The megalithic architecture of Huelva (Spain): typology, construction and technical traditions in eastern Andévalo
Abstract
The province of Huelva has megalithic structures dating from the 5th to the 2nd millennium BC: standing stones, stone circles, megalithic tombs, tholoi and hypogea. This paper analyses the architectural features of the megalithic tombs in eastern Andévalo, where groups with specific systems of construction, materials and technical traditions were located. In particular, we highlight the Los Llanetes group of the El Pozuelo cemetery. This group is composed of monumental megalithic enclosures with complex structures (terraces with retaining walls and pavements, ramps, ditches, etc.), and ritual elements (stelae, altars and hearths), built during different construction phases.
Keywords: Megalithic tombs, eastern Andévalo, El Pozuelo cemetery, Los Llanetes group, megalithic enclosure, building phases.
Introducing the megalithic monuments of Huelva
The province of Huelva stands out in south-western Iberia through the large number of megalithic monuments and the diversity of their typologies (Fig. 11.1). Standing stones, stone circles, megalithic tombs, corbelled vaulted tombs (tholoi), and rock-cut tombs or hypogea can all be highlighted (García Sanjuán and Linares 2009; Linares 2011b). This area has architectural features and systems of construction that are similar to others that appeared on the Atlantic façade in the later prehistoric period, from the 5th to the 2nd millennium BC (Briard 1995; Furholt et al. 2011; García Sanjuán et al. 2011; Joussame 1985; Joussaume et al. 2006; Scarre 2002; 2007). This is a traditional area of research on Iberian megalithic monuments: early work on the Dolmen de Soto was published in 1924 by Hugo Obermaier (1924), and publication has increased since the 1950s with works by Carlos Cerdán and Georg and Vera Leisner (Cerdán et al. 1952), continuing later with work by other researchers (for example, Cabrero 1985; 1986; Piñón Varela 1987; 2004; Balbín and Bueno 1996; Nocete 2001; Nocete et al. 2002; 2004).
For the last ten years I have been carrying out archaeological excavations and conservation work at several megalithic complexes in eastern Andévalo (Fig. 11.2). This area has megalithic funerary architecture of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC, characterised by the presence of compact groups of megalithic tombs that were built and used by farming communities. These may have been considered as sacred spaces that legitimised the physical and symbolic appropriation of areas within this megalithic territory. The pattern continued until the early Bronze Age, at the transition to the 2nd millennium BC, when the replacement of these megalithic tombs by individual cist graves was linked to hierarchical funerary practices and social inequality, although certain megalithic tombs were still re-used for burial at that time.
These processes will be illustrated in this paper by reference to recent excavation and architectural analysis at a series of megalithic tombs and cemeteries: Los Gabrieles, El Gallego-Hornueco and El Pozuelo (Linares 2006; 2010; 2011a).
Megalithic monuments and tomb groups in eastern Andévalo
Eastern Andévalo is a geographical region located at the southwestern border of Sierra Morena. A distinctive megalithic funerary monumentality exists here, formed by groups of tombs that are distributed along the stream valleys feeding into the headwaters of the rivers Tinto and Odiel, within an area of approximately 40km by 30km. In particular, the following groups can be highlighted: El Pozuelo, El Villar, Los Gabrieles, El Gallego-Hornueco and Las Huecas (Fig. 11.2).
According to palaeoenvironmental data and archaeological research, these megalithic structures were erected and used by farming communities who inhabited small, scattered settlements (Nocete et al. 2004; Linares 2010; Stevenson and Harrison 1985). In this context, megalithic tombs could be considered as sacred spaces that legitimised the physical and symbolic appropriation of the different parts of this megalithic territory. This megalithic tradition may be the result of a funerary ideology based on the commemoration and worship of ancestors, embodied in the construction of megalithic tombs. They were often erected on places with earlier Neolithic occupation and activity, around which different and complex ritual practices developed.
The oldest radiocarbon-dated megalithic tombs come from the second half of the 4th millennium BC – the dolmen of El Casullo, for instance (3263–2923 cal BC) (Table 11.1; Linares and García Sanjuán 2010). The beginning of the 3rd millennium BC saw the rapid expansion and concentration of different groups, leading to the building of elongated passage tombs with a predominantly funerary use. As the millennium progressed, a gradual monumentalisation of these monuments occurred, resulting in megalithic tombs of larger dimensions and with greater architectural complexity. Some had several chambers (El Pozuelo, Las Huecas or Los Gabrieles, for example) and varied ritual apparatus: altars, stelae, hearths, etc.
