Comparative Archaeologies - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/estella.weiss-krejci/weiss.pdf ·...

Edited by Katina T. Lillios

ArchaeologiesComparative

The American Southwest (AD 900–1600)and the Iberian Peninsula (3000–1500 BC)

Comparative Archaeologies

The American Southwest (AD 900–1600)

and the Iberian Peninsula

(3000–1500 BC)

edited by Katina T. Lillios

Oxbow Books Oxford & Oakville

Published by Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK(Phone 01865-241249; Fax 01865-794449)

and

The David Brown Book CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA(Phone 860-945-9329; Fax 860-945-9468)

or from our website

www.oxbowbooks.com

@ 2011 by Katina T. Lillios

ISBN: 978-1-935488-26-2

Cataloging data available from the Library of Congress.A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library.

Text type 11 pt Minion Pro

Display type Gill Sans

Printed in the United States on acid-free paper.

Contents

List of Illustrations viiList of Tables viiiPreface ix

1 Comparative Archaeology: Archaeology’s Responsibility 1 by Timothy Earle

2 Bridging Histories: The Archaeology of Chaco and Los Millares 21 by Stephen H. Lekson and Pedro Díaz-del-Río

3 The Southwest, Iberia, and their Worlds 25 by Stephen H. Lekson

4 Labor in the Making of Iberian Copper Age Lineages 37 by Pedro Díaz-del-Río

5 Bridging Landscapes 57 by Peter N. Peregrine and Leonardo García Sanjuán

6 The North American Postclassic Oikoumene: AD 900–1200 63 by Peter N. Peregrine

7 Transformations, Invocations, Echoes, Resistance: The Assimilation of the Past in Southern Iberia (5th to 1st Millennia BC) 81 by Leonardo García Sanjuán

8 Bridging Bodies 103 by Ventura R. Pérez and Estella Weiss-Krejci

9 Rethinking Violence: Behavioral and Cultural Implications for Ancestral Pueblo Populations (AD 900–1300) 121 by Ventura R. Pérez

10 Changing Perspectives on Mortuary Practices in Late Neolithic/ Copper Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia 153 by Estella Weiss-Krejci

vi

11 Bridging Gender 175 by Marit K. Munson and Rui Boaventura

12 Gender, Art, and Ritual Hierarchy in the Ancient Pueblos of the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico 189 by Marit K. Munson

13 Bodies in Motion: Implications of Gender in Long-Distance Exchange between the Lisbon and Alentejo Regions of Portugal in the Late Neolithic 209 by Rui Boaventura

14 Bridging Art 221 by Jill E. Neitzel and Sara Fairén Jiménez

15 Mixed Messages: Art and Leadership in the Late Prehispanic Southwest 229 by Jill E. Neitzel

16 Sites, Practices, and the Social Landscape of Rock Art in Mediterranean Iberia during the Neolithic and Copper Age 257 by Sara Fairén Jiménez

17 Conclusions 277 by Katina T. Lillios

List of Contributors 293

153

One of the long-standing debates in Iberian archaeology concerns the development of permanent structures of social inequality in late prehistory. In this discussion

dead bodies have played an important role (for example, Chapman 1990, 2003; Delibes et al. 1995; Díaz-Andreu 1993; Díaz-del-Río and García Sanjuán 2006; García Sanjuán 1999; Gilman 2001; Gilman and Th ornes 1985; Hernando 1997; Kunst 1995; Mathers 1994). During the Late Neolithic/Copper Age (ca. 3300–2200 bc), natural caves and artifi cial caves (hypogea), mortuary monuments such as passage graves, gallery graves, tholoi and tumuli, and simple pits and silos were preferred locations for the deposition of the dead. Although the majority of the dead was deposited outside settlements, hu-man bones have also been encountered in settlements. Late Neolithic and Copper Age mortuary contexts usually contain multiple individuals, ranging from at least a few to hundreds of people. Th e human remains — frequently associated with animal bones (Weiss-Krejci 2006) — are oft en disarticulated, broken, cut, chopped, and burned (for example, Antunes and Cunha 1998; Cardoso 1994: 143; Lillo Carpio and Walker 1987; see also Rojo and Kunst 2002; Weiss-Krejci 2005a).

Between the Late Neolithic/Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1500 bc), signifi cant changes in locations and types of mortuary contexts, modes of corpse deposition, and quality and quantity of grave goods took place (see García Sanjuán 2006: 151–60; Ontañón-Peredo 2006: 57). Although Neolithic and Copper Age monuments and caves were oft en reused in later times (Chapman 2005; García Sanjuán, this volume), in the Early Bronze Age new grave types such as cists — some surrounded by stones and/or covered by mounds — and diff erent types of pits and small artifi cial caves appear (for example, Díaz-del-Río 2006: 75; García Sanjuán 2006: 160–62; Leisner and Leisner 1943;

Changing Perspectives on Mortuary Practices in Late Neolithic / Copper Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia

Estella Weiss-Krejci

Chapter 10

154 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

Rojo and Kunst 1999). In the Early Bronze Age, grave sites continue to be located out-side settlements, but intramural depositions become more common. In contrast to Late Neolithic and Copper Age mortuary contexts, early Bronze Age burials hold only a few individuals (oft en only one).

In this chapter, I would like to discuss a few issues regarding treatment of the corpse and deposition modes in Late Neolithic/Copper Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia, which in my opinion have not received suffi cient attention in the past. Considering the impor-tance that dead bodies assume in models of social evolution, it is surprising how little we know about body treatment, funeral and post-funeral rites, and formation processes of mortuary deposits. In contrast to France, for example, where meticulous methods of fi eld documentation of human bones have been employed for some time and a large database of well documented collective tombs exists (Chambon 2003; Duday 1997), in the Iberian Peninsula spatial and stratigraphic relationship of grave goods and human and animal remains oft en cannot be assessed from the publications. Th ough techniques during recovery of human remains in the Iberian Peninsula are continuously improving and the general awareness for the value of osteological material has grown, the meth-ods of recording, analyzing, and publishing collective mortuary deposits with human remains are still not suffi cient. Physical anthropologists are not always present during excavation. Since bones in the Iberian Peninsula also occur outside “mortuary contexts,” human remains can make it into bags with animal bones, only to be discovered by zoo-archaeologists later. Additionally, in some areas, such as Galicia and northern Portugal, as well as parts of southwestern Iberia, soil acidity has led to the complete destruction of osteological material. From these areas only a few Copper Age and Bronze Age human remains have been recovered.

Treatment of the Corpse and Deposition Modes

Body Treatment

According to Carr (1995), who investigated the cultural determinants of mortuary prac-tices in 31 non-state societies from the Human Relations Area Files, the treatment of the corpse is most oft en determined by beliefs about the aft erlife, beliefs about universal orders, by social classifi cation, and vertical social position of the deceased. Th e ideologi-cal and social implications of diff erential treatment of corpses postulated by Carr — sup-ported by historic sources from state societies (see Weiss-Krejci 2005a) — have impor-tant implications. Diff erences in corpse treatment can help us understand status diff er-ences between groups and individuals and reveal group affi liation, belief systems, and ethnic distinctions.

My own recent review of literature on Neolithic/Copper Age burials (Weiss-Krejci 2005a, 2006) shows that body treatment in the Iberian Peninsula was quite variable. In the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, treatment of the dead consisted of burying the body in the fl esh, artifi cial dehydration, cremation (only at Abric de l’Escurrupenia, Pascual Benito 2002), and body storage (passive excarnation). A few cases of active excarna-tion (defl eshing) may also exist. For example, in several settlements, caves, tombs, and

10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 155

pits, human bones with cut marks and signs of burning have been found (for example, Antunes and Cunha 1998; Etxeberría 2000; Martínez Navarrete 1984; Weiss-Krejci 2005a). Th ese cuts and burns could result from the stripping of skin and fl esh as well as a variety of procedures that may be related to the redeposition of bones. While cut and burned bones occur in deposits of the fourth and the third millennium bc, the impregnation of bones with ochre seems to be associated with older, fourth-millennium-bc deposits only (for example, Gruta Lugar do Canto; Leitão et al. 1987; Serrão and Marques 1971).

In the Early Bronze Age, bodies were predominantly deposited in the fl esh, although, as I will discuss, body storage and curation probably also took place. Th ough dehydra-tion of corpses was probably practiced both in the Copper and Bronze Age, all known Bronze Age mummies are natural (for example, Castellón Alto; Molina et al. 2003).

Individual and Collective Burials

Prehistorians working in the Iberian Peninsula have interpreted the change in grave types, grave goods, and especially the change from “collective” to “individual” burial as a sign of increasing social complexity and of changing attitudes towards the dead. Th is behavior has also fostered ideas that in the Neolithic and in the Copper Age corpses received less attention in funerary treatment than in the Bronze Age. Collective burial has been equated with collective identity, communalism, collectivism, and solidarism (for example, Criado Boado 1989: 91). From a cross-cultural perspective, the presence of multiple bodies in a collective mortuary context may have many diff erent meanings. In Europe, it was a frequent custom to exhume bodies from over-crowded churchyards aft er corpses had decomposed and to store the bones in charnel houses or underneath churches. Th ese collective bone chambers (ossuaries) comprise high numbers of very fragmentary remains and contain diff erent kinds of people from the lower strata of so-ciety. On the other hand, and already discussed by Kunst (1995), collective burials in elaborate tombs are not always an expression of egalitarianism. In diverse areas of the world and at diff erent times, such as among the ancient Maya, the present day Sa’dan Toraja of Indonesia, the Merina of Madagascar, and in dynastic Europe, collective tomb burials are a hallmark of multigenerational, kinship-based corporate groups (Bloch 1971; Waterson 1995; Weiss-Krejci 2004). Th e formation processes, as well as the number of individuals buried in these tombs, are extremely variable. Some tombs were used for sequential deposition only. Other tombs hold reburied bodies only, some a combination of both. Death dates of reburied people can predate the tomb by centuries.

At least four diff erent processes can be responsible for the formation of collective de-posits: (a) contemporaneous death — simultaneous multiple deposition; (b) sequential death — successive individual deposition; (c) sequential death — simultaneous multiple deposition; and (d) exhumation — simultaneous multiple redeposition. Th e fi rst deposi-tion type represents people who have died at the same time and were buried simultane-ously, in the fl esh, in the same tomb (for example, mother and infant who died during birth; people who died from an epidemic disease; warriors that were killed in the same battle or individuals that were collectively killed during raids and attacks). In process b, people have died at diff erent times and were buried in one tomb one by one over a long


time period. In this case every corpse is deposited individually, but later disturbed or re-arranged during episodes of reentry. In processes (c) and (d), the dead are also deposited en masse (as in process a) but did not die at the same time. Whether bones or articulated corpses are deposited aft er some time of storage (process c) or during reburial following exhumation (process d) oft en merely depends on the time that elapsed since death and whether and how the body was processed. Th ese four types of processes can also occur in combination with each other. As I will show, the diff erentiation between them in the archaeological record is not always easy.

Deposition Contexts

Here I will discuss the various body treatments and formation processes of Iberian buri-als by deposition contexts.

CAVES. Th e majority of cave burials (including rock shelters and rock fi ssures) have been found in central and southern Portugal (Beira Litoral, Alto Ribatejo, Estremadura, Peninsula Setúbal, Algarve), in north and northeastern Spain (Basque Country, Navarra, Catalonia), in the eastern part of the Southern Meseta (Madrid, Castile-La Mancha), in the eastern coastal region (Valenciana, Murcia, northern Almería), and in western Andalusia. Th e high number of individuals in caves, age and gender distribution, and the lack of elaborate grave goods suggest that from the beginning of the Early Neolithic through the Copper Age caves were the preferred burial places for the members of agri-cultural communities who lived in the surrounding areas. In some parts of the Iberian Peninsula (on the east coast, in the Basque region, in central Portugal), deposition of the dead in caves continues in the Bronze Age.

Since bones and artifacts in caves, especially in Late Neolithic and Copper Age con-texts, are usually encountered in a very disturbed and messy condition, it is not easy to determine the original body treatment and formation processes in these places. One of the major problems of cave deposits concerns questions of whether bodies entered caves in the fl esh and what caused disturbances of bones.

Th e Copper Age layer of the Pico Ramos cave in Biscay was associated with 11,410 frag-mentary human remains belonging to 104 bodies. One individual located close to the cave entrance had been burned. Investigation of the burned skeletal remains (collarbone, thoracic vertebra, shoulder blade, cranial fragment, and radius fragment) showed that the fi re had aff ected the corpse in a state of advanced decomposition (Baraybar and de la Rua 1995: 164–67; Zapata 1995: 51). Zapata (1995: 50) considers Pico Ramos as a place for sequential deposition of bodies in the fl esh (process b) and attributes the burning to a post-depositional accident. However, I favor simultaneous deposition (or several episodes of simultaneous deposition) of corpses, which were brought to the cave from another place in diff erent stages of decomposition (process c). Th e cave is too small to hold many bodies in the fl esh; some body parts were still articulated, while other bones had been snapped in two in the middle; many long bones were missing; sherds belong-ing to one vessel and animal bones belonging to one animal were found in diff erent parts of the cave and in diff erent strata (Zapata 1995: 44–53).


Bones that belong to 13 individuals in the Copper Age, pre-Bell Beaker red layer of the Portuguese Lapa do Fumo (late fourth/early third millennium bc) were burned, cut, gnawed, and covered with ochre. According to Serrão and Marques (1971: 136–38), a fi re had been set in a specially prepared part of the cave with disarticulated bones deposited on top. Aft er the fi re had died, the bones were covered with grave goods, among them schist plaques and bone objects. Th ese artifacts were not burned. Aft erwards the whole compound was sprinkled with red ochre. Ochre was found on top of burned bones, in-side bone cracks, on charcoal, and on the objects. It is impossible to determine whether these bones had been reburied within the cave or were brought from somewhere else.

At Blanquizares de Lébor (Murcia, Spain), bones and lithic artifacts showed evidence of burning, whereas other objects were entirely unaff ected by the fi re (Arribas Palau 1952–1953). In Covacho de los Husos (Basque Country), the tip of a fl int blade was found inside a cranium (Apellániz 1974: 134). It looks as if the stone tools were used to remove traces of fl esh.

Th e analysis of osteological material from the cave surface of Algar do Bom Santo, Portugal (where at least 121 individuals were identifi ed), reveals a clear dominance of cranial and long bone fragments, mainly femurs and tibias. No evidence for cutting and burning was detected. Th e bones date between the second half of the fourth and the third millennium bc (Duarte 1998b). Another possible sign for reburial of bones is a niche burial in the Cova das Lapas, which consisted of a cranium with the right and left heel from two diff erent individuals, both leaning against the foramen magnum (Gonçalves 1999: 85). In the cave Algar do Barrão (end of the fourth millennium bc), bodies were brought into the cave from outside together with sediments aft er a phase of passive excarnation (Carvalho et al. 2003).

San Juan ante Portam Latinam is a rock shelter in the Ebro Valley, which was dis-covered during work to widen a road. Th e site, which has been dated to 3300–3000 bc, contained 338 individuals (Etxeberria and Herrasti 2007), some stacked on top of one another or jumbled up. Several people had been shot by arrows; some arrowheads were found embedded in the bones. Although the presence of fatal injuries in several bodies suggested a sort of communal grave that was fi lled quickly with bodies aft er a massacre, studies of the bones provided a diff erent interpretation. Some individuals had died a vio-lent death, and all bodies showing signs of fatal injury are male. However, some victims had survived their injuries. Radiocarbon dating points to a long-term use of this rock shelter by the local population. Th e tomb was at times emptied out, and bodies were removed and skulls stacked up together (Etxeberria and Herrasti 2007; Guilaine and Zammit 2005: 152–57; Kunst 2000; Vegas et al. 1999).

Th e state of the bones in some caves provides evidence that at least some prehistor-ic Iberian societies performed “secondary rituals” and rites of grave reentry as known from Indonesia, Melanesia, and other world regions (for example, Madagascar, North America; Bloch 1971; Hertz 1907; Hutchinson and Aragon 1999; Metcalf and Huntington 1991). Temporary deposition of the corpse as part of funerary ritual is common among many preindustrial societies (Brown 1995: 16). Th e bodies are not taken to their fi nal burial place immediately aft er death, but are kept in storage either in the ground, in a tree, on a scaff old, or in the house. Once the corpses have decomposed, the bones are


gathered up, cleaned, and reburied in a place distinct from the storage place. Many years can pass between the death of an individual and reburial. Th ese types of reburials are oft en collective, and corpses are in diff erent stages of decay (Hutchinson and Aragon 1999). During these reburial ceremonies, the bodies are sometimes separated and treated diff erently. Among the eighteenth-century Nanticoke of Maryland, for example, bodies were fi rst buried in the ground and then exhumed aft er a few months. Whereas long bones were wrapped in cloth and buried, the remaining bones (some probably still par-tially in the fl esh) were burned and buried without wrappings (Feest 1997: 427).

On the other hand, some of the burns and cuts in the Iberian Peninsula could also result from active defl eshing as part of mortuary treatment (Etxeberria 2000) or from reburial of much older bones without any connection to funeral rituals. Post-funeral re-location of much older bones could explain the messy dates in the Portuguese Gruta da Casa da Moura and in the Gruta dos Ossos. In Casa da Moura, Delgado found scraped and incised bones in Level 1a. Ceramics from Level 1a are predominantly of the Copper Age (Straus et al. 1988: 79), and a bone pin from the Delgado excavation was dated to 4600 ± 90 (OxA-5506) 3630–3040 2σ cal bc (Cardoso and Soares 1995). A human ulna, on the other hand, which was excavated from the same context during a newer excava-tion, provided a date of 5990 ± 60 bp (TO-953) 5192–4780 2σ cal bc, too old for the Copper Age (Straus et al. 1988: 70). In the Gruta dos Ossos, in the Alto Ribatejo, a similar discrepancy in the dates exist. Th e disarticulated bones from upper Levels I–III turned out to be much older than the articulated bones from the lower Level IV. Level I–III revealed two dates (bones, probably human): 4630 ± 80 (ICEN-465) 3633–3101 2σ cal bc and 4460 ± 110 (I-17368) 3500–2885 2σ cal bc; Level IV was younger: 3970 ± 140 (I-17248) 2880–2060 2σ cal bc (Carvalho et al. 2003: 117; Cruz 1997: 216).

Th eoretically, some of these disarticulated “Copper Age” deposits could date to as late as the Early Bronze Age, as many caves were reused for the burial of new corpses. Th e rock shelter Covão d’Almeida (also known as Eira Pedrinha), Coimbra, Portugal, contained a 60-cm-thick layer that began approximately 1.5 m below the cave surface and was fi lled with the disarticulated human bones of almost 200 individuals (Corrêa and Teixeira 1949: 10–11). In some parts of this so-called “camada dos ossos,” ashes and burned bones were visible. Teixeira (Corrêa and Teixeira 1949: 12) attributes body disar-ticulation and the burning to post-depositional natural disturbance processes, although Corrêa (1949: 30) admits that the deposit could also have been an ossuary, that is, the de-position of disarticulated skeletal elements. Vilaça (1990: 109) favors the idea that, given its small size, the rock shelter served for the deposition of disarticulated bones, although in sector A’8 the deposition of articulated bodies could also have taken place. Based on the artifacts, the bone layer dates to between the Final Neolithic and the Copper Age. However, the entire deposit could also date to the Bell Beaker period (with reburial of older bones at the end of third millennium bc), since a Beaker sherd (not well contextu-alized) was encountered in the bone layer (Corrêa and Teixeira 1949).

Th ough most of the bones in Late Neolithic/Early Copper Age cave contexts were probably burned dry, the cremation of corpses in the fl esh was also practiced. Abric de l’Escurrupenia (Valencia, Spain) was used as burial site at the end of the fourth millen-nium bc and contained 2044 fragments of remains from approximately 14 individuals


(children and adults) that had been burned while in the fl esh. Th e degree of burning, which took place on a pyre outside the cave, was considerable, and around 40 percent of all bones had been burned at over 600° C. Pascual Benito (2002: 176) thinks that a cata-strophic event, such as an epidemic or an accident led to this change in the treatment of the dead. Other explanations also exist. Th e use of cremation in this part of the Iberian Peninsula could point to the presence of diff erent ethnic groups. Alternatively, we may be looking at the remains of social deviants. Perhaps the burning was an accident dur-ing the treatment of the corpse. Th e fi re in the Abric de l’Escurrupenia centered on the trunk of the bodies. Since the more marginal regions of the corpse, such as the hand, foot bones, and skull had been burned less, it is also possible that the main goal was to carbonize the entrails (Weiss-Krejci 2005a).

HYPOGEA. Hypogea are artifi cial limestone caves. Th ey are less frequent than and not as widely distributed as caves. Hypogea, which usually show up in clusters (four at Palmela, four at Monte Canelas, etc.) have been found in central and southern Portugal (Estremadura, Setúbal Peninsula, Algarve) as well as in southern, central, and north-ern Spain (Western Andalusia, Murcia, Toledo, and Navarra). Th ey were predominantly used from the Late Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age (especially in Bell Beaker times in the Portuguese Estremadura).

In some areas, hypogea co-occur with caves. Like caves, hypogea usually contain a large number of disarticulated individuals (for example, Carenque 3 held over 150 bod-ies; São Pedro Estoril I held 100 people, etc.; Silva 1997: 243); unfortunately, the forma-tion processes are equally ambiguous. According to Silva (1997), sequential deposition of individuals in the fl esh was the predominant process in the hypogeum of Monte Canelas 1 (Algarve, end of the fourth millennium bc; Parreira and Serpa 1995). Th e grave con-

FIG. 10.1 Hypogeum Monte Canelas 1, Algarve, contained 171 individuals. Th e drawing shows the bottom of the grave (Parreira and Serpa 1995: fi g. 5).


sisted of two separate layers, divided by collapsed limestone. Th e lower layer (fi g. 10.1), which precedes the upper layer by approximately a century, contained the remains of 147 individuals (97 adults, 50 subadults; bones covered with red ochre), the upper layer 24 bodies (12 adults, 12 subadults, no ochre). Like caves, Neolithic and Copper Age hypogea could have been burial locations for the members of entire communities, which were either deposited simultaneously or in a sequential order.

However, there exist two important diff erences between hypogea and caves: (a) Burned bones are lacking from hypogea. If burning of dry bones is indeed a sign for multistage burial rituals in caves, this could support the evidence that hypogea (at least the hypo-geum of Monte Canelas I) were used for the deposition of bodies in the fl esh; (b) In comparison to caves, animal bones in hypogea are also rare (Weiss-Krejci 2006). Monte Canelas, for example, only held around 20 animal bones. Considering the frequent as-sociation of human remains with animal bones (deer, hares, rabbits, wild and domestic pigs, goats, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, reptiles, rodents, fi sh, and birds) in caves as well as in some other grave types, this is a rather small number. Some of these animal remains in caves and megalithic monuments are probably not simply remains of food but could have played a symbolic role in the reburial ritual. Rabbit and hare bones, in particu-lar, oft en appear in combination with reburied and altered bones. Reburied bones of at least 27 individuals were associated with bones of rabbits (and ovicaprids) in the Cueva del Abrigo I de las Peñas (Palomar Macian 1982–1983: 132). Other examples include the Neolithic deposit P94 at Pirulejo, where human bones were mixed with bones of hare (Asquerino 1999: 34–37), and Cueva Sagrada I (Sánchez Carrasco 1987). Rabbits and hares may have served as symbols of birth and fertility. Small rabbit ornaments made from bone have been encountered in a variety of Copper Age caves, hypogea, and dol-mens in Portugal (for example, Anta Grande do Olival da Pega, Cova da Moura, Cabeço da Arruda, Lapa do Bugio, Lapa do Suão; Cardoso 1992: fi g. 17/10; Furtado et al. 1969: fi g. 8/35; Leisner and Leisner 1951: 145).

MEGALITHIC TOMBS. In the Copper Age, a large number of bodies were interred in chambered tombs such as dolmens and tholoi. Th oloi, which were constructed in the third millennium bc, are less widely distributed than dolmen (see also García Sanjuán 2006: 155). Th ey primarily occur in the Algarve, Alentejo, Extremadura, and Andalusia. Regarding the treatment of corpses in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, several inter-esting diff erences between bodies in megalithic tombs and bodies in caves exist. Some megalithic tombs contained burned bones (in combination with a low number of bodies) that may have resulted from the treatment of a fresh corpse. Many years ago, Leisner and Leisner (1943: 546–47) suggested that megalithic tombs held artifi cial mummies (for ex-ample, seated bodies in the Dolmen de Soto 1), and that small fi res in the tombs promot-ed the dehydration process since many tombs have hearths (see Rojo and Kunst 2002).

I think this idea is plausible and worthy of future consideration to explain some fi nds in prehistoric Iberia. Like secondary ritual, dehydration (mummifi cation) of corpses was also a frequent practice in preindustrial societies all over the world (Aufderheide 2003). Th e Bangala from the Upper Congo eviscerated and smoked bodies in order to display them in huts for some time before fi nal deposition. Th e Muisca of Precolonial


Colombia also mummifi ed the bodies of the dead by suspending them above or between fi res (Aufderheide 2003: 35, 50). In ancient Mesoamerica, seated corpses were sometimes dehydrated in front of a fi re, leaving charred skulls and leg bones behind (Sempowski 1994: 142–44). Two skeletons, which once were mummies, have recently been detected at the Bronze Age settlement of Cladh Hallan, Scotland. Th e body parts had been curated for several hundred years before being deposited under the primary fl oor of a house. One body, which appeared as an articulated corpse, was composed of bones from three diff erent individuals (Parker Pearson et al. 2005).

Smoking and dehydration of corpses in prehistoric Iberia could have taken place long before deposition. Th ere may be some evidence for smoked corpses in the Anta Arquinha da Moura, Portugal. Silva (1995: 142) identifi ed three femur fragments, which had been exposed to heat while still in the fl esh. Th e number of individuals in the Anta Arquinha da Moura was low. Th ere were around seven adults and one subadult (Silva 1995: 143). Among many special grave goods, 400 arrowheads and a gold leaf were found. Th e orthostats are painted (Cunha 1993, 1995: 136–39). For comparison, in the Dolmen de Soto there were also eight individuals (one was a child), and the orthostats are en-graved. If the Leisners are right and certain tombs (the more elaborate ones) of Copper Age Iberia were deposition places for a few individuals who had been desiccated, these bodies could belong to members of a special stratum of society, such as the elite.

At Los Millares, bones were burned in 13 tombs, a few more tombs held ashes and re-mains of fi re, and the rest (approximately 60) showed no evidence for fi re (Almagro and Arribas Palau 1963). Unfortunately, we know very little about the corpses in these tombs, such as whether bones were burned green or dry and the specifi c deposition processes (fi g. 10.2).

FIG. 10.2 Th olos xxi from Los Millares, Almería, contained large amounts of mixed and disarticulated human bones. Th e image shows the upper level of Sector II (from Almagro and Arribas Palau 1963: pl. cxviii).


Th e deposition process-es of corpses in megalithic tombs are probably as variable as those in caves. Sequential deposition of bodies and disturbance of older bones by younger bodies, rituals of com-memoration and visits, sporadic reuse, exhuma-tion, and the deposition of older bones from else-where all form plausible scenarios. Th e reburial of bones older than the mon-ument, for example, could explain a very early fi ft h-millennium-bc date on a bone in the Dolmen de Azután (Bueno Ramírez 1991: 57). Th is individual was probably dead long before the monument came into existence, whereas the other individuals in the tomb had died aft er the construction of the monument. Th is fi nd clearly implies that dates of human bones should not be used to date the initial construction of a tomb. Monument 1 of Perdigões, a tholos tomb from the Alentejo, contained large amounts of what looks like reburied bodies (Duarte 1998a). Th e bones were neither cut nor burned. Burned bones are absent from all Alentejo and Spanish Extremadura tholoi.

SETTLEMENTS. Depositions of human remains in Copper Age settlements and the many isolated fi nds of human bones (oft en intermixed with animal bones) suggest that the living and the dead were in close physical relation to each other before the Early Bronze Age (Alcázar Godoy et al. 1992). Burials below habitations were discovered at Polideportivo de Martos (fi g. 10.3), a site dating from the late fourth millennium bc (Lizcano et al. 1991–1992); deposits with human remains as well as isolated human bones without associated graves are known from a variety of Copper Age Portuguese walled enclosures (for example, Castelo Velho, Leceia, Zambujal; Cardoso 1994; Jorge et al. 1998–1999) and settlements of Andalusia (for example, La Cima, La Gallega in Sevilla; El Prado de Jumilla in Murcia; Alcázar Godoy et al. 1992; Lillo Carpio and Walker 1987). At the unwalled Copper Age settlement of El Prado (Jumilla, Murcia), human bones were found in all excavated sectors (Lillio and Walker 1987). Th ey were mixed with the much more numerous faunal remains and were not enclosed in any special structure. All larger bones were missing, and the proportion of human bones is very small in comparison with animal bones. Many more bones have been found at walled enclosures of the Portuguese

FIG. 10.3 Five people were buried in the “hut fl oor” of Cabaña xiii at Polideportivo de Martos in the Guadalquivir Valley (Lizcano et al. 1991–1992: fi g. 2).


Estremadura. Usually these bones are mixed (and therefore registered and collected) together with animal bones (Duarte, personal communication).

Structure E.R. in the Copper Age walled enclosure Castelo Velho, in northern Portugal, contained a de-posit of eight to eleven fragmen-tary individuals of diff erent age and sex groups. Some of the bones had been burned, cut, and gnawed, and the majority of body parts, such as the heads of the adults, were miss-ing. One body was still partially ar-ticulated (Antunes and Cunha 1998). Although the bones have not been dated, I think that this indicates a process of temporary storage of sev-eral individuals above the ground

(which would explain the gnawed bones) and a one-time redeposition (aft er processing) of some of the bones into Structure E.R. A similar deposit was excavated at the site of Leceia in Structure II (Cardoso 1994). Like Structure E.R., Structure II is a round stone structure that dates to the second part of the third millennium bc. In Structure II, only remains of heads were present. Seventeen skull fragments, 18 teeth, and one atlas or axis from three adult males had been deposited together with “domestic waste.” Although burns or cuts are not present on the bones, the presence of the fi rst or second vertebra indicates that at least one head was severed from the corpse. Unfortunately, no date for these bones has been published. Cardoso (1994: 143) interprets the individuals as attack-ers who had been killed and who did not deserve a funeral and were therefore discarded in the garbage. I think that Structure II is not a garbage bin but a mortuary structure that held the remains of “important” people. Unfortunately, there exists no artifactual evi-dence to corroborate this theory, since the associated artifacts have not been published.

Th e southeastern Bronze Age (or El Argar culture, ca. 2250–1500 bc) exhibits a drastic change in burial patterns from the preceding Copper Age (Los Millares Culture). Th e standard Argaric grave (cists, pits, covachas, and urn deposits) is individual, although a few multiple burials have also been found (fi g. 10.4). Argaric graves are usually located within settlements and beneath house fl oors or embedded in the walls of domestic struc-tures (for example, Aranda and Molina 2006; Castro Martínez et al. 1993–1994; Chapman 2005). At Gatas, some multiple depositions (with two and three bodies) are those of chil-dren, of children and adults, and of two adults (a male and female). Recent AMS dating of Argaric double graves has shown that multiple depositions of adults do not represent individuals of one generation but people who lived and died at least one century apart (Castro et al. 1995). Th is implies that the graves were either reused by later generations, or that we are looking at simultaneous depositions of people who were stored or curated

FIG. 10.4 Burial 80 at Fuente Álamo, Almería, is a double covacha burial. It contained the disarticulated remains of a woman, who had died considerably earlier than the man, whose bones were entirely articulated (from Schubart et al. 1985: fi g. 8).


until their fi nal disposal. Reuse is suggested at Gatas (Lull 2000), and evidence for simul-taneous deposition of one adult and a child comes from El Castellón Alto.

Th e site of El Castellón Alto, which is located in the municipality of Galera, dates to about 1900–1600 bc. Burial 121 was found under a house fl oor. It contained the strongly fl exed, mummifi ed, and wrapped corpse of one adult in his late 20s. Skin and hair (even the beard) were still present. Th e accompanying child was still partially articulated and mummifi ed. Four ceramic containers, copper bracelets, silver rings, one axe, and animal remains were also found in the tomb. According to Botella (personal communication; Molina et al. 2003) the child had died earlier, but was exhumed from somewhere else (still partially articulated), put into a bag, and reinterred with the adult.

