To build the digital reconstruction of the Düwelsteene around 3000 BC, the prior reconstruction from before 1932 was used, because the placement of the megaliths is a better template of how the megalithic tomb could have been built, than the current tomb structure. Many of the megaliths seemed to still be in situ on the photographs from the citizen science project and only had to be set upright or rotated slightly to build a somewhat even chamber wall.
The orthostats of the Düwelsteene were moved and placed to fit with the style of the megalithic tombs, which were found nearby or had been built similarly. A common structure of megalithic tombs dating to the Funnel Beaker culture, especially the West Group, is two orthostats on opposite sides, with the flat part of the megalith facing each other. On these two sidestones a capstone was placed, which altogether build a yoke (Bakker 2010: 13). In similar fashion to the Große Sloopsteene, each of the supporting stones from the Düwelsteene was placed to build an even chamber of the tomb, without massively changing the position or rotation of each megalith. This led to two parallel rows of orthostats with two endstones on each side of the chamber end in the south-west and north-east (Klinke 2021: 278).
With all building blocks for the reconstruction of the Düwelsteene around 3000 BC modelled, the first step was fitting the capstones on top of the straightened orthostats. Because all three capstones, that still exist today, slipped off their supporting stones, the positioning that was most likely had to be found. With these megaliths only being virtual models, it could be tested, in which position and on which orthostats, the capstones were most likely placed. After all megaliths, that are still visible today, were positioned in the reconstruction, the stones that were modelled as substitutes were added. First the missing lower parts of the orthostats were placed in the reconstruction, then the foundation of the orthostats, which consisted of smaller stone fragments which were used to lock the orthostats in place by wedging the smaller stone fragments underneath them (wedge stones). A layer of flat stone fragments was placed establishing the floor of the megalithic tomb (pave stones). In between the supporting orthostats, the gusset masonry was added. Lastly the missing capstones were added on top of the reconstructed tomb. The overall structure of the reconstructed Düwelsteene was based on the architecture of similar megalithic tombs like the Große Sloopsteene (Klinke 2021: 283/284) or the megalithic structures in the Netherlands.
The Großen Sloopsteene, located in the Steinfurt district near Lotte-Wersen, are one of the best-preserved megalithic tombs in Westphalia. Unlike the Düwelsteene and other megalithic tombs in Westphalia, this large stone tomb was not restored. Therefore, some of the megaliths are still in situ. However, there were also human interventions at the Großen Sloopsteene, such as a tomb opening in 1807. The Großen Sloopsteene, and the reconstruction of this megalithic tomb (Klinke 2021), served as one of the examples for the reconstruction of the Düwelsteene.
3D model of the passage grave D49 in the Dutch region of Drenthe
Another basis for the reconstruction of the Düwelsteene around 3000 B.C. were the megalithic tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture in the Dutch region of Drenthe. These tombs were already mentioned by Johan Picardt in 1660 and some have been restored since the 19th century. Many of these restorations were carried out by Albert Egges van Giffen after thorough and well-documented excavations. The documents of the excavations, as well as photographs of the megalithic tombs in Drenthe before their restoration, served as examples for the reconstruction of the Düwelsteene. Especially since this tomb, similar to the megalithic tombs in the Drenthe region, was also restored and thus altered at the beginning of the 20th century. Information about the megalithic tombs in the Drenthe region can all be found on the website hunebeddeninfo. There you can find information, 3D models, photographs, and floor plans by Albert Egges van Giffen for each individual tomb.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sources and further reading: