Main points
- A new study suggests that the Raknehaugen mound was not a burial site, but may have served as a response to a climate catastrophe.
- Using LiDAR technology, it was discovered that the mound was part of collective rituals to stabilize the environment after the disaster, rather than a tomb.
Iron Age mound built not for burial, but for protection / Ancient Origins
A new study is changing the perception of Scandinavia's largest burial mound, revealing that the structure, once thought to be an elite burial site, may have had a completely different function.
A new study offers a new explanation for the origin of the Raknehaugen mound, the largest of its kind in Scandinavia. It was previously thought to have been the burial site of an Iron Age elite, but new evidence casts doubt on this. Interesting engineering reports.
Why wasn't the mound a burial place?
The study's author, Lars Gustavsen , notes that archaeological excavations have never yielded conclusive evidence of burial. In particular, bones found during excavations in 1940 date back to 1391–1130 BC, much earlier than the mound itself. This suggests that they are not associated with the funerary function of the structure.
Using LiDAR technology , the researcher examined both the mound itself and the surrounding landscape. It turned out that nearby there is a trace of an ancient landslide over 12 km long. This discovery forced a new interpretation of the purpose of the structure.
The mound is impressive in size – about 13 meters high and over 77 meters wide . Its structure is also unusual for burials: inside, a complex structure of layers of clay and sand was discovered, as well as a wooden base of thousands of logs and pine branches.
Dating of the wood showed that the structure was built around 551 AD – about 15 years after a climatic catastrophe known as the Dust Veil Event , a massive volcanic eruption that caused drastic climate changes, crop failures and epidemics.
According to the researcher, the mound could have been society's response to these events. It not only helped to cope with the consequences of the landslide, but also served a symbolic function – restoring order in the world after the catastrophe.
According to Phys , the paper emphasizes that such monumental structures could have been part of collective rituals aimed at overcoming the crisis. Thus, Raknehaugen should be viewed not as a tomb, but as an element of the sacred landscape and social interaction.
In conclusion, the study offers a new interpretation : the mound was created not for burial, but as a response to a natural disaster and a way to stabilize both the physical and spiritual environment.