Th is mummy fi nd has important implications for Argaric multiple graves. At Cerro de la Encina, Tomb 21 held three articulated bodies, which look like bundles. Aranda and Molina (2006) regard this burial as a simultaneous deposition of individuals who lived and died together. Th eoretically, these bodies could also be the remains of people who had lived at diff erent times (as at Gatas) and were stored or kept in diff erent places until collective fi nal deposition in Tomb 21. Hence, Aranda and Molina’s assumption of familial relationship between individuals in graves at Cerro de la Encina could be wrong. Th e lack of dates for the Cerro de la Encina bones constitutes a serious problem for this interpretation as well as other reasons. Th e authors claim that the bones represent evi-dence for social variation between tombs of the western sector and the central sector of Zone B. However, these diff erences may be chronological; the site was occupied without interruption from 2000 to 1450 bc.

Discussion

As Brown (1995: 4–5) noted, the advantages of individualized mortuary analysis make us forget that collective burials once were more common than they are today. Collective burial contexts in prehistoric Iberia are incredibly complex and variable. For these rea-sons, I suggest that corpses in “collective” contexts are not necessarily a sign of commu-nalism and a lack of individualism or vice versa. People are always treated individually when they die. Corpses are dressed, painted, wrapped, defl eshed, dehydrated, etc. Aft er being treated, bodies usually are either stored or deposited. Some people are deposited into graves that hold no other bodies, others are buried in tombs which hold people who died earlier. Irrespective of whether the corpse is put into a single grave below the house fl oor or into a large collective tomb, it is still recognized and mourned for as a specifi c person (see Bloch 1971). Th e diff erence between individual and collective deposition in prehistory does not refl ect diff erence between communalist and individualistic people. Th omas (2002 :39–40) discusses this problem for Neolithic Britain:

Unfortunately, because in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age the funer-ary record is dominated by single graves with bodies containing grave goods, it has proved possible for some archaeologists to imply that this horizon saw

“the birth of the individual” in the contemporary sense … According to these arguments, these were people just like us (Th omas 2002: 39).


What really makes a diff erence be-tween our modern society and many preindustrial people are the long-term relationships in which the liv-ing and the dead engage with each other. In prehistory, the dead were an integral part of society, and there are many ways and forms in which this relationship could be expressed.

Overall, the attitudes towards the dead between the Neolithic, Copper Age, and the Bronze Age seem less clear-cut when one carefully exam-ines the evidence. Body storage and curation of bones was practiced in the Neolithic and the Copper Age, but as the examples from Argaric sites show, this may have also been the case in the Bronze Age. Remains of some dead bodies have been recov-ered in Neolithic and Copper Age set-tlements, suggesting that dead bodies were present in settlements before the Bronze Age. And although Bronze Age people buried their dead in new

types of graves, they also reused collective tombs of earlier time periods.Additionally, in certain contexts, the dichotomy between “individual” and “collective”

may simply result from the formation processes of a burial site. As already mentioned, caves were used for the deposition of corpses in Bell Beaker times and in the Early Bronze Age in several parts of the Iberian Peninsula. Corpses appear more individualized (pro-tected by stones, set apart, and so on). Cueva de Gobaederra, for example, contained at least 67 individuals, many disarticulated, burned, and mixed with ashes (probably all dating to the Copper Age). Two individuals (probably dating to Bell Beaker times) were articulated and extended on their backs (fi g. 10.5). Th ey had been deposited in the center of the cave; one of them was covered by a cattle skull (Apellániz et al. 1967). Th e fact that only the latest burials are individualized does not imply that earlier ones originally were not deposited the same way. Th e individualized Bell beaker burials are only the last in a long sequence of deposition. I want to illustrate this process using a historic example from Europe.

According to mortuary records, 4,000 people — mostly lower nobility and employees of the Imperial court — were buried individually in coffi ns in the subterranean burial vault of St. Michael’s Church in Vienna between ad 1630 and 1784. Excavations carried out in the 1950s showed that in some parts of the vault at least two times in the past older coffi ns had been intentionally destroyed and buried in the ground. Each time — proba-

FIG. 10.5 Cueva de Gobaederra in the Basque region contained disarticulated and burned bones of at least 67 people. Th e bodies of the most recently buried individuals were found articulated and extended on their backs (from Apellániz et al. 1967: fi g. v).


bly once in the seventeenth and once in the eighteenth century — the bones and remains of clothing were covered by a layer of sand and clay. Th ere exists a written protocol, which states that during in the eighteenth century the crypt fl oor was raised by 1.5 m. Today, a visitor to the subterranean vault of St. Michael’s will only see the remaining “in-dividualized” coffi ns, but stands on the invisible, intermingled fragmentary and collec-tive remains of thousands of corpses all tightly packed into the ground in several layers (Rainer 2005: 30).

Th ere exist many ethnographic and historic examples of collective burials that illus-trate the various formation processes and meanings of these types of graves (for example, Bloch 1971). Specifi c types of collective graves, especially elaborate tombs, are known to hold members of noble houses. Th e example of European aristocratic tombs has been used by Kunst (1995) to support the argument that Iberian societies were already strati-fi ed by the Early Copper Age, a view which is shared by Lacalle (2000). Lillios’ investi-gation of Copper Age slate, schist, and sandstone plaques deriving from mortuary con-texts also points in this direction. Lillios (2004) considers the plaques as genealogical mnemonics that were consulted for ritual and social decisions when collective burials were revisited episodically.

The Mummy Problem

Cunha originally thought that Anta Arquinha da Moura held “secondary” burials, since skulls had been deposited on one side of the chamber and long bones on the other (Cunha 1993: 85; 1995: 135). Silva (1995), who analyzed the bones, considers this as a site where individual sequential deposition of bodies in the fl esh took place. Th is conclu-sion is based on the presence of many small bones (foot bones, a shoulder blade, and collar bone) in the tomb. To Silva, the sorting of bones is the result of making room for new bodies. However, the possible existence of mummies in this specifi c tomb (buried sequentially or simultaneously) could have severe implications. Silva used skeletal com-pleteness and the presence of many small bones as evidence for burial in the fl esh. Small bones can also belong to bodies that once were mummies. If dried skin and hair do not survive in the archaeological record, a corpse that was once a mummy may simply look like a “primary burial” because most bones are present; some may even remain in proper anatomical position. Mummies and mummy parts constitute a serious methodological problem (as in some of the Argaric graves). Th ey can be moved around as articulated bodies and be redeposited many times, as was the case in the Inca Empire (D’Altroy 2002: 97).

Tomb Reuse

Another phenomenon that has also seriously been underestimated is the reuse of older tombs in the Early Bronze Age (see also García Sanjuán, this volume). Chapman (2005) has recently suggested that older megalithic monuments may have served as grave sites for some members of Bronze Age populations. Th is idea is based on the investigation of dead bodies from the Argaric site of Gatas, where a series of bones were dated and care-


ful investigation by physical anthropologists was carried out. At Gatas, not all the dead were actually disposed of within the settlement. Prior to 1900 bc, mainly adults were buried, and it seems that infants and children were deposited elsewhere or received mor-tuary treatment that left no trace. Between 1700 and 1500 bc, on the other hand, more children than adults are present. Adults between the ages of 20 and 40 years are scarce throughout the occupation of Gatas. Hence, the burial population of Gatas does not re-fl ect a real population. Chapman (2005) thinks that some of these missing adult bodies could have been deposited in megalithic tombs, both in the coastal and interior areas.

It is possible that through the reuse of megalithic monuments Bronze Age people were able to establish symbolic ties with long vanished, elite corporate groups. Indeed, the use and reuse of tombs in prehistoric Iberia may have served a similar purpose as in other parts of the world. In Europe, reuse of dynastic tombs and the choice of specifi c burial locations oft en helped to legitimize power and claims to territories (Weiss-Krejci 2005b). Maybe some Bronze Age individuals also needed political legitimization. As land became a basic means of production, the dead were increasingly linked to the land (Hernando Gonzalo 1997: 89).

Th ere certainly exists a relationship between burial monuments and land use. In the Austronesian world, the association between a corpse and the other ancestors in the tomb serves as a basis for defi ning kinship groupings (Waterson 1995) and claims to property and land. Among the Sa’dan Toraja of highland South Sulawesi, members of a descent group (tongkonan, the house) have the right to be buried in the collective house tomb (liang), which is oft en referred to as “the house of the ancestors.” If a body is placed in the “wrong” tomb, that is, in a tomb where it has no right to be, years later the body may be retrieved and placed in its own family liang (Waterson 1995: 208–10). Burial in the wrong tomb may eventually lead to improper claims to social position, land, and property by the descendants.

