FROM PITS TO MEGALITHS: NEOLITHIC BURIALS IN THE INTERIOR OF IBERIA

Funerary Practices

in the Iberian Peninsula from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic

Edited by

Juan F. GibajaAntónio F. CarvalhoPhilippe Chambon

BAR International Series 2417

2012

Published by

Archaeopress

Publishers of Briish Archaeological ReportsGordon House

276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7ED

[email protected]

www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2417

Funerary Pracices in the Iberian Peninsula from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012

ISBN 978 1 4073 1015 2

Printed in England by Informaion Press, Oxford

All BAR itles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxford

OX2 7BP

Englandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all itles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

21

1. The Meseta: a vast and diverse geographical area1

The Meseta is an immense and diverse region occupying the interior of Iberia. With an average altitude of 600-700 m, is surrounded by mountains separating this area from the coastal periphery. Its origin is in the Hesperic Massif, evolved from the hercynian orogeny, swept away by the erosion during the Secondary Era, converted in a peneplain that is now the base of the Meseta, later altered by the alpine orogeny during the Tertiary, resulting in the folding of the margins (Cantabric Mountains to the north, Iberic System to the northeast, and the fractures of the Central System, and the Toledo Mountains and Sierra Morena to the south). This resulted in the division of the Meseta in two big units, the Northern Meseta in the Duero Basin and the southern Meseta in the Tagus and Guadiana Basins, separated by the Central System.

This huge interior area of Iberia has always offered a wide range of environments to the human groups living in this area. Despite of being surrounded by mountain fringes the Meseta has numerous natural communications with the periphery, which were well known by the prehistoric populations. In the Neolithic farming arrived since the mid VIth millennium cal BC, extending through most of the region before the end of this millennium. One of the areas where this first Neolithic has been documented is the Ambrona Valley (Soria), in the southeast of the Northern Meseta, around 5400-5200 cal BC (Rojo et al. 2008), in one of those natural passes between both Mesetas and also outside with the Ebro Valley (Figure 1).

2. The tombs of the first farmers of the interior of

Iberia (2nd half of the VI millennium cal BC- beginning

of the Vth millennium).

The burial finds of this period are extraordinarily scarce in Iberia, which is also the case of the previous Mesolithic,

1 Authors’ research is part of the project HAR-2009-09027( Los Caminos del Neolítico), from Plan Nacional de I+D+I, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.

where just some individual or double inhumations, with poor offerings, mostly from the VIth millennium cal BC and concentrated around the Portuguese shell-middens of the Tagus estuary (Muge, Sado Valley) have been documented. More exceptional are the Mesolithic burials in the interior of Iberia, although there is a recent find of two inhumations in the cave of La Braña-Arintero (León, northern fringe of the Meseta in the southern area of the Cantabric mountains), one of them accompanied by numerous perforated deer teeth (Vidal and Prada 2010).

The beginning of the Neolithic, with the quick expansion of the farming communities, brought many important technological, economic, ideological and social transformations, but no evident change in the burial rituals (Bernabeu 2010, 45). Recent research has revealed that the arriving of farming to the Meseta was rather early (5400-5200 cal BC) (Rojo et al. 2006, 2008). Amongst those discoveries burial finds were also documented. There are scattered human remains in secondary position discovered in domestic contexts, mixed with potsherds, lithics, faunal remains and charcoal, such as the skull of an

FROM PITS TO MEGALITHS: NEOLITHIC BURIALS IN THE INTERIOR OF IBERIA

Manuel A. ROJO-GUERRAa

and Rafael GARRIDO-PENAb

a. Departamento de Prehistoria, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Valladolid. Plaza del CampusUniversitario, s/n, 47011 Valladolid, Spain ([email protected]).b. Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, Ctra. de Colmenar Km. 15. 28049 Madrid, Spain ([email protected]).

Abstract: An outline of the Neolithic burial evidences from the interior of Iberia is offered, from the earliest (second half of the Vth millennium cal BC), simple pits with single or double inhumations accompanied by scarce grave goods, to the Megalithic Monuments of the IVth millennium cal BC. The social and ritual dimensions of those archaeological evidences are analyzed in the context of the process of social and economic transformation that Inner Iberia Neolithic groups experimented along this period.

Keywords: Pit graves, Neolithic, Megalithism, social ontext, ritual.

Figure 1. Location of the study area.

22

Funerary practices in the iberian peninsula From the mesolithic to the chalcolithic

adult male found in the Vaquera cave (Segovia) (Delibes et al. 1999), belonging to the Phase I of this site (5300-4700 cal BC). This has parallels with other Iberian cave sites such as Chaves in Aragón (Utrilla et al. 2008) or Can Sadurní in Catalonia (Blasco et al. 2005).

On the other hand, individual burials are known in pits, also from domestic, but open air, sites, such as the La Lámpara one in Soria (Northern Meseta) (Rojo et al. 2008, 379-393) or Villamayor de Calatrava (Rojas and Villa 1996) in Ciudad Real (Southern Meseta). The La Lámpara grave (Figure 2) is a single inhumation of a senile woman deposited inside one of the pits of this habitat, which has been radiocarbon dated to 5200-4840 cal BC. It was accompanied by a small pot decorated with incisions and impressions and a flint blade. The infilling of this pit was a huge concentration of archaeological materials, a lot of faunal remains of domestic sheep included, but also a complete decorated ceramic bowl, broken in pieces scattered inside this layer, fragments of other potteries, such as a bottle with a complex geometric comb decoration and diverse lithic and bone industry elements (Rojo et al. 2008, 379-393).

A similar pattern was found in the single grave of an adult individual, lacking burial offerings, which was found in Villamayor de Calatrava (Rojas and Villa 1996). The body was placed inside a pit filled with archaeological materials

(pot sherds with incised and impressed decoration, lithics, faunal remains, etc.). Although it was found isolated in a rescue excavation, a few meters close to this area there is a Neolithic open air settlement with several pits.

More recently two new graves have been discovered in Burgos (Northern Meseta). In El Alto de Rodilla (Burgos) another single inhumation was found in a pit. It was an infant seated in crouched position to the wall of the pit that was closed with limestone slabs. The infilling was full of ashes but had no archaeological materials. Beside the body two decorated potsherds, a quartz prism and a quartzite element were recovered. It has been radiocarbon dated to 5297-4988 cal BC (Jiménez and Alonso in press).

In the Fuente Celada site (Burgos) an adult individual in crouched position with a necklace of three bone rings was found inside a pit of a domestic open air Neolithic habitat, with a radiocarbon date of 5208-4961 cal BC (Alameda et al. 2011).

In the Southern Meseta another recent discovery has come from a rescue excavation: El Congosto, in the area of Madrid. It is a double inhumation of an adult and an infantile individual deposited inside a domestic pit of an open air Neolithic settlement, which has a C14 date of 5043-4788 cal BC (Martín 2007, 201).

Figure 2.

23

From pits to megaliths: neolithic burials in the interior oF iberia

Figure 3. C14 ages table

NORTHERN MESETA

Site Context Sample Lab BP Cal BC 2σ Reference

La Lámpara Pit 1 (Single inhumation) Charcoal KIA4780 6390±60 5479-5228 Rojo & others 2006

La Lámpara Pit 1(Single inhumation) cereal UtC13346 6280±50 5366-5073 Stika 2005

La Lámpara Pit 1(Single inhumation) Human bones KIA6790 6144±46 5216-4961 Rojo & others 2006

La Lámpara Pit 1(Single inhumation) Human bones KIA6789 6055±34 5047-4848 Rojo & others 2006

Fuente Celada Pit 62 (Single inhumation) Human bones UGA-7565 6120±30 5208-4961 Alameda & others 2011

Fuente Pecina 2.3 Megalithic grave Upper part of burial layer Charcoal GrN18669 5375±45 4334-4055 Delibes & Rojo 1997

Sima 1.2 Megalithic grave Burial layer Charcoal BLN5362 5308±31 4238-4043 Rojo & others 2005

Rebolledo 3 Megalithic grave Burial layer Charcoal GrN19568 5305±30 4236-4044 Delibes & Rojo 1997


El Miradero 2 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal GrN12101 5155±35 4043-3811 Delibes & others 1986

El Miradero 3 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal * 5135±45 4040-3799 Delibes & Etxeberria 2002

