Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Barrows cemeteries"
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся зі списками актуальних статей, книг, дисертацій, тез та інших наукових джерел на тему "Barrows cemeteries".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Статті в журналах з теми "Barrows cemeteries":
1
Kurila, Laurynas. "LAIDOJIMAS PILKAPIUOSE KRIKŠČIONIŠKOJOJE LIETUVOJE." Lietuvos archeologija Lietuvos archeologija, T. 45 (November 22, 2019): 219–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.33918/25386514-045007.
Анотація:
Burials dug into Roman period – Viking age barrows can be distinguished in the context of the cemeteries from Lithuania’s Late Medieval – Early Modern period (late 14th–18th centuries). So far, at least 400 late burials have been found in 26 Lithuanian barrow cemeteries while only fragmentary information is available about another 25 such barrow cemeteries. The earliest historical period burials in old barrows should be dated to the late 14th–15th centuries, but this burial practice began to occur on a mass scale in the 16th–17th centuries. The main incidence range of this custom is Samogitia and North Lithuania. In respect to their construction, orientation, and grave good assemblages, these burials do not differ in any way from the context of the historical period cemeteries. The return of burials to old barrow cemeteries should be connected with the Christianisation of Lithuania. On the one hand, up until the 16th century the evangelisation of Lithuania’s rural population was not intensive and therefore burial in a churchyard and Christian rites were not well established. On the other hand, the compressed church network during the Reformation and especially the ounterReformation, the increased pressure from the Church to observe Christian burial rites and pay the exorbitant fees for them, and the lack of Christianity’s authority could have provoked the population’s hostility, forcing people to look for more remote locations for cemeteries, locations some communities found in old pagan barrow cemeteries. Keywords: barrows, cemetery reuse, Middle ages, Early modern times, christianization.
2
Woodward, A. B., and P. J. Woodward. "The Topography of some Barrow Cemeteries in Bronze Age Wessex." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62 (1996): 275–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0079497x00002814.
Анотація:
Although the study of Early Bronze Age round barrows and cemeteries has flourished in recent years, detailed studies of the siting of barrows and cemeteries in relation to local topography and contemporary monuments are rare. This paper analyses the distribution of barrow cemeteries in relation to three major monumental complexes in Wessex: the South Dorset Ridgeway, Avebury, and Stonehenge. The analyses indicate that the location of barrows and cemeteries was strictly regulated. Although the specific pattern in each region is different, and closely related to the local topography of rivers and ridges, an underlying structural principle has been identified. This principle is that of circularity, and it is suggested that the various patterns of cemetery layout, involving curved settings and arcs, reflect the shape of the round barrows contained within them, the stake- and post-circles which lie buried beneath some of them, and the shape of the timber and stone monuments upon which they focus. This tradition of cemetery regulation appears to have continued to effect mortuary behaviour well into the Middle Bronze Age, alongside new systems of settlement and burial patterning which were developing in areas away from the ancient monumental foci. Finally, pointers towards future related research are outlined.
3
Kośko, Aleksander, Klochko Viktor I., Potupchyk Mikhailo, Piotr Włodarczak, and Żurkiewicz Danuta. "Yampil barrows from the fourth and IIIrd millenium BC in the light of Polish-Ukrainian investigations 2010-2014." Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 75, no. 1 (December 12, 2023): 247–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.23858/sa/75.2023.1.3605.
Анотація:
In the vicinity of Yampil (Vinnytsia oblast, Ukraine), there exists a cluster of barrows dating back to the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age. Nestled upon the Podillia Upland, this concentration lies at the crossroads of two cultural spheres: the Eastern European steppe and Central European. The exploration of the Yampil barrows began during the 1980s by archaeologists from Vinnytsia. This endeavor was enriched by a Polish-Ukrainian expedition that conducted fieldwork from 2010 to 2014. Seven barrows were then examined. Today, an abundance of radiocarbon data empowers us to construct a precise chronological framework for the Yampil barrow graves. We can now discern four principal stages in this sequence: (1) late Eneolithic, (2) early Yamna, (3) late Yamna era, and (4) Catacombna. During the first two periods (3350-2800 calBC), these barrows were meticulously constructed, sometimes evolving in multiple phases. In the latter two stages (2800-2400 calBC), cemeteries took shape, marked by graves thoughtfully dug into the fully formed mounds.
