At https://phys.org/news/2026-03-scandinavia-largest-burial-mound-monument.html … using LiDAR it is being suggested Raknehaugen, Scandinavia’s largest burial mound, may have been built in response to a devastating landslide rather than to honour a high status personality. One reason being that in spite of various efforts over the years, no actual burial has been uncovered. It does have an unusual construction, which is described below. The mound itself is 77 m in diameter and 15 m in height. Radio carbon has set the mound’s construction date somewhere between AD536 and 660. Cremated remains at the bottom of the mound, however, have a date between 1391 and 1130BC. It looks as if they were dug up and re-deposited with layers of clay and sand over the burnt bones as well as a pyramid of pine branches with mosses. A second pyramid of more substantial pieces of wood, was added and this was covered in sand and clay as well – and a covering of soil. On top of this was a third layer. This time of 25,000 logs of timber that were stacked into a tent like sturcture – sealed with multiple layers of sand and top soil.
It is the peculiarity of the construction that has caused a bit of head scratching. Going by the tree rings of the pine tres the construction date has been refined to AD551. They explored the idea the dust veil event of AD536-545 may be connected – or perhaps the Justinian plague reached northern Europe. However, the LiDAR scan reveals an ancient landslide approximately 3800m in length and 20m wide in the landscape behind the mound. It is fairly close to Raknehaugen. It might be coincidence but a few details seem to show a direct correspondence between the two. The heap of logs appear to have been snapped rather than sawn or cut down with axes. They are also of different size tree trunks, or branches, as if some event had brought them down – such as a landslide. It seems as if the logs were directly removed from the landslide fill and reused inside the mound.
Finally, the researchers note that rather than view mounds as primarily mortuary structures we should view them as primarily ritual structures that were sometimes used for burials. The mound phenomnea, itself, remains puzzling. If we can get away from seeing them as primarily funeral we might start to understand why they were built. Words of wisdom as I was leafing through a book at Waterstones the other day, on megalithic remains in the UK, and the assumption was from the beginning they were built as tombs.
See also https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2025.10026 …