Many Caucasian scientists tried to find out the question of the origin of local dolmens. However, among the antiquities of the basin of the Kuban River and the Black Sea region, including Abkhazia, no such monuments have yet been found that would be structurally close to them and at the same time preceded them. We can talk about large structures such as stone boxes. So archaeologists call the lining of the grave pit, when all its sides are closed with flagstone placed on the edge. However, in the outlined territory, such burials are unknown for the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, and only from them could dolmen buildings appear through transformation - complication of the “box” structures. Not immediately, but the idea arose that the dolmens were brought to the Caucasus from outside. But where? It is clear that not from the side of the mountains, since it has long been noted that the dolmens not only of the Caucasus, but of the whole world are confined to coastal parts. True, there are private opinions that Jacques de Morgan expressed: "... it is not at all necessary to be influenced by distant centers in order to erect large stones and cover them with a roof." Alas, he is wrong, he did not want to see grooves, heel stones and all that makes the dolmens of the Western Caucasus and some other countries the forerunners of high architecture.
They also thought that the dolmens of the Caucasus arose from grottoes, caves, as an imitation of them. And this disappears, although it was supported by such Caucasian scholars as D. N. Anuchin and M. M. Ivashchenko. Then why do trough-shaped buildings, really similar in shape to grottoes, have a portal (facade) and on it, knocked out of a whole stone, protruding side slabs, a heel support or just a niche in front of the manhole are imitated? After all, this is a complete imitation of dolmens made of slabs, when, quite naturally, long side walls and protruding ceilings form a portal in front of the manhole. No, the "cave theory" for the West Caucasian dolmens is clearly not suitable, it does not explain anything.
So, again the sea. The "idea" of such a structure as a dolmen could only come from the sea. So thought B. A. Kuftin, L. I. Lavrov. The latter generally thought that the "ideas" of the dolmen were widespread, there could even be an "ethnic (blood) relationship" between their builders. Putting all the dolmens of the world, including the Far East, in an inseparable line, he believed that such buildings appeared “with the development of commercial and military navigation among the coastal peoples in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age,” when Caucasians could see dolmens in other countries and begin to build them at home .
L.N. Solovyov, the same archaeologist with whom I consulted on how to dig ancient buildings, imagined that dolmens in the Caucasus first appeared in Abkhazia (“southern dolmen culture”), then spread more widely, and all this happened under the influence of "kashki" - the Asia Minor, rather mobile population, known from cuneiform sources. But there is a discrepancy here - dolmens did not build “porridge”, and they were not found in Asia Minor.
Almost every theory has its supporters, there are traffic police and L. N. Solovyov.
So, the situation with the origin is very complicated. With the beginning of our expeditionary work and with the appearance of the first publications, the matter became even more complicated. The relative similarity of the vessels of the late stage of the Maikop culture, found in the dolmens of the village of Novosvobodnaya, with the ceramics of the Western European culture of "spherical amphorae" led to another opinion: the dolmens of the Western Caucasus are the result of an invasion of the bearers of this culture to the East. This opinion is supported more than others by V. A. Safronov and N. A. Nikolaeva. We will not delve into its justification and criticism. Firstly, the territory of culture with "amphoras" did not go so deep - to the Caucasus - did not go. Secondly, the materials found in the tombs of Novosvobodnaya are not typical for dolmens, they were brought into them, and why they nevertheless ended up in them is still unknown, this still needs to be sorted out. And if we are talking about a comparison of antiquities, then it should go along the line of the cult of "spherical amphoras" - the Maikop culture, and dolmens only sideways entered this route.
Until now, no one has ever compared the dolmens of the world with each other, walking between them with a tape measure, a compass and at least a sapper shovel as a trenching tool, this would take the life of any long-term researcher.