Violence and Warfare

Body processing as well as exhumation and reburial are probably responsible for the dis-articulated and broken state of Neolithic and Copper Age bones. However, violent death and mutilation is also a distinct possibility for some of the dismembered corpses. Th e proposed rationales (for example, see Cardoso 1994: 143 for Leceia) for their creation have been simplistic with regard to why the violence would be expressed in such a way. At present, there exists little data to support such ideas. Unequivocal osteological evi-dence for trauma caused by weapons and evidence for violent death have been recovered only from a few contexts, predominantly located in the northeastern part of the Iberian Peninsula: the dolmen of Collet Su, Cova H. De Arboli, Hipogeo de Longar, the rock shelter San Juan ante Portam Latinam, San Quirce del Valles, and the burial pit of La Atalayuela (Armendáriz et al. 1994; Etxeberria and Vegas 1992; Kunst 2000: 131; Vegas et al. 1999). Th ese injuries, which were responsible for the death of at least some of the buried individuals, have been interpreted as the outcome of interpersonal violence and warfare.

Otherwise, osteological evidence for interpersonal and communal violence is scant (Silva 2005; Silva and Marques 2010). Many archaeologists interpret walled enclosures,


such as the sites of Los Millares in Andalusia and Zambujal and Leceia in Portugal, as evidence for people’s concern for adequate protection (Fernández Castro 1995: 17–23, 48–50; Guilaine and Zammit 2005: 188–90; Monks 1997, 1999). However, some archae-ologists have suggested a ritual role for walled enclosures (Jorge 2002).

For yet unexplained reasons, the issues of violence and warfare have only started to play some role in the recent past. Most Iberian archaeologists even consider the burning of entire mortuary structures on the Northern Meseta and in Navarra (La Peña de la Abuela, El Miradero, Tumulo de la Sima, and Tres Montes) as the result of ritual behavior (see Rojo and Kunst 2002 and articles therein). However, the nature of these fi res re-mains ambiguous, and violence in the form of deliberate hostile destruction should not be ruled out. Th ere exist many historical examples which show that one form of impos-ing violence on the living is to destroy the remains of their dead (Weiss-Krejci 2005b). Unless entirely covered up, many of the tombs above the ground would have been easy targets for enemies.

Many of the problems raised in this chapter cannot be answered at present, and many more questions come to mind. Can we detect regional and chronological patterns re-garding the pattern of secondary deposition? How do we explain the parallel use of dif-ferent types of graves within the same area? Do variable mortuary practices refl ect social diff erences or ideological diff erences and varying attitudes towards the dead? Do burial sites hold representative samples of prehistoric populations, or are we missing entire segments of society? Can we identify ethnic groups in the Iberian Peninsula? Future research may be able to address some of these questions.

Th is research was funded by the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT project SFRH/BPD/8608/2002). I would like to thank all the people involved in the organization of the Obermann conference, both staff and students

Alcázar Godoy, J., A. Martín Espinosa, and M.T. Ruiz Moreno1992 Enterramientos calcolíticos en zonas

de habitat. Revista de Arqueologia 137: 18–27.

Almagro, M., and A. Arribas Palau1963 El poblado y la necrópolis megalíticos

de Los Millares (Santa Fe de Mondújar, Almería). Bibiliotheca Praehistorica Hispana Vol. 3. Consejo Superior de

Acknowledgments

References

of the University of Iowa. It was a wonderful experience. My special thanks go to Katina Lillios who has also made valuable comments on this chapter and has been incredibly patient throughout the editing process.

Investigaciones Científi cas, Diputación Provincial de Almería, Madrid.

Antunes, M.T., and A. Santinho Cunha1998 Restos humanos do Calcolítico – Idade

do Bronze de Castelo Velho, Freixo de Numão, Vila Nova de Foz Côa. Nota preliminar. Côavisão 0: 35–42.


Apellániz, J.M.1974 El grupo de Los Husos durante la pre-

historia con cerámica en el país Vasco. Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa Vol. 7. Vitoria.

Apellániz, J.M., A. Llanos, and J. Fariña1967 Cuevas sepulcrales de Lechon, Arralday,

Calaveras y Gobaederra (Alava). Estu-dios de Arqueología Alavesa 2: 21–47.

Aranda, G., and F. Molina2006 Wealth and power in the Bronze Age

of the Southwest of the Iberian Penin-sula: Th e funerary record of Cerro de la Encina. Oxford Journal of Archaeo-logy 25: 47–59.

Armendáriz, A., S. Irigarai, and F. Etxeberria1994 New evidence of Prehistoric Arrow

Wounds in the Iberian Peninsula. In-ternational Journal of Osteoarchaeology 4: 215–222.

Arribas Palau, A.1952–1953 El ajuar de las cuevas sepulcrales

de Los Blanquizares de Lébor (Murcia). Memorias de los Museos Arqueológicos Provinciales 13–14: 78–125.

Asquerino, M.D.1999 Sepulturas de la prehistoria reciente en

Priego de Córdoba. Anales de Prehisto-ria y Arqueología 15: 29–39.

Aufderheide, A.C. 2003 Th e Scientifi c Study of Mummies. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Baraybar, J.P., and C. de la Rua1995 Estudio antropológico de la población

de Pico Ramos (Muskiz, Bizkaia). Con-sideraciones sobre la demografía, salud y subsistencia. Munibe (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 47: 151–75.

Bloch, M. 1971 Placing the Dead. Seminar Press,

London.

Brown, J.A. 1995 On Mortuary Analysis – With Special

Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research Program. Pp. 3–26 in Regional Ap-proaches to Mortuary Analysis, ed. L.A. Beck. Plenum Press, New York.

Bueno Ramírez, P.1991 Megalitos en la Meseta Sur: los dolmenes

de Azutan y La Estrella (Toledo), Exca-vaciones arqueológicas en España Vol. 159. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.

Cardoso, J.L.1992 A Lapa do Bugio. Setúbal Arqueológica

9–10: 89–225.1994 Leceia 1983–1993. Escavações do povo-

ado fortifi cado pré-histórico. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras. Centro de Estudos Arqueológicos do Concelho de Oeiras, Câmara Municipal de Oeiras, Oeiras.

Cardoso, J.L., and A.M. Monge Soares1995 Cronologia absoluta das grutas arti-

fi ciais da Estremadura Portuguesa. Al-madan 4, Série II: 10–13.

Carr, C.1995 Mortuary Practices: Th eir Social, Phil-

osophical-religious, Circumstantial and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Th eory 2: 105–200.

Carvalho, A.F., N. Antunes-Ferreira, and M.J. Valente2003 A gruta-necrópole neolítica do Algar do

Barrão (Monsanto, Alcanena). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 6: 101–119.

Castro Martínez, P.V., R.W. Chapman, S. Gili Suriñach, V. Lull, R. Micó Pérez, C. Rihuete Herrada, R. Risch, and M.E. Sanahuja Yll1993–1994 Tiempos sociales de los contex-

tos funerarior argáricos. Anales de Pre-historia y Arqueología 9–10: 77–105.

Chambon, P. 2003 Les morts dans les sépultures collectives

néolithiques en France. Du cadavre aux restes ultimes. CNRS Editions, Paris.


Chapman, R.W.1990 Emerging Complexity: Th e Later Prehis-

tory of South-East Spain, Iberia and the West Mediterranean. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge.

2003 Archaeologies of Complexity. Routledge, London.

2005 Mortuary Analysis: A Matter of Time? Pp. 25–40 in Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium, eds. G.F.M. Rakita, J.E. Buikstra, L.A. Beck and S.R. Williams. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Corrêa, A.M.1949 Notas sobre o espólio antropológico

de Eira Pedrinha. Pp. 29–37 in A jazi-da pré-histórica de Eira Pedrinha, eds. A.M. Corrêa and C. Teixeira. Publica-ções do Serviço Geológico de Portugal, Lisbon.

Corrêa, A.M., and C. Teixeira1949 A jazida pré-histórica de Eira Pedrinha.

Publicações do Serviço Geológico de Portugal, Lisbon.

Criado Boado, F.1989 Megalitos, espacio, pensamiento. Tra-

bajos de Prehistoria 46: 75–98.

Cruz, A.R. 1997 Vale do Nabão: Do Neolítico à Idade do

Bronze, ARKEOS Vol. 3. CEIPHAR, Tomar.

Cunha, A.L. da 1993 Pinturas rupestres na Anta da

Arquinha da Moura (Conc. de Tondela, Viseu): noticia preliminar. Estudos Pré-Históricos 1: 83–95.

