Recent Prehistoric Enclosures and Funerary Practices in Europe: Proceedings of the International Meeting held at the Gulbenkian Foundation (Lisbon, Portugal, November 2012) 9781407313184, 9781407342849

Citation preview

BAR S2676 2014 DE VALERA (Ed) RECENT PREHISTORIC ENCLOSURES AND FUNERARY PRACTICES IN EUROPE

B A R 2676 Breda cover.indd 1

Recent Prehistoric Enclosures and Funerary Practices in Europe Edited by

António Carlos de Valera

BAR International Series 2676 2014 19/09/2014 11:02:38

Recent Prehistoric Enclosures and Funerary Practices in Europe Proceedings of the International Meeting held at the Gulbenkian Foundation (Lisbon, Portugal, November 2012) Edited by

António Carlos de Valera

BAR International Series 2676 2014

ISBN 9781407313184 paperback ISBN 9781407342849 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407313184 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

INTRODUCTORY NOTE:

The questions raised by ditched and walled enclosures have been at the heart of several debates regarding Iberian Recent Prehistory communities.

Amongst the numerous issues discussed, one has recently emerged with particular relevance: the direct relation between enclosures and funerary practices and body manipulations. These relations, in some cases, go as far as to question the very notion of necropolis as a separated space for the dead and to question the real extent of the concept of funerary practices.

Being a European phenomenon, the approach to the peninsular data must be framed and confronted with the information available to other European regions, aiming to encourage debate at different scales and from different theoretical backgrounds and experiences.

After a first meeting organized in the context of the UISPP congress in 2006 held in Lisbon and dedicated to debate the “Idea of enclosure” amongst Iberian researchers (and published in Iberian languages in ERA Arqueologia journal and in English in BAR), ERA Arqueologia decided to promote an international meeting to debate the current issue in a wider context. Because the last years have provided, in Iberia, important information regarding enclosures and their relations with human remains depositions, and because Perdigões enclosure became an anchor project in this subject, the meeting (held at Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon) was centred in Iberian cases, but framed by European perspectives provided by a general overview and case studies from several European countries. The papers now published are the result of this meeting.

Therefore, the meeting will assemble a group of researchers with provenance in several European countries where this topic is important.

        The editor,

 

António Carlos de Valera

        i   

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The times and timings of enclosures Alasdair Whittle___________________________________________________________ p. 1

Enclosures &burial in Middle &Late Neolithic Britain Alex Gibson______________________________________________________________ p. 13

The place of human remains anf Funerary practices in Recent Neolithic ditched and walled enclosures in the West of France (IV-III Mill. BC) Audrey Blanchard, Jean-Noël Guyodo, Ludovic Soler ___________________________ p. 19

Funerary practices and body manipulation at Neolithic and Chalcolithic Perdigões ditched enclosures (South Portugal) António Carlos Valera, Ana Maria Silva, Claudia Cunha, Lucy Shaw Evangelista ______ p. 37

Skeletons in the ditch: funerary activity in ditched enclosures of Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo, Beja) Filipa Rodrigues_____________________________________________________ p. 59

Enclosures and funerary practices: about an archaeology in search for the symbolic dimension of social relations. Susana Oliveira Jorge____ _________________________________________________ p. 71

Human Bones from Chalcolithic Walled Enclosures of Portuguese Estremadura: The Examples of Zambujal and Leceia Michael Kunst, João Luís Cardoso, Anna Waterman ______________________________ p. 83

Human sacrifices with cannibalistic practices in a pit enclosure? The extraordinary early Neolithic site of Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany) Andrea Zeeb-Lanz ________________________________________________________ p. 99

Gendered burials at an henge-like enclosure near Magdeburg, central Germany: a tale of reverence and ritual killing? André Spatzier Marcus Stecher, Kurt W. Alt. François Bertemes____________________ p. 111

ii 

The Copper age ditched settlement at Conelle de Arcevia (Central Italy) Alberto Cazzella, Giulia Recchia ____________________________________________ p. 129

Funerary practices in the ditched enclosures of Camino de las Yeseras: Ritual, Temporal and Spatial Diversity Patrícia Rios, Corina Liesau, Concepción Blasco _______________________________ p. 139

Recent Prehistory enclosures & funerary practices José Enrique Márquez Romero, Vítor Jímenez Jaímez ___________________________ p. 149        

iii   

If we can begin to move away from ‘fuzzy prehistory’, to have a much better chance to arrange things in their correct sequence and more precisely to estimate duration and the tempo of change, thereby opening up a more historical perspective, that still begs the question of the kind or kinds of history which we should aspire to write. I therefore think it is useful in this paper briefly to review debates on this issue among historians, and to compare those with interpretive trends in archaeology. In many archaeologies there is still, I believe, a deep-rooted preference for and a feeling of comfortableness with longer rather than shorter timescales, and I want to advocate more ambitious and bolder approaches, not only to gaining more robust timings, which would be useful in any perspective, but also to thinking at shorter timescales. The ways we have dealt with enclosures up till now are an excellent illustration of both existing practice and the potential for future refinement. In the end, we do not perhaps have to choose one scale to the exclusion of others, and enclosures are also fertile ground for thinking about multi-scalar analysis, much talked about but rarely practised effectively.

THE TIMES AND TIMINGS OF ENCLOSURES Alasdair Whittle

ABSTRACT This paper situates interpretation of Neolithic enclosures in western and central Europe within debates in both history and prehistory about scales of analysis. What scales, both temporal and spatial, should we use to tell true stories about the remote past? Within the spectrum of possible perspectives, from grand narratives to microhistories, the potential of enclosures to provide both local and detailed records is advocated, in contrast to the more general accounts often offered. The characteristics of enclosure construction, use and abandonment are examined for their often exceptional ability to support fine-grained chronologies and chains of interpretation following from these. Finally, an agenda for multi-scalar analysis is noted and discussed.