Publications of the monuments of the world that interest us can be found in magazines, books, but they are all written with a different approach, from different scientific positions, and the ancient buildings are depicted in different drawing style and examined under a different critical eye - so figure it out for yourself what is important in these ruins, and what is secondary. I tried to do this kind of office work by lining my desk with books and even piling them up on the floor. I will not repeat here what is typical for the dolmens of a particular country. It's already been done. The closest features of the West Caucasian dolmens, it seems to me, can be found in the ancient buildings of the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal, Spain), in Corsica and on the nearest islands of the Mediterranean, in North Africa, Palestine. Dolmens are especially similar in the territory of prehistoric Thrace (Lalapash). They have attached portal plates and, perhaps, the same proportions. Involuntarily, a theory arose that buildings close to the Caucasian dolmens are located along sea currents, and in the Mediterranean they go from Gibraltar along the northern coast of Africa and turn counterclockwise into the Black Sea, washing first the Caucasian coast, and then its opposite side. And everywhere, except for Asia Minor, along the line of currents there are dolmens, more or less similar to those in the Caucasus. Sea currents are strong, and their currents could help the movement of ancient ships. Looking through the literature on the history of shipbuilding, one can find information about sea voyages that took place in the III-II millennia BC, not only on multi-oared ships, but also on ships equipped with sails. Drawings of such ships are known on vessels, stone reliefs, seals, even their models have been found (Anatolia, Crete, the Cyclades, Egypt). So, ships in such ancient times as the time of the appearance of the first dolmen buildings in the Caucasus were already built, and they could sail along the coast, using not only a fair wind, but also currents. And of course, the builders of dolmens, setting off on a voyage, did not even know that the Caucasus existed somewhere, they accidentally landed on its shores and settled here. Speaking about migration (resettlement) to the Caucasus, I wrote in 1974: “One can only assume that sea voyages were not simultaneous, they were conducted from different territories, but the most ancient dolmen monuments of the Caucasus find analogies in the western part of the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal) and on the island of Sardinia. It seemed to me that an accidental visit to the Caucasus was then replaced by repeated visits.
In my opinion, this hypothesis explains the appearance of dolmens in the Caucasus, acquiring incidental pictures: the advance of builders from the coast deep into the mountains, the emergence of their ties - military and more peaceful - with the tribes of the Maikop culture already living on the occupied lands, etc. In all details It was difficult to figure out the migrations right away, but I proceeded from a dry and businesslike premise - the “idea” of a dolmen without people who saw and built them could not penetrate the Caucasus. They brought her.
Further developments concerned the very mechanics of migration. How could they pass, what was their cause, the role of sea routes in this process, could migrations be spontaneous?
In October 1979, in the small Bulgarian town of Sozopol, an international symposium called "Trakia - Pontika I" was held. Already deep autumn touched this fertile land. The Black Sea raged, and in unison with it, rain clouds ran in gusts. Representatives of fourteen European countries met in a cozy hall, sitting at a large table decorated with flowers. The prim coldness of the first day was then replaced by a friendly atmosphere, and the reports were lively, followed by excursions and conversations in the park. Three speeches were devoted to dolmens - P. Deleva, I. Vankova and mine. The first two speakers spoke about the study of Bulgarian megaliths, and I, having introduced the audience to the architecture and contents of our Caucasian dolmens, focused most of all on those doubts that arise in connection with the hypothesis of the migration of their first builders to the Caucasus from foreign countries. Indeed, briefly retold thoughts about the origin of dolmens are far from the final opinion. Lots of obscurity. The study of migration processes of the recent past, caused by the economic factor (primarily population growth while lagging behind economic growth), when people in search of their daily bread are forced to look for new habitats where they could put their hands and energy, shows the complexity of such “outflows” population. Migration is primarily dominated by a strong, middle-aged male population. The appearance of not always welcome aliens in new places leads to military skirmishes, the fight against the population living here for a long time. To this we must add the need to adapt to a new climate for migrants, food, to get sick with diseases unknown to them, etc. And only with the second, third migration wave, older people and women usually arrived in new places. The winners in such a complex process as migrations were the strongest - it could be the more ancient local population or aliens: after all, martial arts were not for life, but for death. Often the defeated population "dissolved" among the victors. So it was during the Spanish conquest in Central America, during the period of the Arab conquests or during the Crusades. All this takes place in modern migration processes, but in a more relaxed, ennobled form, unless they turn into open war, when the surplus population in the form of hired troops seeks to seize foreign territories. There are many examples of this.