Table 11.1: Radiocarbon dates from megalithic tombs in Eastern Andévalo
This tradition prevailed until the end of the Early Bronze Age, the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC. At this time, individual graves (cists) relating to hierarchical and unequal burial rites were introduced, breaking with the megalithic tradition. At this period, we observe:
• the reuse of megalithic tombs as burial sites and sacred places, demonstrated by evidence dated to this period at Los Gabrieles 4, El Casullo, El Pozuelo 6, etc.;
• the destruction or closure of some of the monuments. Here we may highlight the group of El Gallego-Hornueco, and most specifically the megalithic tombs in Puerto de los Huertos and El Casullo, where a process of deliberate damage in the Early Bronze Age has been documented. This included the dismantling of the mound, removal of the capstones, and systematic destruction of the orthostats down to ground level. Radiocarbon dates from the socket of the dolmen of Puerto de los Huertos point to the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC (2137–1979 BC) as the date of this destruction (Linares and García Sanjuán 2010).
These destructive acts might have turned these megaliths into practically imperceptible structures in the landscapes in which they are located, maybe with the purpose of stripping away their function as physical cohesive elements of social groups, and thus condemning their memory as sacred places.
A series of general aspects in the architectural features of these tomb groups can be emphasised (Linares 2011a):
• Specific features may reflect expressions of the cultural identities and building traditions of every community or group that inhabited this territory as each group exhibits specific features in their topographic location, architecture, systems of construction, and working techniques.
• Megalithic landscapes are created where the spatial distribution of every group is expressed in organised sets of associated monuments, arranged hierarchically according to their size. Thus the largest and most complex structures are in the most preeminent and significant places: that is, in the middle. Conversely, the smallest megalithic tombs and those with the simplest structure are usually in the least prominent areas around the periphery of the most monumental structures. This pattern of territorial distribution may point to issues related to the spatial organisation of the social groups and, probably, to behaviour patterns of social inequality in the use of these burial structures and ritual spaces.
• Territorial associations may exist between chambered tombs and rock engravings, located on significant outcrops close to livestock trails and traditional paths (Linares 2011b). The rock engravings could be spatial markers of transit areas and/or essential ceremonial spaces within the megalithic landscapes. Important examples of rock engravings are those in Los Aulagares (Amo 1974) related to the group of tombs at El Villar, and the petroglyphs from El Riscal (Iglesias et al. 1992), belonging to the El Gallego-Hornueco complex.
• Different typologies of tomb architecture exist, with a wide range of formal variations in internal megalithic structures, mounds, kerbstones, etc., as will be described below.
• Materials from the local geological environment were used for the construction of these megaliths, with a supply system and the selective quarrying of the most suitable raw materials for each structural element. There may even have been a direct relationship between the choice of environmental setting and the availability of suitable rocks for the manufacture of slabs, capstones, kerbstones, stelae, symbolically important blocks, etc. This has been documented for the phyllite elements in the El Pozuelo group, and the volcanic-sedimentary rocks (rhyodacitics) at Los Gabrieles.
• A complex spatial articulation of open-air ritual practices existed (atria, access areas and vestibules), where stelae and altars, together with deposits of artefactual material (for example, pieces of pottery, knapped stone blades, axes of stone, and so on), could be placed as offerings. There is also evidence for the same phenomenon in the materials found associated with the individuals recovered inside the burial chambers. Green stone necklaces and adornments (Linares and Odriozola 2011), products of important symbolic value and votive objects such as plaque “idols”, cruciform “idols” and biconic figurines with breasts were removed from circulation by placement in the tombs.
Fig. 11.1: (above) Location of the study area in the Iberian Peninsula: (below) megalithic monuments in the province of Huelva
Architectural typologies, systems of construction and technical identities
Within the tomb groups of eastern Andévalo there exist a number of common features and specific cases related to architectural typologies and systems of construction. These characterise the building traditions and the technical styles that can be identified as “working processes” (“chaînes operatoires”), resulting from a “know-how” (“savoir faire”) that defines each ensemble. The following are the generic architectural features of eastern Andévalo tombs.
• The construction of the chambered tombs demonstrates the implementation of preparatory work at the specific locations: planning, rock cutting, and levelling of outcrops at the site.
• Foundation sockets are usually continuous and deep: they fit the base of each individual orthostat, fixing their arrangement.
• The orthostats and the capstones are made from blocks of stone from the local environment (phyllite, slate, and volcanic-sedimentary rocks) using different procedures and working techniques: scraping, carving, hammering, polishing, etc. Orthostats with a long and flat morphology stand out, being narrower in the base (a V shape) in order to sit better in the foundation ditches. In many cases, they feature engravings and traces of pigments or red painting on their surfaces. In some cases they were former Neolithic stelae that were reused and integrated as orthostats in the tomb structure. For instance, the Los Gabrieles (tombs 1 and 4) and El Pozuelo (tombs 3, 4, 6, and 13) groups had orthostats with carvings manifesting shapes and techniques similar to the images and decorative motifs that appear in Neolithic art in the southern Iberia Peninsula (Bueno et al. 2004; 2007; 2009).
• The orthostats were interlocked using internal packing stonees and external shoring slabs. The packing stones consist of pebbles, cobbles, and boulders of high hardness and consistency: quartz, quartzite, and volcanic rocks.
• The megaliths used diverse internal structures: simple longitudinal passages; tombs with an angled passage; tombs with supporting pillars and compartments; passage graves with multiple chambers, etc. (Fig. 11.3). These structures have special partitioning of the internal spaces: passages, antechambers, and even chambers containing altars within them.
• The mounds are made up of several rings of stones for internal reinforcement and/or superimposed layers of stone blocks and clay. They are of round or oval morphology, and rise prominently above the surrounding environment.
• The kerbs are made of blocks and integrate rock outcrops or slabs that are obliquely thrust into the ground.
• The external spaces (atria and vestibules) display a variety of different structures including altars and stelae, placed in the entrance façade and associated with ritual practices.
Fig. 11.2: Distribution of tomb groups in eastern Andévalo (Huelva)
Fig. 11.3: Architectural typologies of eastern Andévalo tombs
Fig. 11.4: Tombs of the El Gallego-Hornueco group showing architectural features and systems of construction
Fig. 11.5: Tombs of the Los Gabrieles group showing architectural features and systems of construction
Three examples in particular may be analysed: the tombs of El Gallego-Hornueco, Los Gabrieles and El Pozuelo.
The El Gallego-Hornueco Group
The most remarkable architectural features in the group of tombs at El Gallego-Hornueco (Linares 2010) (Fig. 11.4) are:
• The existence of elongated galleries 7.5–10m long facing east, with stelae at their terminals, and altars in the outer parts. They are formed of phyllite orthostats, anchored with wedges and packing stones in deep foundation sockets that have been dug into the slate bedrock.
• The access areas outside the tombs have paved ramps and transit vestibules.
• The mounds incorporate two reinforcing rings and an outer layer of retaining slabs. The reinforcing rings surrounding the orthostatic structure are made of stones placed vertically. The space between them is filled with multiple layers of stone and clay. The retaining slabs are placed at the external edge of the mound, serving as a structural element for the formation of the mound.
The Los Gabrieles Group
In the Los Gabrieles group, seven megalithic tombs that form two groups with different typologies and constructional features: group 1 (tombs 1, 2, and 7) and group 2 (tombs 3, 4, 5, and 6). In group 2, tombs 3 and 5 are passage tombs of small size (3–5m), low in height. Tombs 4 and 6 stand out with internal orthostatic structures curving towards the passage, entrance passages and chambers of similar size, and two slabs forming the rear wall of the chamber (Fig. 11.5). Access is via a descending ramp with a funnel-shaped vestibule facing northeast. This design results from the evolutionary transformation of the megalithic group: it was monumentalised in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, as documented by the excavation of tomb 4.
According to radiocarbon dates from chamber 2 of tomb 4, these three structures may have been constructed and used until the middle of the 3rd millennium BC (Table 11.1). In the last third of the 3rd millennium, tomb 4 was transformed and monumentalised. The entrance passage was built, along with the main chamber (much taller than the previous one), and a new mound: the pre-existing tomb remained integrated in the middle of the monument (chamber 2). As a result of its enlargement, tomb 4 became the central structure in the group, and was used for funerals and rituals until the transition to the 2nd millennium BC. Tomb 6 may have been erected in parallel to the transformation of tomb 4, following the same construction parameters (Linares 2006; 2010).