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION

PARACHUTES AND TRUFFLES: THE CHOICE OF SCALES

This reflective paper begins where a previous major project on dating the early Neolithic causewayed enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland left off (Whittle, Healy and Bayliss 2011), and in connection to another major project on refining chronologies for the European Neolithic, begun in 2012 (the ERC-funded The Times of Their Lives project; www.totl.eu). In presentations towards the end of the southern British and Irish project, and in the ensuing publication, Gathering Time, we half-joked that our results were so good that we should begin to think about taking the ‘pre’ out of prehistory. That may sound like hubris, but the outcomes had been both surprising and exciting. The construction of a large sample of dated enclosures could be shown not to belong simply to a broadly defined early Neolithic lasting several centuries, but to a quite tight horizon within the early Neolithic, probably from the late 38th century cal BC to the mid-36th century cal BC; and while the formal chronological models for certain enclosures indicated a duration of primary use of three centuries or more (consistent in some cases with the existing archaeological information from finds and stratigraphy), the models for others indicated much briefer lives, down to and perhaps less than the scale of a human generation (Bayliss, Healy et al. 2011, for narrative synthesis; Whittle, Bayliss and Healy 2011, for wider interpretation). Together with other formally modelled estimates, including for the primary use of a small sample of southern English long barrows (Bayliss and Whittle 2007), these date estimates, achieved in an explicit, quantified, probabilistic Bayesian framework, make it possible to think down to the timescales of lifetimes (pragmatically defined as up to 70 years) and generations (pragmatically defined as 25 years) (Whittle, Bayliss and Healy 2011, fig. 15.28).

Three or four decades ago, history was facing the onslaught of relativist, post-modern analysis of text. The past was not the same as history, and the writing of history was based on texts, and only, the critics claimed, on texts, where were open to endless readings and multiple interpretations (Jenkins 1995, 178–9). In partial agreement, Edmund Leach (1982, 53) characterised social anthropologists as ‘bad novelists rather than bad scientists’. These attacks provoked a series of robust reactions, as well as absorption of the more illuminating aspects of analysis of narrative forms (such as had been provided by Hayden White: Jenkins 1995, chapter 5), and it seems safe to declare that history has survived as a discipline, older and wiser (Arnold 2000; R. Evans 1997). ‘True stories’ can be told about the past, but always on the basis of selection, choice of narrative style, and indeed personal preference (Arnold 2000, 13). These choices are both interesting and relevant for archaeologists. As far back as Herodotus and Thucydides, and on into rival Whig and Tory conceptions of history, different kinds of narrative have always been selected (Arnold 2000, chapters 2–3; Tosh 1991, chapter 6). One recurrent choice is between top-heavy narratives to do with rulers and political events, and bottom-up accounts of more ordinary people and the flow of their daily lives; historians have had to make room for many histories other than History, to allow the voices of women and multiple subaltern groups to be heard, for example. One recent formulation of this distinction has been in terms of ‘prospect history’ and ‘refuge history’ (Brewer 2010). As John Brewer puts it (2010, 89, with references), prospect history is ‘written from a single, superior point of view — a bird’s eye perspective or from a lofty peak — in which an extensive, large-scale landscape is surveyed and

1

analysed…Because of height, size and distance, what is observed and recorded is general not specific, an undifferentiated shape or aggregated trend whose contours and surface can be seen but which lacks distinct detail, though it may enjoy numerical expression’. Refuge history, on the other hand, ‘is close-up and on the small scale. Its emphasis is on a singular place rather than space, the careful delineation of particularities and details, a degree of enclosure. It depends upon the recognition that our understanding of what is seen depends on the incorporation of many points of view rather than the use of a single dominant perspective…historical figures are actors and have agency, motives, feeling and consciousness’ (Brewer 2010, 89). These can of course be, and probably for best effect should be, combined: in other terms, an amalgam of ‘grand narratives’ and ‘microhistories’ (Brewer 2010, 90).

of distance as well as closeness, perhaps help in this task (Brewer 2010, 102–4). But putting such combination into practice seems to remain elusive, and recalls Hayden White’s evaluation of the importance of metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche in the construction of narratives (Jenkins 1995, 150). Are all historians in the end either parachutists or truffle hunters, as declared by the Annaliste Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (Hickey 2009)?1

3.

THE SCALES OF PREHISTORY, ESPECIALLY IN THE NEOLITHIC

Prehistory, I would argue, has been more schizophrenic, with a theoretical interest — at least in some quarters — in how people act in particular circumstances, but at the same time with a deep-rooted disciplinary attachment to seeing things through the lens of the long term.

Another manifestation of historians’ concern with scale comes in debate about over-neat periodisation, symptomatic of many former grand narratives, slicing up the past for example into antique or classical and medieval, medieval and early modern, pre-industrialised and industrialised, and so on (Tipps 1973; Lake 1998; Lorenz 2006; Nelson 2007). Thus, ‘early modernists are far too ignorant about the nature of late medieval society and politics’ (Lake 1998, 279), and modernisation, while popular for evoking ‘vague and generalised images which serve to summarize all the various transformations of social life attendant upon the rise of industrialization and the nation-state in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’ (Tipps, 1973, 199), proves very hard to pin down; ‘the relationship of modernization theory to the future study of the transformations of human society is roughly analogous with that of the Greek classification of the elements to the periodic table of contemporary chemistry’ (Tipps, 222, n14). Where to put boundaries, and how to characterise continuities and tipping points, is problematic and always provisional (Lake 1998, 280–1; Nelson 2007, 198; cf. Bentley 1996, 749). The outcome of such misgivings appears to be an understandable preference for controlling evidence and sources over shorter timescales; for one historian, ‘the long haul’ — also familiar as the Braudelian longue durée – is quoted as ‘from the late fourteenth to the end of the sixteenth century’ (Lake 1998, 282). Would that archaeologists could routinely be so relatively precise!

A very good review of the development of the use of the concept of agency has been given quite recently by John Robb (2010). Defining agency now as an ‘ability to act to some effect in a particular context’ (Robb 2010, 513), he has charted how earlier in the debate about its usefulness and application it tended to be seen first as the ability of political leaders to act in hierarchical situations, and then later as action within contexts structured by social relationships; ‘action is fundamentally social’, and ‘agency is not a universal capacity or quality but is defined within particular historical settings’ (Robb, 2010, 499). The relational quality of agency has since been further emphasised, alongside further development of ideas of personhood and identity, and interest in collective and multiple agencies, including that of things. People carry out projects, necessarily always within particular fields of action or genres of behaviour, ‘places where doxic belief becomes mobilized in the service of concrete practice’ (Robb 2010, 507). This establishes, or appears to establish, clear emphasis on specific contexts, presumably to be defined in specific times and places, and presumably over short timescales. In contrast, several varying strands in recent prehistoric interpretation stress longer timescales and the long term. My brief and selective survey (I will write about these issues at greater length elsewhere in connection with our Times of Their Lives project), begins with the ‘time perspectivism’ of Geoff Bailey (1981; 1983; 2007). This is the view, grounded above all in detailed and critical examination of the formation and transformation of the archaeological record, in which the notion of palimpsest is central, that different datasets shape different kinds of temporal scale. The major contrast explored is between the claim for only the possibility of longer-term stories about the Palaeolithic, and the much finer narratives enabled by texts or ethnographic observation. The place of what we can call recent prehistory, including the Neolithic, is left somewhat ambiguous. The principal reference to the Neolithic in the most recent presentation (Bailey 2007) is with reference to our supposed inability to find intact, lived-in deposits in Neolithic houses, because of repeating processes of transformation and

Is the choice of differing scales to remain just that, or can multiple perspectives be combined? The problem has often enough been stated; for example, ‘we need to define the units of the local through which we study particular problems and think hard about the ways in which the local and the national were both connected in the period under study and can be conceptually connected or related’ (Lake 1998, 284). Even an advocate like John Brewer of traditions such as Italian microstoria, with their commitment to agency and a humanist agenda, recognises the need for ‘some perspective on the phenomenon we study’ (Brewer 2010, 104). Notions of strangeness as well as familiarity, alongside conceptions

2

decay, with the clear implication that fine chronological resolution is impossible. In its own terms, time perspectivism is perfectly logical, but varying chronological resolution is never explored in detail, and changes and advances, for example in formal modelling, are not discussed; it only makes sense if a chronological status quo, appropriate to a fuzzy prehistory, is accepted.

practices’), lasting in the order of a few centuries; within those frames are included ‘local political histories and cycles’, on shorter timescales, the whole being capped or framed by ‘tipping points’ and ‘rapid, general transitions’ (Robb and Pauketat 2013, fig. 1.1). This usefully opens the way to think further about multi-scalar analysis, but there are problems. The picture is necessarily both generalised and static. Other scenarios of either quicker or continual, gradual change can be envisaged, at varying tempo (cf. Siegmund 2012), and any sequence might be shot through with tipping points — or none at all in the terms defined. This seems to be an elaborate justification of the periodisation of which historians, as noted above, are so suspicious. As Marc Bloch noted (1992, 23–4), ‘historical time is a concrete and living reality with an irreversible onward rush…this real time is, in essence, a continuum. It is also perpetual change.’ And in the end, ‘big histories’, the claimed substance of the narratives that really matter, are what appear to dominate over other possible scales (Robb and Pauketat 2013, 31).

A different tack has been taken by others, emphasising not so much the limitations of chronological resolution as the advantages of the long-term view. Ian Hodder (1987, 7–8) proposed the term ‘archaeo-history’, and called for close investigation of the relationship between structure and action or event. Much later, in relation to Çatalhöyük, he envisaged long, slow changes to the big picture, taking place through ‘myriad small steps’ and ‘infinitesimal moves in daily life and daily practices’ (Hodder 2006, 251, 236). Andrew Sherratt, while perfectly well aware of course of the possibilities within Neolithic studies for fine chronological resolution, not least as provided by the dendrochronologies of the Alpine foreland, explicitly called for a return to grand narratives, to seek connections and consequences at larger scales, both temporal and spatial, beyond what he called the myopic focus of postprocessualist approaches (Sherratt 1995; 2004; cf. Whittle 2011). His phrasing is instructive: for example, ‘large structures’, ‘systematic long-term change’, ‘coherent, long-term change’, and ‘directional sequence’ (Sherratt 1995, 3). Although the ‘grand narrative’ has been called recently ‘the road less taken’ (Harris and Robb 2013, 25), it is in fact what I would regard as an active part of current approaches in prehistory. On the one hand, one can cite important studies on the grand scale of the long term (e.g. Bintliff 2013; Broodbank 2013; Robb and Harris 2013; Shryock and Smail 2013); on the other, though it would take longer to justify my claim than I have space for here, much interpretation of the European Neolithic is still carried out within a culture-historical chronological framework (supported of course by radiocarbon dating, typological analysis (and quite often seriation), and where appropriate, dendrochronology) that recurrently defines phases of 200 years or more as the principal currency for the analysis of cultural change.

From a different angle, others have emphasised the importance of the short term. Jan Harding (2005, 97–8) has referred to the ‘genealogies of practice’ which constitute the flow of social practice, through ‘chains of ordered presents’. The possibility of ‘eventful archaeology’ has been explored (Beck et al. 2007; Bolender 2010). Dušan Borić (2010, 63–4) has advocated the interpretive usefulness of events, not just as tipping points or moments of lasting structural transformation, but as singularities in the flow of change and as fundamental temporal building blocks. While anticipating the possibility of building sufficient chronological resolution to achieve a sense of eventful horizons, our own Gathering Time publications suggested that events would normally be beyond the precision currently and routinely available (Whittle et al. 2010; Whittle, Bayliss and Healy 2011, fig. 15.28). It is also worth noting two other perspectives. Laurent Olivier (2001; cf. Hamilakis 2012, 53) has argued that the present is always constituted by multiple temporalities or senses of time, things and ideas from older pasts existing alongside practices of more recent descent and of the present. And finally, it is only fair to note the advocacy of a return to archaeology, ‘an archaeology that sacrifices the imperatives of historical narratives, sociologies, and hermeneutics in favour of a trust in the soiled and ruined things themselves and the memories they afford’ (Olsen 2012, 11).

The ongoing discussion of agency noted above also carried reference to projects as ‘long-term undertakings’ (Robb 2010, 507), and the ‘fields of action’ in which projects are carried out were proposed as ‘useful units for long-term historical analysis, as they often form material trajectories traceable through long time spans’ (Robb 2010, 508). John Robb had already advocated an approach which enables the explanation of long-term change, ‘beyond experience of a single lifetime (Robb 2007, 3). That same aim has generated what is, to my knowledge at least, the so far most explicit and most sophisticated exploration, within prehistoric studies, of multiple timescales (Robb and Pauketat 2013). This evokes a multi-scalar approach, from what are called historical ontologies or cultural worlds, lasting up to a millennium, to ways of doing things (traditions, institutions and practices) and historical landscapes (‘local bundles of mutually reinforcing institutions and

4.

THE TIMES AND TIMINGS OF ENCLOSURES

So how do enclosures fit into these sorts of debate? My geographical frame of reference is principally central and western Europe. Responses have been varied. It must be noted that research on enclosures in general has been much slower to develop compared say to that on megaliths and barrows, since so many discoveries of enclosures have been made in more recent times by a combination of aerial photography and contract archaeology. It was in many ways as late as the 1990s

3

Even before this further detail has been accomplished, one can suggest a ‘prospect history’, a long-term narrative, of enclosures. For central and western Europe, this might read as follows. As in other regions such as southern Italy, enclosures appeared early in the Neolithic sequence, but LBK practice in the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC seems to be characterised by diversity (and perhaps with the majority of examples coming towards the end of the LBK: Geschwinde 2013, 197). There are enclosures which are associated with and indeed contain longhouses, but there are examples without habitation; the ditch at Vaihingen is early in the site sequence but then silts up during ongoing use of the settlement (Bogaard 2011), while the ditch layout at Langweiler 8 follows a prolonged history of longhouse construction and use (Lüning and Stehli 1994). Enclosures do not seem to be associated exclusively with the largest settlements or the largest settlement concentrations, though it has been suggested for southern Germany that enclosures and substantial longhouses were some kind of rival alternatives in terms of social display (Pechtl 2009). In the first half of the fifth millennium cal BC, rondels or Kreisgrabenanlagen constitute a distinctive horizon of activity, often, it would appear from better investigated examples, associated with adjacent settlement; and it can be noted that their distribution is finite within central Europe. Formalisation of layout, orientation and movement accompany a general dearth of internal features and deposition. The suggestions that these are linked to some kind of cult (e.g. Pásztor et al. 2008) and served as conduits to sacred realms are attractive. In a wider perspective, this could have emerged as some kind of regulation of intra- and inter-community relations, following the possible problems at the end of the LBK at the turn of the sixth millennium, but the plausibility of that view will depend on how early rondel construction can be shown to date. An alternative might be to see a degree of social control achieved by particular households or some other social grouping, annexing arcane ritual and making it a community concern (cf. Flannery and Marcus, 2012, 237). In a third stage, in the second half of the fifth millennium cal BC and on into the fourth, came the proliferation of interrupted ditch enclosures over a very wide area, at least from southern France up to southern Scandinavia. Not all are of the same date, and the sequence in central-west France may begin later than southern and northern France and the Rhineland; those of southern Scandinavia begin later still. This style of enclosure can be found even in late LBK contexts and on into the earlier fifth millennium cal BC, as at Menneville and Balloy in the Paris basin (Hachem et al. 1998; Mordant 1997; Whittle 1977), but becomes prominent after the demise of longhouses, and following or coinciding with the onset of more dispersed and perhaps shorter-term settlement. While roles in defence and the protection of livestock certainly cannot be excluded, the emphasis over and over again seems to be on shared labour, on symbolic boundaries, ambiguous because permeable, on periodic assembly and public deposition of a wide range of materials and remains central to social interaction and communal identities. Rather less attention

that the full extent and diversity of enclosure construction across Neolithic Europe as a whole could be demonstrated, as shown by Niels Andersen (1999; and see this volume) in connection with the publication of Sarup on Fyn, Denmark, itself part of a burst of discoveries in southern Scandinavia. Other surveys since have also underlined the abundance and variations in enclosure practice (e.g. Meyer and Raetzel-Fabian 2006). New finds continue to be made, and not least in Iberia (as seen in this volume). In one sense, therefore, we are perhaps still at a descriptive phase, but within a culture-historical framework it has been recognised that particular styles of enclosure can be used as cultural and chronological signifiers. This may have worked best so far for the interrupted ditch systems so recurrent in the ChasséenMichelsberg-TRB orbit of the later fifth into the fourth millennium cal BC (Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009; Geschwinde 2013; Badisches Landesmuseum 2010; Müller 2010), or for the rondels or Kreisgrabenanlagen of the earlier fifth millennium cal BC in central Europe (Petrasch 2001;Trnka 2005). Another candidate could be the stone-walled enclosures of the late Neolithic in southern France, of the later fourth and earlier third millennia cal BC (Carozza et al. 2005; Coularou et al. 2008). It is probably fair to say that the considerable diversity of enclosures found in the LBK has so far not led to satisfactory general classification. Within this kind of approach, there has been some success in refining chronology, though there is much more that could be done. Thus, many rondels can be assigned to a particular horizon within the LengyelStichbandkeramik orbit (in detail Lengyel 1/MOG1, Oberlauterbach SOBII–III, Stichband IVa:Trnka 2005; informal inspection of radiocarbon results suggests a span between 4800 and 4600 cal BC (Trnka 2005; Neubauer 2005), though pinning that down and defining the emergence and precise duration of the phenomenon remains problematic and challenging. (This is crying out for a concerted, international effort.) The plethora of Michelsberg and TRB enclosures likewise offers possibilities for more detailed phasing, principally drawing on associated pottery styles (e.g. Müller 2010, 254, figure; Geschwinde 2013, Abb. 1), though this again has yet to be explored in further detail, and it is not yet clear whether there are clear chronological trends in style, layout, deposition, duration and other aspects of interrupted ditch enclosures. There is presumably also enormous potential for international collaboration here, though recurrent problems with collagen preservation in bone samples from sites on river gravels in northern France have been encountered (Jérôme Dubouloz, pers. comm.). Nonetheless situations like the succession of animal bone deposits from the chalk-cut ditch at Bouryen Vexin, Oise (Meniel 1987), surely call out for targeted radiocarbon dating and formal modelling of the results; our own Times of Their Lives project is collaborating with Ute Seidel and colleagues to achieve just this with the late Michelsberg enclosure at Heilbronn-Klingenberg, in the Neckar valley (Seidel 2008).

4

has been paid to the end of this tradition, and likewise to a fourth stage of sporadic enclosure construction, including forms which might suggest a rather more local focus and significance compared to what had gone before; these include palisaded and ditched enclosures around long houses in northern France (e.g. Tinévez 2004; Joseph et al. 2011), and small, mainly circular, ditched enclosures in southern France (Gandelin 2011, 194–6).

sequence consisting of multiple, discrete episodes of construction and alteration (Mercer and Healy 2008), and Gathering Time provided other examples of rapid enclosure construction and surprisingly short duration of use (Whittle, Healy and Bayliss 2011). These show what can be achieved, when the right combination is present of short-life samples (including good collagen preservation), robust understanding of stratigraphy, taphonomy and associations, and favourable calibration curve. Given then that enclosures can be precisely dated, what I want to do here is formalise some of the steps in their interpretation, when temporality is put centrally into the frame from the outset. I also want to think about tacking between varying timescales. My discussion applies principally to the interrupted ditch style.

Is that it? Is it our task just to refine the detail of these broad trends and cultural patternings, in order to perfect our view of the big picture? I believe that the study of enclosures offers considerably more than this. Probably no form of construction in the Neolithic world was carried out unthinkingly, though with say houses and smaller megalithic monuments, with more modest labour requirements, one might argue that things were simply done straightforwardly and quite quickly according to established practice and recognised custom; even that, however, fails to account for the diversity of for example the internal layouts of longhouses (Coudart 1998), or for change. Far less can it be argued that enclosures just happened, as an inevitable outcome of cultural practice. These were projects (cf. Robb 2010, 507), which required the taking of conscious decisions, perhaps often with considerable attendant social risk (cf. Richards 2004; 2013), the motivation and mobilisation of a labour pool surely normally beyond what was available within the capacity of individual households or small kin groups, and the attraction of a sufficiently wide audience to justify the investment of time and effort, those not confined just to the work of construction but extending to the provision of feasts and the acquisition of exotic things through networks of exchange and connection. This has obviously been recognised in the literature, such as — to take just one example — in the idea of ‘tournaments of value’ (Edmonds 1993), but relating, at least in British prehistory, to the pre-Bayesian phase of chronology construction, very often accompanied by little attention being given to the temporality of enclosure (Whittle 2006). Conversely, the idea of the central importance of the process of construction, in contrast to the achievement of final form, has been extremely popular (at least as far back as C. Evans 1988a; 1988b), and that continues to colour interpretation of monuments of all kinds, not just enclosures (cf. Richards 2013, on stone circles, or Leary et al. 2013, on Silbury Hill). A perhaps comparable concept is to be found in the idea of the Rosheim-type enclosure, according to which circuits of ditches were only dug segment by segment over considerable periods of time (Jeunesse 2011).

4.1

Tacking between scales, temporal and spatial

How and where do enclosures begin? Presumably all of them began as an idea in people’s heads, and the manifestation of this, the translation of thought into action, can, other things being equal, as above, be precisely dated. It can also be contextualised, the more effectively if precise dating can first be established. Within established traditions, enclosure construction may have been a varied matter, of routine social emulation, say, or periodic ritual obligation, or the perception of opportunity and indeed threat in particular circumstances. In other situations, it may have been to do with creativity and novel social stratagem (cf. Whittle 2013). In the case of southern Britain, probably in the late 38th century cal BC, we argued that the initiation of enclosures was the actualisation of an old, established, continental practice, designed to evoke ancient ancestral connections and the power of the distant, at a considerable interval after the start of the southern British Neolithic (Whittle, Bayliss and Healy 2011). What is still missing from this explanation is twofold: what were the local circumstances of say changes in population density, settlement distribution and economic practice, and did the appearance of the enclosure idea in southern Britain at this time relate to particular shifts in practice on the adjacent continent? This kind of approach need not be confined to southern Britain, or Ireland, alone, since it could apply also to regions like central-west France and southern Scandinavia (as noted above); it could also be relevant in thinking about the onset of the interrupted ditch style in the later fifth millennium cal BC, which has not been, as far as I am aware, much theorised. Did this just happen as part of a new cultural repertoire: the general impression given by the existing literature? Or did an existing style proliferate because people could associate it in part with an older past?

So I want to advocate a more ambitious and in the first instance more site-specific approach to the understanding of the times and timings of enclosures (and this view is not confined just to those constructions). There is no doubting the importance of the circumstances of construction, but to adopt the single view that those were all or principally most of what mattered with these (and other) sites seems myopic. The modelling of radiocarbon dates from Hambledon Hill had already shown a

Asking where enclosures began may seem an odd question, since they are where they are, but it can be revealing in relation to existing traces of habitation. Again in the southern British case, the general impression is of a choice of new sites, with little or no previous occupation, in contrast to the situation often found at the locations of long barrows and cairns (Whittle, Bayliss and

5

Healy 2011). It would be interesting to compare continental interrupted ditch enclosures in this regard. How enclosures began was presumably more straightforward — people came together, turf (or any other form of surface) was cut, and ditches began to be dug. Bayesian modelling provides formal estimates of the start of such activity, going beyond individual dates for material deposited within primary ditch fills (Bayliss, van der Plicht et al. 2011). How long such constructional activity goes on is then open to variation (as well as discussion), though as already noted, the evidence presented in Gathering Time suggests finite rather than endlessly prolonged episodes.

construction and use (Müller 2001; 2011, fig. 8; Müller et al. 2012), perhaps some kind of pulse alternating between more public and more private forms of assembly and ritual. It has been suggested that this can be related to demographic trends, albeit constructed by using summed distributions of radiocarbon dates as a proxy for population, correlated with pollen sequences (Hinz et al. 2012). The construction of TRB enclosures from c. 3600– 3400 cal BC (Hinz et al. 2012, 3336; Geschwinde and Raetzel-Fabian 2009) coincides broadly with the beginnings of the opening of the landscape, an increase in copper imports, and perhaps a decrease in the regionalisation of pottery styles (Müller 2011, fig. 8); according to the use of radiocarbon dates as a demographic proxy, population increased up to about 3500 cal BC, and declined after c. 3350 cal BC (Hinz et al. 2012). This may suggest that enclosures here were bound up with shifts in connectivity and shared identities. It would be highly desirable, of course, to have detailed Bayesian chronologies for all these aspects (such as has been achieved for the Flintbek megalith: Mischka 2011), in order to follow possible chains of causation more closely.

There then follows a suite of activity, including some or all of the following: assembly in short-term gatherings; in some cases perhaps some longer-term habitation; feasting and sacrifice, notably of cattle; exchange and presumably display of materials and objects; inter-personal and intergroup violence; and burial —with the deposition, deliberate or otherwise, of residues of all these dimensions. All of these, other things being equal, can be precisely dated. Precise date estimates indeed can give important insights into the scale and frequency of deposition (Bayliss, Healy et al. 2011), and in some situations can suggest enclosure construction in anticipation of conflict and attack, given that burning on occasion follows very rapidly after building (Bayliss, Healy et al. 2011). All this can be repeated, in subsequent additions of further ditch circuits, or the recutting of existing ones. Things could also simply go no further, belonging to specific, event-like horizons, and the contrast between shorter and longer site biographies is extremely informative; social success or the emergence of venerated places to which people chose to return over generations was not to be taken for granted in Neolithic communities, perhaps indicative of achievement-based societies in the terms of Flannery and Marcus (2012).

More precise dating also enables other kinds of interpretation. I have already noted the possibility in the case of southern Britain of enclosures being adopted at a particular time as part of a specific social strategy, and one can consider more closely the circumstances in which an enclosure was constructed for the very first time in a given region, with all the attendant risks for and demands on those responsible for instigation, but also the capacity of novelty to impress and astonish (Whittle 2013). Enclosure construction in itself does not reveal the motivations or leadership involved, and whether the knowledges involved were public or secret, but well dated examples allow us to explore such issues in much more detail in relation to their context. It is hard not to think of any enclosure construction as an event — thus highlighting again the limitations of thinking only of the construction process — and the southern British study suggests a series of such events, spreading initially broadly east to west from the late 38th to the later 37th century cal BC, in what must literally have been eventful times among the social networks of those contributing to and witnessing the construction and use of enclosures. It seems plausible that such events were transformative, changing the nature of social interaction and relations, but whether this took place always in the same way remains open to question. In the southern British case we still do not know enough, as already noted, about the development of settlement, the growth of population, or the possible increase in the size of cattle herds, to be able to tell whether enclosures were the outcome of other social and economic changes, or intensified them by their existence, or both.

Once again in the southern British case, the novelty of enclosure construction was not maintained for ever, since from probably the mid-36th century cal BC the very different form of linear or cursus monuments was introduced; after that date, probably very few new enclosures were constructed, though some went on in use, alongside a considerable diversity of other older and newer forms of monument (Bayliss, Healy et al. 2011; Whittle, Bayliss and Healy 2011). It will be very interesting to see if similar or different trajectories of the frequency and tempo of enclosure construction can eventually be teased out of Michelsberg-TRB-Chasséen patterns and sequences. The map published by Johannes Müller (2010, 254, figure; cf. Geschwinde 2013, Abb. 1) of the area between the Paris basin and the Elbe certainly suggests broad variation in frequency through time, by region, with a marked shift eastwards, indicating that different communities engaged with the idea of enclosures at different points in their histories. In this wide area, there was no replacement of the kind seen in southern Britain, of causewayed enclosures by cursus monuments, but instead a complicated intercalation of enclosures with sequences of barrow and megalith

Other more general or abstract interpretation can also follow from more precise dating. Enclosures in southern Britain, and probably in many other regions too, evoke a combination of recurrent and individual elements. They are singular collectivities. Enclosures often seem to

6

involve every dimension of the Neolithic existence of their times in one way or another, and their power and renown must have rested in part in this concentration of concerns. Enclosures could also be seen to offer a kind of substitution, or idealisation of shared life, with labour pooled, sacrificed cattle being distributed among feasters, and a sense of communitas (cf. Turner 1969) engendered by ritual experienced together. They may also have both presented and masked a series of imbalances and tensions among the whole constituency of people involved in their construction and use; an enclosure without an audience would have been pointless, in a way that would not apply to the rituals and knowledges performed within chambered tombs. The speed with which the idea spread in southern Britain and the relative swiftness of its decline, supplanted by the next novelty, may well suggest a competitive social milieu, but one that was hard to manage and control, and unfavourable reactions, jealousies or sheer exhaustion might have been among the factors determining whether an enclosure once created went on to become a recurrent place or not. These sets of interpretative possibilities are summed up in Fig. 1. 5.

also detailed regional sequences, and a long chain of other kinds of interpretation. We can go beyond previous generalising or grand narrative accounts, in which enclosures have tended to be seen as symptoms of cultural practice. This shifts the study of enclosures in the first place to something akin to ‘microhistory’ or ‘refuge history’, down among the truffles, but there are fertile grounds for involving them also in multi-scalar analysis; detailed timings allow particular enclosures to be much better related to the wider contexts of their times. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very grateful to the conference organisers for their invitation to the Lisbon conference, and for their patience in waiting for this paper. I am indebted to all those colleagues who worked on the enclosures project published as Gathering Time, and all those currently involved in The Times of Their Lives; cooperation with Alex Bayliss and Frances Healy has been particularly inspirational. I also thank Keir Waddington and Mark Thomas for guiding me through some of the thickets of writing on history, Kirsty Harding and Ian Dennis for help with the figure, and Martin Hinz for information.

AN AGENDA FOR MULTI-SCALAR ANALYSIS BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

‘Every history is provisional, an attempt to say something in the face of impossible complexity’ (Arnold 2000, 90). I began by comparing the different kinds of history favoured by different historians and prehistorians, in terms of focus and temporal scale. Many prehistorians seem to operate within a schizophrenic mindset, derived from the development of our discipline: favouring notions of agency on the one hand, but attracted equally by the pull of the notion of the long term. There can perhaps be no single correct scale, temporal or spatial, at which to write histories; different things are perceived at different scales. There are therefore two demanding challenges, not only to attempt to operate across different scales, but also to calibrate as it were the kind of scales we wish to attempt. It is absolutely striking, as noted above, how what historians perceive as long periods of time would routinely and generally unthinkingly be subsumed by prehistorians within quite normal periodisation at the scale of two to three centuries. I have tried to show how the study of enclosures can be integrated at varying temporal and spatial scales. But fundamentally we now have the opportunity to recalibrate our chronological expectations; we should expect to be able to date sites like enclosures much more precisely, down to the scale of lifetimes, generations and even decades, even though in practice things will not always go as well as that. It is not a question of setting interest in longer-term processes aside, but of recasting our default chronological starting points.

ANDERSEN, N. (1999) – The Sarup enclosures: the Funnel Beaker Culture of the Sarup site including two causewayed camps compared to the contemporary settlements in the area and other European enclosures. Moesgaard: Jysk Arkælogisk Selskab. ARNOLD, J.H. (2000) – History: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BADISCHES LANDESMUSEUM (2010) – Jungsteinzeit in Umbruch: die “Michelsberger Kultur” und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren. Karslruhe: Badisches Landesmuseum. BAILEY, G. (1981) – Concepts, timescales and explanations in economic prehistory. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey eds. (1981) – Economic archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. pp. 97–117. BAILEY, G. 1983. Concepts of time in Quaternary prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12, 165–92. BAILEY, G. (2007) – Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. No. 26. pp. 198–223. BAYLISS, A., HEALY, F., WHITTLE, A. AND COONEY, G. (2011) – Neolithic narratives: British and Irish enclosures in their timescapes. In A. WHITTLE, F. HEALY, AND A. BAYLISS (2011) – Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 682–847. BAYLISS, A., VAN DER PLICHT, J., BRONK RAMSEY, C., MCCORMAC, G., HEALY, F. AND

CONCLUSION Specific studies have shown how enclosures are amenable to precise dating through formal chronological modelling. This enables, when all goes well, the construction of not only individual site biographies but

7

WHITTLE, A. (2011) – Towards generational timescales: the quantitative interpretation of archaeological chronologies. In A.WHITTLE, F. HEALY, AND A. BAYLISS (2011) – Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 17–59.

danubienne. Paris : Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de L’Homme. COULAROU, J., JALLET, F., COLOMER, A. AND BALBURE, J. (2008) – Boussargues: une enceinte chalcolithique des garrigues du sud de la France. Toulouse : Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

BAYLISS, A. AND WHITTLE, A. eds. (2007) – Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. No. 17(1). Supplement.

EDMONDS, M. (1993) – Interpreting causewayed enclosures in the past and the present. In C. Tilley ed. (1993) – Interpretative archaeology, 99–142. Oxford: Berg.

BECK, R.A. JR., BOLENDER, D.J., BROWN, J.A. AND EARLE, T.K. (2007) – Eventful archaeology: the place of space in structural transformation. Current Anthropology. No. 48. pp. 833–60.

EVANS, C. (1988a) – Acts of enclosure: a consideration of concentrically-organised causewayed enclosures. In J.C. BARRETT AND I. KINNES eds. (1988) – The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory. pp. 85–96.

BENTLEY, J.H. (1996) – Cross-cultural interaction and periodization in world history. American Historical Review. No. 101. pp. 749–70.

EVANS, C. (1988b) – Monuments and analogy: the interpretation of causewayed enclosures. In C. BURGESS, P. TOPPING, C. MORDANT AND M. MADDISON eds. (1988) – Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of western Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. pp. 47–73.

BINTLIFF, J. (2013) – The complete archaeology of Greece: from hunter-gatherers to the 20th century A.D. Malden and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. BLOCH, M. (1992) – The historian’s craft. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

EVANS, R.J. (1997) – In defence of history. London: Granta Books.

