 1996; Koch 1998; Bennike 1999; Benni-
ke/Ebbesen 1986; Nilsson/Nilsson 2003, 266–270), underlining the fact that
some high-status individuals or ritual specialists had the power to decide
over life and death in a hierarchical society. Most of the sacrices of humans
have been discovered in wetlands, bogs or former lakes, and many bodies
2
7
Scania
Sweden
Dagstorp
Almohov
Döserygg
Flackarp
Södra Sallerup - Flint Mines 0 10 km
1
2
3
4
1
4
3
2
Fig. 20. Three reconstructed Neolithic
polities in southwestern Scania with
hypothetical local and regional monu-
mental places, with the sea level at
the time about 3 m higher than today
(Graphics: M. Andersson/Arkeologerna).
Fig. 21. A model of the hierarchy of
monumental places in polities in south-
western Scania (Graphics: M. Andersson/
Arkeologerna).
Regional
monumental
centre
Local monumental centers
Monuments in settlements

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
83
JNA 24/2022
show evidence of deadly trauma including blows to the head and/or strang-
ling. Some bones have cut marks, indicating dismemberment of bodies and
likely cannibalism. Similar treatment of animal and human bones suggests
a close relationship between the ideas concerning animal and human es-
sence, perhaps with totemic signicance (for a discussion see Kaul 1994;
Tilley 1996).
In addition, ritual activities in connection with megaliths often have
strong elements of sacrices, depositions of objects and the remains of
meals. Finds of human bones deposited near to some megaliths have been
interpreted as possible signs of human sacrices and also cannibalism, as is
the case at a long dolmen at Hindby just outside Malmö (Burenhult 1973).
However, the dates of these deposits are unclear. A 14C-analysis from one
of the features dated human bones to the Middle Neolithic B (Persson/
Sjögren 2001, 222). Flint and stone objects as well as ceramic vessels have
been placed in or in close connection with dolmens and passage graves. As
an example, large numbers of ceramic vessels have been deposited in and
around the entrance of passage graves (Hårdh 1990).
As discussed by Hayden (2018), animal and human sacrices as well as
cannibalism have been documented in several cases in connection with ritu-
als performed by “secret societies”, indicating that the FBC polities might
have supported these institutional practices.
Agriculture and husbandry – creating an economic surplus
Agriculture in the EN Funnel Beaker Culture societies was probably based
on intensive garden cultivation with manuring and active management al-
ready from its outset at ca. 4000 cal BC, combined with husbandry involving
cattle, goat/sheep and pigs (Bogaard 2004; Sørensen 2020; Andersson/Ar-
tursson 2017; 2020; Andersson et al. 2016). The domesticated animals were
not just only used for meat, but dairy products also seem to have been an
important part of the diet from the start of the Neolithic (Andersson et al.
2016). The ard was probably introduced from ca. 3600 cal BC, making it pos-
sible to intensify the cultivation of a range of crops. Hunting, shing and
gathering complemented the resources on a seasonal basis, when maxi-
mum extraction was possible.
The production of a surplus and the mobilisation and control of these ac-
cumulated resources by certain individuals or groups as part of feasting and
the building of monuments, enhanced the possibilities to concentrate eco-
nomic and political power. The surplus was used for import and produc-
tion of prestige goods, feasting and the construction of monuments, such
as long barrows, wooden and stone-built façades, dolmens and passage
graves, to control ritual and religion and to strengthen social power and
stratication. The importance of feasting and social constructions like “se-
cret societies” should be emphasised, as they might have produced good
opportunities to manipulate people and to involve them in intricate strati-
ed, social, economic and political networks (Hayden 2014; 2018).
Networks of long-distance contacts between southern Scandinavia and
continental Europe with deep roots in the Late Mesolithic gave rise to new
possibilities to concentrate power (Klassen 2000; 2002; 2004). Imports of ex-
clusive, exotic products, such as axes and personal adornments, in some
cases made of rare stone materials or copper, moved through a prestige-
based economy, giving prerequisites for more pronounced social stratica-
tion. The introduction of copper in southern Scandinavia during the EN had
probably fundamental consequences for the economy and improved the
possibilities for certain individuals to concentrate their control over long-
distance contacts. As we have seen, from the beginning of the EN, a hierar-
chy of ritual places was already established in southern Scandinavia; traces

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
84
JNA 24/2022
of ritual feasting and the construction of monuments can be identied in
connection with everything from ordinary settlements to local ritual places
and up to large, more complex regional centres. This can be interpreted as
indicating dierent levels of control of important social and ritual activities,
from the leaders of single settlements to the local leaders and all the way up
to regional leadership with a central position in a big-man or chieftain-like
political structure (cf. Hayden 2018, 314).
Flint mining and the production and distribution of point-butt-
ed int axes
Flint mining and the extensive production of point-butted int axes at
Södra Sallerup in southwestern Scania in the beginning of the EN I, both
with their role models in continental Europe, can be seen as signs of direct
inuences from continental Michelsberg and FBC groups. Recent studies
of aDNA from bones and teeth in FBC-graves and oering fens in south-
ern Scandinavia have shown that there must have been quite an extensive
migration of Neolithic groups from present day northern Germany and Po-
land, introducing farming, husbandry and int mining as a complete pack-
age. The amalgamation of local hunter-gatherers and migrating FBC farm-
ers seems to have been limited at rst (Sørensen 2014; Sørensen/Karg 2012;
Berggren et al. 2016).
The rst stages of the production of point-butted int axes seem to have
been restricted to the int mines at Södra Sallerup just to the east of Malmö.
The distribution of early types of pointed-butted int axes in Scania shows
that the rst agricultural settlement moved away from the coast and fol-
lowed the water courses far inland. From there, the axes were distributed to
the rest of southern and middle Scandinavia, probably both as blanks and
as nished objects. This implies the existence of some kind of ownership
and centralised control of int mines and well-developed long-distance
networks in Scandinavia (for a discussion see Hernek 1989; Sørensen 2014;
Nielsen/Nielsen 2020; Berggren et al. 2016; Andersson et al. 2016).
The rapid spread of the material culture of the FBC conrms the existence
of these long-distance networks, reaching the eastern middle part of Swe-
den and southern Norway in less than 100 years. The exact speed and de-
tails in the geographical spread are hard to specify, but a Neolithic econo-
my seems to have been well-established in suitable areas in the southern
and middle part of Scandinavia already around 3900 BC, exhibiting an im-
pressive mobility and adaptability of the FBC groups (Glørstad 2009; Hall-
gren 2008).
The rapid spread of the point-butted int axes and the extensive geo-
graphic distribution can be interpreted as a sign of their cultural importance,
indicating that they might have been seen as prestige goods used to signal
a high social position. Together with nds of polygonal stone battle axes imi-
tating continental copper battle axes, they could be viewed as important
cultural and social markers in the EN I FBC communities all over the south-
ern and middle part of Scandinavia (Hallgren 2008).
