Building forever or just for the time being? A view from north-western Iberia
Abstract
The existence of a “building project” is difficult to ascertain in the megalithic tombs of north-western Iberia, although in certain cases we have some evidence of planned execution from a kind of blueprint. On a larger scale, we can make some observations about the setting of the megalithic mounds, and the way in which they tend to cluster in cemeteries. Focusing on the tombs themselves, we observe similarities in structural design and constructional sequences that suggest the builders were following a certain set of rules, particularly in the case of passage graves. Two main issues will be mentioned: changes in the construction design (and use?) at certain sites, and the specific outline of the chamber within a regional group of passage graves. At the level of construction, the range of variation detected is enormous. It is probably linked to shifts in ritual and the purpose of the mounds. Three distinct life-histories for these monuments can nonetheless be proposed: i) a relatively static model, where tombs were the result of a single construction episode, without further alterations; ii) a more dynamic life history, characteristic of certain monuments that started as a single-chamber mound but subsequently underwent an aggrandising process; iii) a deconstructive pattern, experienced by a number of mounds where stone chambers were partially or totally dismantled, to be replaced by other structures.
Two questions may be posed with respect to those trends, neither of which has a straightforward answer: how much are they a by-product of chronology, and how far were changes in design the consequence of shifts in funerary ritual?
Keywords: NW Iberia; megalith biographies; passage grave; monument closing; building blueprints
Intentions versus conditions
When one approaches the issue of intentionality or the eventual existence of a predetermined design, it is crucial to have access to a regular set of data on which interpretations or sequences may be based. It is, therefore, fundamental to have in mind what the conditions of the research are in a given area, for the characteristics of the latter can play a significant role in the richness and reliability of the information at our disposal.
With respect to the investigation of the megaliths of north-western Iberia we enjoy, on one hand, a deep tradition that goes back to the 19th century but, on the other, the introduction of modern research techniques took longer than in other European regions, severely hindering the quality of the available data set. A “scatter gun” approach was predominant in our study area and, with a few exceptions (the most notable being the long-term project developed by the University of Porto at Serra da Aboboreira, northern Portugal), excavations were limited to just one monument, studied in splendid isolation without regard for others or the surrounding landscape.
A second feature of most research, until very recent decades, was the concentration of archaeologists’ efforts on the stone internal structure (i.e. the tomb chamber), in this way disregarding not only the potentially interesting information that could be surmised from the mound as a whole, but also the material evidence lying in the areas beside the tombs.
When, in the 1980s, radiocarbon dating became standard for dating our megaliths, it was usually done on a single mound/single date basis, with only a few monuments dispensing more than one radiometric date. This left the chronology of these monuments subject to haphazard sampling or instrument error, and also concealed the complex history of the constructions. Dombate is one of the few examples of a multi-dated passage grave in north-western Iberia, and that circumstance led to interesting conclusions, about which we shall speak below.
The north-western region of Iberia is particularly unfavourable for the preservation of any kind of organic remains: an unfortunate combination of humidity, mild temperatures, and predominantly acidic soils have devastating effects on evidence of that kind. As a result, one of the most relevant data sources (human bones) for assessing the use of megalithic tombs is currently irretrievable.
When, in addition to the factors just mentioned, we add a fairly catastrophic record regarding publication of archaeological interventions dealing with megaliths, particularly in the Galician territory (Vilaseco 2001), we are left with an extremely biased perspective about these kinds of monuments. It is hardly surprising that there has been little reflection on the internal sequencing of the individual mounds, or the intentions behind the construction/utilisation of these tombs, since the dominant perspective was one of monuments frozen in time. Still, there are some threads of evidence that we can explore in the search for interpretations regarding the setting of the dolmens in particular places, the changes in design (and use?) at certain sites, the types of chambers being built, and the specific life-histories of some megalithic mounds.
Fig. 10.1: Location of the main sites mentioned in the text: 1. Sierra Plana de la Borbolla. 2. Llaguna de Niévares. 3. Forno dos Mouros V. 4. Illade, Ponte da Pedra and Reboredo 1 (As Pontes). 5. Forno dos Mouros. 6. Agro dos Muíños. 7. Chousa Nova 1. 8. Monte da Romea. 9. Cotogrande. 10. Mamoa da Cruzinha. 11. Outeiro de Gregos (Aboboreira). 12. Dombate. 13. Pedra Cuberta. 14. Pedra Moura. 15. Arca da Piosa. 16. Casa dos Mouros. 17. Pedra do Boi 3 and Prado do Rei 3. 18. A Mina de Parxubeira. 19. Argalo. 20. Casota do Páramo. 21. Arca do Barbanza. 22. Os Campiños. 23. Axeitos
Taking possession of the place
The prehistoric mounds of north-western Iberia are found throughout the whole region, from the coastal plains to the eastern mountain ranges, over 1000m high. Yet, the densest concentrations of monuments are generally found on the flattened tops of eroded sierras, around or slightly over 500–600m. That is the case of the sierras O Bocelo and Santa Mariña (both in Galicia), and Aboboreira (Portugal), and those constituting the backbone of the peninsulas of Morrazo and Barbanza (Galicia). A particular situation can be observed in certain areas such as Sierra Plana de la Borbolla (Asturias) or As Pontes (Galicia), where clusters of monuments occur on low-lying ranges overlooking the plains below. Yet this apparent restriction against higher places should probably be reconsidered in light of recent survey work in regions like the Barbanza peninsula, which showed that a significant proportion of the mounds were located away from the highlands (Fábregas and Rodríguez 2012, 37). A similar observation can be made in the basin of As Pontes, where – in addition to the numerous mounds existing on the surrounding hills – a fairly large number were reported in the flat lands below, most of them quarried away in the last decades (Eguileta 2009, 13).
In spite of the necessary qualifications regarding the (pre)conception of a megalithic landscape confined to the highlands, there remains the obvious fact that in those zones a heavier density of megaliths exists. When considering the reasons for that clustering, the existence of lighter soils for agriculture has been put forward for some time (Criado 1989). However, leaving aside the sharp environmental changes of the last 6000 years, we must bear in mind that an increasing number of early Neolithic sites are located away from the higher sectors of the landscape (Fábregas et al. 2007; Prieto 2010). It is still feasible that high places could have had a special significance for some Neolithic communities that otherwise exploited different ecological niches. This symbolic role was apparently retained for long periods, judging by the few cases in which systematic excavation and radiocarbon dating are available for the megalithic necropolises, as we shall see further on. Last but not least, the level of attrition sustained by the mound sample would have been arguably heavier in the lower areas, due to the intense human activity there, as is well attested in the case of As Pontes.
Fig. 10.2: Megalithic necropolis of Sierra Plana de la Borbolla and location of Peña Tú. (After Blas 2010)
If we slightly change the scale of the analysis, focusing on particular places, we may find that certain locations seem to continue the construction or modification of mounds – sometimes for 3000 years. This suggests that, beyond more or less functionalist explanations, particular loci maintained their special character throughout vast timespans. A good example of this situation has been put forward in a persuasive way by Professor Blas (2010): near the town of Llanes (Asturias), a low range runs in parallel to the coastal plain, divided into two sectors (Sierra Plana de la Borbolla and Purón) by the gorge of the river Purón (Fig. 10.2). To the east, a huge concentration of mounds (c. 52) is known, while on the opposite side none have been reported. Though no systematic excavations have been carried out there, one mound with an atypical stone chamber had a radiocarbon date of the late 5th millennium, with a reuse dated to the 3rd/2nd millennium transition, and it is likely that the rest of the mounds were built or used within that timespan. The sharp contrast between both sectors of the sierra cannot be attributed to geographical, economic or geological factors. There is some evidence that the Sierra Plana de la Borbolla could have acquired a particular meaning, perhaps even from Mesolithic times, due to the presence of a very conspicuous rock with a clear zoomorphic shape (Peña Tú) in its western tip, looking into the plain where mounds are located (Fig. 10.2). That this outcrop had a particular meaning is indicated by its decoration with carvings and paintings, potentially since the Neolithic, and certainly since the Bronze Age. This could be an elaborate example of the significant role played by singular rock formations in prehistory, or the association of these with megaliths, a relationship already observed in other areas of the Iberian north-west (Criado and Vaquero 1993; Blas 2012, 324) and elsewhere (Bradley 2000).
At Illade (A Coruña), we have an example of the remarkable durability of a funerary space, much smaller in scale than that of Borbolla, but well attested through C-14 dates, even if the excavations remain practically unpublished (Vaquero 1999). Here there was a cluster of seven mounds placed along the lower part of a spur leading into the basin of As Pontes. Four were excavated and C14 dates obtained, showing a timespan of around 3000 years. Unfortunately, we have only scant information about the characteristics of two monuments: Illade 0, with a wooden structure belonging to the late 5th millennium BC; and Illade 3, with a shallow pit sided by a vertical stone and a date in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. Given that the excavator makes only the slightest reference to the artefacts recovered from those mounds, we cannot but wonder about the ultimate reason for the prolonged use of that funerary space from Neolithic times until well into the Bronze Age.
Following de Blas’s insight, we could consider that in the case of Sierra Plana de la Borbolla, Neolithic groups opted to raise their tombs in a space already consecrated by the existence of a notable landmark like the Peña Tú outcrop. The seeming persistence of mound building into much later times could also relate to the conspicuous presence of the earlier mounds. This tendency towards creating monuments beside earlier ones is observed in a number of places: apart from Illade, we know of Cotogrande (Galicia) and Outeiro de Gregos (Portugal), with timespans of 1500 and 3000 years, respectively (Abad 2000; Jorge 1988; Cruz 1992). Several factors could account for the clustering trends, like the proximity to natural paths, economic resources, or preferential settlement areas, but it is also feasible that the weight of tradition and the legitimacy awarded by older constructions were at play as well.
Long-time projects
Occasionally there are hints of the existence of building projects, carried out after varying lengths of time. A recent example is found at the Galician mound of Chousa Nova 1 (Domínguez-Bella and Bóveda 2012), where initially a monument only 15m in diameter with a rectangular open tomb was built on an artificial platform, surrounded by a 34m circular trench. Shortly afterwards, the stone chamber collapsed due to structural problems and – while this was never restored – an earthen mound was raised, occupying part of the original platform.
Only in 1989 was the first case of an increasingly complex sequence in certain megalithic burials detected: excavation at the passage grave of Dombate revealed the remains of a single chamber beneath (Fig. 10.3). An evolution from a simpler to a more complex building took place there along a timespan of maybe a millennium, judging from the available C14 dates. First, a chamber was built within a mound of modest dimensions. Sometime later (we cannot determine the precise timespan), this dolmen was dismantled and a much larger passage grave raised: the earlier mound was merged into the new, bigger one. The passage grave remained in use from 3800 to 2900 BC, when access to the chamber was blocked, although later intrusions are recorded in Beaker and Bronze Age times (Bello 1995).
Fig. 10.3: Evolution of the monument at Dombate: 1 – Small mound with a polygonal chamber and a funnel-like access; 2 and 3 – Construction of a passage grave beside the previous monument; 4 – The passage grave finished: the older megalith has been buried by the new mound, but a bulge can be observed on plan as a memento of the earlier tomb. (After Bello 1992/93)
That replacement of a single chamber by a larger passage grave within the same monument has been reported, albeit in less detail, in at least three other sites: Forno dos Mouros 5 (Mañana 2005), Mámoa da Braña das Feallas (Lestón 1995), and Mamoa da Cruzinha (Silva 2003). While the last two are still unpublished, the first was severely disturbed and only the earlier dolmen showed fair preservation. Furthermore, a geophysical survey, carried out by ourselves (still unpublished) in the much-eroded mound of Axeitos (presently displaying a passage grave), suggests that underneath could lie the remains of an earlier, much smaller, stone grave.
In view of the available evidence, one may wonder if such a process of “internal growth” of the megalithic tombs was rather common, and not just an episodic feature. The reasons for that choice are another matter: why, in certain instances, did the megalith builders not follow the usual pattern of building new mounds beside the older ones? Was it that they were commemorating a particular individual or group buried in the earlier tomb? Or – going back to the initial question – is the limited number of excavations in Galician passage graves hiding what was perhaps a more common option than our present-day knowledge suggests?
A blueprint for passage graves?
A wide array of funerary chambers has been reported inside the north-western mounds: wooden tombs, shallow pits – sometimes edged by stones – and, of course, the so-called dolmens. When megalithic constructions are present, they are always roofed by capstones, as no tholoi have been found in the area. The building tradition is very similar at all the sites, and is shared throughout the rest of the western Iberian region. The first slab to be raised is the backstone facing the entrance that supports the entire structure: this is sometimes set in a markedly sloping position, or even, as in Dombate, in a socket 1.5m deeper than the floor of the tomb (Bello 1995). Then, one slab is leaned against each side of the backstone, and finally new ones are placed, leaning each on the previous one in order to build a rectangular, circular or polygonal-shaped chamber. This leads to the presence of an odd number of uprights, ranging from five to 11, although seven is the usual figure, as has long been observed (Fig. 10.4; Barros 1875).
No matter the differences in plans and sections, passage graves follow the same scheme. In fact, the seven-slab pattern, with a chamber usually wider than it is long, seems to be the most common model in western Iberia, from Galicia (Hoskin and Rodríguez 1998) to Alentejo in southern Portugal (Leisner and Leisner 1951). In the western-most part of Galicia, we could almost speak of the existence of a blueprint, because of the number of monuments that share a series of archaeological features. They are found in the counties of Costa da Morte (Dombate, Pedra Cuberta, Casa dos Mouros, and Mina de Parxubeira, just to mention the best preserved) and Barbanza (Argalo, Axeitos, Arca do Barbanza, and Casota do Páramo).
Fig. 10.4: Some of the seven-slab passage graves mentioned in the text (1. Dombate. 2. Casa dos Mouros. 3. Casota do Páramo. 4. Axeitos. 5. Forno dos Mouros. 6. Agro dos Muíños) and two contemporary monuments with fewer slabs (8. Arca da Piosa. 9. Pedra Moura). (All after Carrera 2011)
Despite the slight differences in the plans of the chambers, or in the length of their passages, the similarities go beyond the number of uprights. All have paintings on the inner sides of the slabs, mostly employing red and black pigments. Nowadays only small parts remain, but originally this decoration would have covered the entire surface inside the tomb so that the stone would not be visible at all (Carrera 2011). Furthermore, in those excavated (Dombate, Parxubeira and Argalo), a row of small stone anthropomorphic sculptures was reported at the entrance of the tomb (Fig. 10.5 and 10.6), likewise marking the limit of the mound, as though protecting the access to the funerary precinct (Bello 1992/93; Rodríguez 1988). In Axeitos, two pieces were collected in the altered mound, suggesting that a similar structure exists here too (Vilaseco 2004). They are between 10cm and 50cm long, most of them just boulders with incisions or notches representing the arms or shoulders of a person, or even a facial tattoo, but others have clearly a schematic human figure.
Chronology provides a final clue suggesting some forethought in the building of these seven-slab chambers. Excavation data (Dombate: Bello 1995) and AMS radiocarbon dating of charcoal identified in the black pigment of the paintings (Pedra Cuberta and Casota do Páramo: Carrera 2011) confirm that the decoration is contemporary with the erection of these monuments, taking place within a short time range (3960–3600 BC). Furthermore, two other passage graves with seven uprights (Forno dos Mouros and Agro dos Muíños), east of the studied area, have a similar chronology for their paintings.
Fig. 10.5: Stratigraphic section of Dombate (after Bello 1995) showing the position of the row of anthropomorphic sculptures (circle)
Although the assembled evidence is compelling, seven slabs was not the only design chosen for passage graves in the area: in Costa da Morte we have chambers of five (Arca da Piosa) or six uprights (Pedra Moura), both with paintings, and the latter with a radiocarbon date similar to the seven-slab designs. So there was not a single, all-purpose model for building passage graves, although perhaps certain blueprints were more popular in given areas, always subjected to modifications according to the shape of the extracted slabs, the contingencies of the building process, or other factors.
Fig. 10.6: Anthropomorphic statues from A Mina de Parxubeira (1), Argalo (2), Dombate (3) and Axeitos (4)
Diverging life-histories
If we pay attention to the biographies of those megaliths that have been subject of a controlled excavation, we find that, far from staying in the mainstream, our monuments often follow rather different paths from their first construction to their final abandonment. Generally speaking, we might observe three life-histories in our study area that (very summarily) could be labelled as static, dynamic, or deconstructive. Of course, that biographical characterisation is heavily dependent on the availability of finegrained information about the mounds, which is not, alas, a very common feature. We must also mention, however, that no chronological factor seems to be at play, as all three patterns are present throughout the more than 3000 years during which burial mounds were built and used in the area.
Static
Under this label we could include mounds that, once built, do not seem to undergo significant transformations at the structural level, or in their subsequent use. Well-documented examples of this pattern are found in the necropolis of Llaguna de Niévares (Blas 1992; 1995) where systematic excavations were carried out at four mounds, two of which were C14 dated (Fig. 10.7). Tumulus A had no proper chamber, only two uprights facing each other aligned on a north–south axis, displaying a stone paving behind the stone unaffected by a plunder pit. Tumulus D had a pseudo-chamber made up of four smallish uprights (the tallest being just 0.74m high). Both monuments had fairly huge earthen mounds that were not significantly altered by looters’ attempts at getting to the “treasures” within the would-be chamber. Being almost contemporary (A was most likely built 4000–3950 BC, and D between 3990 and 3800 BC), they show a similarly poor, material culture; a few flint trapezes, and a micro-axe each. The design of the tumuli is such that once erected, it would not allow a further use of the stone chambers. This possibly restricted period of use does not necessarily imply an individual use, only a time-constricted employment.