4
Borodovskiy, Andriey P., Marek Krąpiec, and Łukasz Oleszczak. "Radiocarbon Dating of Barrows of the Pazyryk, Karakoba, and Bystrianka Cultures from the Manzherok Region, Russia." Radiocarbon 59, no. 5 (June 21, 2017): 1263–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/rdc.2017.41.
Анотація:
AbstractThis paper presents radiocarbon (14C) dating of Scythian period sites discovered in Northern Altai, Russia, in the 1990s, including large, unlooted barrow cemeteries in the Manzherok region. The results indicate that barrows attributed to the Karakoba culture may represent a long time span from the beginning of the 9th century BC until the beginning of 1st century BC, while those linked with the North Pazyryk culture generally keep within the Scythian period: from the beginning of the 5th century BC to the late 1st century AD. 14C analysis has confirmed the viability of traditional archaeological dating and the contemporaneity of barrows belonging to various cultural traditions (North Pazyryk, Karakoba), and also allowed correlating the horizons of burials to the seismic phenomena observed at the site.
5
Plavinski, M. A. "DATING AND CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE MILTY BARROW CEMETERY (MIADZIEL DISTRICT MINSK REGION)." Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine 38, no. 1 (June 1, 2021): 259–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2021.01.19.
Анотація:
The barrow cemetery Milty consists of two groups — Milty I and II. The research of the cemetery was carried out in 1992—1993 by archaeological expedition of the historical faculty of the Belarusian State University under the head of V. N. Rabcevič and A. M. Plavinski. In 1992, 5 barrows in group Milty I were investigated, in 1993 — 2 barrows in group Milty II.
An analysis of the grave goods and rituals of the investigated burials suggests that the barrows in groups I and II of Milty cemetery can be dated to the second half of the 10th — first half of the 11th century, or somewhat more broadly, from the 10th to the first half of the 11th century. They belong to the final stage of the existence of the culture of the Smolensk-Polatsk Long Barrows culture on the western border of its area. At this time, glass beads, jewelry and household items of Old Rusian types appeared in noticeable quantities in the burials of the western regions of the settlement of the population of the Smolensk-Polatsk Long Barrows culture.
In barrow 10 of group I, an inhumation burial was found. Such a burial in the necropolis of the Smolensk-Polatsk Long Barrows culture could have been performed not earlier than the end of the 10th — early 11th centuries and, obviously, may be associated with the beginning of the spread of the Christian burial tradition in the Belarusian Dzvina and adjacent territories. Accordingly, chronologically, it is one of the latest in the necropolis. Individual inhumations in the cemeteries of the culture of the Smolensk-Polatsk Long Barrows culture were repeatedly revealed in the western microregions of the distribution of monuments of this ethnocultural community and mark the final stage of the functioning of its necropolises.
6
Jones, Andy M., and Henrietta Quinnell. "Saucer Barrows: Places for Ritual within Wessex Early Bronze Age Chalkland Barrow Cemeteries." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33, no. 4 (October 10, 2014): 339–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12041.
7
Németh, Péter Gergely. "Somogy megye római kori temetői." Kaposvári Rippl-Rónai Múzeum Közleményei, no. 5 (2018): 95–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.26080/krrmkozl.2018.5.95.
8
Mikhaylova, Elena. "Barrows in Khotovsky Bor: rereading the predecessors." Archaeological news 28 (2020): 377–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.31600/1817-6976-2020-28-377-405.
Анотація:
Basing on the results of the most recent investigations, this article systematizes the materials from excavations of 1879 conducted by students of the Saint Petersburg Archaeological Institute in the urochishche (isolated terrain) of Khotovsky Bor. The complex of burial monuments in Khotovsky Bor comprises several groups of tumuli and separate mounds of the Culture of Pskov Long Barrows, as well as a large mounded and zhalnik-grave (graves bordered with stones) burial ground separated from the cemeteries of the long barrows by a certain chronological gap.