El Miradero 4 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal * 5120±25 3978-3804 Delibes & others 2009

El Miradero 1 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal GrN12100 5115±35 3980-3800 Delibes & others 1986

Peña Abuela 5 Megalithic grave (Postholes surrounding the burial chamber) Charcoal BLN5054 5110±39 3981-3797 Rojo & others 2005


Sima 1.3 Megalithic grave

Burial layer

Charcoal BLN5363 5082±31 3961-3797 Rojo & others 2005



Peña Abuela 1 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal KIA4781 5050±50 3961-3712 Rojo & others 2005

Sima 1.1 Megalithic grave Burial layer Human bones BLN5349 5048±27 3950-3779 Rojo & others 2005



Sima 1.4 Megalithic grave Burial layer Human bones BLN5376 5001±32 3941-3700 Rojo & others 2005

Tarayuela 2 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal BLN5541 5000±38 3943-3696 Rojo & others 2005

Dehesa de Rio

FortesMegalithic grave (Mound) Charcoal Beta164477 4970±80 3950-3641 Estremera & Fabián 2002

El Miradero 5 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal * 4940±40 3930-3654 Delibes y Etxeberria 2002

Sima 2.2 Megalithic grave (tholos) Burial layer Human bones KIA21551 4919±28 3765-3646 Rojo & others 2005

Tarayuela 1 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal BLN5540 4892±36 3764-3636 Rojo & others 2005

Zumacales 3 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones * 4870±60 3790-3522 Delibes & others 2009


Sima 2.3 Megalithic grave (tholos Burial layer Human bones KIA21552 4862±27 3703-3544 Rojo & others 2005

La Vega 1 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal GrN17559 4840±25 3694-3535 Delibes & others 1992


Peña Abuela Megalithic grave (Postholes surrounding the burial chamber) Charcoal BLN5056 4773±29 3641-3386 Rojo & others 2005

La Velilla 6 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones * 4640±40 3620-3351 Delibes & others 2009

El Miradero 6 Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Charcoal * 4490±20 3339-3096 Delibes & Etxeberria 2002

SOUTHERN MESETA

El Congosto Double inhumation in a pit (UE 2242) Human bones KIA-27582 6015±50 5043-4788 Martín 2007

Azután Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones UGRA-288 5060±90 4039-3656 Bueno 1991

Azután Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones Beta-145277 4620±40 3520-3138 Bueno & others 2002

Azután Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones Ly-4500 4590±90 3631-3026 Bueno 1991

Entretérminos Megalithic grave ? ? 4250±50 3011-2668 Jiménez 2005

El Castillejo Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones GX-29784 4180±50 2896-2621 Bueno & others 2005

El Castillejo Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones GX-29783 4050±70 2876-2459 Bueno & others 2005

El Castillejo Megalithic grave (Burial layer) Human bones Beta-145274 3810±70 2467-2041 Bueno & others 2000

* Calibrated with OxCal 4.1 (IntCal09). Dates with more than 100 years of standard deviation have not been included.

24


Finally we have the old and vague reference to a pit grave in the Arenero de Valdivia site (Madrid), where a big decorated ceramic bottle and a stone bracelet were discovered (Jiménez 2001).

To sum up, with the available information we can say that the tombs of this first farming communities of the interior of Iberia were scarce and isolated graves, always in domestic contexts, both in caves and open air habitats, where individual, and exceptionally double, inhumations were deposited in crouched position, accompanied by poor offerings. There is a remarkable chronological homogeneity (Figure 3), since all of them can be situated between 5300-5200 and 4800-4700 cal BC, despite they come from very distant areas in a huge geographical region, so defining an authentic chronological horizon.

Regarding the burial ritual it seems that the bodies were deposited in a single ceremony, and so, that they were closed structures, which were not opened anymore to introduce new individuals. This remarks the importance of the funeral ceremony for those groups, since it was the only opportunity to show all the important messages to the attending community, in the course of which probably symbolic banquets could be celebrated, where meat could be consumed, and also drinking with pots finally broken and thrown inside the pit, together wit part of the residues of that ritual, as it seems to be the case in the Lámpara and Villamayor tombs. It is also interesting to say that both burial pits had a sinuous profile which is characteristic of the structures used as grain silos, yet documented, for example, in the Lámpara domestic structures (Rojo et al. 2008, 379-393). Perhaps this form of the pit was chosen because of the powerful metaphor of the regeneration of life embedded in the concept of the storage of grain (Williams 2003, 242).