The report in Sozopol caused a noisy debate. Probably, not everyone agreed with his provisions, although no one came out with a denial of the possible connections of the ancient buildings of the Caucasus with the Mediterranean megaliths as their fundamental principle. There is another line of connections between the Caucasus and the Pyrenees, which confirms this opinion. I mean Basque. This people, now living mainly in Spain and in adjacent southern regions France, in terms of language and culture is quite close to the Caucasian peoples. Another well-known scientist of the 19th century, P.K. Uslar, noting linguistic features, could not say anything about the origin of this people, finding it mysterious and lost "in the darkness of centuries." Archaeologists (P. Bosch-Gimpera and others) attribute to him a special Basque-Catalan megalithic culture, among the monuments of which there are trapezoidal dolmens. Modern linguists trace the chain of languages related to Basque and Caucasian, leading it from Spain to the Caucasus itself. Academician N. Ya. Marr, for example, being carried away, outlined the paths along which the Basques (Japhetids) could penetrate into the Caucasus. It turned out that during their movement they could use both land routes, overcoming small water spaces, and sea routes. Their route went through islands and peninsulas mediterranean sea, across Asia Minor and along the Black Sea coast.
As you can see, the dispute about the origin of the dolmens of the Western Caucasus leads to the world of linguistics, complex grammatical and phonetic comparisons, again associated with migrations. The noise of the sea in all purely theoretical and somewhat abstract constructions still sounds, crushing with heavy blows the unsteady partitions between the past and the noisily pulsating present ...
The small hospitable Sozopol and the fabulously beautiful island city of Nessebar were left behind the plane, and the dolmen problem is overgrown with shells of conjectures, theories and opinions.
Archaeologists almost always set themselves the task of linking certain antiquities with some ethnic group, that is, they seek to trace: is it possible to compare them with the culture of any particular people. B. A. Kuftin, for example, using "semantic bundles", was ready to consider dolmens the product of many living and dead peoples. He mentions Ligurs, Cimmers, Pelasgians, Etruscans, and along with them - Chans, Adygs, Dagestanis. Another researcher of dolmens - L. I. Lavrov, an excellent linguist, ethnographer and archaeologist, connected the culture of dolmens only with the ancestors of the Abkhaz-Adygs. The same opinion was expressed by L. N. Solovyov, Sh. D. Inal-Ipa. In contrast to them, Ya. A. Fedorov believed that only the ancestors of the Abkhazians could leave dolmens. It seems to me that it is most correct to attribute their construction to the ancient Abkhaz-Adyghe population, especially since the separation of their common proto-language could occur, judging by the studies of linguists, at a later time, when dolmens were no longer erected. There is another interesting fact here. The Basque language, when compared with the languages of the peoples of the Caucasus, is closest to the population of the Black Sea regions, and as it moves away from Checheno-Ingushetia and Dagestan, it finds fewer and fewer parallels. Thus, the pra-Basks, like the pra-Adygs, could well have contacts.
However, Professor Otar Mikhailovich Japaridze considers it possible to connect the culture of dolmens with the ancestors of the Georgians (Kartvelian tribes). Without opposing his opinion, I would like to note that the third change in the burial rite, when, along with the sitting bones, traces of secondary burials begin to appear in them, that is, heaps of bones without any anatomical order, may be an indicator of the appearance on the territory of the dolmens of the ancestors of the Kartvelian population. Typically, such burials are accompanied by things of the protocolkhid culture, which are not described in this book, since most likely at that time the construction of dolmens had already stopped, but was only used for inlet burials. It seems to me that such finds can be linked with the ancient Georgian culture. But this opinion is fluent, it still requires a more complete argumentation.
There are other views as well. So, individual archaeologists are ready to declare any building, even remotely similar to a dolmen, a megalith, regardless of the nature of the masonry, the manner of stone processing, etc. They are looking for dolmens in the mountains of Ossetia, Checheno-Ingushetia and Dagestan, forgetting about their connection with a certain ethnic group, and even if not an ethnic group (so be it), then even digressing from the inventory that is characteristic only for them and described here, which leads to confusion of the very concept of dolmens and interferes with the already difficult understanding of these already mysterious buildings.
Probably, scientists will be interested in dolmens for many years to come, giving rise to new opinions about the culture of the population that left them, their way of life and beliefs. Perhaps the time will come when scientists with drawings in their hands will be able to compare all the megaliths of the world with each other, regardless of the difficulties of long journeys and language barriers. Dream... Any dream sometimes becomes a reality.