9
Van Beek, Roy, and Guy De Mulder. "Circles, Cycles and Ancestral Connotations. The Long-term History and Perception of Late Prehistoric Barrows and Urnfields in Flanders (Belgium)." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80 (October 28, 2014): 299–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2014.8.
Анотація:
The perception of and interaction with ancient relics in past societies has been intensively debated in the archaeology of north-western Europe. This paper aims to make a contribution to this debate by reconstructing the long-term history of late prehistoric barrows and urnfields in Flanders (Belgium). The period between the Late Bronze Age and High Middle Ages (c. 1100 calbc–ad1300) is centred on. Contrary to Germany, Scandinavia and especially Britain, data from the Low Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) have so far barely played a role in wider international and theoretical discussions on the role of the past in the past. Previous studies on reuse practices in the Low Countries mainly focused on the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region of the southern Netherlands and north-eastern Belgium, which partly overlaps Flanders. These studies are combined and summarised. Their main outcomes are tested by means of a detailed inventory of reused late prehistoric cemeteries in Flanders. This study differs methodologically from most others in that it both offers an evidence-based overview of regional diachronic trends (documented at 62 barrow cemeteries and 13 urnfields) and discusses the developments at six sites yielding high resolution data. The observed reuse practices and site biographies appear to be remarkably dynamic and more diverse than previously suggested.
10
Koledin, Jovan, Urszula Bugaj, Paweł Jarosz, Mario Novak, Marcin M. Przybyła, Michał Podsiadło, Anita Szczepanek, Miloš Spasić, and Piotr Włodarczak. "First archaeological investigations of barrows in the Bačka region and the question of the Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age barrows in Vojvodina." Praehistorische Zeitschrift 95, no. 2 (November 25, 2020): 350–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pz-2020-0003.
Анотація:
AbstractIn various prehistoric periods, the territory of Vojvodina became the target of the migration of steppe communities with eastern origins. The oldest of these movements are dated to the late Eneolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. There are at least two stages among them: I – dated to the end of the fourth millennium BC / beginning of the third millennium BC and II – dated from 3000 to 2600 BC and combined with the communities of the classical phase of the Yamnaya culture. The data documenting these processes have been relatively poor so far – in comparison with the neighboring regions of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. A big drawback was the small number of systematically excavated mounds, providing comprehensive data on the funeral ritual of steppe communities. This poor database has been slightly enriched as a result of the design of the National Science Centre (Cracow, Poland) entitled “Danubian route of the Yamnaya culture”. Its effect was to examine the first two barrows located on the territory of Bačka – the western region of Vojvodina. Currently, these burial mounds are the westernmost points on the map of the cemeteries of the Yamnaya culture complex. Radiocarbon dates obtained for new finds, as well as for archival materials, allow specifying two stages of use of cemeteries of Yamnaya culture: I – around 3000–2900 BC and II – around 2800–2600 BC. Among the finds from Banat, there were also few materials coming probably from the older period, corresponding to the classical phase of Baden – Coţofeni I–II. The enigmatic nature of these discoveries, however, does not allow to specify their dating as well as cultural dependencies.
Дисертації з теми "Barrows cemeteries":
1
Auxerre-Géron, Florie-Anne. "L'Homme et la moyenne montagne durant la Protohistoire dans le Massif central : enquête en Haute-Auvergne et Limousin." Electronic Thesis or Diss., Toulouse 2, 2017. http://dante.univ-tlse2.fr/id/eprint/13785.