But what was the reason behind the systematic use of the domestic contexts for burials in this period? Could it be related with the possible temporal closing of a settlement and the subsequent displacement of the group to

another place, caused by the death of certain individuals, as it has been proposed by Whittle (2003, 7) in other cases? Nevertheless it could also be just the evidence of an ancestor cult, whose physical proximity could be important for protecting or propitiating purposes.

With so reduced a sample of graves, all of them isolated and simple structures with few grave goods, it is very difficult to discuss about the social context of these groups. Settlements lack evident signs of hierarchisation (Rojo et al. 2008). Even though there are indications that the development of farming in this region had important economic, social and ideological consequences (Ibidem), it seems that they are not related with the emergence of social complexity, whose first traces are to be found along the IVth millennium cal BC with the evolving of the funerary monumentality.

3. The development of complexity: megalithic graves

(IV millennium cal BC).

Along the Vth millennium cal BC the Iberian Neolithic will show increasing indications of the emergence of funerary monumentality and the first differences in the distribution of grave goods inside the burial structures (Molist and Clop 2010; Gibaja 2004, 12). However, those first indicators of change are lacking in the Meseta during this period. Pits in open air settlements still are the model of tombs, such as in El Hoyo (Burgos, Northern Meseta) where and adult individual upside down in crouched position was found accompanied by scarce grave goods (a flint blade, burin and arrowhead, bone necklace beads, and a perforated shell placed in the mouth), which has a 14C date of 4347-4069 cal BC) (Jiménez and Alonso in press).

The IVth millennium cal BC is the scenario of monumental tombs in the interior of Iberia, with the extension of megalithic graves (Figure 1). They are mainly distributed in the western side of both Mesetas, but with profound penetrations inside, as the recent research is increasingly

Figure 4.

25


showing (Bueno et al. 2002). In the Northern Meseta megalithic tombs are mainly found in the western provinces of Salamanca and Zamora, but also in a big cluster of finds in the north of Burgos, as a continuation of the Basque-Rioja area (Delibes 2010, 12-17). Nevertheless there are also examples in other regions, even in the centre of the Duero Basin, although they are clearly exceptional. The passage grave (Figure 4), with a circular or polygonal chamber, a corridor oriented to the south-southeast, and a stone mound covering the structure is the paradigm of megalithic tomb in this region, there is an additional diversity of collective graves such as the simple dolmen (Fuente Pecina II in Burgos, El Guijo I in Salamanca), barrows without internal stone chamber, and other peculiar regional forms, such as the so-called “redondiles” or the “limekiln tombs”. Amongst the typical passage graves we have many examples with an extremely diverse range of sizes and complexity (short or long corridors), several of them outstanding examples of the megalithic architecture, for instance El Torrejón or El Teriñuelo in Salamanca, or Las Arnillas in Burgos, with a huge stone mound of 30 m of diameter and 2m of height. This contrasts with the 15 m barrow of Fuente Pecina II, yet mentioned (Delibes 2010, 19), and the modest dimensions of many simple barrows (El Rebolledo in Burgos, for example). As we have already mentioned there are two peculiar types of regional collective graves with identical features in their ossuary, grave goods, etc, but lacking the typical internal stone structure (chamber, corridor). The “redondiles” are a particular version of the passage grave model where the stone slabs are not vertical but horizontal, as a sort of basement of the tomb walls made of mud. It is the case of two collective sepulchres in the centre of the Duero Basin: Los Zumacales in Valladolid and La Velilla in Palencia (Delibes 2010, 19-20). The other regional type of tombs is the so-called lime-kiln grave, in which the burial structure, made of limestone, is closed with a very complex and sophisticated ritual by burning down and melting the whole chamber, thus sealing the burial level with a quicklime mantle, as it has been mainly documented in the Ambrona Valley (Soria), to the southeast of the Northern Meseta (Rojo et al. 2005, 2010), but also at the centre of the Duero basin (El Miradero, Valladolid) (Delibes et al. 1986).