Fig. 11.6: Tombs of the El Pozuelo group showing architectural features and systems of construction
The El Pozuelo Group
In the case of the El Pozuelo group, a number of archaeologists have emphasised the individuality of the different architectural typologies (Cerdán and Leisner 1952; Piñón Varela 1987; 2004). Here we highlight the existence of specific systems of construction, architectural elements and working techniques in the broader group (Fig. 11.6), including:
• Construction of passage tombs with central supporting pillars (tomb 4);
• Construction of access passages and multiple chambers, such as
♦ Tombs with two chambers (tombs 1, 2, and 3);
♦ Tombs with cruciform plans and three chambers (tomb 7);
♦ Tombs with four chambers (tombs 5 and 6);
• A number of superimposed layers of stone blocks and slabs bound with clay in the mounds, placed in a specific order and sequence. These slabs are fairly prominent and of similar size (15–20m in diameter);
• The demarcation of the mounds by an external kerb made of large slabs, placed obliquely and resting on supporting platforms to better contain the mound formation.
Fig. 11.7: (above) Groupings of tombs in the El Pozuelo cemetery: (below) plan of the Los Llanetes tomb group
Fig. 11.8: (above) View towards the Los Llanetes group (El Pozuelo tombs 1–4); (below) the megalithic enclosure and tombs 3 and 4
The Los Llanetes group of the El Pozuelo cemetery: the phasing and construction of the monumental megalithic enclosure
The Los Llanetes group belongs to the megalithic cemetery of El Pozuelo at Zalamea la Real, and was partially excavated in 1946 by Cerdán (Cerdán et al. 1952) and Nocete from 1998–1999 (Nocete et al. 1999). Here we have recently conducted the first stage of archaeological excavation, conservation and landscape improvement in order to mitigate the damage caused by modern eucalyptus plantations. Information is currently incomplete as research and analysis continue. The interpretations offered here should thus be understood as working hypotheses to be confirmed by later archaeological studies and scientific analyses (such as radiocarbon dates).
The Los Llanetes group is formed of 4 tombs located at the eastern end of the El Pozuelo group (Fig. 11.7), under the shelter of the southern slope of the hilltop of El Chinflón. Also located there are the well-known copper trench-mines (Blanco and Rothemberg 1981), and several settlement areas dating from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The existence of a fortified prehistoric settlement has also been established, providing an impressive view over the megaliths and the surrounding territory. It is one of the most remarkable vantage points of eastern Andévalo.
The megalithic tombs are distributed in pairs, in different topographic locations on the right and left sides at the head of the Agua Fría ravine, a tributary watercourse of the RÍo Tinto. Tombs 1 and 2 are located on the tops of two hills, and tombs 3 and 4 are on a promontory on the slope of El Chinflón, surrounded by foothills of greater height that hide them except from specific directions (Fig. 11.7). The only external vista faces east: on that side the tombs there have an open and clear view of the horizon in the direction of sunrise.
The tombs are also located in the centre of the contact zone between two geological formations in the Iberian Pyrite Belt: the Volcanic Sedimentary Complex (CVS), with volcanic rocks (andesite, dolerite and gabbro), green phyllite and slate; and the Slate and Quartzite Group (PQ), with slate, and sandstone with a high density of quartz. Geoarchaeological study shows that raw materials from the local geology were used in the construction of the enclosure, and that their special features and symbolic value were taken into account when they were chosen, procured, and worked. These include the use of:
• Slate outcrops within the enclosures and tombs, sometimes subjected to preparatory working: cut back, carved, and evened out, ready for the construction of the tombs and external structures.
• Green phyllite as the main raw material, taking advantage of its characteristics. 1) A high proportion could be removed from outcrops as blocks and slabs, and used for the ring stones, mounds, etc. 2) In addition, the fracture properties of the stone allow easier extraction of large, long blocks for the manufacture of orthostats and capstones when the material is being extracted from the quarry faces. The source areas of the quarried stone and the outcrops were mainly located east of the tombs, within the watercourse of the Agua Fría ravine, at distances ranging from 50m to 300m.
• Slate as an infill material for the mounds and paving, coming from quarries in the same area.
• Andesite in the mounds and paving, also collected from the Agua Fría ravine, more than 300m down the watercourse.
• Quartz, which was already present in the surroundings, for packing stones around orthostats and stelae, for supporting platforms for the kerbstones, and for external paving around the tombs. In some cases even medium sized blocks were used (as in the case of tomb 4).
• Clay, from the paleosol in the area, for the construction of mounds, and as mortar and filling material in different structural elements
The archaeological excavations carried out in tombs 3 and 4 in 2010 allowed us to identify the existence of a monumental megalithic enclosure containing highly complex structures and spaces (Figs 11.8 and 11.9), erected in different constructional phases (Fig. 11.10). The morphology and topography of the site was deliberately transformed in order to monumentalise this megalithic enclosure, and to create a spatial perception within the architectural complex that would define a ritual landscape or sacred scenario. The consequence of an “architectural project” that was built in different “construction phases” was that this enclosure became a long-term monument and saw repeated use. This implies the continuous transformation of the architecture and the external spaces, as documented in other megalithic monuments of the French Atlantic façade: Prissé-la-Charrière, Er-Grah, Barnenez, etc. (Laporte et al. 2002).
Fig. 11.9. Plan of megalithic enclosure around El Pozuelo tombs 3 and 4
Fig. 11.10: Construction phases of the megalithic enclosure around El Pozuelo tombs 3 and 4
The Los Llanetes enclosure has an irregular oval morphology, with its widest part at the southern end and a main north–south orientation. It has a total length of 65m on its major axis, a width that ranges between 48m and 35m, and a maximum height of around 6–7m. The promontory has been completely carved to form a stepped site, composed of three levels of open and discontinuous terraces, connected by access ramps, and converging on a ditch excavated into the bedrock in the northern side. The tombs occupy the central and highest space of this enclosure: they were built on the supporting platform at a higher level than the external soil that is built from the same knapped rock outcrop augmented by sandstone walls (Figs 11.8 and 11.9).
The terraces are curved, and edged by retaining walls on the western and southern flanks and by the knapped slate outcrop itself on the eastern flank. Inside are paving stones carved from the bedrock or made of small phyllite and quartz flagstones. These form transit areas along with other elements such as altars, stelae, hearths located in the atria, external spaces, and specific sites related to ritual practices and funerary rites. The western and southern flanks have a strongly stepped topography, with a ramp on the south-west corner behind tomb 3 that connects the terraces. The eastern flank presents a different topographic profile. In front of tomb 3, the slate outcrop has been knapped to form three terraces. The frontal façade of tomb 4 has a smoother contour, and here a stele altar and an associated hearth have been documented.
The first stage of archaeological investigation highlighted the following principal construction phases (Fig. 11.10):
• 1st phase: megalithic monuments (Neolithic).
• 2nd phase: construction of tomb 4.
• 3rd phase: monumentalisation of the megalithic enclosure, including the building of tomb 3 and the external terrace-platforms.
• 4th phase: transformations undertaken within the megalithic enclosure.
• 6th phase: reuse in the Early Bronze Age.
1st phase: Megalithic monuments (beginning of 4th millennium BC)
So far, the remains of several phyllite stelae have been documented beneath the funerary level of tomb 3, aligned on a north-west to south-east axis that faces the winter solstice. They are of different sizes and morphologies, and have hearths and small pits associated with them.
The stelae have fractured bases, since some of them were reused as orthostats or shoring slabs during the later construction of the tomb. They are small, long, and of varied height and width (about 1.20m and 20–40cm respectively). The faces are pitted, and they are anchored using quartz pebbles in pits and foundation ditches that are narrow and shallow.
2nd phase: Construction of tomb 4 (middle or second half of 4th millennium BC)
Tomb 4 contains an internal megalithic structure with three spatially differentiated elements: the passage, the antechamber and the chamber. The latter reaches 10.5m long, with a floor carved from the slate bedrock and access steps. It is distinguished by three elements in particular:
(1) |
The regularity in form and typology of its phyllite orthostats, made through customary working: hand scraped edges, knapped sides and regularly hammered surfaces. |
(2) |
The use of supporting pillars as a structural solution to improve the spatial division and the stability of the capstones of the large chamber (6m long and up to 2.60m wide in its central section). A similar solution was used in the dolmen of Menga at Antequera (Málaga) (see García Sanjuán and Lozano Rodríguez 2015). |
(3) |
Reused stelae, with two notable examples: a) an extremely large stele, possibly older than the tomb, with deeply carved engravings on one side; it has been broken so that it could be used to support the capstone; b) an anthropomorphic stele, with carved round eyes, of similar typology to certain plaque-idols found elsewhere in the Iberian Peninsula. |
This structure was incorporated into a medium-sized oval mound made of clay and stone, delimited by an outer stone perimeter that is supported on a platform measuring 16m across its widest axis.