A short story about dolmens is completed. Perhaps he did not fully satisfy the curiosity of many readers. After all, it contains more assumptions than answers to questions. It's like that. Science does not stand still, it develops and expands the horizons it sees from day to day. What now causes bewilderment in us, in ten years, you see, will be easily deciphered and known. There are already forecasts that the age of ceramics will soon be determined, there is hope that the degree of rock destruction along the weathering crust will also provide material for dating, and the expeditions themselves will be organized with the involvement of various specialists, whose efforts will be reduced to solving a common problem - a full-fledged comprehension of a certain monument. Such expeditions are already beginning to work.
The dolmens of the Western Caucasus are still waiting for a new galaxy of their researchers, but I would like them to master the technique of drawing and sketching - that depth of material fixation that preserves a crumbling monument for centuries. And dolmens are becoming more and more rare every day. There are no dolmens of the Kozhzhok group for a long time, the buildings of the Deguakskaya glade began to be demolished. Dolmens disappear for various reasons - because of their own antiquity (the natural time limit allotted for their resistance has been exhausted), ignorance and self-interest of people (they break them into stone), because of the need to free up the areas they occupy.
The modern legislation “On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments”, adopted in our country on October 29, 1976, requires a respectful and careful attitude towards them.
Probably, the implementation of the articles of this law is mandatory not only for special persons, but for all people, regardless of their profession, degree of knowledge of national history and breadth of outlook. The entire local population should join in the protection of dolmens, remembering at least that their design, content and even location on the ground hide answers to many historical questions that are important on an international scale. And if this book aroused interest in dolmens even to a small extent, then we can assume that they will be preserved, and, therefore, my work was also not useless.
Brunov Viktor Viktorovich, Vologda.
In 2009 and 2010, scientific studies of these two megaliths were carried out using IGA-1 devices and the dowsing method.
2009-Brunov V.V. On the energy-informational impact on people of sanctuaries located near the city of Sochi. Conf. torsion fields. M. 2009. pp. 652-667.+
2010-Brunov V.V. Kravchenko Yu.P., Brunova N.P. New discoveries of Sochi dolmens / // Higher education science for the region: 8th All-Russian scientific and practical conference. T.1. Vologda: VoGTU, 2010. pp. 378-381.
Zelentsov Sergey Nikolaevich. Candidate of Medical Sciences, Vologda.
Most seids did not affect the frames in any way, but seids around which moss and shrubs do not grow gave a strong counterclockwise rotation of the frame (?!), in addition, the same rotation was recorded in photographs of cracks in the rocks.
Often you can find deep cracks in the rocks, filled with stones. The work of researchers with dowsing frames shows that the stones that close the cracks in this case block the strongest energy flow emanating from them. Also noteworthy is the reaction of the frames to white stones, which were often placed in prominent places. The frames showed that the white stones "neutralized" by their setting some natural forces that caused a strong negative rotation of the frames.
Kudin Mikhail Ivanovich(1965-), local historian, leading researcher ARGI, Sochi.
The movements of the pendulum were recorded in the areas of the portal protrusions of the dolmens, in the area of the hole or fictitious plug, in the back of the monuments in the places of the protrusions of the side plates. For the most part, it turned out that in the places of portal protrusions, as well as in the areas of protrusions of the side plates in the back of the dolmen, the pendulum makes circular movements (both right- and left-handed). In the area of a hole or a fictitious plug, the pendulum makes oscillatory movements along the main axis of the structure.
2010-Kondryakov N.V. Secrets of Sochi dolmens. Maykop, 2010.
Kuznetsov Nikolai, geophysicist, Abakan.
Geopathic zones are areas of the earth's surface that radiate a flow of energy unknown to science so far. As a rule, the width of these zones is insignificant and varies within 10-50 meters, and the length is many hundreds of meters, and in some cases - kilometers. According to the shape and strength of the impact of these fields on the biolocator, we divided geopathogenic zones into two types:
1-high-frequency (negative), when the vector of the measured field is directed “fan-shaped” (in these places there is an “unbalance” of the human biofield, which ultimately leads to pathology),
2-low-frequency (positive), where the sinusoidal shape of the curves of the dowsing effect is manifested, while the direction of the measured field vector in one part of the anomaly is fixed strictly vertically down, in the other - up. In these places, the human biofield is aligned, which contributes to its healing.
2010 Kuznetsov N. The mystery of the menhirs of Khakassia.
Sochevanov Valery Nikolaevich, St. Petersburg.