Another exceptional monument is the stone tholos of La Sima, in the Ambrona Valley (Figure 5), which was built over a previous lime-kiln tomb (Rojo et al. 2005, 2010), since it is the only tholos documented in the Meseta and one of the oldest known in Iberia (mid IVth millennium cal BC), because most of the examples belong to the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic of other areas (especially in Andalusia, Southern Iberia).

Regarding the Soutern Meseta, the geographical distribution shows a pattern clearly concentrated in the western areas of the Toledo province, as a continuation of the megalithic area of the Spanish Extremadura and the Portuguese Alentejo. There is a small cluster of passage graves in the region of Aguilar de Anguita (Guadalajara) (Bueno et al.

2010, 169), close to the Ambrona Valley, and also isolated examples such as Entretérminos in Madrid (Losada 1976). As it has been documented in the Northern Meseta there is an increasing number of simple stone barrows, also in the central area of the Tagus Basin (Bueno et al. 2002). There is also a strong diversity from the architectonic point of view in the megalithic graves of the Southern Meseta, although again in this area it is the passage grave, with the corridor oriented to the south-southeast, the most widely documented model, with a strong presence of the anthropomorphic figure (for instance the menhir-statue at the entrance of the Navalcán passage grave chamber) (Bueno et al. 2010). Remarkable examples of this type of grave are Navalcán, Azután and La Estrella in Toledo. Azután has a chamber of 5 m of diameter, and a huge stone mound of 20 m (Bueno et al. 2005).

The chronological framework of Megalithism in the interior of Iberia (Figure 3) is a very complex matter, especially the beginning, since it is very difficult to establish when these monuments were built on the basis of the 14C. The usual procedure is to sample charcoal from the basement of the mound, but many of them clearly belong to pre-megalithic times. For that reason we have decided to exclude them all from the table of radiocarbon dates of the Meseta Neolithic burial contexts, even though there are a few examples (such as El Rebolledo or El Moreco) that seem to be valid for the construction of a megalithic grave, but we must be clear in the criteria used to display them because otherwise we would admit just those that apparently fit well with our current vision of the chronology of the Meseta Megalithism. We have neither included those radiocarbon dates with more than 100 years of standard deviation, since they are useless once they are calibrated. As Delibes (2010, 28-29) has recently pointed out the radiocarbon series obtained from the human bones of the megalithic ossuaries of the interior of Iberia suggest that, in contrast with the traditional ideas, they were used

Figure 5.

26


in a rather short period of time, and so they are a good alternative to establish when were built those structures.

With all this in mind it seems clear that megalithic tombs in the Meseta are known since the end of the Vth millennium cal BC and the beginning of the IVth, and are documented along this millennium down to the Chalcolithic, around the onset of the third millennium when other burial structures began to appear. If in the Northern Meseta, especially in areas as the Lora in Burgos, it seems that a sequence of increasing complexity along the time is documented (Delibes 2010, 26), in the southern Meseta it is likely that the simple mounds and the huge passage graves coexisted (Bueno et al. 2010).

During the third and the second millennia cal BC megalithic monuments were reused as powerful symbols, especially in Bell Beaker times, perhaps for legitimation of the new political structures where power was still unstable (Garrido 2000). Nevertheless, and excepting the area of Salamanca, where pre-Beaker Chalcolithic use has been extensively documented, there is a very long chronological hiatus (more than 1000 years) between the abandonment of megaliths and this reusing in Beaker times.

Although there is a strong diversity of megalithic structures in the interior of Iberia they all share rather similar ossuaries and the same sort of accompanying grave goods. They were used as collective pantheons where the bodies of the deceased were deposited. The bones are mostly found in secondary position, although it is also frequent to find partial anatomical connections that are showing that bodies actually decomposed inside those structures. Reorganizations of bones (grouped skulls, packages of long bones, associations of skulls and long bones, etc.) have been occasionally documented inside the chambers, and remains of ochre or even cinnabar (such as in La Velilla, Delibes 2000) have been also found.

