In this blog post, we will examine various theories about how the megalithic tombs scattered across Europe were built and what they mean.

Megalithic tombs in Europe: Traces of civilization or symbols of community?

Until the early 20th century, megalithic tombs in Europe were believed to have spread to Western Europe from civilized areas such as Crete and other parts of the Mediterranean. At the time, scholars interpreted these tombs as the result of migration or the spread of ideas among people belonging to advanced civilizations. However, subsequent archaeological discoveries and academic reflection have gradually challenged this interpretation.

Colin Renfrew’s “autochthonous theory”: a legacy created by changes within the community

Based on newly excavated Neolithic megalithic tombs throughout Western Europe, British archaeologist Colin Renfrew rejected the existing migration and diffusion theories and proposed the autochthonous theory. According to Renfrew, population growth led to a shortage of resources and land, which caused competition between communities, and megalithic tombs emerged amid these tensions.
He pays particular attention to the social structure of the time. Neolithic communities were generally based on egalitarian kinship ties, and their dwellings appear to have been scattered. In this context, megalithic tombs served as the center of the community and marked its territory. Tombs were not simply burial sites, but symbols of the legitimate right to occupy and use the land.
Furthermore, the human remains buried in megalithic tombs were not considered mere remains, but sacred beings symbolizing the ancestors of the community. Rituals were performed there, allowing the living descendants to recognize the existence of their ancestors and justify their right to the land. This function became more concentrated over time, and later developed into large-scale ritual monuments such as Stonehenge. This process suggests the emergence of a class with special political and religious power, and shows that the structure of society at that time was becoming increasingly complex.

Chris Tilly’s interpretation: Megalithic tombs as a tool for concealing inequality

Archaeologist Chris Tilly did not view megalithic tombs as mere symbols of community or markers of territory. He interpreted them as a means for certain elders or male members to justify their dominant position and the inequality that existed within the community.
According to Tilly, the community selected only certain parts of the remains that had undergone a certain period of decomposition, such as ribs, and placed them in the tomb. This was an intentional act to conceal the actual differences in economic power and status. In other words, while megalithic tombs appeared to represent an egalitarian kinship community on the surface, they concealed the class contradictions that existed in the actual society.
Over time, these contradictions led to the emergence of individual graves, where bodies were buried separately, and the direction in which the bodies were placed varied according to gender and age, and there were differences in the quantity and quality of grave goods. Thus, megalithic tombs can be said to have been a symbolic representation of the dual social structure of equality and inequality that existed at the time.

John Barrett’s view: Megalithic tombs as spaces of communal memory

John Barrett focused on the ceremonial significance of megalithic tombs beyond their role as simple burial sites, noting their importance in the daily life of the community, funeral rites, and other rituals. He argues that the construction of megalithic tombs and the repeated performance of funeral rites and other rituals there served to establish and reaffirm the norms and identity of the community.
In particular, he emphasizes that funeral rites redefined the status and duties of the living in relation to the dead. For example, there was a clear distinction between those who could access the bodies or remains of their ancestors through the entrance of megalithic tombs and those who could not, and this distinction became a symbolic criterion of social status.
When the entrance to the tomb was blocked and it was no longer possible to access the bodies or burial goods, the megalithic tomb took on the character of a monument. This means that it was transformed into a way of visualizing the presence of ancestors and perpetuating their memory. Ultimately, megalithic tombs served as a medium for the living to experience their identity through their relationship with their ancestors.

Ian Hoder’s analysis: Social changes revealed at the boundary between houses and tombs

Ian Hoder noted that megalithic tombs in central and western Europe were similar to the houses of the time in terms of form and spatial structure. This suggests that megalithic tombs were not simply burial sites, but originated from the concept of a “house” for the dead.
According to him, as agriculture spread from the relatively fertile central Europe to the less fertile western Europe, securing land became an important issue, and new farming methods such as plowing were introduced to solve this problem. Amidst these changes, the role of men gradually became more important, and male-centered genealogical kinship groups were newly formed within communities consisting of loose kinship groups.
In the process, some groups took the lead in constructing megalithic tombs and performing rituals, strengthening community spirit by involving other groups in these events. At the same time, they were able to justify their superior position in land inheritance by invoking the transcendent authority of their ancestors. Megalithic tombs ultimately became an important indicator of changes in social structure, particularly the shift from a kinship-based system to a genealogical one.

Conclusion: Megalithic tombs were not just piles of stones

Thousands of megalithic tombs built thousands of years ago still remain throughout Europe. From famous sites such as Stonehenge to nameless stone monuments in fields, these tombs are not simply burial sites. They are cultural heritage sites that encapsulate the way of life, community structure, power reorganization, and memory of the people of that time.
Colin Renfrew’s interpretation of spontaneous development, Chris Tilly’s interpretation of the structure that conceals inequality, John Barrett’s interpretation of the formation of community identity, and Ian Hoder’s interpretation of social structural change all reveal the multi-layered meanings of a single object: megalithic tombs.
Today, these tombs allow us to remember the past, reflect on the present, and imagine the future. The traces of humanity carved into these piles of stones are much deeper and more complex than we might think, and from them we can gain insight into the nature of human society.