Анотація:
La Haute-Auvergne, qui correspond au département du Cantal, et la Montagne limousine, à cheval sur le nord de la Corrèze, le sud de la Creuse et l’extrême est de la Haute-Vienne, constituent la zone d’étude de cette recherche. Il s’agit de territoires de moyenne montagne qui se présentent comme de réels conservatoires pour les aménagements de toutes époques, et notamment de la Protohistoire. Cette zone d’étude est donc un véritable laboratoire permettant des approches statistiques et spatiales. De plus, ces territoires offrent aussi de nombreuses zones humides et tourbières grâce auxquelles des données paléo environnementales sont accessibles. Elles viennent ainsi compléter les informations fournies par le mobilier métallique issu de dépôt non funéraire ou de découverte isolée, par l’habitat, notamment les sites de hauteur, mais aussi par le domaine funéraire, particulièrement bien représenté grâce à la bonne conservation des nécropoles tumulaires. Cette recherche aborde de manière thématique ces différentes données, pour l’âge du Bronze mais aussi les âges du Fer, afin d’approcher la question de l’occupation de ces contextes topographiques particuliers, sur le long terme, ainsi que de l’interaction Homme/milieu et des liens entre hautes terres et zones plus basses. Nous proposons ainsi un essai de géographie protohistorique qui amène discussions et nouvelles perspectives de rechercheThe Haute Auvergne, located in Cantal, and Limousin Mountains across North of Corrèze, South of Creuse and far east of Haute Vienne, represent the study area on which this research was conducted. These are medium sized mountain territories, which represent real conservatories for all period installations, notably for Protohistory. This study area is therefore a real laboratory allowing statistic and spatial approaches. Furthermore, these territories offer numerous wetlands and bogs by which paleo-environmental data are made available. Thus, these supplements the information provided by the metallic artefacts originated from non-funeral depositories or isolated discoveries, by the settlements, notably by the hillforts, but also by the funeral domain, well represented through the good conservation of barrows cemeteries. This research has a thematic approach on these many data, for the Bronze Age but also for the Iron Ages, to apprehend the question of the occupation of these special topographic contexts on the long term, the Man/environment Interaction, and the connections between high grounds and lower areas. We here offer an essay on protohistoric geography that will lead to discussions and new research perspectives
Книги з теми "Barrows cemeteries":
1
Society, East Georgia Genealogical, ed. Barrow County, Georgia cemeteries. Winder, Ga: East Georgia Genealogical Society, 2000.
2
Čižmář, Miloš. Mohylníky ve Ždánickém lese: Barrow fields in the Ždánice forest. Brno: Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno, v.v.i., 2014.
3
Alistair, Barclay, Halpin Claire, Healy Frances, Durden Theresa, Oxford Archaeological Unit, and University of Oxford. Committee for Archaeology., eds. Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire. [Oxford]: Published for the Oxford Archaeological Unit by Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1999.
4
Osgood, Richard, Jonathan Last, Philippa Bradley, Nick Stoodley, and Phil Andrews. Prehistoric Burial Mound and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Barrow Clump, Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire: English Heritage and Operation Nightingale Excavations 2003-14. Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited, 2019.
Частини книг з теми "Barrows cemeteries":
1
Makarowicz, Przemysław, Jan Romaniszyn, and Vitalii Rud. "The barrow culture of the Upper Dniester Basin in the 3 rd and 2 nd millennia BC: The Polish-Ukrainian research projects." In Treasures of Time: Research of the Faculty of Archaeology of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, 176–96. Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/wa.2021.13.978-83-946591-9-6.
Анотація:
Since 2009, the international Upper Dniester Expedition has conducted field research (field-walking surveys, non-invasive and excavation) and analytical studies in the Eastern Transcarpathia. These investigations are part of a broader research programme – a study of ‘The Biocultural Borderland between the East and the West of Europe’. The projects concern a comprehensive reconnaissance of barrow cemeteries dated to the 3 rd and 2 nd millennia BC, located in the mixed forest-steppe and forest belt in the basin of the Upper Dniester River. For almost 1500 years, this type of funeral architecture shaped the ‘mortuary landscapes’ of the communities successively inhabiting that area. Hence, the barrow cemeteries are an important source for understanding the mechanisms and trajectories of cultural development in this part of Europe, and consequently the subject of intensive studies within several research projects. This article describes the aims and results of two already completed and one ongoing project in the Upper Dniester Basin. Thanks to the use of modern research methods, both in the field of archaeology and ‘archaeological sciences’, it has been possible to present a wide spectrum of regularities/principles concerning the ‘barrow landscapes’, the chronology of the creation of selected cemeteries, and the construction of regular, linear arrangements of barrows. Furthermore, the projects have and are providing large collections of archaeological (ceramic, lithic, metals, etc.), anthropological, archaeobotanical and archaeofaunal material for future analyses.
2
Harding, Dennis. "Communities of the dead." In Death and Burial in Iron Age Britain. Oxford University Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199687565.003.0008.
Анотація:
Burial monuments of the Neolithic and Bronze Age, individual or in cemeteries, were often located in topographically prominent positions, or in zones of concentration that might qualify as ‘sacred landscapes’. In the Iron Age by contrast it is not obvious what governed the choice of location for cemeteries and smaller burial grounds, whether they were sited in relationship to settlement or whether there were traditional locations dedicated to burial. For some of the eastern Yorkshire square-ditched barrow cemeteries Bevan (1999: 137–8) considered proximity to water may have been a factor. Dent (1982: 450) stressed the siting of Arras type barrows and cemeteries adjacent to linear boundaries and trackways, a factor that is very apparent in the linear spread at Wetwang Slack. Though we may distinguish burials that are integrated into settlements from those that are segregated into cemeteries, therefore, there is no implication that cemeteries were remote from settlements. In fact, the contrary is often demonstrably the case. There is some evidence that small cemeteries or burial grounds were located immediately beyond the enclosure earthworks of hillforts. At Maiden Castle, Dorset (Fig. 3.1; Wheeler, 1943), the picture is prejudiced by the dominance of the ‘war cemetery’ in the eastern entrance, but the reality is that there had been a burial ground just outside the ramparts well before the conquest. A possible parallel is Battlesbury, where Mrs Cunnington (1924: 373) recorded the discovery of human skeletons from time to time in a chalk quarry just outside the north-west entrance to the camp. Some of these were contracted inhumations, and apparently included one instance of an adult and child buried together. The attribution of a ‘war cemetery’ (Pugh and Crittall, 1957: 118 evidently refers to this external burial site, which should be distinguished from the burials excavated more than a century earlier by William Cunnington within the hillfort at its north-west end (Colt Hoare, 1812: 69). Iron Age inhumations were also found, just within the rampart circuit, at Grimthorpe in Yorkshire (Mortimer, 1905: 150–2; Stead, 1968: 166–73). One of these was the well-known warrior burial, found in 1868.
3
Harding, Dennis. "Conclusions." In Death and Burial in Iron Age Britain. Oxford University Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199687565.003.0015.
Анотація:
Most studies of Iron Age burial practices in Britain begin by recognizing that, with a few notable but limited exceptions, there is no recurrent and regular form of disposal of the dead for most of the first millennium BC. We have questioned whether this is a reasonable expectation, that there should be a regular funerary rite, or whether this is simply conditioned by contemporary religious or secular standards. More specifically, our expectation of a regular funerary rite involving the intact inhumation of the dead or the deposit or disposal of the cremated remains as an entity may not conform to regular Iron Age practice, in which it seems that fragmentation and dispersal may have been common. Is there any reason why a diversity of practices, more difficult to recognize archaeologically, should not have been deployed in prehistory, already perhaps long before the Iron Age when the absence of recurrent and regular cemeteries happens to register archaeologically as a conspicuous omission? The fact that in certain regions at certain times one particular mode of disposal predominates, or happens to leave conspicuous archaeological traces, may lead archaeologists to expect a measure of standardization of practice that does not represent the actual diversity of prevailing rites. The real issue, therefore, is not to explain the absence of a conspicuous or recurrent rite, but the basis of choice that made communities adopt various practices, burying some individuals or groups in graves or cemeteries, others in re-used grain storage pits, and disposing of the disarticulated remains of others in various locations around a settlement. A second question, however, is when did the disposal of the dead in Britain first take the form of cemeteries, the recurrent and regular form of which might encourage us to believe that the majority of the population was disposed of in this way? It would be easy to respond by saying that there are formal cemeteries in Neolithic long barrows and chambered tombs, but sacred landscapes like the Boyne valley in County Meath or the Kilmartin valley in Argyll suggest that these special tombs may have been for much more than disposal of the dead.