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action – agriculture, feasting,
monuments and “secret societies”
The introduction of agriculture and the expansion of the FBC in Scandi-
navia have been extensively discussed over the years and dierent hy-
potheses have been presented (Sheridan 2010; Sørensen 2014; Nielsen/
Nielsen 2020). Now, with recent breakthroughs in aDNA research, the im-
migration of Neolithic groups from the continent to Scandinavia stands

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
85
JNA 24/2022
as the most likely explanation for the establishment of a new way of liv-
ing in the region.
According to new results, expansion within the Chasséen and Michels-
berg cultures in the time period at ca. 4200–4000 cal BC resulted in the for-
mation of new agricultural societies on the continent and the British Isles.
This expansion probably involved extensive migration covering large are-
as in Central, Western and Northern Europe. Studies of aDNA show that ag-
riculture was introduced to Britain by incoming farmers from the continent,
who had only minor levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry (Sheridan 2010; Row-
ley-Conwy 2011; Sørensen 2014; Nielsen/Nielsen 2020; Brace et al. 2019).
Researchers have suggested that the origin for the migration to Northern
Europe and Scandinavia and the establishment of the FBC can be found in
the Michelsberg Culture, whose expansion into Central Europe in the cen-
turies before 4000 BC may have been the result of population growth and
increased tension and competition between local groups, maybe in com-
bination with an agrarian crisis, which meant that there was a need to take
control of and exploit new areas. This is a model that might explain why the
FBC, which had an agrarian technology much like the Michelsberg Culture,
emerged in Eastern and Northern Europe from ca. 4100 BC.
Such an extensive movement of people, animals and equipment must
have been a very risky business, so before migration took place, recon-
naissance and scouting expeditions were likely sent out to nd and ex-
plore suitable locations for settlement (Sørensen 2014, 56–57). The access
to large deposits of high-quality int in southern Scandinavia may have
encouraged the rst of these expeditions to this area, and they were soon
followed by migration to int-rich regions. Extensive int-mining and the
production of large quantities of point-butted int axes developed from
the beginning of the Early Neolithic on both sides of the Öresund Strait,
and the concentrations of settlements, monumental graves and nds in
exactly these areas must reect a signicant increase in population (Niel-
sen/Nielsen 2020).
Lasse Sørensen (2014) interprets the process of colonisation in southern
Scandinavia as a phenomenon occurring in collaboration with the migrat-
ing farmers and the local population groups, quickly adopting the agrari-
an technology and social behaviour that characterised the immigrant popu-
lation. This model may explain some of the indications of continuity from
the Ertebølle to the FBC in Scandinavia, such as the continuation of the sea-
sonal use of some of the coastal settlements and the continuous but limited
exploitation of wild resources (Gron/Sørensen 2018). However, this cultural
dualism at the start of the Neolithic probably only existed for a very short
period of time (Nielsen/Nielsen 2020). There is no convincing evidence for a
continuation of the Ertebølle Culture after 4000/3950 BC, so the question is
how much of the Mesolithic population actually did survive the Mesolithic-
Neolithic transition (cf. Brinch Petersen 2015, 128). There are almost no indi-
cations in the aDNA analysis made so far that support an intermix between
Ertebølle and FBC populations.
As discussed earlier, the FBC societies in southern Scandinavia seem to
have been much more populous and to have had a more complex social
and political organisation than presented in earlier models. The attempts
for a dominating position by some individuals, families and groups already
from the beginning of the Neolithic 4000 cal BC have been well-document-
ed. Signs of the establishment of stratied polities through the use of feast-
ing and the construction of monuments, probably under inuences from
dierent kinds of “secret societies” providing powerful tools to achieve a
hierarchical social and political structure, can now be identied in the ma-
terial. Well-documented anthropological studies have produced evidence
from large parts of the world to support such an interpretative model of the
southern Scandinavian FBC societies (Hayden 2014; 2018).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
86
JNA 24/2022
The production of an agricultural surplus and the control and redistribu-
tion of resources were essential to establish these trans-egalitarian societies
and low complexity chiefdoms. But this aspiration for power and dominance
has probably not transpired without conicts, both internal and external.
Violent struggle for dominance and political instability in low-complexity
societies can be considered typical, judging from historical and anthropo-
logical studies. Moreover, conicts between polities are common, often in
combination with more or less unstable federations between neighbouring
chiefdoms (Earle 1997; 2002).
Interestingly, there are several indicators for violent encounters during
the EN I in Scandinavia, and for outbreaks of conicts and war. Finds of spe-
cialised weapons for warfare, like battle axes in stone or copper, stone mace
heads, halberds and arrowheads as well as several observations of skull and
body traumata, make it highly likely that violent encounters were not rare in
the FBC societies (Brinch Petersen 2008). In addition, the defensive features
of the causewayed enclosures could be a reaction to regular outbursts of
warfare, but when it comes to these kinds of complex constructions, a mul-
ti-functional interpretation seems more likely. Probably, causewayed enclo-
sures were used for a multitude of functions: social gatherings, ritual perfor-
mances and defense (Horn 2021). In connection with this, it is interesting to
see that there are frequent anthropological associations of “secret societies”
with warrior cult and other forms of violent manifestations like animal and
human sacrices and skull cult (Hayden 2018, 315–316).
Conclusion
The introduction of farming, husbandry and int mining in the beginning of
the 4th millennium BC can be interpreted as a sign of the establishment of
prestige-based polities in southern Scandinavia, where exotic objects, such
as imported stone and copper axes, locally produced point-butted int axes,
meat from domesticated animals and foods and drinks based on cereals,
were probably used at local and central feasting events to establish pres-
tige and status for the individuals providing these products in the region.
Anders Fischer (2002, 376) stresses the socio-economic importance of pas-
toral and agricultural products and their function as markers of wealth and
status. In particular, domesticated cattle could be used as a direct measure
of wealth based on the large quantity of meat they represented. Further-
more, the unique properties of cereals were probably recognised in the pos-
sibility to produce nutritious and nourishing foodstus, such as bread and
porridge, and of course alcoholic beverages like beer. The access to large
quantities of meat and foods based on cereals must have been important in
polities where ritual feasting, the construction of monuments and the par-
ticipation in “secret societies” were probably critical parts of changing so-
cial and political relations and crucial in creating and maintaining alliances.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Timothy Earle, Northwestern Universi-
ty, for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. Additional
thanks go to Professor Johan Ling, Göteborg University, for inspiring discus-
sions on the subject of “secret societies” and their implications for the inter-
pretation of Funnel Beaker societies.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
87
JNA 24/2022
References
Andersen 2015: N. H. Andersen, Frydenlund – Early Ne olithic settlement and “bark aer”
structures in the Sa rup area. In: K. Brink/S. Hydén/K . Jennbert/L. Larsso n/D. Olaus-
son (eds.), Neolithic diversities. Perspectives from a conference in Lund, Sweden
(Lund 2015) 117–127.
Andersen 2016: N. H. Andersen, The clustering of megalithic monuments around
the causewayed enclosures at Sarup on Funen, Denmark. In: L. Lapor te/C. Scarre
(eds.), The megalithic architectures of Europe (Oxford 2016) 127–135.
Andersson 2004: M. Andersson, Making place in the landscape: Early and Middle
Neolithic societies in two west Scanian valleys. Skånska spår – arkeologi längs
Västkustbanan (Stockholm 2004).
Andersson 2013: M. Andersson/A. Knarrström/B Söderberg/B. Wallebom, En dös och
två gravar från tidigneolitikum. In: (red.) Schmidt Sabo, K. Örja 1: 9. Skåne, Land-
skrona kommun, Örja socken, Örja 1: 9, fornlämningarna Örja 9, 35, 40, 41 och 42.
Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Rapport 2013 : 68. Arkeologiska undersökningar 2010
(Lund 2013).
Andersson 2017: M. Andersson, Truls Höj. En gånggrift med anslutande monument.
Arkeologisk förundersökning och undersökning 2016. Skåne, Kävlinge kommun,
Barsebäck socken, Barsebäck 19 : 2–3, fornlämning Barsebäck 15 :1 och 104 :1.
Arkeologerna, Statens historiska museer. Rapport 2017:110 (Lund 2017).
Andersson 2019: M. Andersson, Monumentalt neolitiskt landskap och boplats från
yngre bronsålder. Arkeologisk undersökning. Skåne län, Skåne, Lunds stad och
kommun, Östra Torn 29 : 8. Lund 208. Arkeologerna, Statens historiska museer.
Rapport 2019 :129 (Lund 2019).
Andersson/Artursson 2017: M. Andersson/M. Artursson, De tidigneolitiska lämnin-
garna vid Östra Odarslöv. In: K. Brink/S. Larsson (eds.), Östra Odarslöv 13: 5, ESS-
området. Forntid möter framtid. Skåne, Odarslöv socken, Lunds kommun, RAÄ
nr 46, 49, 51, 52 i Odarslöv socken. Volym 1 – Bakgrund, genomförande, tolkning
och utvärdering. Arkeologisk undersökning 2013. Arkeologerna rapport 2017 :11,
Sydsvensk Arkeologi rapport 2015 :16, Kulturmiljö Halland rapport 2015 : 4, Mu-
seiarkeologi Sydost rapport 2015:9 (Lund 2017).
Andersson/Artursson 2020: M. Andersson/M. Artursson, The living and the dead – the
early Neolithic monumental landscape of southwest Scania, southern Sweden. In:
A. B. Gebauer/L. Sø rensen/A. Teather/A. Carlos Valera (eds.), Monument alising life
in the Neolithic. Narratives of change and continuity (Oxford 2020) 273–286.
Andersson/Wallebom 2011: M. Andersson/B. Wallebom, Döserygg. Grav- och sam-
lingsplats från början av yngre stenålder. Skåne, Håslöv sn, Håslöv 10 :1 & 13 :1.
RAÄ 47. Väg E6, Trelleborg-Vellinge. Arkeologisk undersökning 2007–2008. Riks-
antikvarieämbetet. UV Syd rapport 2010:30 (Lund 2011).
Andersson/Wallebom 2013a: M Andersson/B. Wallebom, Döserygg and Skegrie.
Megalithic centres in south- west Scania, southern Sweden. In: D. Fontin/A. J. Lou-
wen/S. van der Vaart/K. Wentink (eds.), Beyond barrows. Current research on the
structuration and perception of the prehistoric landscape through monuments
(Leiden 2013) 115–139.
Andersson/Wallebom 2013b: M. Andersson/B. Wallebom, Döserygg and the Skegrie
dolmens. New light on the megalithic graves in south-west Scania, southern
Sweden. In: J. A. Bakker/S. Bloo/M. K. Dütting (eds.), From funeral monuments
to household pottery. Current advances in Funnel Beaker culture (TRB/TBK)
research. Proceedings of the Borger meetings 2009, the Netherlands (Oxford
2013) 121–13 4.
Andersson et al. 2013: M. Andersson/A. Knarrström/B. Söderberg/B. Wallebom, Ales
stenar i nytt ljus. Delprojekt 1 – gravmonu-ment intill skeppsättningen. Skåne,
Ystad kommun, Valleberga socken, Kåseberga 48 :29, fornlämning Valleberga
154. Arkeologisk forskningsundersökning 2012. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Rap-
port 2013:80 (Lund 2013).
Andersson et al. 2016: M. Andersson/M. Artursson/K. Brink, Early Neolithic land-
scape and society in south-west Scania – New results and perspectives. Journal
of Neolithic Archaeology 18, 2016, 23–114.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
88
JNA 24/2022
Andersson et al. 2021: M. Andersson/M. Artursson/K. Brink/F. Strandmark, Mega-liter,
menhirer och bebyggelse från tidigneolitikum, senneolitikum och yngre brons-
ålder–yngre järnålder. Arkeologerna; SHM Rapport 2021:134 & Sydsvensk Arkeo-
logi Rapport 2021:10 Arkeologisk undersökning 2019 Inför utbyggnad av Södra
stambanan Lund–Flackarp, Skåne, Staanstorps kommun, Flackarp socken,
fastighet Flackarp 2:9 och 7:1 (Lund 2021).
Artursson/Hyll 2020: M. Artursson/N. Hyll (eds.), Fjelie 13 och 50. En tidigneolitisk
långdös och boplatslämningar från brons- och järnålder. Skåne, Lomma kom-
mun, Fjelie socken, fastighet Fjelie 2 :13 och 16 :3, fornlämning Fjelie 13 och 50.
Statens Historiska Museum. Arkeologerna Rapport 2020:58 (Lund 2020).
Artursson et al. 20 03: M. Artursson/T. Linderoth/M-L. Nilsson /M. Svensson, Byggna ds-
kultur i södra och mellersta Skandinavien. In: M. Svensson (ed.), I det neolitiska
rummet. Skånska spår – arkeologi längs Västkustbanan (Stockholm 2003) 40–171.
Artursson et al. 2016: M. Artursson/T. Earle/J. Brown, The construction of monumen-
tal landscapes in low-density societies: New evidence from the Early Neolithic
of southern Scandinavia (4000–3300 BC) in comparative perspective. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 41, 2016, 1–18.
Aspeborg 2009: H. Aspeborg, Vintrie, område C5. Senneolitiska gravar och äldre
järnåldersgårdar. Skåne, Malmö kommun, Bunkeo socken, Vintrie 6 :1 och 17:1,
RAÄ 126. Arkeologisk förundersökning 2008. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Syd
Rapport 2009 : 6 (Lund 2009).
Bennike 1999: P. Bennike, The Early Neolithic Danish bog nds: a strange group of
people. In: B. Coles/J. Coles/M. Schou Jørgensen, (eds.), Bog bodies, sacred sites
and Wetland Archaeology. Proceedings of a conference held by WARP and the
National Museum of Denmark, in conjuction with Silkeborg Museum, Jutland,
September 1996 (Exeter 1999) 27–32.
Bennike/Ebbesen 1986: P. Bennike/K. Ebbesen, The bog nd from Sigersdal: Human
sacrice in the Early Neolithic. Journal of Danish Archaeology 5, 1986, 85–115.
Bergenstråhle 1996a: I. Bergenstråhle, Flackarp 9 : 6, arkeologisk förundersökning
1995. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Syd, Rapport 1996 :3 (Lund 1996).
