In several places in the Old Testament, mention is made of giants, also known as the Nephilim, the sons of the gods. Two artifacts were probably responsible for many of these stories: giant limestone quarries known as bell caves, and megalithic stone tombs, known as dolmens. The bell caves were huge structures, which were probably mistaken for giant houses or other such structures. To further the legend of the giants were the dolmens, which, by the time they were rediscovered, appeared as giant tables of stone. These monuments were, in fact, a type of burial chamber.
The term dolmen refers to a specific class of ancient megalithic burial chambers. Basically, a dolmen is an easily reopened burial chamber, usually at least partially constructed of megalithic stones, and covered by a mound. It is usually intended to house several burials (Joussaume, 1985: 18). Aside from those found in the Golan Heights area, and in general Transjordania and Palestine, these megalithic tombs can be found, in various forms, in France, the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean, North Africa, Persia, the Caucasus, India, and the Orient (Broome, 1940: 480). Surprisingly, chamber-tombs have even been discovered in both North and South America. This is somewhat perplexing, as the prevailing assumption is that there was some sort of cultural contact to spread this practice. It now seems possible that the idea of the dolmen developed independently in different cultures (Trento, 1978: 8).
In spite of separations of thousands of miles, and thousands of years, all dolmens share some basic similarities. All dolmens are designed to be reopened with relative ease, while still keeping out the elements. This was accomplished in several ways: movable slabs of various configurations, easily disassembled dry-stone walls, perforated slabs with doors of wood or stone, as well as other, less common methods. Sometimes, a passage access was added, and closed off with one of the methods above (Joussaume, 1985: 18).
Further, nearly all dolmens are of megalithic construction . That is, the basic construction used large, undressed slabs of native rock for most of the major structural components. In the simplest case, the main structure of the dolmen would be constructed of a single roof slab, supported by either pillars or orthostats. In some cases, however, the upright pieces are replaced by stacks of smaller, dry-set stones. Similarly, the capstone slab is often replaced with several smaller slabs of stone, or, occasionally, are built up in corbelling by piling up small stones overlapping each other (Joussaume, 1985: 18).
When one considers the size of the monoliths used in these chambered tombs, a natural question arises: How did these stones get there? This question arises especially with the capstones, which often weighed tens of tons. The huge mass of these stones, combined with the lack of technological sophistication of the builders, led many to attribute much of the movement of these stones to glacial activity (Thorpe, 1991: 64). Some even tried to attribute the actual stacking of these stones in their final form to such activity (Trento, 1978: ix). However, the huge number of megalithic monuments, dolmens in particular, indicates there must have been considerable human intervention. The Transjordan area alone contains over 20,000 dolmens, in groups of 300 to 1000 (Negev, 1972: 92). As impossible as it seems, these stones must have been moved, by hand, for distances of several miles. In 1979, an experiment led by J. P. Mohen took place at Bougon, France to prove once and for all that such huge stones could be moved by simple methods, employing a number of people available according to what is known of the demographics of the period. At Exoudun, where it seems likely that the capstones of the chamber-tombs at the Bougon site were quarried, a replica of one of the capstone slabs was fashioned from concrete, which has a similar density to the native stone used. This slab weighed in at around 32 tons. In two days, a rope of linen cord was placed around the slab, with four pull-ropes attached, each 328 feet (100 meters) long. This method of traction requires that the slab have a reasonably smooth underside. Otherwise, as occurs in some chamber tombs, the block must be attached to some form of sledge to minimize stress concentration points, and therefore friction. This method was used by the Egyptians. At Bougon, it was decided to use oak rollers set on square cut oak rails. This method seems likely in areas with readily available timber. However, in areas like Transjordan, large quantities of timber strong enough to handle such stresses were unavailable. It seems likely that, in this case, the stones were simply dragged, which explains why nearly all the dolmens in this area have flat hewn lower faces on their capstones. Two hundred people were required in the Bougon experiment, with 170 people pulling, and 30 pushing with levers. In one morning, the slab was shifted approximately 130 feet (40 meters). This led Mohen to conclude that it would require a month and a half to move the block the 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) from Exoudon to Bougon, with necessary detours to avoid unfavorable terrain.
The slab did not just have to be moved, however. It was also necessary to prove that the slab could be lifted atop the upright supports. In order to do this, three 33 foot (10 meter) long oak levers were used. They were each slid under one side and operated simultaneously. This lifted one side to a height of about 20 inches (50 centimeters). Wedges were inserted to keep the block raised to that level. The same operation was used on the other side, with a net result of the block being raised an overall 20 inches (50 centimeters). This process was repeated, with the use of some form of scaffolding (oak trunks in this case) to allow the slab to be raise to the desired height. Then, it only remained to shift the slab to the waiting uprights, which were probably previously erected and temporarily held in place by a partial mound, to be completed once the capstone was in place (Joussaume, 1985: 103).
The extreme work intensiveness of this operation gives some idea of the number of people who shared in the ownership and use of these dolmens. The 200 people required for this operation represent an overall population of over a thousand individuals, possibly more. A team of easily twice this size was probably needed to move some of the larger capstones present at the Bougon site. During this time period, it would be unlikely that a single village of 2000 to 3000 inhabitants would have existed. Instead, it seems more likely that these projects were the result of a cooperative effort between several scattered villages, and used by an entire people (Joussaume, 1985: 103).
Dolmens share another universal characteristic. A dolmen was always covered, in full or in part, in a mound of earth or small stones surrounded by one or more retaining walls. The mound serves to create a hermetic seal around the main chamber of the tomb. The shapes of these mounds vary considerably. Circles, rectangles, ovals, and trapezoids have all been used. Occasionally, especially in some of the more elaborate passage grave type dolmens, the mound is extended in horn-like protrusions on either side of the entrance (Joussaume, 1985: 21). It should be noted that, in many cases, the mound has been removed, either by erosion, or by human intervention. This accounts for the number of bare stone tables found at various sites (Negev, 1972: 92).
Finally, dolmens all share function as a common characteristic. All dolmens contain, or once contained, the remains and grave goods for multiple burials . This is the main thing that separates a dolmen from an ordinary cyst burial, which would contain the remains of only one body. At one time, there was some question as to the funerary purpose of dolmens, as some dolmen sites have been discovered which contain no human remains. However, it has since been determined, from the presence of grave goods, that these too were for burial purposes, and that, for some reason, the bodies themselves are missing. It is thought that the excessive soil acidity levels in some of these areas is responsible for the complete decay of the remains (Joussaume, 1985: 17).
Thus, it can be seen that, in spite of vast separations in both time and location, several remarkable similarities in construction and practice in chamber-tombs emerge. These dolmens show similarities in construction methods and materials types, as well as in the practices used to perform their functions. It is clear that considerable study is necessary to determine the significance of the similarities.
Further Reading
Broome, Edwin C. 1940 "The Dolmens of Palestine and Transjordania." Journal of Biblical Literature 59: 479-497. Joussaume, Roger 1985 Dolmens for the Dead. New York, Cornell. Negev, Avraham, ed. 1972 "Dolmens." Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York: J. P. Putnam's Sons. Thorpe, R. S. and O. Williams-Thorpe 1991 "The myth of long distance megalith transport." Antiquity 65: 64-73. Trento, Salvatore M. 1978 The Search for Lost America. Chicago, Contemporary Books.