To create a reconstruction of how the Düwelsteene could have been built and looked around 3000 BC, missing stones had to be added. These stones were designed as a standardised megalithic component and deliberately built abstract, to show the difference between added reconstructed stones and the original megaliths, still existing today.
These stone substitutes were deliberately built abstract, to visibly demonstrate the different parts of the megalithic tomb reconstruction: a) the megaliths that still exist today and b) the stones that were added for the reconstruction. A basic orthostat was modelled in the 3D modelling software Blender, with a flat inner side, a convex outer side and an overall oval shape of the substitute stone, or as Jon Albert Bakker wrote: “Ideally, the sidestones had the form of an obliquely cut hardboiled egg ...” (Bakker 2010: 13).
Additional megaliths modelled in the 3D software Blender
From this base form of the orthostat, the capstone was modelled similarly, it only differs in size. Additional substitute stones that were modelled, were the megaliths forming the outer boundary, the wedge stones and the stones that form the gusset wall between the orthostats and the enclosure stones. The megaliths, that form the outer border were modelled after the orthostats but reduced in size. The other substitute stones were abstract versions of flat stones, that were then modelled to build a gusset wall. These different stone shapes create the basic structure of a passage grave (Ickerodt 2020: 46/47).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sources and further reading: