Dutch dolmens in proportion

About orientation patterns with Dutch dolmens (in European context)

This website was modified. This is an old page. Click here for the new page.

Condition of the dolmens [4]

None of the Dutch dolmens are in primaeval condition. Some have been destroyed completely, others 'only' have been disposed of their mound. Many have been restored, which can be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage. Some stones have been replaced unjustly, because this fitted best in the expectations of the restorer. On the other hand, with a correct restoration the stones stand more or less in their initial position, while they would have been completely useless without. After a replacement or the setup right of a stone, we must take into account a rather big fault of orientation. Orientation measurements entirely depending on such stones are unreliable. But still those stones can be of use when measuring along a long distances.

Detailed reports exist of most of the restorations during the previous century. As far as applicable a summary per monument follows under here. (NB: On the Dutch pages there is a chart per stone too. It's only usefull for the study of patterns. With a statistical study bad restorations will spread out the results and therefore make it harder to draw conclusions.)
The numbering of dolmens and their stones follow the system of van Giffen.

Anloo, D8

In the 19th century this dolmen has been 'restored' without a report. Probably side stone Z3' has been substituted by P1' then. Stone Z1' en Z3 have subsided. Z4' has been restored in 1952.

Eext, D13

This small dolmen has attracked the attention quite early and its contents has been excavated a few times. In 1984 Lanting has done some research on the mound. The side stones of this dolmen all are in their original position. They are partly covered by the mound, yet. In 1976 the cover stone D1 has been replaced.

Bronneger, D21 and D22

During the excavations of D21 and D22 in 1918, side stone Z1 of D21 was found as a part of the second cellar floor. It has been setup right again. P1 has been replaced from the inside to its position as portal stone. All other stones are in situ. Z1' has been pushed aside by an oak and also S1 and Z4 can have moved a little because of a small tree. In D22 it's Z2' that has been displaced by an oak. Except S1 and Z1 all stones are covered by the mound. There has been a small restoration in 1960, but it's unclear what has been done then.

Bronneger, D23, D24 and D25

On the photographs of van Giffen from 1918 one can see the bad situation of D23 and D24. In 1960 both dolmens have been restored as much as possible (what wasn't that much). All side stones have been replaced or setup right again. For dolmen D25 counts the opposite. The picture from 1918 shows the dolmen almost in the same state as it is nowadays. Only the cover stones D3 and D4 have slided off. What kind effect this has had on the side stones cannot be seen on the photograph. Z2 has been subsided by the pressure of cover stone D2.

Emmen, D38, D39 and D40

Dolmen D40 has been excavated by van Giffen in 1921 - including the mound. Alle side stones stayed in place. Portal stone P1 appeared to be in the inside of the cellar and has been replaced. P2 is missing and its position has been marked by concrete early 60's. The same yields for Z1' in D38. The mound of D39 has been excavated partly (van Giffen and Lanting). There hasn't been any research on dolmen D38 so far. In 1960 van Giffen announces large restoration for all of the three dolmens, but its unclear if he really achieved his plans. His reports focus on the formation of a culture reservation and don't mention actual restorations. When comparing the current situation of the dolmens with that on the photographs from 1918, it seems that nothing has changed for D38. In 1918 only the cover stones of D39 and D40 excelled at their mounds.

Benstrup (Cloppenburg), Sprockhoff 965, 966 and 967

Two of the three dolmens find themselves in bad conditions (965 and 966). It seems there hasn't been any restoration at all. Also 967 has been damaged quite seriously. Those three dolmens appeared to be usefull for a systematic comparison with other sets of three only. (see the page Dolmens with satelites).

Mecklenburg, Schuldt 92, 540,541 and 632

With those dolmens reports have been found of excavations but not of restorations. For 540 and 541 only the excavation plan is used in this study. Both dolmens near Serrahn have been 'cleaned up' by the farmers during the vacancy of law when joining East and West Germany together. Because of the patterns they share with other dolmens, both are included in this study. Dolmen 632 near Frauenmark still is covered partly by its mound. It's rather sure that the configuration hasn't changed. Dolmen 92 has been excavated, but nevertheless the stones reside in their place.