4
Wessman, Anna, and Howard Williams. "Building for the Cremated Dead: Ephemeral and Cumulative Constructions." In Cremation and the Archaeology of Death. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198798118.003.0018.
Анотація:
Given its inherent nature as fiery transformation, the archaeological traces of past cremation practices are always partial and fragmentary. However, recent advances in archaeological excavation and osteological analyses, and novel theoretical investigations of cremation’s variability, character, and context, have enriched and developed the archaeology of cremation in prehistoric and early historic societies (for a review, see Chapter 1, this volume; see also; Williams 2008, 2015b; Wessman 2010; Cerezo-Román and Williams 2014). For the later first millennium AD, archaeologists persist in underestimating the potential for investigating cremation practices, and this is particularly true of the study of mortuary structures and monuments associated with cremation burials (see also Chapter 4, this volume; Chapter 13, this volume; Williams 2013, 2014a). To some extent, the impoverished archaeological investigation of the architectural dimensions of cremation in particular is understandable. Archaeologists are well acquainted with the fact that burial monuments can be multiphased and become subject to uses and reuses over millennia, and indeed, many early medieval cemeteries focus on, reuse, and adapt, far older monuments (Williams 1997;Wessman 2010). There are also examples of large monumental barrows built over cremation burials, as in the late sixth and early seventh centuries at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, showing that cremation ceremonies could be utilized to make enduring, prominent monuments to commemorate the dead and project remembrance down the generations (Carver 2005). However, the more ephemeral mortuary architectures of the late first millennium AD which characterize the majority of cemeteries in most regions—mounds, ring-ditches, stone-settings, post-holes, and the like—are often damaged or destroyed by postdepositional processes. When burial monuments are identified they often appear to have been inherently modest structures that defy familiar explanations as status-markers and landmarks to project the commemoration of the dead across the landscape and through time. It is often all too tempting for archaeologists to dismiss these structures and refer to cemeteries in which cremation burials occur as ‘flat cemeteries’ or else to kaleidoscope these monuments into a single chronological phase and portray them as ‘collective’ structures. Hence, many archaeological accounts, emphasizing the spectacle and fragmentation of open-air cremation in the human past, wrongly imply, or explicitly stipulate, that cremation is counter-architectural.
5
Żurkiewicz, Danuta. "Lost and found: The Funnel Beaker culture’s ‘megalithic tombs’ in the cultural and natural landscape of Greater Poland." In Treasures of Time: Research of the Faculty of Archaeology of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, 64–87. Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/wa.2021.4.978-83-946591-9-6.
Анотація:
Non-megalithic long barrows were the earliest type of monumental tombs that occurred in Europe. The oldest structures of this type, dating to 4800-4300 BC, are known from north- western France. Then, at the beginning of the 4 th millennium BC, unchambered structures occurred in southern and central England, northern and central Germany, Denmark, and Poland. In Poland, tombs representing the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) are found in several distinct concentrations which do not correspond to the entire range of the settlement oecumene of this community. They are also quite diverse in terms of construction and size. Interestingly, their origin and purpose still remain a mystery. It seems likely, though, that for their creators they had much higher significance than just a place to bury some selected members of the community. Most probably, they were a kind of symbolic marker of a given area, testifying to the unity and power of the communities living in such a region. Some researchers associate their origin with the influence of hunter-gatherer communities on agricultural communities. Other approaches to this topic point to the importance of borrowing the house model of early Neolithic communities, which was symbolically transformed into a ‘house for the dead’, i.e. a tomb. In most regions of Poland, megaliths were only ‘rediscovered’ in the 19 th century by archaeologists, some of whom were amateurs. Unfortunately, this was not the case in Great- er Poland. The megalithic tombs of the TRB remained unrecognized there until the second decade of the 21 st century! What largely contributed to their discovery was technological progress, mainly the use of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). Ongoing research aims to locate and verify occurrences of other cemeteries and to ‘embed’ them in the cultural and natural landscape of this region.