Bergenstråhle 1996b: I. Bergenstråhle, Flackarp 9:6, arkeologisk slutundersökning
1995. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Syd, Rapport 1996 :76 (Lund 1996).
Berggren 2010: Å. Berggren, Med kärret som källa. Om begreppen oer och ritual
inom arkeologin (Lund 2010).
Berggren et al. 2009: Å . Berggren/K. Brink/P. Skoglund, Bolagsbacken, Nummer tolvs-
vägen & Hörlanders väg. Undersökningar inför villabebyggelse. Södra Sallerups
socken i Malmö stad, Skåne län. Malmö Museer, Arkeologienheten Rapport
2009 : 044 (Malmö 2009).
Berggren et al. 2016: Å Berggren/A. Högberg/D. Olausson/E. Rudebeck, Early Neo-
lithic Flint Mining at Södra Sallerup, Scania, Sweden. Archaeologica Polona 54,
2016, 167–180.
Blank 2021: M. Blank, Mobility patterns in inland southwestern Sweden during the
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Gotarc Series B 78 (Gothenburg 2021).
Bogaard 2004: A. Bogaard, Neolithic farming in Central Europe. An archaeobotani-
cal study of crop husbandry practices (London 2004).
Brace et al. 2019: S. Brace /Y. Diekmann/T. J. Booth/L. van D orp/Z. Faltyskova/N. Rohlan d/
S. Swapan Mallick/I. Olalde/M. Ferry/M. Michel/J. Oppenheimer/N. Broo -
mandkhoshbacht/K . Stewardson/R. Martiniano/S. Walsh/M. Kayser/S. Charlton/
G. Hellenthal/I . Armit/R. Schulting /O. E. Craig/A. Sheridan/M. P. Pearson/C. Stringe r/
D. Reich/M. G. Thomas/I. Barnes, Ancient genomes indicate population replace-
ment in Early Neolithic Britain. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3, 2019, 765–771. DOI:
ht tps: //d oi.o rg/10.1038/s 41559 - 019-0871-9.
Brinch Petersen 2008: E. Brinch Petersen, Warriors of the Neolithic TRB culture. In:
Z. Sulgostowska/A. J. Tomaszewski (eds.), Man – Millennia – Environment. Studies
in honour of Romuald Schild (Warszawa 2008) 33–38.
Brinch Petersen 2015: E. Brinch Petersen, Diversity of Mesolithic Vedbæk. Acta Ar-
chaeologica Supplementa 16 = Acta Archaeologica 86, 1, 2015, 19 – 202. DOI:
ht tps: //d oi.o rg/10.1111/j.16 0 0 - 0390. 2015.12048.x.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
89
JNA 24/2022
Brink 2016: K. Brink, The Funnel Beaker landscape of Vintrie-Svågertorp, southwest
Scania, Sweden. Lund Archaeological Review 21, 2015, 21–38.
Brink/Hammarstrand Dehman 2013: K. Brink/K. Hammarstrand Dehman, Vintrie
Park. Grav och gård. 4000 BC–1712 AD. Område C2 och C5, Vintrie 17: 2, fornläm-
ning 46, 126 och 155, Bunkeo socken, Malmö kommun, Skåne län. Sydsvensk
Arkeologi Rapport 2013 :14 (Kristianstad 2013).
Brorsson 2010: T. Brorsson, Tidigneolitisk keramik framställning utanför Lund, Skåne.
Skåne, Lunds kommun, Lunds stad, Östra Torn 29 :1, RAÄ 196. Kontoret för kera-
miska studier Rapport 52 (Lund 2010).
Buhrmann 1969 [1684]: G. Buhrmann, Karta över Skåne. Reproducerad och tryckt
vid Generalstabens litograska anstalt (Stockholm 1969).
Burenhult 1973: G. Burenhult, En långdös vid Hindby mosse, Malmö. Anl. 1, kv. Bron-
syxan, Fosie sn (Malmö 1973).
Carlie/Lagergren 2012: A. Carlie/A. Lagergren, Utsikt från en mellanbygd. Arkeolo-
giska perspektiv på centraliteter i landskapet (Stockholm 2012).
Earle 1997: T. Earle, How chiefs come to power. The political economy in prehisto-
ry (Stanford 1997).
Earle 2002: T. Earle, Bronze Age economics. The beginning of political economy
(Chicago 2002).
Edring 2007: A. Edring, Gånggriften i Odarslöv. Arkeologisk slutundersökning, 2006.
Regionmuseet Kristianstad, Landsantikvarien i Skåne 2007:12 (Kristianstad/
Lund 2007).
Edring 2011: A. Edring, Arkeologisk slutundersökning 2010. Öllsjö 7:1, Skepparslövs
socken, Kristiansta ds kommun, Skåne län. Sydsvensk Arkeologi. Rapport 2011: 69
(Kristianstad 2011).
Ericson Lagerås 1999: K. Ericson Lagerås, En långhög vid Krångeltofta. Skåne,
Krångeltofta, Västkustbanan. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Syd Rapport 1999 : 44
(Lund 1999).
Ericson/Hellerström 2011: T. Ericson/S. Hellerström, Särskild undersökning 2009.
Östra Torn 29 :1. Tidigneolitisk keramiktillverkning och oergrop. Skåne, Lunds
kommun, Lunds stad, RAÄ 196. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Rapport 2011:102
(Lund 2011).
Ericson/Lagergren 2009: T. Ericson/A. Lagergren, Brunnshög. Delområde 1, 3, 5 och
6: neolitikum och järnålder I nordöstra Lund. Utbyggnadsområde 11, Lunds
kommun. Skåne, Lunds stad och socken, Östra Torn 27:1, 27:2, 28:3, RAÄ 187: 2,
193 :1, 193 : 2, 199–203. Arkeologisk undersökning 2007–2008. Med bidrag av
Anne Carlie och Bo Knarrström. Riksantikvarieämbetet, UV Syd Dokumentation
av fältarbetsfasen 2009:2 (Lund 2009).
Fischer 2002: A. Fischer, Food for feasting? An evaluation of explanations of the neo-
lithisation of Denmark and southern Sweden. In: A. Fischer/K Kristiansen (eds.),
The neolithisation of Denmark – 150 years of debate (Sheeld 2002) 343–393.
Furholt/Mischka 2019: M. Furholt/D. Mischka, The phasing of megalithic construc-
tion activities and its implications for the development of social formations in
Northern-Central Germany. In: J. Müller/M. Hinz/M. Wunderlich (eds.), Megaliths
– Societies – Landscapes. Early monumentality and social dierentiation in Neo-
lithic Europe. Volume 3. Proceedings of the international conference »Megaliths
– Societies – Landscapes. Early Monumentality and Social Dierentiation in Neo-
lithic Europe« (16th–20th June 2015) in Kiel (Bonn 2019) 921–938.
Furholt et al. 2019: M. Furholt/C. Grier/M. Spriggs/T. Earle, Political economy in
the archaeology of emergent complexity: a synthesis of bottom-up and top-
down approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 27, 1, 2019,
157–191.