It may have been at that time that a large ditch was dug to the north from the tomb. It could have had multiple functions: a slate quarry for the building material for tomb 4, or a spatial boundary, as with the great mound of Er Grah in Brittany (Le Roux 2006), or some other purpose.
3rd phase: Monumentalisation of the megalithic enclosure (beginning of 3rd millennium BC)
In this phase, construction was carried out with the aim of monumentalising and increasing the size of the megalithic enclosure. Activity included the construction of tomb 3; the creation of the surrounding terraces with retaining walls and the south-west access ramp; the opening of the slate quarry to extract material to build the mound of tomb 3; and the transformation of the entrance to tomb 4.
Tomb 3 has a peculiar internal structure. A passage facing south-east gives access to an antechamber leading to two large and spacious chambers. Orthostats, jambs, and stelae show engravings and remains of red paint. It is set within a prominent round mound delimited by a 16.5m kerb: this implies the opening of a slate quarry south of the tomb. Surrounding the external kerb is a pavement made of three raw materials: phyllite, andesite, and quartz. The entrance area used to contain a quadrangular stepped altar, attached to the north-east section of the kerb. At this point in the kerb, the thin, long flagstones were placed in a more upright position, forming a type of entrance façade.
The perimeter terraces were created in this period, and their retaining walls were built. This was documented in the western flank, where three levels of terrace were carved in the rock outcrop. The retaining walls are built with rough stone and clay with a very wide slope: they have an average width of 2–3m and are up to 1.10m high. The terraces are 3m wide, and are defined by a pavement knapped from the rock, by paving made of small phyllite and quartz stones, or paving of compacted clay. The south-west corner behind tomb 3 contains a ramp cut into a slate outcrop to improve connections between the terraces.
Two changes were also made to tomb 4: the construction of stone paving and a small quadrangular altar in the entrance; and a stele/altar placed in association with a hearth located a few metres away northeast in the external space, both delimited by stone structures.
4th phase: Transformations in the megalithic enclosure (middle or second half of 3rd millennium BC)
Repeated, continuous use led to further modifications in the tomb entrances and façades.
Firstly, the atrium of tomb 4 was modified: a vertical stele was placed on the left side in a foundation socket. A small quadrangular altar was attached to it, and paving made of compacted clay. Secondly, the altar in tomb 3 was modified: a stone structure was added next to the kerb and some episodes of burning were documented.
5th phase: Abandonment (Early Bronze Age)
The megalithic enclosure was abandoned at some point during the Early Bronze Age.
6th phase: Reuse (Late Bronze Age)
The period of reuse at the end of the Bronze Age should be highlighted, as it coincides with a time of intense exploitation of the copper mines in Chinflón. This had two consequences for the megalithic enclosure. The megalithic tombs were robbed and destroyed: the capstones were removed, the orthostats were broken, and so on, as indicated by the presence of mining hammer-stones with a central groove in the levels corresponding to the phase of alteration and destruction. In addition, there was reuse of the site for funerary purposes and renewed veneration, indicated by the existence of a large ditch covered with cobbles between the megalithic tombs, which may have been a funerary pit from this period.
Conclusions
The province of Huelva is an area of great importance for research on the megalithic monuments of the Iberian Peninsula and their connection to the European Atlantic façade during later prehistory. In that context, I conclude this paper with three basic ideas:
(1) |
Eastern Andévalo is a megalithic territory, characterised by the existence of tomb groups with their own architectural typologies, systems of construction and materials. |
(2) |
Several communities existed in this area with very long established cultural identities, who built megaliths using very distinct traditional techniques, presumably dating from the Neolithic period. |
(3) |
Megalithic enclosures can be recorded that define specific megalithic landscapes. We have highlighted the example of the Los Llanetes group, where the complex of elements (the topography, the raw materials, the ravine, the settlement and the megalithic architecture) portray a ritual scenario. This must be understood as a sacred space, created for various purposes (as a funerary site, for worship, for astronomical observation, etc.). It was in use for millennia, although the 3rd millennium BC was the era when the greatest monumentalisation occurred, as witnessed by the construction of the megalithic enclosure and by tombs 3 and 4. Thus it may have acted as a cohesive central place for a number of settlements, a place where collective burial rituals related to death and belief systems were developed. These may have included the burials of certain individuals together with commemorative ceremonies, practices of ancestor worship and other rites. Construction and maintenance of this enclosure must have entailed community participation by the inhabitants of the surrounding settlements. This required knowledgeable individuals to transmit the construction traditions and techniques, as well as information regarding their ancestral and genealogical significance. |
References
Amo, M. 1974. Los grabados rupestres de “Los Aulagares” (Zalamea la Real, Huelva). Miscelanea Ampuritana, XXV aniversario de los cursos internacionales de Prehistoria y Arqueología de Ampurias, 1947–1971, pp. 69–86.