1995 Anta da Arquinha da Moura (Tondela). Pp. 133–51 in 1º Congresso de Arqueolo-gia Peninsular (Porto, 12–18 de Outubro de 1993). Actas VII. Trabalhos de Antro-pologia e Etnologia, Vol. 35. Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnolo-gia, Oporto.

D’Altroy, T.N.2002 Th e Incas. Blackwell, Oxford.

Delibes de Castro, G., J. I. Herrán Martínez, J. de Santiago Pardo, and J. del Val Recio1995 Evidence for Social Complexity in the

Copper Age of the Northern Meseta. Pp. 44–63 in Th e Origins of Complex So-cieties in Late Prehistoric Iberia, ed. K.L. Lillios, pp. 44–63. International Mono-graphs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 8. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Díaz-Andreu, M.1993 Las sociedades complejas del Calcolí-

tico y Edad del Bronce en la Peninsula Iberica. Pp. 245–63 in 1º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Porto, 12–18 de Outubro de 1993). Actas I. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, Vol. 33. So-ciedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia, Oporto.

Díaz del Río, P.2006 An Appraisal of Social Inequalities in

Central Iberia (c. 5300–1600 cal. BC). Pp. 67–79 in Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory, eds. P. Díaz del Río and L. García Sanjuán. BAR International Series 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Díaz del Río, P., and L. García Sanjuán (eds.)2006 Social Inequality in Iberian Late Pre-

history. BAR International Series 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Duarte, C.1998a Gestão do espaço funerário no Monu-

mento Funerário 1 dos Perdigões: Da-dos da análise osteológica. Revista Por-tuguesa de Arqueologia 1: 75–79.

1998b Necrópole neolítica do Algar do Bom Santo: Contexto cronológico e espaço funerário. Revista Portuguesa de Arque-ologia 1: 107–18.

Duday, H.1997 Antropología biológica de campo, tafo-

nomía y arqueología de la muerte. Pp. 91–126 in El cuerpo humano y su trata-miento mortuorio, eds. E. Malvido, G. Pereira, and V. Tiesler. Colleción Cien-tífi ca. Instituto Nacional de Antropolo-gía y Historia, Mexico City.


Etxeberria, F.2000 Th e Accidental, the Intentional and the

Ritual in Human Burials. Pp. 291–308 in Contributos das Ciências e das Tecno-logias para a Arqueologia da Península Ibérica. Actas do 3º Congresso de Ar-queologia Peninsular. Utad, Vila Real, Portugal, September 1999, Vol. 9. ADE-CAP, Oporto.

Etxeberria, F., and Herrasti Maciá, L.2007 Los restos humanos del enterramiento

de SJAPL: caracterización de la mues-tra, tafonomía, paleodemografía y pa-leopatología. Pp. 159–282 in San Juan ante Portam Latinam: una Inhumación Colectiva Prehistórica en el Valle Medio del Ebro. Memoria de las Excavaciones Arqueológicas 1985, 1990 y 1991, ed. J. I. Vegas Aramburu. José Miguel de Ba-randiarán, Diputación Foral de Álava, Vitoria.

Etxeberria, F., and J.I. Vegas1992 Heridas por fl echa durante la Prehisto-

ria en la Península Ibérica. Pp. 129–36 in Actas del I Congreso Nacional de Pa-leopatología. IV Reunión de la Asocia-ción Española de Paleopatología: Enfer-medad y muerte en el pasado. Donostia–San Sebastián 21–23 junio 1991. Munibe, Suplemento No. 8, San Sebastián.

Feest, C.F. 1997 Zwischen den Welten – zwischen den

Disziplinen: Archäologische und histo-risch-ethnographische Perspektiven zu Bestattungsformen im Küstenland von Virginia und North Carolina. Ethno-graphisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 38: 419–432.

Fernández Castro, M.C. 1995 Iberia in Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford.

Furtado, A., A. da Silva Mauricío, V. Côrtes, and J. de Almeida Monteiro1969 Lapa do Suão (Bombarral). O Arqueó-

logo Português 3, Série III: 63–70.

García Sanjuán, L.1999 Expressions of Inequality: Settlement

Patterns, Economy and Social organi-zation in the Southwest Iberian Bronze Age (c. 1700–1100 BC). Antiquity 73: 337–51.

2006 Funerary Ideology and Social Inequal-ity in the Late Prehistory of the Iberian South-West (c. 3300–850 cal. BC). Pp. 149–69 in Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory, eds. P. Díaz del Río and L. García Sanjuán. BAR International Series 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Gilman, A.2001 Assessing Political Development in

Copper and Bronze Age Southeast Spain. Pp. 59–81 in From Leaders to Rulers, ed. J. Haas. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

Gilman, A., and J.B. Th ornes1985 Land-use and Prehistory in South-east

Spain. George Allen and Unwin, London.

Gonçalves, V.S.1999 Time, Landscape and Burials. 1. Mega-

lithic Rites of Ancient Peasant Societies in Central and Southern Portugal: An Initial Overview. Journal of Iberian Ar-chaeology 1: 83–91.

Guilaine, J., and J. Zammit 2005 Th e Origins of War: Violence in Prehis-

tory. Blackwell, Oxford.

Hernando Gonzalo, A.1997 Th e Funerary World and the Dynamics

of Change in Southeast Spain (Fourth–Second millennia BC). Pp. 85–97 in Th e Archaeology of Iberia: Th e Dynamics of Change, eds. M. Díaz-Andreu and S. Keay. Routledge, London.

Hertz, R. 1907 Contribution à une étude sur la

représentation collective de la mort. Année Sociologique 10: 48–137.

Hutchinson, D.L., and L.V. Aragon2002 Collective Burials and Community

Memories: Interpreting the Placement


of the Dead in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States with Refer-ence to Ethnographic Cases from Indo-nesia. Pp. 27–54 in Th e Space and Place of Death, eds. H. Silverman and D.B. Small. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 11. American Anthropological As-sociation, Arlington.

Jorge, S.O.2002 From “Fortifi ed Settlement” to “Monu-

ment:” Accounting for Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão (Portugal). Journal of Iberian Archaeology 4: 75–82.

Jorge, S.O., M. de Lurdes Oliveira, S.A. Nunes, and S.R. Gomes1998–1999 Uma estructura ritual com ossos

humanos no sítio pré-histórico de Cas-telo Velho de Freixo de Numão (Vila Nova de Foz Côa). Portugália, Nova Se-rie 19–20: 29–70.

Kunst, M.1995 Central Places and Social Complexity

in the Iberian Copper Age. Pp. 32–43 in Th e Origins of Complex Societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia, ed. K.L. Lillios. International Monographs in Prehisto-ry, Archaeological Series 8. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

2000 A Guerra no Calcolítico na Península Ibérica. ERA Arqueologia 2: 128–42.

Lacalle Rodríguez, R.2000 El megalitismo en el S. O. de Andalucía:

Un indicador de jerarquización social. Madrider Mitteilungen 41: 54–70.

Leisner, G., and V. Leisner1943 Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halb-

insel. Der Süden (1), Römisch-Germa-nische Forschungen Vol. 17. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

1951 Antas do Concelho de Reguengos de Monsaraz. Instituto para a Alta Cultu-ra, Lisbon.

Leitão, M., C.T. North, J. Norton, O. da Veiga Ferreira, and G. Zbyszewski1987 A Gruta pré-histórica do Lugar do Can-

to, Valverde (Alcanede). O Arqueólogo Português 5, Série IV: 37–65.

Lillo Carpio, P.A. and M.J. Walker1987 Los restos humanos dispersos en el

asentamiento eneolítico de El Prado de Jumilla (Murcia). Anales de Prehistoria y Arqueología 3: 105–9.

Lillios, K. 2004 Lives of Stone, Lives of People: Re-view-

ing the Engraved Plaques and Late Neo-lithic and Copper Age Iberia. European Journal of Archaeology 7: 125–58.

Lizcano, R., J.A. Camara, J.A. Riquelme, M.L. Cañabate, A. Sanchez, and J.A. Afonso1991–1992 El polideportivo de Marto. Pro-

ducción económica y símbolos de co-hesión en un asentamiento del neolítico fi nal en las Campiñas del Alto Guadal-quivir. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 16–17: 5–101.

Lull, V.2000 Argaric Society: Death at Home.