Gidlöf 2009: K. Gidlöf, En tidigneolitisk samlingsplats – fyndrika gropar och långhö-
gar på Almhov. In: C. Hadevik/M. Steineke (eds.), Tematisk rapportering av City-
tunnelprojektet. Malmö Museer Arkeologienheten Rapport 48 (Malmö 2009)
91–136.
Gidlöf et al. 2006: K. Gidlöf/K. Hammarstrand Dehman/T. Johansson, Citytunnelpro-
jektet. Almhov – delområde 1. Malmö Kulturmiljö Rapport 39 (Malmö 2006).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
90
JNA 24/2022
Glørstad 2009: H. Glørstad, The Northern province? The neolithisation of south-
ern Norway. In: H. Glørstad/C. Prescott (eds.), Neolithisation as if history mat-
tered: Processes of neolithisation in north-western Europe (Lindome 2009)
135–16 8.
Gron/Sørensen 2018: K. J. Gron/L. Sørensen, Cultural and economic negotiation: a
new perspective on the Neolithic Transition of Southern Scandinavia. Antiquity
92, 364, 2018, 958–974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.71.
Hallgren 2008: F. Hallgren, Identitet i praktik. Lokala, regionala och överregionala
sociala sammanhang inom nordlig trattbägarkultur (Uppsala 2008).
Hayden 1995: B. Hayden, The emergence of prestige technologies and pottery. In:
W. K. Barnett/J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The emergence of pottery. Technology and in-
novation in ancient societies (Washington 1995) 257–265.
Hayden 2014: B. Hayden, The power of feasts (Cambridge 2014).
Hayden 2018: B. Hayden, The power of ritual in Prehistory. Secret societies and ori-
gins of social complexity (Cambridge 2018).
Hernek 1989: R. Hernek, Den spetsnackiga yxan av inta. Fornvännen 83, 1988,
216–223.
Horn 2021: C. Horn, Trouble in paradise? – Violent conict in Funnel -Beaker societies.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 40, 1, 2021, 43–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/
oj oa.12212.
Hårdh 1990: B. Hårdh, Patterns of deposition and settlement. Studies on the mega-
lithic tombs of west Scania (Lund 1990).
Jönsson/Lövgren 2003: L. Jönsson/K. Lövgren, Öresundsförbindelsen. Fosie 9A–B.
Malmö Kulturmiljö Rapport 20 (Malmö 2003).
Karsten 1994: P. Karsten, Att kasta yxan i sjön. En studie över rituell tradition och
förändring utifrån skånska neolitiska oerfynd (Stockholm 1994).
Kaul 1994: F. Kaul, Ritualer med menniskeknogler i yngre stenalder. Kuml 1991–1992,
7–52.
Klassen 2000: L. Klassen, Frühes Kupfer im Norden. Untersuchungen zu Chronolo-
gie, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbe-
cherkultur (Moesgård 2000).
Klassen 2002: L. Klassen, The Ertebølle culture and neolithic continental Europe:
Traces of contact and interaction. In: A. Fischer/K. Kristiansen (eds.), The neolithi-
sation of Denmark. 150 years of debate (Sheeld 2002) 305–321.
Klassen 2004: L. Klassen, Jade und Kupfer. Untersuchungen zum Neolitisierungs-
prozess im westlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kul-
turentwicklung Europas 5500–3500 BC (Moesgård 2004).
Klassen 2014: L. Klassen, Along the road. Aspects of causewayed enclosures in South
Scandinavia and beyond (Aarhus 2014).
Koch 1998: E. Koch, Neolithic bog pots from Zealand, Møn, Lolland and Falster
(København 1998).
Kronberg 2016: O. Kronberg, Östra Torn 27:13. En neolitisk rituell plats vid Science
Village. Skåne län, Skåne, Lunds kommun, Lunds stad, RAÄ Lund 206. Statens
Historiska Museer samt Arkeologiska Uppdr agsverksamheten. Rapport 2015 :111
(Lund 2016).
Liahaugen 2018: S. Liahaugen, Väg 19 Öja–Stora Herrestad. Herrestad 14 : 2 & Öja
23 : 22. Öja socken, Ystad kommun, Skåne län. Sydsvensk Arkeologi Rapport
2018:50 (Kristianstad 2018).
Ljunggren/Ejder 1950: K. G. Ljunggren/B. Ejder (eds.), Lunds stifts landebok. Första
delen; Nuvarande Malmöhus län (Lund/Köpenhamn 1950).
Mischka 2022: D. Mischka, Das Neolithikum in Flintbek, Kr. Rendsburg-Eckernförde,
Schleswig-Holstein: eine feinchronologische Studie zur Besiedlungsgeschichte
anhand von Gräbern. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Dierenzierung 20
(Bonn 2022).
Müller 2019: J. Müller, Boom and bust, hierarchy and balance: From landscape
to social meaning – Megaliths and societies in Northern Central Europe. In:
J. Müller/M. Hinz/M. Wunderlich (eds.), Megaliths – Societies – Landscapes. Early
monumentality and social dierentiation in Neolithic Europe. Volume 3.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
91
JNA 24/2022
Proceedings of the international conference »Megaliths – Societies – Land-
scapes. Early Monumentality and Social Dierentiation in Neolithic Europe«
(16th–20th June 2015) in Kiel (Bonn 2019) 31–77.
Nielsen/Nielsen 2020: P. O. Nielsen/F. O. Nielsen, First farmers on the island of Born-
holm (Odense 2020).
Nilsson/Nilsson 2003: M.-L. Nilsson/L. Nilsson, Ett källsprång i Saxtorp. In: M. Svens-
son (ed.), Det Neolitiska Rummet. Skånska spår – arkeologi längs Västkustbanan
(Stockholm 2003) 242–295.
Olsson 1998: M. Olsson, Arkeologisk utredning och slutundersökning Skåne, Lunds
stad, samt Flackarps och Uppåkra socknar, Väg 108 och 852. Riksantikvarieäm-
betet. UV Syd, Rapport 1998:17.
Persson/Sjögren 2001: P. Persson/K-G. Sjögren, Falbygdens gånggrifter. Undersök-
ningar 1985–1998. Gotarc Serie C 34 (Gothenburg 2001).
RAA 2018a: Riksantikvarieämbetet, L1989 : 8116 Stenkammargrav. Uppåkra 15:1
(2018/10/02). https://pub.raa.se/visa/objekt /lamning/505d4c98- cafd- 40a8-
abe0-31d995fad6dd (access: 2022/09/28).
RAA 2018b: Riksantikvarieämb etet, L1989:7491 Hög. Uppåk ra 20:1 (2018/10/02). https://
pub.raa.se/visa/objekt/lamning/56dea486-365e-4c69-98d7-544b49c0c120
(access: 2022/09/28).
Rowley-Conwy 2011: P. Rowley-Conwy, Westward Ho! The spread of agriculture
from Central Europe to the Atlantic. Current Anthropology 52, 2011, 431–451.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/658368.
Rudebeck 2002: E. Rudebeck, Vägen som rituell arena. In: K. Jennbert/A. Andrén/
C. Raudvere (eds.), Plats och praxis. Studier av nordisk förkristen ritual (Lund
2002) 167–200.