Regarding the number of individuals that were deposited inside the megalithic tombs there are examples of just around ten but also others with more than a hundred. Not all the population had access to the megalithic burial, as it is clearly indicated by the sex and age analysis of the human bones. In most of the graves that had been studied males are predominant (Delibes 1995, 77-78, Rojo et al. 2005, 218), but interesting exceptions (Ibidem, 168) suggest that things are complex. Infantile individuals are really scarce (Delibes 1995, 78; Rojo et al. 2005, 218-222), but again in remarkable passage graves as the Azután dolmen in Toledo have been documented (even neonatal ones) (Bueno et al. 2005, 180). Nevertheless the percentage they represent is minimal, especially when compared with the original population, given the presumed prehistoric infant mortality rates.

The grave goods deposited with the dead are strikingly uniform (Figure 6), especially the lithic industry, where diverse types of flint blades (Figure 5: A) and other elements had been recovered, but especially geometric

microliths (Figure 5: F), which were used as arrowheads as the use-wear analysis has demonstrated (Gibaja 2003). Polished stone hand axes are also frequently found (Figure 5: B-C), and the lack of ceramic vessels (very clear in the earlier phases) is a solid indicator of the ritual/cultural selection of the materials accompanying the dead. Necklace beads of different materials (bone, lignite, variscite, etc), forms and sizes are abundant (Figure 5: G-H). Bone awls and spatulas are also typical, and in particular the so called spatula-idols (Figure 5: D-E), often decorated with geometric or even anthropomorphic motifs (always feminine traits as hair, breasts, as in La Velilla in Palencia). In the Miradero barrow a package of eleven spatula-idols were found beside the head of an individual, also accompanied by many other offerings (Guerra et al. 2009, 54-55). Interestingly in the Zumacales grave of Valladolid a spatula-idol was recovered that was made of human bone (Delibes and De Paz 2000).

4. Conclusions

To sum up, it seems clear that along the IVth millennium cal BC important transformations occur in the burial rituals of Neolithic groups in the interior of Iberia. The extension and evolution of megalithic tombs is reflecting the evolving of profound social, economic and ideological changes. Farming groups in the interior of Iberia receive the technological innovations of the “secondary products revolution” (Sherratt 1981), notably increasing

Figure 6.

27


their production surplus, and perhaps the population. Societies emerging from this process exhibit important transformations in the economic and social structure, but also in their symbolic and ideological world (Criado 1989, Vicent 1990). The human impact on the surrounding environment is increasingly considerable, since the plough extends the cultivated area, clearing the landscape (López et al. 2011, 216).

The construction of Megalithic Monuments, as powerful and permanent symbols, transforms the natural landscape into a cultural one, where ritual cycles (solstices and equinoctials mark the different seasons, the harvest, etc.) organize the recurrent frequentation of those sacred spaces in the context of cyclic ceremonies. Inside these structures the deceased people are transformed into ancestors, becoming part of a social body represented by the mass of bones in the ossuary, where the remains of man, women and children mix together (Rojo et al. 2005, 2010). However this apparent unity could be masking an emergent reality of social differentiation, to be fully evolved along the third millennium cal BC (Ibidem). As we have previously pointed out it seems that not everyone had access to the megalithic burial ritual, and, at least, in some areas it is also clear an increasing monumentality and complexity in the construction of megaliths along the IVth millennium cal BC. Structures separating certain bodies inside the mass of bones of the ossuary have also been documented (Rojo et al. 2005), as well as concentrations of grave goods around some individuals (Guerra et al. 2009). This entire picture is reflecting that certain individuals or families increased their power in the social and economic structure, probably by controlling the increasing production surpluses, and they were beginning to exhibit those privileges also in the symbolic arena of burials. It is likely that the image of a strong united community around the powerful collective symbol of the megalithic sepulchre was beginning to crack.

References

Alameda, M.C., Carmona, E., Pascual, S., Martínez, G. and Díez, C. 2011. El campo de hoyos calcolítico de Fuente Celada (Burgos): datos preliminares y perspectivas. Complutum 22(1), 47-69.

Bernabeu, J. 2010. El Mundo funerario entre el VI y el II milenio A.C. In A. Pérez Fernández y B. Soler Mayor (eds), Restos de vida, restos de muerte. La muerte en la Prehistoria (Museo de Prehistoria de Valencia, del 4 de Febrero al 30 de Mayo de 2010), 45-54. Museo de Valencia. Diputación de Valencia.