Balbín Behrmann, R. and Bueno Ramírez, P. 1996. Soto, un ejemplo de arte megalítico al Suroeste de la Península Ibérica. In: Mouré, A. (ed.) El Hombre Fósil ochenta años después. Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Cantabria: Santander, pp.467–505.
Blanco Freijeiro, A. and Rothemberg, B. 1981. Exploración Arqueometalúrgica de Huelva. Río Tinto Minera-Labor: Barcelona.
Briard, J. 1995. Les Mégalithes de l’Europe Atlantique. Architecture et art funéraire (5000–2000 avant J.-C.). Editions Errance: Paris.
Bueno Ramírez, P. and Balbín Behrmann, R. 1997. Arte megalítico en el Suroeste de la Península Ibérica. ¿Grupos de Arte Megalítico Ibérico? Saguntum 30, pp. 53–161.
Bueno Ramírez, P., Balbín Behrmann, R. and Barroso, R. 2004. Arte megalítico en Andalucía: una propuesta para su valoración global en el ámbito de las grafías de los pueblos productores del Sur de Europa. Mainake XXVI, pp. 29–62.
Bueno Ramírez, P., Balbín Behrmann, R. and Barroso, R. 2007. Chronologie de l’art mégalithique ibérique: C14 et contextes archeológiques. L’Anthropologie 111, pp. 590–654.
Bueno Ramírez, P., Balbín Behrmann, R. and Barroso, R. 2009. Pintura megalítica en Andalucía. In: Cruz-Auñón, R. and Ferrer Albelda, E. (eds) Estudios de Prehistoria y Arqueología en Homenaje a Pilar Acosta Martínez. Universidad de Sevilla: Sevilla, pp. 141–170.
Cabrero García, R. 1985. Tipología de los sepulcros calcolíticos de Andalucía Occidental. Huelva Arqueológica VII, pp. 207–263.
Cabrero García, R. 1986. El megalitismo en la provincia de Huelva I: aportaciones de nuevos datos y estudio de la arquitectura. Huelva en su Historia 1, pp. 83–147.
Cerdán, C., Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1952. Los sepulcros megalíticos de Huelva. Informes y Memorias de la Comisaría General de Excavaciones Arqueológicas 26, Ministerio de Educación Nacional: Madrid.
Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Müller, J. (eds) 2011. Megaliths and Identities. Dr Rudolf Habelt GmbH: Bonn.
García Sanjuán, L. and Linares Catela, J. A. 2009. Huelva. In: García Sanjuán, L. and Ruiz González, B. (eds) Las grandes piedras de la Prehistoria. Sitios y paisajes megalíticos de Andalucía. Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, pp. 143–185.
Garcia Sanjuan, L. and Lozano Rodríguez, J. A. 2015. Menga (Andalucia, Spain): biography of an exceptional megalithic monument. In: Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds) The Megalithic Architectures of Europe. Oxbow Books: Oxford, pp. 3–16.
García Sanjuán, L., Scarre, C. and Weathley, D. (eds) 2011. Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: absolute chronology and rare rocks in Europe megaliths. Journal of Andalusian Prehistory Monograph 1. Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla.
Iglesias, l., Queipo de Llano, G. and Chacón, J. M. 1992. Grabados rupestres inéditos en el Cerro de El Riscal. SPAL 1, pp. 209–218.
Joussaume, R. 1985. Des dolmens pour les morts. Les mégalithismes á travers le monde. Hachette: Paris.
Joussaume, R., Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds) 2006. Origin and Development of the Megalithic Monuments of Western Europe. Musée des Tumulus de Bougon (Deux-Sévres): Bougon.
Laporte, L., Joussaume, R. and Scarre, C. 2002. The perception of space and geometry. Megalithic monuments of west-central France in their relationship to the landscape. In: Scarre, C. (ed.) Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Routledge: London, pp. 73–83.