Fig. 10.7: Axonometric view of Llaguna de Niévares mound A. (After Blas 1992)
We have examples of similar dynamics in mounds built 2000 years later, such as Reboredo 1, a small earthen mound with a shallow (barely 0.15m deep) pit, edged by a single upright. A few stone objects were retrieved from that feature, sealed with a layer of slate and quartz fragments and charcoal pieces, the latter providing a C14 date within the last third of the 3rd millennium BC, virtually identical to another obtained from a similar monument (Illade 3) not far away (Vaquero 1995 a; 1995b).
Two comments might be opportune: the fact that those monuments did not undergo significant modifications once built does not exclude activities (funerary or otherwise) being carried out on the site before actually raising the mounds. Also, beyond the fact that all the sites mentioned remained unaltered, their character is quite different: those in Llaguna de Niévares have large and structurally-complex tumuli, while Reboredo does not and, unlike the latter, occupied a very conspicuous position in the surrounding landscape.
Dynamic
The presence of dynamic constructions, where the funerary chamber undergoes multiple modifications over its lifetime, is a more common situation. To start with, there is the possibility, as reported in Brittany, that certain megalithic slabs are reused menhirs or stelae that pre-date the chambered tombs. Yet examples of this are not common. One is the presence of engraved decoration on some uprights that had to be carved before they were set within the tomb. The clearest cases are provided by a bulldozed megalithic mound at Os Campiños, and the dolmen of Dombate. In the first, a large stone was found with anthropomorphic features carved on both faces, thus suggesting that before being incorporated into the megalithic chamber, it was positioned elsewhere, possibly as a freestanding stela (Fuente and Fábregas 1994). In the latter, the motif present on some of the slabs, called The Thing (Shee 1981), has morphological similarities with others carved on Breton standing-stones, themselves sometimes incorporated in later megalithic chambers (Cassen and Vaquero 2003). The fact that in Dombate those images were carved before the actual erection of the uprights and probably covered with paint when the chamber was first built may endorse the possibility of those slabs being reused stelae.
Certainly the development of large monuments like Dombate was dynamic: they underwent an aggrandising process from single-chamber mounds to passage graves with huge mounds. The latter, moreover, show a long-term use, as those excavated in Galicia seem to have been raised between 3950 and 3650 BC, but were not blocked until the first half of the 3rd millennium (Fábregas and Vilaseco 2006). During this timespan they might experience modifications, such as the repainting of the inner decoration (Carrera 2011), or changes in the access through the mound to the tomb. Even after final closure they were sometimes reused, probably in Beaker times: pits were dug to access the chamber (Vaquero 1999, 185), or one of the passage capstones was displaced (Bello 1995).
Fig. 10.8: Chamber of Chousa Nova 1 under excavation. Note the portion of the capstone in its original position, and two large fragments fallen inside the chamber (Photograph Mª José Bóveda)
More modest monuments also saw changes, for example the enlargement of the mound to increase its size and/or height. Unfortunately, in many cases we have no chronological clues, so we cannot rule out the possibility that two construction phases were in fact not distant in time. But there are two outstanding monuments where structural modification was clearly part of a process of closure. The first is Monte da Romea (Prieto 2007) where a dolmen nearly 2m in diameter was built c. 4000–3700 BC. It was originally surrounded by a small mound approximately 8m in diameter, barely covering the chamber uprights to a height of 0.5m. Towards 2970–2710 BC, once the access had been closed, the mound was significantly raised, reaching 18m in diameter and 1m in height, in what it looks like a closing of the monument, although this did not prevent its later reuse. Even more striking is the case of Chousa Nova 1 (mentioned above), a small monument erected around 4350–4240 BC with an open cist-like chamber whose capstone was not covered by the mound (Fig. 10.8). Despite having an open access through the mound allowing reuse of the tomb, it seems that only one individual was buried there, with a necklace composed of 35 variscite and amber beads, and three other polished tools. That limited use was probably a result of the collapse of the capstone owing to structural problems. It fractured into four pieces, one remaining in its original position while the rest fell inside the chamber. Thereafter, the mound was enlarged, growing nearly 40cm in height and 4m in diameter, filling the chamber over the fallen blocks with earth (Bóveda and Vilaseco forthcoming). A sealing function for the mound can also be mentioned in cases where a perishable structure is covered only at a later stage with an earthen mound, becoming the final stage in the history of the monument (Vaquero 1999).
Fig. 10.9: Axonometric view of Cotogande 5. (After Abad 2000)
We mentioned above that certain places preserved their symbolic and funerary meaning over more than 20 centuries, as shown by the construction of new tombs next to earlier ones, forming a necropolis (Jorge 1986). The distance between mounds may range from some tens of metres to a hundred, but in a few cases they are so close one to another that, as in Prado do Rei, we could talk of a kind of cell-like growth. At this site, mound 3, a Neolithic monument, is just 1.5m from mound 2, a small cairn possibly belonging to the Bronze Age. The space in between was filled with a line of plain slabs symbolically connecting the two monuments, very different in size and design, once the older was closed (Lestón 2009).