Blasco, A., Edo, M., Villalba, M.J. and Saña, M. 2005. Primeros datos sobre la utilización sepulcral de la Cueva de Can Sadurní (Begues, Baix Llobregat) en el Neolítico Cardial. In R. Ontañón, C. García-Moncó and P. Arias (eds), Actas del III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica (Santander, 5-8 de octubre de 2003), 625-634. Universidad de Cantabria. Santander.

Bueno, P., Barroso, R., Balbín, R. de, Campo, M., Etxeberría, F., González, A., Herrasti, L., Juan-

Treserras, J., López, P., López, J.A., Matamala, J.C. and Sánchez, B. 2002. Áreas habitacionales y funerarias en el Neolítico de la cuenca interior del Tajo: la provincia de Toledo. Trabajos de Prehistoria 59 (2), 65-79.

Bueno, P., Balbín, R. and Barroso, R. 2005. El dolmen de Azután (Toledo). Áreas de habitación y áreas funerarias en la cuenca interior del Tajo. Alcalá de Henares. Universidad de Alcalá. Diputación de Toledo.

Bueno, P., Barroso, R. and Balbín R. de 2010. Megalitos en la cuenca interior del Tajo. In J. Fernández and J.A. Mújika (eds), Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Munibe (suplemento) 32, 152-187. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi. San Sebastián.

Criado F. 1989. Megalitos, espacio, pensamiento. Trabajos de Prehistoria 46 (1), 75-98.

Delibes, G. 1995. Ritos funerarios, demografía y estructura social entre las comunidades neolíticas de la submeseta norte. In R. Fábregas, F. Pérez & C. Fernández (eds.), Arqueoloxía da Morte. Arqueología da Morte na Península Ibérica desde as Orixes ata o Medievo. Excmo. Concello de Xinzo de Limia, 63-94.

Delibes, G. 2000. Cinabrio, huesos pintados en rojo y tumbas de ocre: ¿prácticas de embalsamamiento en la Prehistoria? Scripta in Honorem Enrique A. Llobregat Conesa. Alicante. Ed. Universidad de Alicante. Diputación de Alicante, 223-236.

Delibes, G. 2010. La investigación de las sepulturas colectivas monumentales del IV milenio A.C. en la submeseta Norte española. Horizonte 2007. In J. Fernández and J.A. Mújika (eds), Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Munibe (suplemento) 32, 12-56 Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi. San Sebastián.

Delibes, G., Alonso, M. and Galván, R. 1986. El Miradero: un enterramiento colectivo tardoneolítico de Villanueva de los Caballeros (Valladolid). Estudios en Homenaje al Dr. Antonio Beltrán Martínez. Zaragoza, 227-236.

Delibes, G., Estremera, M.S., Alonso, O. and Pastor, F. 1999. ¿Sepultura o reliquia? A propósito de un cráneo hallado en ambiente habitacional en la cueva de La Vaquera (Segovia). Actas del II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibèrica, Saguntum (P.L.A.V.), Extra 2, 429-434.

Delibes, G. and Paz, F.J. de 2000. Idolo-espátula sobre radio humano en el ajuar de un sepulcro megalítico de la Meseta. SPAL, Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 9, 341-350.

Garrido, R. 2000. El Campaniforme en la Meseta Central de la Península Ibérica (c. 2500-2000 A.C.). Oxford. BAR International Series 892.

Gibaja, J.F. 2003. Comunidades Neolíticas del Noreste de la Península Ibérica. Una aproximación socio- económica a partir del estudio de la función de los útiles líticos. Oxford. BAR International Series S1140.

28


Gibaja, J.F. 2004. Prácticas funerarias durante el Neolítico en Cataluña. Mainake XXVI, 9-27.

Guerra, E., Delibes, G., Zapatero, P. and Villalobos, R. 2009. Primus inter pares: estrategias de diferenciación social en los sepulcros megalíticos de la submeseta norte española. BSAA arqueología LXXV, 41-65.