Rudebeck 2010: E. Rudebeck, I trädstodernas skugga – monumentala möten i neo-
litiseringens tid. In: B. Nilsson/E. Rudebeck (eds.), Arkeologiska och förhistoriska
världar. Fält, erfarenheter och stenåldersplatser i sydvästra Skåne (Malmö 2010)
83–251.
Rudebeck 2011: E. Rudebeck, Plats för fester, frön och förfäder. Det tidiga jordbru-
kets globala kulturhistoria på sydskandinavisk mark. In: A. Andrén (ed.), Förmo-
dern globalitet. Essäer om rörelse, möten och ärran ting under 10000 år (Lund
2011) 45– 67.
Rudebeck/Ödman 2000: E. Rudebeck/C. Ödman, Kristineberg: en gravplats under
4500 år (Malmö 2000).
Schulz Paulsson et al. 2016: B. Schulz Paulsson/M. Andersson/M. Artursson/K. Brink,
A highly precise chronology for the process of neolithization in southern Scan-
dinavia: The ESS Project in Lund, Sweden. Radiocarbon 59, 2, 2016, 1–11. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.72.
Schulz Paulsson 2017: B. Schulz Paulsson, Time and stone: The emergence and de-
velopment of megaliths and megalithic societies in Europe (Oxford 2017).
Sheridan 2010: A. Sheridan, The Neolithisation of Britain and Ireland: The big pic-
ture. In: B. Finlayson/G. Warren (eds.), Landscapes in transition (Oxford 2010)
89 –105.
Sjöborg 1822: N. H. Sjöborg, Samling för Nordens fornälskare (Stockholm 1822).
Sjögren 2011: K. G. Sjögren, 14 C-chronology of Scandinavian megalithic tombs.
MENGA M01, Revista de Prehistoria de Andalucia, Journal of Andalusian prehis-
tory, Año 1, Número 01, 2011, 103–119.
Sørensen 2014: L. Sørensen, From hunter to farmer in Northern Europe – migra-
tion and adaptation during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Acta Archaeologica
85,1–2 (Copenhagen/Oxford 2014).
Sørensen 2015: L. Sørensen, Endnu et indspark i neolitiseringsdebatten. Arkæolo-
gisk Forum 33, 2015, 32–36.
Sørensen 2016: L. Sørensen, New theoretical discourses in the discussion of the
neolithisation process in South Scandinavia during the late 5th and early 4th
millennium BC – An identication of learning processes, communities of prac-
tice and migrations. Documenta Praehistorica 43, 2016, 1–27. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.4312/dp.43.10.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
92
JNA 24/2022
Sørensen 2020: L. Sørensen, Monuments and social stratication within the early
Funnel Beaker culture in south Scandinavia. In: A. B. Gebauer/L. Sørensen/A. Tea-
ther/A. Carlos Valera (eds.), Monumentalising life in the Neolithic. Narratives of
change and continuity (Oxford 2020) 71–86.
Sørensen/Karg 2012: L. Sørensen/S. Karg, The expansion of agrarian societies to-
wards the North – New evidence for agriculture during the Mesolithic/Neolith-
ic transition in Southern Scandinavia. Journal of Archaeological Science 51, 2012,
98–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.042.
Söderberg 2014: B. Söderberg, Väg E6 Trelleborg–Vellinge: Område 6 :1. Järnålders-
gårdar i dösmiljö. Skåne, Trelleborgs kommun, Skegrie socken, Skegrie 39 :1,
fornlämning Skegrie 39. UV Rapport 2014: 57, (Lund 2014).
Steineke 2006: M. Steineke, Bunkeo 8:2. Dokumentation vid Almhov med anledn-
ing av VA-arbeten. Bunkeo socken i Malmö stad, Skåne län. Malmö Kulturmiljö
Enheten för Arkeologi Rapport 2006:066 (Malmö 2006).
Strandmark/Artursson 2019: F. Strandmark/M. Artursson. Södra Stambanan Lund–
Flackarp. Megaliter och förhistoriska boplatser i Lundabygden. Arkeologisk
utredning och förundersökning 2018. Arkeologerna Rapport 2019 : 2. Skåne,
Staanstorps Kommun.
Tilley 1996: C. Tilley, An ethnography of the Neolithic. Early prehistoric societies in
southern Scandinavia (Cambridge 1996).
Wallin 1990: L. Wallin, Arkeologisk utredning, förundersökning och undersökning
1986–1990. Riksantikvarieämbetet UV Syd Rapport. Slutredovisning ATA dnr:
6080/86, samt 3268/87, 2432/89, 3385/90 & 15/90 (Lund 1990).
Wunderlich 2020: M. Wunderlich, Celebrating stones – Megalith building traditions
among Angami-Naga, northeast India. In: A. B. Gebauer/L. Sørensen/A. Teather/
A. Carlos Valera (eds.), Monumentalising life in the Neolithic. Narratives of
change and continuity (Oxford 2020) 139–150.

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
93
JNA 24/2022
Parish/site
(structure) Type Length, m Burials 14C B P/(cal.