Deconstructive
This might be considered a particular version of the dynamic pattern, as a number of mounds in the process of modification have their chambers totally or partially destroyed, and replaced by newer structures. We have mentioned several times the example of Dombate, where the excavator suggests the possibility that some slabs from the dismantled earlier chamber were reused as capstones for the passage of the later passage grave (Bello 1992/93).
In Cotogrande 5, a three-tiered sequence of internal structures was proposed (Fig 10.9; Abad 2000), although with limited stratigraphic information supporting it. A pit – unexcavated – covered by a large granite slab, preceded the construction of the mound, which probably occurred between 3120-2900 BC. Then a cluster of thin tiny slabs, found at the eastern side of the mound together with some broken Chalcolithic material like Beaker pottery, was interpreted as the remains of the first real chamber. This would have been dismantled around 2700-2475 BC, but parts of it were set aside with the burial offerings as a votive deposit. Finally, a bigger polygonal chamber was built, poorly-preserved after historical plundering. An example of prehistoric looting has been detected at Guidoiro Areoso mound 2, whose peculiar chamber was emptied just before the Early Bronze Age, and the offerings thrown to the periphery of the monument (Rey and Vilaseco 2012).
Fig. 10.10: The two burial moments in Ponte de Pedra, with (right) the position of the respective structures in the mound. (After Vaquero 1995a)
Also deconstructive would be the sequence at the monuments of Os Consellos and Pedra do Boi 3. The first has a complex evolution that involves, in one of its phases, the presence of a small orthostatic chamber dismantled prior to the building of the mound (Cano et al. 2000). In the second case, the transformation also necessitated extending the diameter of the tumulus from 10 to 15m, in parallel to the redesign of the earlier tomb to a point that makes it impossible to recognize it at all (Lestón 2009). However, in the latter we also have a first example of possible destruction of the mound, as the stone covering overlying it seems to have been partially dismantled at a certain point to build a low wall that surrounds the mound.
Alterations also happened in other kind of burial structures, with Ponte da Pedra the best known example (Fig. 10.10; Vaquero 1999). In the original grave, the tomb was a level surface edged by uprights, placed sideways and slightly inclined towards the interior, under which the body was laid between 3970-3660 BC. Only after this – maybe some centuries afterwards – was the mound built. More than 2000 years later, by 1410-930 BC, one of the uprights was removed, and a new slab was placed in approximately the same spot, but on the surface of the mound. At the same time, a pit was excavated to its west, where a funerary deposit was placed. The occurrence of this kind of shallow pit has been reported in other Galician mounds belonging to the Middle Bronze Age (Prieto 2007).
Summing up
We have dealt here with design and biographical issues regarding a phenomenon that is widely spread and whose numbers range into the thousands. (Nearly 1600 mounds are reported in Pontevedra alone, one of the four Galician provinces with just 4495 km2 of surface; Fig. 10.11). With a wide variety of sizes and internal designs, these constructions have been dated anywhere between the late 5th millennium BC and the end of the 2nd. Furthermore, even if single dolmens appear to be slightly older than passage graves, a remarkable polymorphism has been reported among roughly contemporary burial mounds. That said, we were able to perceive an interesting dialectic continuity-change pervading the megalithic phenomenon of north-western Iberia.
As for the continuity, we have shown several examples (others also exist, though not so well documented) of the enduring importance of certain places that retained their funerary function across the millennia. This resilience is reported at the scale of the individual tomb as well: it is not unusual for Neolithic mounds to be reused as late as the Middle Bronze Age.
However, beneath the apparent continuity there is an undertow of change and, within a given necropolis, newly designed tombs were built. Even more tellingly, older mounds underwent significant structural modifications to better suit new needs or customs. The megalithic sites of Dombate or Cotogrande 5 offer good examples of these shifting schemes and complex biographies, in sharp contrast with other mounds that saw no modification of their original layout.
Remarkably, in north-western Iberia the shifts in size, design or use for nearly 3000 years are hidden beneath the unshakable mantle of the earthen mound with roughly circular plan and a hemispherical profile. This resilience of the circular mound throughout time is a particular feature of our study area, and contrasts with the pattern of variability reported in other European regions. We might consider this phenomenon the result of northwestern societies sticking to a time-honoured tradition with respect to the external appearance of the burial mound. After all, the absolute preeminence of the circular plan is shared with most megalithic areas of the western façade of Iberia. Alternatively, we might wonder whether the architectural conservatism was an intentional attempt to assert the unchangeable character of the traditional burial mores, no matter how much these (and the internal structures linked to those ritual shifts) underwent significant modifications throughout the time.