Explored Bolshoi Zayatsky (Solovki archipelago). Research methods:
Dowsing shooting of objects (V.N. Sochevanov),
Dowsing diagnostics of people (V.N. Sochevanov),
Determination of changes in the functional activity of the cardiovascular system,
Changing the circulation of energy through energy channels (scanning).
Dowsing diagnostics of people revealed a positive effect of the labyrinth on the psychological, emotional and physical state of the body. The harmonization of the work of the chakras was registered. There is an activation of 2-3 times the upper chakras in men, and the lower chakras in women.
2003-Kodola Oleg Evgenievich. Sochevanov Valery Nikolaevich. Labyrinth path. SPb. 2003. 174p.++ The book presents the results of research in 2002-2003 on the island
Dolmens are one of the most amazing mysteries of the planet. Huge stone structures of impeccable geometric shape, built thousands of years ago - who created them and why? Why did the ancient people need to make great efforts for cutting down, the most difficult transportation, processing of the strongest blocks and their incredible accuracy of installation in a strict order? There are no answers to these questions yet.
Dolmens are called ancient megalithic (from the Greek "mega" - huge, "cast" - stone) structures of a certain shape. In the simplest version, these are three stones set in the shape of the letter P. The origin of the word "dolmen" is associated with a historical misconception: the French archaeologist Voden, who did not know the true age of the structures, attributed them to the Celts (in the Celtic dialect, "dol" means a table, "tep" - stone). In fact, the dolmens are much older: from 8000 BC. in India before 1400 B.C. in the Caucasus. Although the dating is inaccurate, and scientists suggest that the buildings may be even older. Mingrelians called dolmens “ozvale”, “sadzvale” (repositories of bones), as well as “mdishkude” (houses of giants), Abkhazians - “adamra” (ancient grave houses). Dolmens can be seen in England, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Africa and even in India and Korea, there are many well-preserved dolmens in Russia and the North Caucasus.
The Adyghes used the word "ispyun" ("ispun", "spyun") to designate them, which means "house of the dwarf". According to legend, in ancient times, tribes of dwarfs and giants lived in the mountains. Small and weak dwarfs were not able to build their own dwelling to shelter from the weather. The giants, looking at how hard life is for them, took pity on their tiny neighbors. Each giant easily broke out a stone slab in the mountains and, having put it on his shoulders, carried it to the place of construction. Instead of doors, a hole in the shape of a rectangle or arch was punched in the front plate. Through them, the dwarfs allegedly entered the "house" on horseback.
This is just one of many legends regarding the origin and construction of dolmens. What was the real method of their construction and purpose - scientists can only guess.
Burials were found in many dolmens: ancient bones, household items, arrowheads, amber beads, flint axes, pottery shards. All these finds belong to different historical eras, from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages, so it is difficult to determine the exact period of origin of dolmens. But the version about using them for ritual purposes has found many supporters. In her favor is the fact that sometimes the builders imitated the entrance using fake traffic jams, while the real one was on the other side. This is very similar to an attempt to protect the graves from desecration. And if this is so, then it is quite understandable why the entrances are oriented to the cardinal points - this is how ancient people performed religious rites associated with the cult of the dead. However, many modern researchers say that they began to arrange burials in dolmens much later, when the original purpose of the mysterious structures was already forgotten.
Sometimes on the roofs of dolmens there are round platforms, which have borders along the edges, casting a shadow in clear weather. It is possible that in this way the priests observed the Sun and compiled a calendar. Or maybe these heavy stone buildings served as a kind of symbol of the power of the people, like, for example, temples or tombs?
There are a lot of assumptions about how the builders of dolmens moved stone masses. Some researchers are convinced that dolmens were assembled from erratic boulders carried by glaciers over considerable distances. Builders rolled natural boulders over wooden rollers using leather belts, and to install the top slab they made an embankment of sand and clay. Perhaps a certain number of dolmens could be collected in this way. But it is very doubtful that the last ice age left hundreds of thousands of identical plates 2x3 meters in size to our ancestors. Most likely, the builders mined material in quarries. According to researcher Yu.N. Voronov, “the breaking of the slabs was carried out with the help of wooden pegs, hammered into pits, hollowed out along the contour. The pegs were poured with water: when they swelled, they broke off slabs of the required size. Despite the popularity of this version, it remains unclear where the traces of holes and chips that should have remained from the work have gone.