2 σ BC), Lab.nr. Note Reference N o. on map
(Fig. 2)
Barsebäck/
Truls Hoj
(Façade A4483)
Façades with on e
pit/impression 2.5 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to pass age
grave
4825 ± 40/
(3695-3520),
LuS 12206
14C on charco al Andersson 2017 1
Barsebäck/
Truls Hoj
(Façade A4112)
Façades with t wo
pits/impressions 4Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to pass age
grave
4891 ± 29/
(3710 -3635),
Ua-54854
14C on charco al Andersson 2017 1
Barsebäck/
Truls Hoj
(Façade A6900)
Façades with on e
pit/impression 1.5 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to pass age
grave
– –Andersson 2017 1
Barsebäck/
Truls Hoj
(Façade A888 6,
126 62, 12 683)
Façades with v e
pits/impressions 8Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to pass age
grave
4118 ± 28/
(2870–2570),
Ua-54855
14C on charco al Andersson 2017 1
Bunkeo/
Almhov
(Long Barrow 1)
Long barrow ;
four façade pits ≥ 85 One burial w est of
the façad e;
a thin-butted int
axe interpre ted as
a grave gift
4990 ± 70/
(3950–3650),
Ua -17158
Cereal from o ne of the
façade pi ts dated;
another thin-butted
int axe was fou nd
15 m to the south o f
the burial; interpreted
by excavator s as part
of the same bu rial as
the other axe
Gidlöf et al . 2006;
Gidlöf 2009 2
Bunkeo/
Almhov
(Long Barrow 2)
Long barrow ;
four façade pits –Two s ton e-p ack-
ings west of th e fa-
çade; no nds o r
skeletal remains
clearly indicating
burials
– – Gidlöf et al . 2006;
Gidlöf 2009 2
Bunkeo/
Almhov
(Long Barrow 3)
Long barrow ;
two faça de pits – One burial we st of
the façade;
skeletal remains
from two ad ult
individuals
4495 ± 45/
(3360 –3020),
Ua-21333
Skeletal material from
one of the bur ied
individuals dated
Gidlöf et al . 2006;
Gidlöf 2009 2
Bunkeo/
Almhov
(Long Barrow 4)
Long barrow ;
four façade pits –One pit/stone-
packing we st of
the façad e; no
nds or skeletal re-
mains clearl y
indicating burials
– – Gidlöf et al . 2006;
Gidlöf 2009 2
Bunkeo/
Almhov
(Long Barrow 5)
Long barrow o r
façade;
two faça de pits
– – 4660 ± 40/
(3630 –3350),
Ua-33027
Cereal from f açade pit
dated Steineke 200 6 2
Bunkeo/
Vintrie Park
(Long Barrow 1)
Long barrow ;
two faça de pits ≥ 12 Tw o sto ne- pac k-
ings west of th e fa-
çade; no nds o r
skeletal remains
clearly indicating
burials
5130 ± 45/
(4040–3790),
Ua-28807
4785 ± 45/
(3660–3380),
Ua-28808
Possibly tw o phases;
indicated by 14C on
charcoal fro m oak
retrieved f rom
façade pits
Brink/
Hammarstrand
Dehman 2013;
Aspebor g 2009;
Bri nk 2016
3
Bunkeo/
Vintrie Park
(Long Barrow 2)
Façade trench
with two po st pits
(interprete d as
possible long bar-
row by excavator s)
– – 4816 ± 37/
(36 60–3510) ,
Ua-43726
14C on haze lnut shell Brink/
Hammarstrand
Dehman 2013;
Bri nk 2016
3
Dagstorp/
Dagstorp 12
(northern
structure
Krångeltofta)
Long barrow ;
six façad e pits ≥ 21 Stone-packing
west of the fa çade;
no nds or skeletal
material clearly
indicating a burial
– – Ericson Lagerås
1999; Andersson
2004
4
Dagstorp/
Dagstorp 12
(southern
structure
Krångeltofta)
Long barrow ;
six façad e pits ≥ 38 Stone-packing
west of the fa çade;
no nds or skeletal
material clearly
indicating a burial
– – Ericson Lagerås
1999; Andersson
2004
4
Flackarp
(façade 1) Faç ades with
three pits/
impressions
1.9 Inside dolmen 2 – – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(façade 2) Faç ades with
three pits/
impressions
5.6 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
– – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp (fa-
çade 3) Façades w ith
three pits/impres-
sions
2.1 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
– – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Appendix 1. Excavated long barrows and façades in Scania (Fig. 2).

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
94
JNA 24/2022
Parish/site
(structure) Type Length, m Burials 14C B P/(cal.
2 σ BC), Lab.nr. Note Reference N o. on map
(Fig. 2)
Flackarp
(façade 4) Faç ades with two
pits/impressions 4.8 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
– – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Fosie/Fosie 9B
(A4215 etc) Long barrow ;
two faça de pits ≥ 11 Stone- packing
west of the fa çade;
no nds or skeletal
material clearly
indicating a burial
(Charcoal dat-
ed to the Meso -
lithic)
–Jönsson/Lövgren
2003; Gidlöf 20 09 6
Glostorp/
Hans Winbe rgs
väg, söde r om
(northern
structure)
Long barrow? – – – Uncertain, possibly
still preserved
underneath topsoil
Gidlöf 2009 7
Glostorp/
Hans Winbe rgs
väg, söde r om
(southern
structure)
Long barrow? – – – Uncertain, possibly
still preserved
underneath topsoil
Gidlöf 2009 7
Håslöv/Döserygg
(Façades) Façades with 300
pits/impressions 640 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
4200 ± 35
(2900 –2660),
Ua-28703 .
4276 ± 36
(3010 –2750),
Ua -29123 .
14C on charco al Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Lund C ity/
Science Vi llage
(Façade 1)
Façades with si x
pits/impressions 3.2 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
4994 ± 39/
(3950–3660),
Ua-31947
14C on charco al Kronb erg 2016 9
Lund C ity/
Science Vi llage
(Façade 2)
Façades with fo ur
pits/impressions 4.5 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
– – Kronberg 2016 9
Lund C ity/
Science Vi llage
(Façade 3)
Façades with si x
pits/impressions 4.5 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
– – Kronberg 2016 9
Odarslöv/Östra
Odarslöv Object 1
(Façade 1)
Façades with v e
pits/impressions 3.4 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
4660 ± 30/
(3520–3360),
Beta-362997
14C on cerea l Andersson/
Artursson 2017 10
Odarslöv/Östra
Odarslöv Object 1
(Façade 2)
Façades with
three post pits 2.2 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
– – Andersson/
Artursson 2017 10
Odarslöv/Östra
Odarslöv Object 1
(Façade 3)
Façades with fo ur
post pits 2.7 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
4860 ± 30/
(3700–3630),
Beta- 374041
14C on charco al Andersson/
Artursson 2017 10
Odarslöv/Östra
Odarslöv Object 1
(Façade 4)
Façades with
three post pits 2.6 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
4795 ± 45/
(3660–3380),
LuS -10923
14C on charco al Andersson/
Artursson 2017 10
Odarslöv/Östra
Odarslöv Object 1
(Façade 5)
Façades with fo ur
post pits 2.7 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
5010 ± 30/
(3935–3705),
Beta-375262
14C on charco al Andersson/
Artursson 2017 10
Oxie/
Kristineberg
(northern struc-
ture 163 A–C)
Long barrow ; two
façade pits – – 50 40 ± 110/
(3966–3702 cal.
1 σ BC), LuA-
4541 ,
2 σ interval not
given in report
Charcoal fro m façade
pit dated Rudebeck/
Ödman 200 0;
Gidlöf 2009
11
Oxie/
Kristineberg
(southern struc-
ture A160, 161,
162 , 193)
Long barrow ; two
façade pits ≥ 40 Two s ton e-p ack-
ings west of th e fa-
çade; no nds o r
skeletal remains
clearly indicating
burials
5010 ± 110/
(3954–3670 cal.
1 σ BC), LuA-
4304,
2 σ interval not
given in report
Charcoal fro m
stone-pa cking dated Rudebeck/
Ödman 200 0;
Gidlöf 2009
11
Skegrie/
Område 6:1
(Façade A6912)
Façades with t wo
pits/impressions 4.6 Free-standing
without gr aves;
close to dolmens
5005 ± 42/
(3950–3690)
Ua-29070
14C on charco al Söderberg 2014 12
Södra Sallerup/
Hörland ers väg
(A5)
Long barrow ;
three façade pits ≥ 9 –10 Stone-packing
west of the fa çade;
no nds or skeletal
material clearly in-
dicating a burial
– – Berggre n et al.
2009; Gidl öf 2009 13
Östra Torn
(Façade A421) Façades wit h one
pit/impression 2.47 Free-standing
without graves 4051 ± 52/(2840-
2460), Ua-60712
14C on charco al Andersson 2019 14
Östra Torn
(Façade A496) Façades wit h two
pits/impressions 2.05 Free-standing
without graves – – Andersson 2019 14
Östra Torn
(Façade A573) Façades wit h two
pits/impressions 5.72 Free-standing
without graves 4175 ± 49/(2880-
26 10) , Ua -6 07 11
14C on charco al Andersson 2019 14
Östra Torn
(Façade A930) Façades wit h two
pits/impressions 3.05 Free-standing
without graves 5065 ± 60/(3970 -
3710), LuS 12903
14C on charco al Andersson 2019 14

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
95
JNA 24/2022
Parish/site
(structure) Type Length, m Burials 14C B P/(cal.