Fig. 10.11: Distribution of the mounds in Pontevedra province known to the end of 2011
References
Abad, X. C. 2000. Actuaciones arqueológicas en la necrópolis tumular de Cotogrande (Cabral–Vigo). Campañas 1989–1992. Brigantium 12, pp. 75–84.
Barros Sivelo, R. 1875. Antigüedades de Galicia. A Coruña
Bello, J. M. 1992/93. El monumento de Dombate en el marco del megalitismo del noroeste peninsular. Aspectos arquitectónicos. Portugália, Nova Série 13–14, pp.139–148.
Bello, J. M. 1995. Arquitectura, arte parietal y manifestaciones escultóricas en el megalitismo noroccidental. In: Pérez, F., and Castro, L. (eds) Arqueoloxía e arte na Galicia prehistórica e romana. Museo Arqueolóxico e Histórico: A Coruña, pp. 29–98.
de Blas, M. A. 1992. Arquitecturas megalíticas en la Llaguna de Niévares (Villaviciosa). Excavaciones de 1988 a 1990. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1987–90. Principado de Asturias: Oviedo, pp. 111–128.
de Blas, M. A. 1995. Destino y tiempo de los túmulos de estructura “atípica”: los monumentos A y D de la estación megalítica de la Llaguna de Niévares. In: Gorrochategui, J.; Yarritu, M. J.; Zapata, L. (comp.). Primeros agricultores y ganaderos en el Cantábrico y Alto Ebro. Eusko Ikaskuntza: San Sebastián, pp. 55–79.
de Blas, M. A. 2010. Poder ancestral y territorio neolítico: en torno a Peña Tú y los túmulos de la costa oriental de Asturias. Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Munibe suplemento 32, pp. 94–118.
de Blas, M. A. 2012. Beneficio y consagración de las cumbres: el caso de Los Fitos y la concurrencia Neolítico-Bronce antiguo en el área megalítica de La Cobertoria, Asturias. In: Muñiz, J. R. (ed.) Ad Orientem. Del final del Paleolítico en el Norte de España a las primeras civilizaciones del Oriente Próximo. Universidad de Oviedo: Oviedo, pp. 307–347.
Bóveda, M. J. and Vilaseco, X. I. forthcoming. La cámara megalítica de Chousa Nova 1 (Silleda, Pontevedra): ¿rotura intencional o colapso? Actas do 5.º Congresso do Neolítico Peninsular (Lisboa, 2011). Câmara Municipal: Cascais.
Bradley, R. 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge: London.
Cano, J., Vidal, M. and Vázquez, P. 2000. El túmulo de Os Consellos (Nigrán, Pontevedra), Brigantium 12, pp. 85–92.
Carrera, F. 2011. El arte parietal en monumentos megalíticos del Noroeste Peninsular. Dimensión del fenómeno y propuestas de conservación. BAR S2190. Archaeopress: Oxford.
Cassen, S. and Vaquero, J. 2003. “Cosas fabulosas”. In: Gonçalves, V. (ed.) Muita gente, poucas antas? Origens, espaços e contextos do Megalitismo. Actas do II Colóquio Internacional sobre Megalitismo (Reguengos de Monsaraz, 2000). Ministério da Cultura: Lisbon, pp. 449–508.
Criado, F. 1989. Asentamiento megalítico y asentamiento castreño: una propuesta de síntesis. Gallaecia 11, pp. 109–137.
Criado, F. and Vaquero, J. 1993. Monumentos, nudos en el pañuelo. Megalitos, nudos en el espacio: Análisis del emplazamiento de los monumentos tumulares gallegos. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueología 6, pp. 205–248.
da Cruz, D. J. 1992. A mamoa 1 de Chã de Carvalhal (Serra da Aboboreira). Universidade de Coimbra: Coimbra.
Domínguez-Bella, S. and Bóveda, Mª. J. 2011. Variscita y ámbar en el Neolítico gallego. Análisis arqueométrico del collar del Túmulo 1 de Chousa Nova, Silleda (Pontevedra). Trabajos de Prehistoria 68 (2), pp. 369–380.
Eguileta, J. M. 2009. O fenómeno megalítico na depresión de As Pontes de García Rodríguez (A Coruña): apuntes para un estado da cuestión. In: Bonilla, A. and Fábregas, R. (eds) Círculo de engaños: Excavación del crómlech de A Mourela (As Pontes de García Rodríguez, A Coruña. Andavira: Santiago de Compostela, pp. 37–58.