Le Roux, C. T. (ed.) 2006. Monuments mégalithiques á Locmariaquer (Morbihan). Le long tumulus d’Er Grah dans son environnement. CNRS editions: Paris.
Linares Catela, J. A. 2006. Documentación, consolidación y puesta en valor del Conjunto Dolménico de Los Gabrieles (Valverde del Camino, Huelva). 2ª Fase. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía/2003 III, pp. 200–214.
Linares Catela, J. A. 2010. Análisis arquitectónico y territorial de los conjuntos megalíticos de Los Gabrieles (Valverde del Camino) y El Gallego-Hornueco (Berrocal-El Madroño). El megalitismo en el Andévalo oriental. In: Pérez Macías, J. A. and Romero Bomba, E. (eds) Actas del IV Encuentro de Arqueología de Suroeste Peninsular (Aracena, 2008). Universidad de Huelva: Huelva, pp. 209–248.
Linares Catela, J. A. 2011a. El megalitismo funerario en el Andévalo Oriental (Huelva). Características básicas sobre el territorio, las arquitecturas y los contextos de las prácticas rituales en el III milenio a.n.e. In: Sánchez Romero, M. (ed.) Memorial Luis Siret. I Congreso de Prehistoria de Andalucía, la tutela del patrimonio prehistórico. Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, pp. 567–570.
Linares Catela, J. A. 2011b. Guía del megalitismo en la provincia de Huelva. Territorios, paisajes y arquitecturas megalíticas. Junta de Andalucía-Ediciones SM: Madrid.
Linares Catela, J. A. and García Sanjuán, L. 2010. Contribuciones a la cronología absoluta del megalitismo andaluz. Nuevas fechas radiocarbónicas de sitios megalíticos del Andévalo oriental (Huelva). MENGA, Revista de Prehistoria de Andalucía 1, pp. 135–151.
Linares Catela J. A. and Odriozola, C. 2011. Necklace beads made from variscite and other green stones in megalithic tombs in the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula. Questions relating to their production, distribution and presence in funerary contexts. In: García Sanjuán, L., Scarre, C. and Weathley, D. (eds) Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: absolute chronology and rare rocks in Europe megaliths. Journal of Andalusian Prehistory, Monograph: Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, pp. 335–369.
Nocete, F. 2001. Tercer milenio antes de nuestra era. Relaciones y contradiciones centro/periferia en el Valle del Guadalquivir. Bellaterra: Barcelona.
Nocete, F., Lizcano, R. and Bolaños, C. 1999. Más que grandes piedras. Patrimonio, Arqueología e Historia desde la Primera Fase del programa de puesta en valor del Conjunto Megalítico de El Pozuelo (Zalamea la Real, Huelva). Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla.
Nocete, F., Linares, J. A., Nieto, J. M. and Sáez, R. 2002. Información preliminar de apoyo a la difusión en los dólmenes de La Paloma y La Venta (El Villar-Zalamea la Real). Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1999 II, pp. 149–164.
Nocete, F., Lizcano, R., Nieto, J. M., Sáez, R., Linares, J. A., Orihuela, A. and Rodríguez, M. O. 2004. El desarrollo del proceso interno: el territorio megalítico en el Andévalo oriental. En F. Nocete (ed.) Odiel. Proyecto de investigación arqueológica para el análisis del origen de la desigualdad social en el Suroeste de la Península Ibérica. Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, pp. 47–77.
Obermaier, H. 1924. El Dolmen de Soto (Trigueros; Huelva). Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Excursiones XXXII. Hauser and Menet: Madrid, pp. 1–31.
Piñón Varela, F. 1987. Constructores de sepulcros megalíticos en Huelva: problemas de una implantación. El Megalitismo en la Península Ibérica. Ministerio de Cultura: Madrid, pp. 45–72.
Piñón Varela, F. 2004. El horizonte cultural megalítico en el área de Huelva. Consejería de Cultura, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla.
Scarre, C. (ed.) 2002. Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Routledge: London.
Scarre, C. 2007. The Megalithic Monuments of Britain and Ireland. Thames and Hudson: London.
Stevenson, A. C. and Harrison, R. J. 1992. Ancient forest in Spain: a model for land-use and dry forest management in South-West Spain from 4000 BC to 1900 AD. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 58, pp. 227–247.