2 σ BC), Lab.nr. Note Reference N o. on map
(Fig. 2)
Östra Torn
(Façade A1813) Façades with fou r
pits/impressions 2.8 Free-standing
without graves 4740 ± 40/
(364 0-3375),
LuS-14004
14C on charco al Andersson 2019 14
Östra Torn
(Façade A2527) Façades w ith one
pit/impression 1.9 Free-standing
without graves 4885 ± 37/
(3770-3630),
Ua-60708
14C on charco al Andersson 2019 14
Östra Torn
(Façade A5421) Faça des with one
pit/impression 3.8 Free-standing
without graves 5185 ± 64/(4150-
3800) , Ua-60707
14C on charco al Andersson 2019 14
Appendix 2. Excavated megaliths in Scania (note that still existing monuments are not included; see also Fig. 2).
Parish/site
(structure) Type Size,
length/width Chamber,
inner size
14C BP/(cal. 2 σ BC ) Note Reference No. on map
(Fig. 2)
Barsebäck/
Truls Hoj
(passage grave)
Passage grave 21 m 5x2. 5 m 4311 ± 31 (3020–
2880) Ua-54516,
4445 ± 45
/(3340-2925)
LuS 12271,
3983 ± 31
/(2580-2450)
Ua - 5 4517,
3820 ± 28
/(2410-2140)
Ua - 5 455 7,
4099 ± 30
/(2870-2 500
Ua-54519)
14C on charco al and
cereal Andersson 2017 1
Bunkeo/Almhov
(Dolmen 1) Long dolmen 15 × 6 m ca. 1.5 × 0.6 m – – Gidl öf et al. 2006 2
Bunkeo/Almhov
(Dolmen 2) Long dolmen
(uncertain) 12 × 9 m ca. 2 × 2 m – A well was located
underneath the
structure
Gidlöf et al . 2006 2
Bunkeo/
Vintrie Park
(Long Dolm en 1)
Long dolmen
(two chambers) 15 × 9 m
22 × 9 m
(29 × 15 m
stone brim
included)
1.9 × 0.9 m
1.3 × 0.9 m
–Long dolmen built
in two phase s; two
concentrations of
deposited pottery
outside the kerb
stones
Brink/
Hammarstrand
Dehman 2013;
Bri nk 2016
3
Bunkeo/
Vintrie Park
(Long Dolm en 2)
Long dolmen 11– 11. 5 ×
5–5.5 m 1.8 × 0.8 m – – Brink/
Hammarstrand
Dehman 2013;
Bri nk 2016
3
Flackarp
(Dolmen 1) Dolmen Unclear, only
chamber
preserved
1.2 × 1.1 m – – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 2) Long dolmen ca. 9 × 5.5 m
(estimated) 1.5 × 1.5 m 4981 ± 33 (394 0–
366 0), Ua- 64547
3586 ± 82 (220 0-
1690 ), Ua- 65534
14C on haze l and grass Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 3) Round dolmen 6.5 diam. 1 × 1 m – – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 4) Long dolmen 12 × 8 m
(estimated) Chamber
outside the
excavated a rea
4377 ± 34 (3100–
2910), Ua-6 5537
3817 ± 45 (2460-
2140), Ua-64586
14C on charco al and
cereal Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 5) Long dolmen 16.5 × 10.5 m 1.5 × 1.3 m – – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 6) Round dolmen 10 m (diam.) 2.1 × 1.7 m – – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 7) Long dolmen 16 × 8 m
(estimated) Chamber
without clear
structure
– – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 8) Long dolmen 16 × 8 m
(estimated) 1.5 × 1. 4 4126 ± 32 (2880 –
2570), U a-645 42
5060 ± 33 (3960–
3780), U a-645 44
14C on charco al and
hazel Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flackarp
(Dolmen 9) Dolmen 6 × 5 m Chamber
without clear
structure
– – Andersson et al.
2021 5
Flädie Long dolmen 11.5 × 6 m Chamber
without clear
structure
– – Artursson/
Hyll 2020 15

JNA
The Funnel Beaker Culture in action
Andersson et al.
96
JNA 24/2022
Parish/site
(structure) Type Size,
length/width Chamber,
inner size
14C BP/(cal. 2 σ BC ) Note Reference No. on map
(Fig. 2)
Fosie/Hindby
(A nl. 1) Long dolmen ca. 18 × 10 m
(measured
from
Planche 6, see
reference)
ca. 2.0 × 1.2 m
(measured fro m
Planche 6, se e
reference)
GrA -1273 5,
4110 ± 110 Large amounts of
deposited pottery
and burnt human
bone outside the
kerb stones
Burenhult 1973 16
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 1)
Round dolmen 7 m (diam.) 1.4 × 1.4 m 5213 ± 32/(4230–
3950), Ua-29518
4305 ± 50/(309 0–
2760 ) Ua-2870 2
14C on charco al Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 2)
Long dolmen
(two chambers) 20 × 10 m 1.1 × 0.9 m
1.8 × 1.1 m 4205 ± 45/(2910–
2630) Ua-28698
5140 ± 403 (4900 -
2900) Ua-29519
Long dolmen with
two chambe rs.
14C on charco al
Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 3)
Long dolmen (?) 29 × 15 m
(estimated
from m ap)
– – Removed in mod ern
time; marked o n map
fr om 17 70
Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 4)
Long dolmen 14 × 10 m 1.4 × 1.0 m – – Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 5)
Long dolmen 11 × 10 m
(part insi de
the trench)
1.6 × 1.1 m 484 0 ± 45
(3710 –3520)
Ua-28697
Part of the d olmen
was outside the
trench
Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 6)
Long dolmen 11 × 9 m 1.9 × 1.7 m – – Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 7)
Long dolmen 12 × 10 m Chamber
without clear
structure
– - Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 8)
Long dolmen 21 × 10 m Chamber
without clear
structure
– - Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 9)
Long dolmen 11 × 6 m Chamber
without clear
structure
4101 ± 36/
(2870 –2490)
Ua -29127
14C on charco al Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 10)
Long dolmen 13 × 10 m 1.5 × 1.3 m 4153 ± 38/
(28 80–2610)
Ua -29122
4015 ± 30/
(2620–2460)
Ua-29522
14C on charco al and
cereal Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 11)
Long dolmen 19 × 12 m 2 .0 × 1.4 m – – Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 12)
Long dolmen 15 × 8 m 1.3 × 1.2 m – – Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 13)
Long dolmen 22 × 15 m 2 .5 × 2.3 m 4953 ± 52/
(3940–3640)
Ua-29121
14C on charco al Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 14)
Long dolmen 25 × 13 m 1.8 × 1.3 m – – Andersson/
Wallebom 2011 8
Håsl öv/
Döserygg
(Dolmen 15)
Long dolmen <