Trying to solve this riddle, scientists set up an experiment to build a dolmen. The experiment showed that not so many people were required to erect a stone structure, it was also necessary to be able to use the simplest tools. But then why weren't other buildings erected in this way? Why were dolmens needed in such quantities?
The experimenters themselves believe that everything is rather trivial: dolmens were used to store food and weapons. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is weak - the dolmens are located too far from the proposed settlement sites. But every year scientists receive more and more reliable information that will one day solve the mystery of the Dolmens.
Dolmens are an integral part of the historical landscape of both Europe and other parts of the world. Until recently, the origin of dolmens did not worry humanity too much: ancient tales and legends about some magical creatures, giants or dwarfs who created these megalithic monuments were enough. However, with the beginning of the scientific study of dolmens and other objects of primitive culture, the question of who and how erected dolmens became relevant.
European invention?
The systematic study of dolmens began in Europe only a hundred years ago, at the beginning of the 20th century. Prior to this, dolmens, like other megaliths, were either classified as natural rock formations, or explained by all sorts of legends, semi-fantastic and fantastic. But after the emergence of scientific interest in these ancient monuments and on the basis of the materials of the first archaeological research, dolmens began to be considered as one of the evidence of the antiquity of European civilization.
Initially, dolmens were associated with the northern peoples of Europe, the Celts and Germans, since most of the structures were found in the respective regions (Britain, Northern France, Germany, Scandinavia). However, then the dolmens of Southern and Eastern Europe became widely known, North Caucasus. This led to the conclusion that dolmens were a common feature of the tribes that lived throughout Europe several thousand years before our era. Thus, the idea arose that dolmens in particular and megalithic structures in general, they are a specific cultural and religious sign of "Europeans". That is, the question of the origin of dolmens was decided in favor of the European version.
A worldwide phenomenon?
But soon the fact became obvious that the European theory of the origin of dolmens is too presumptuous. It turned out that dolmens are present not only in Europe, but also in North Africa, the Middle East and even the Korean Peninsula. The approximate time of construction of these monuments varies significantly - from five to six thousand years in the case of the dolmens of the Middle East to two to three thousand years in relation to the megaliths of Korea.
Proponents of the European theory of the origin of dolmens are trying to use this fact to suggest that this type of ancient buildings spread over such a large area from the Old World. However, at present, the theory of the Indian homeland of dolmen culture is considered the most promising. During the excavations, ancient dolmens were discovered 
on the Hindustan Peninsula. According to some signs, experts put forward cautious assumptions that the type of these dolmens is more archaic even compared to ancient dolmens Europe.
There was a hypothesis that dolmens, having arisen as a type of ritual monument in India, subsequently spread to the West in two "streams". The southern direction affected the Middle East, North Africa, Mediterranean islands and Southern Europe. The northern direction of distribution of dolmens included Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern and Northern Europe. Naturally, theories about the direct connection of dolmens with the Indo-Europeans were also born, but the wide geographical distribution of dolmens right up to Korea does not yet allow us to confirm these versions.
There is nothing magical about building dolmens
Another problem, which is actively exaggerated primarily by non-professional history buffs, is the “human component” of the question of the origin of dolmens. Who and how built the dolmens is what supporters of non-academic versions of history most often ask about. And they themselves, not taking into account the arguments of historians, answer that there is no rational explanation. Allegedly, dressed in skins, armed only with clubs and stones and having neither writing, nor scientific knowledge, nor technical devices, primitive people could not build dolmens. Since for this it was necessary to move multi-ton stones over considerable distances, they often had to be additionally processed, and then also raised to a height of several meters. And this was decidedly impossible, enthusiasts say, unless some supernatural forces or the help of mysterious powerful civilizations (terrestrial or extraterrestrial) were used.
In fact, science already knows several plausible, and often proven, options for the construction of dolmens in the conditions of 5-6 thousand years ago. The most common way to build dolmens was probably the following. A bulk hill was previously created, inside which vertical stones (one or several) were dug in. Then, along the slope of this embankment, a stone was dragged, which served as a vertical partition, and placed on the stone pillars. After that, the mound was gradually dismantled and a finished structure, a dolmen, remained.
Alexander Babitsky