Antiquity 74: 581–90.

Martínez Navarrete, M.I.1984 El comienzo de la metalurgia en la pro-

vincia de Madrid: la cueva y cerro de Juan Barbero (Tielmes, Madrid). Tra-bajos de Prehistoria 41: 17–91.

Mathers, C.1994 Goodbye to All Th at?: Contrasting Pat-

terns of Change in the South-East Ibe-rian Bronze Age c. 24/2200–600 BC. Pp. 21–71 in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, eds. C. Mathers and S. Stoddart. Sheffi eld Archaeological Monographs 8. J.R. Collis, Sheffi eld.

Metcalf, P., and R. Huntington1991 Celebrations of Death. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, Cambridge.


Molina, F., M.O. Rodríguez-Ariza, S. Jiménez, and M. Botella 2003 La Sepultura 121 del yacimiento argári-

co de El Castellón Alto (Galera, Grana-da). Trabajos de Prehistoria 60: 153–58.

Monks, S.J. 1997 Confl ict and Competition in Span-

ish Prehistory: Th e Role of Warfare in Societal Development from the Late Fourth to Th ird Millennium BC. Jour-nal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10: 3–32.

1999 Patterns of Warfare and Settlement in Southeast Spain. Journal of Iberian Ar-chaeology 1: 127–71.

Ontañón-Peredo, R.2006 Early Social Inequality in Cantabrian

Spain (IV–III Millennia BC). Pp. 53–65 in Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory, eds. P. Díaz del Río and L. García Sanjuán. BAR International Se-ries 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Palomar Macian, V.1982–1983 La Cueva del Abrigo I de las Pe-

ñas (Navajas, Castellón). Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología Castellonenses 9: 123–34.

Parker Pearson, M., A. Chamberlain, O. Craig, P. Marshall, J. Mulville, H. Smith, C. Chenery, M. Collins, G. Cook, G. Craig, J. Evans, J. Hiller, J. Montgomery, J.-L. Schwenninger, G. Taylor, and T. Wess2005 Evidence for Mummifi cation in Bronze

Age Britain. Antiquity 79: 529–46.

Parreira, R., and F. Serpa1995 Novos dados sobre o povoamento da

região de Alcalar (Portimão) no IV e III milénios a.c. Pp. 233–56 in 1º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Porto, 12–18 de Outubro de 1993). Actas VII. Traba-lhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, Vol. 35. Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropo-logia e Etnologia, Oporto.

Pascual Benito, J.L. 2002 Incineración y cremación parcial en

contextos funerarios neolíticos y cal-colíticos del este peninsular al sur del

Xúquer. Pp. 155º89 in Sobre el signifi ca-do del fuego en los rituales funerarios del Neolítico, eds. M.A. Rojo and M. Kunst. Studia Archaeologica Vol. 91. Secreta-riado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Rainer, A.2005 Geschichte der Michaelergruft . Pp.

21–36 in Die Michaelergruft . Retten, was zu retten ist, ed. A. Rainer. Mi-chaelerkirche, Vienna.

Rojo Guerra, M.A., and M. Kunst1999 Zur Neolithisierung des Inneren der

Iberischen Halbinsel. Erste Ergeb-nisse des interdisziplinären spanisch-deutschen Forschungsprojekts zur Entwicklung einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer in der Umgebung von Ambrona (Prov. Soria). Madrider Mitteilungen 40: 1–52.

Rojo Guerra, M.A., and M. Kunst (eds.) 2002 Sobre el signifi cado del fuego en los ri-

tuales funerarios del Neolítico, Studia Archaeologica, Vol. 91. Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

Sánchez Carrasco, G.1987 Apéndice IV: Estudio preliminar de

la fauna hallada en el enterramiento colectivo de la Cueva Sagrada. Anales de Prehistoria y Arqueología 3: 41–43.

Schubart, H., O. Arteaga, and V. Pingle 1985 Fuente Álamo. Informe preliminar so-

bre la excavación de 1985 en el pobla-do de la Edad del Bronce. Empúries 47: 70–107.

Sempowski, M.L.1994 Mortuary Practices at Teotihuacan. Pp.

2–314 in Mortuary Practices and Skel-etal Remains at Teotihuacan, eds. M.L. Sempowski and M.W. Spence. Urban-ization at Teotihuacan Vol. 3. Universi-ty of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.


Serrão, E. da Cunha, and G. Marques1971 Estrato pré-campaniforme da Lapa do

Fumo (Sesimbra). Pp. 121–42 in Actas do II Congresso de Arqueologia (Coim-bra 1970), Vol I. Coimbra.

Silva, A.M. 1995 Os restos humanos exumados da Anta

da Arquinha da Moura (Tondela, Vi-seu). Estudos Pré-Históricos 3: 141–50.

1997 O hipogeu de Monte Canelas I: Con-tribuição da antropologia de Campo e da paleobiologia na interpretação dos gestos funerários do IV e III milénios a. C. Pp. 241–48 in II Congreso de Arque-ología Peninsular. Neolítico, Calcolítico y Bronce. Tomo II. Zamora, del 24 al 27 de Septiembre de 1996, eds. R. de Bálbin and P. Bueno Ramírez. Fundación Rei Afonso Henriques, Zamora.

2005 A necrópole da Serra da Roupa: caracte-rização demográfi ca, morfológica e pato-lógica de uma população portuguesa do Neolítico Final/Calcolítico. Pp. 787–92 inIII Congresso de Neolítico en la Península Ibérica, eds. P. Arias Cabal, R. Ontañón Peredo and C. García-Moncó Piñeiro. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Univer-sidad de Cantabria, Santander.

Silva A.M., and R. Marques2010 An Arrowhead Injury in a Neolithic

Human Axis from the Natural Caveof Lapa do Bugio (Sesimbra, Portu-gal). Anthropological Science. Advance Publication http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/ase/_vols, accessed July 18, 2010.

Straus, L.G., J. Altuna, M. Jackes, and M. Kunst1988 New Excavations in Casa da Mou-

ra (Serra d’el Rei, Peniche) and at the Abrigos de Bocas (Rio Maior), Portu-gal. Arqueologia 18: 65–95.

Th omas, J. 2002 Archaeology’s Humanism and the

Materiality of the Body. Pp. 29–45 in Th inking Th rough the Body: Archaeolo-gies of Corporeality, eds. Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik, and S. Tarlow. Kluwer Academic, New York.

Vegas, J.I., A. Armendáriz, F. Etxeberria, M. Fernández, L. Herrasti, and F. Zumalde1999 San Juan ante Portam Latinam: Una

sepultura colectiva en el valle medio del Ebro. Revista de Arqueología 224: 14–25.

Vilaça, R.1990 Sondagem arqueológica no Covão

d’Almeida (Eira Pedrinha, Condeixa-a-Nova). Antropologia Portuguesa 8: 101–31.

Waterson, R.1995 Houses, Graves and the Limits of Kin-

ship Groupings among the Sa’dan Tora-ja. Bijdragen tot de Taal, Landen Vol-kenkunde 151: 194–217.

Weiss-Krejci, E.2004 Mortuary Representations of the Noble

House: A Cross-Cultural Comparison between Collective Tombs of the An-cient Maya and Dynastic Europe. Jour-nal of Social Archaeology 4: 368–404.

2005a Formation Processes of Deposits with Burned Human Remains in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Portugal. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 7: 37–73.

2005b Excarnation, Evisceration, and Exhu-mation in Medieval and Post-Medieval Europe. Pp. 155–72 in Interacting with the Dead. Perspectives on Mortuary Ar-chaeology for the New Millennium, eds. G.F.M. Rakita, J.E. Buikstra, L.A. Beck and S.R. Williams. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2006 Animals in Mortuary Contexts of Neo-lithic and Chalcolithic Iberia. Pp. 35–45 in Animais na Pré-história e Arqueolo-gia da Península Ibérica. Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Faro 2004, ed. N. Bicho.. Universidade do Algarve, Faculdade de Ciências Hu-manas e Sociais, Faro.

Zapata, L.1995 La excavación del depósito sepulcral

calcolítico de la Cueva Pico Ramos (Muskiz, Bizkaia): La industria ósea y los elementos de adorno. Munibe (An-tropologia-Arkeologia) 47: 35–90.

Comparative Archaeologies - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/estella.weiss-krejci/weiss.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative Archaeologies - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/estella.weiss-krejci/weiss.pdf ·...