Jiménez, J. 2001. El yacimiento de Valdivia (Madrid). Nuevos elementos materiales para la interpretación del Neolítico del interior peninsular. Estudios de Prehistoria y Arqueología Madrileñas 11, 59-68.

Jiménez, J. and Alonso, C. in press. El Neolítico en el Corredor Alto Ebro-Alto Duero: dos hallazgos funerarios del Neolítico Antiguo y Reciente en Monasterio de Rodilla (Burgos). 5º Congreso do Neolítico Peninsular, Lisboa (7-9 Abril 2011). Universidade de Lisboa.

López, J.A., López, L., Pérez, S. and Alba, F. 2011. Paleopaisajes de Andalucía oriental durante la transición Mesolítico-Neolítico antiguo. In J.F. Gibaja and A.F. Carvalho (eds), Os últimos caçadores – recolectores e as primeiras comunidades produtoras do sul da Península Ibérica e do norte de Marrocos. Actas do Workshop (Faro, 2-4 de Novembro de 2009). Universidade do Algarve, Faro. Promontoria Monográfica 15, 213-220.

Losada, H. 1976. El dolmen de Entretérminos (Madrid). Trabajos de Prehistoria 33, 209-226.

Martín, A. 2007. Yacimiento de El Congosto (Rivas- Vaciamadrid). La fase neolítica. Actas de las segundas jornadas de Patrimonio Arqueológico en la Comunidad de Madrid. Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid, 201-205.

Molist, M. and Clop, X. 2010. Los orígenes del megalitismo en Cataluña en el marco de las prácticas funerarias del Neolítico. In J. Fernández & J.A. Mujika (eds), Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Munibe (suplemento) 32, 212-224. Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi. San Sebastián.

Rojas, J.M. and Villa, J.R. 1996. Una inhumación individual de época neolítica en Villamayor de Calatrava (Ciudad Real). Actas del I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica. Rubricatum 1, vol. 2, 509-518.

Rojo, M.A., Kunst, M., Garrido, R., García, I. and Morán, G. 2005. Un desafío a la eternidad. Tumbas monumentales del Valle de Ambrona. Memorias- Arqueología en Castilla y León 14, Junta de Castilla y León.

Rojo, M.A., Kunst, M., Garrido, R. and García, I. 2006. La Neolitización de la Meseta Norte a la luz del C-14: análisis de 47 dataciones absolutas de dos yacimientos domésticos del Valle de Ambrona, Soria, España. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina XXVI, 39-100.

Rojo, M.A., Kunst, M., Garrido, R., García, I. and Morán, G. 2008. Paisajes de la Memoria. Asentamientos del Neolítico antiguo en el Valle de Ambrona (Soria, España). Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Valladolid. Valladolid.

Rojo, M.A., Garrido, R. and García, I. 2010. Tombs for the Dead, Monuments to Eternity: the deliberate destruction of Megalithic graves by fire in the interior highlands of Iberia (Soria province, Spain). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29 (3), 253-275.

Sherratt, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds), Pattern of the past. Studies in Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge, C.U.P., 261-305.

Utrilla, P., Lorenzo, J.I., Baldellou, V., Sopena, M.C. and Ayuso, P. 2008. Enterramiento masculino en fosa, cubierto de cantos rodados, en el Neolítico Antiguo de la Cueva de Chaves. In M. Hernández, J.A. Soler & J.A. López (eds), Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular (Alicante, 27-30 Noviembre 2006), MARQ. Diputación Provincial de Alicante, Alicante. Vol. II, 131-140.

Vicent, J.M. 1990. El neolític: transformacions socials i econòmiques. In J. Anfruns y E. Llobet (eds), El canvi cultural a la Prehistòria. Barcelona. Columna, 241-293.

Vidal, J.M. and Prada, M.E., eds. 2010. Los hombres mesolíticos de la cueva de La Braña-Arintero (Valdelugueros, León). Junta de Castilla y León. Museo de León.

Whittle, A. 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. Routledge. London & New York.

Williams, M. 2003. Growing metaphors: the agricultural cycle as metaphor in the later prehistoric period of Britain and North-Western Europe. Journal of Social Archaeology 3 (2), 223-255.

Documents

FROM PITS TO MEGALITHS: NEOLITHIC BURIALS IN THE INTERIOR OF IBERIA