Fábregas, R., Bonilla, A. and Cesar, M. 2007. Monte dos Remedios (Moaña, Pontevedra). Un asentamiento de la Prehistoria reciente. Tórculo: Santiago de Compostela.
Fábregas, R. and Rodríguez, C. 2012. A prehistoria recente do Barbanza. In: Fábregas, R. and Rodríguez, C. (eds) A arte rupestre no Norte do Barbanza. Andavira: Santiago de Compostela, pp. 33–57.
Fábregas, R. and Vilaseco, X. I. 2006. En torno al megalitismo gallego. In: Fábregas, R. and Carrera, F. (eds.) Arte Parietal Megalítico en el Noroeste Peninsular. Conocimiento y conservación. Tórculo: Santiago de Compostela, pp. 11–36.
de la Fuente, F. and Fábregas, R. 1994. La laja decorada de Os Campiños. Estudos Pré-Históricos 2, pp. 305–310.
Hoskin, M. and Rodríguez, A. A. 1998. Studies in Iberian archaeoastronomy: (5) orientations of megalithic tombs of northern and western Iberia. D: Galicia. Archaeoastronomy 23, pp. 53–57.
Jorge, V. O. 1986. “Monumentalização” e “necropolização” no megalitismo europeu. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia 26 (1–4), pp. 233–237.
Jorge, V. O. 1988. Campo arqueológico da Serra da Aboboreira. Arqueologia do concelho de Baiâo. Resultado de 10 anos de trabalho. Arqueologia 17, pp. 5–27.
Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1951. Antas do concelho de Reguengos de Monsaraz. Lisboa. (Facsimile edition: Uniarch: Lisboa, 1985).
Lestón, M. 1995. Informe Preliminar. Mámoa da Braña das Feallas (Zas, A Coruña). Unpublished report deposited in Servizo de Arqueoloxía, Xunta de Galicia.
Lestón, M. 2009. Escavación das mámoas de Prado do Rei e Pedra do Boi, Dumbría. In: Rodríguez, E. and Vázquez, A. (eds) Atlas arqueolóxico de Galicia: comarca de Fisterra. Xunta de Galicia: Santiago de Compostela, pp. 35–37.
Mañana, P. 2005. Túmulo 5 de Forno dos Mouros (Ortigueira, A Coruña). Primeiros resultados. Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 52, pp. 39–79.
Prieto, P. 2007. Volviendo a un mismo lugar: recipientes y espacios en un monumento megalítico gallego (NW de España). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 10 (2), pp. 101–125.
Prieto, M. P. 2010. La cerámica de O Regueiriño (Moaña, Pontevedra): nueva luz sobre el Neolítico en Galicia. Gallaecia 29, pp. 63–82.
Rey, J. M., and Vilaseco, X. I. 2012. Guidoiro Areoso. Megalithic cemetry and prehistoric settlement in the Ría de Arousa (Galicia, NW Spain). In: Almeida, A. C., Bettencourt, Ana M. S., Moura, D., Monteiro-Rodrigues, S. and Alves, M. I. C. (eds) Environmental Changes and Human Interaction Along the Western Atlantic Edge. APEQ: Coimbra, 243–258.
Rodríguez, A. A. 1988. La necrópolis megalítica de Parxubeira. Museo Arqueolóxico e Histórico: A Coruña.
Shee, E. 1981. The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
da Silva, E. J. L. 2003. Novos dados sobre o megalitismo do Norte de Portugal. In: Gonçalves, V. S. (ed.) Muita gente, poucas antas? Origens, espaços e contextos do Megalitismo. Ministério da Cultura (Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 25): Lisbon, pp. 269–279.
Vaquero, J. 1995a. Túmulos del NW peninsular: escenas. Actas del XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología. Vigo. 1993 (I), pp. 39–45.
Vaquero, J. 1995b. Túmulos tardíos en el NW. RB1: estructuras. Actas del XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología. Vigo. 1993 (I), pp. 405–410.
Vaquero, J. 1999. Les extrêmes distincts. La configuration de l´espace dans les sociétés ayant batî des tertres funéraires dans le Nord-Ouest Iberíque. BAR S821. Archaeopress: Oxford
Vilaseco, X. I. 2001. As escavacións arqueolóxicas en monumentos tumulares de Galicia: 1965–1998. Cuestións metodolóxicas e bibliométricas. Gallaecia 20, pp. 61–95.
Vilaseco, X. I. 2004. Un novo seixo con trazos antropomórficos procedente do dolmen de Axeitos (Ribeira, A Coruña). Gallaecia 23, pp. 7–33.