BOGAARD, A. (2011) – Plant use and crop husbandry in an early Neolithic village: Vaihingen an der Enz, Baden-Würrtemberg. Bonn: Habelt.

FLANNERY, K.; MARCUS, J. (2012) – The creation of inequality: how our prehistoric ancestors set the stage for monarchy, slavery, and empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

BOLENDER, D.J. ed. (2010) – Eventful archaeologies: new approaches to social transformation in the archaeological record. Albany: State University of New York Press.

GANDELIN, M. (2011) – Les enceintes chasséennes de Villeneuve-Tolosane et de Cugnaux dans leur contexte du Néolithique moyen européen. Toulouse : Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

BORIĆ, D. (2010) – Becoming, phenomenal change, event: past and archaeological re-presentations. In D.J. BOLENDER ed. (2010), Eventful archaeologies: new approaches to social transformation in the archaeological record. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 48–67.

GESCHWINDE, M. (2013) – Erdwerke des 5. und 4. Jahrtausends v. Chr. In H. MELLER ed. (2013) – 3300 BC: mysteriöse Steinzeittote und ihre Welt, 195–201. Mainz am Rhein: Nünnerich-Asmus Verlag & Media.

BREWER, J. (2010) – Microhistory and the histories of everyday life. Cultural and Social History. No. 7. pp. 87– 109.

GESCHWINDE, M. AND RAETZEL-FABIAN, D. (2009) – Eine Fallstudie zu den jungneolithischen Erdwerken am Nordrand der Mittelgebirge. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

BROODBANK, C. (2013) – The making of the Middle Sea: a history of the Mediterranean from the beginning to the emergence of the Classical world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HACHEM, L., GUICHARD, Y., FARRUGGIA, J.-P., DUBOULOZ, J. AND ILETT, M. (1998) – Enclosure and burial in the earliest Neolithic of the Aisne valley. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards eds. (1998) – Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. pp. 127–40.

CAROZZA, L, GEORGJON, C. AND VIGNAUD, A. (2005) – La fin du Néolithique et les débuts de la métallurgie en Languedoc central : les habitats de la colline du Puech Haut à Paulhan, Hérault. Toulouse : Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique.

HAMILAKIS, Y. (2012) – From ontology to ontogeny: a new undisciplined discipline. Current Swedish Archaeology. No. 20. pp. 47–55.

COUDART, A. (1998) – Architecture et société néolithique : l’unité et la variance de la maison

8

HARDING, J. (2005) – Rethinking the great divide: longterm structural history and the temporality of event. Norwegian Archaeological Review. No. 38. pp. 88–101.

LORENZ, C. (2006) – ‘Won’t you tell me, where have all the good times gone?’ On the advantages and disadvantages of modernization theory for history. Rethinking History. No. 10. pp. 171–200.

HARRIS, O.J.T. AND ROBB, J. (2013) – Body worlds and their history: some working concepts. In J. ROBB AND O.J.T. HARRIS eds. (2013) – The body in history: Europe from the Palaeolithic to the future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–31.

LÜNING, J. AND STEHLI, P. (1994) – Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Bonn: Habelt. MENIEL, P. (1987) – Les dépôts d’animaux du fossé chasséen de Boury-en-Vexin. Revue Archéologique de Picardie. Vol. 1–2. pp. 3–26.

HICKEY, T.M. (2009) – Writing history from the papyri. In R.S. BAGNALL ed. (2009) – The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 495– 520.

MERCER, R. AND HEALY, F. (2008) – Hambledon Hill, Dorset: excavation and survey of a Neolithic monument complex and its surrounding landscape. Swindon: English Heritage.

HINZ, M., FEESER, I., SJÖGREN, K.-G. AND MÜLLER, J. (2012) – Demography and the intensity of cultural activities: an evaluation of Funnel Beaker societies (4200–2800 cal BC). Journal of Archaeological Science. No. 39. pp. 3331–40.

MEYER, M. AND RAETZEL-FABIAN, D. (2006) – Neolithische Grabenwerke in Mitteleuropa: ein Überblick. www.jungsteinSITE.de, 15. Dezember 2006. pp. 1–54.

HODDER, I. ed. (1987) – Archaeology as long-term history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MISCHKA, D. (2011) – The Neolithic burial sequence at Flintbek LA 3, north Germany, and its cart tracks: a precise chronology. Antiquity. No. 85. pp. 742–58.

HODDER, I. (2006) – Çatalhöyük: the leopard’s tale. Revealing the mysteries of Turkey’s ancient ‘town’. London: Thames and Hudson.

MORDANT, D. (1997) – Le complexe des Réaudins à Balloy: enceinte et nécropole monumentale. In C. CONSTANTIN, D. MORDANT AND D. SIMONIN eds. (1997) – La culture de Cerny: nouvelle économie, nouvelle société au Néolithique. Nemours: Édition de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Ile-de-France. pp. 449–79.

JENKINS, K. (1995) – On ‘What is history?’. From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. London: Routledge. JEUNESSE, C. (2011) – Enceintes à fossé discontinu et enceintes à pseudo-fossé dans le Néolithique d’Europe centrale et occidentale. In A. DENAIRE, C. JEUNESSE AND P. LEFRANC eds. (2011) – Nécropoles et enceintes danbuennes du Ve millénaire dans le nord-est de la France et le sud-ouest de l’Allemagne, 31–71. Strasbourg : Université de Strasbourg.

MÜLLER, J. (2001) – Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung- und Spätneolithikim im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700 v. Chr.). Eine sozialhistorische Interpretation prähistorischer Quellen. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

JOSEPH, F., JULIEN, M., LEROY-LANGELIN, E., LORIN, Y. AND PRAUD, I. (2011) – L’architecture domestique des sites du IIIe millénaire avant notre ère dans le nord de la France. In F. BOSTYN, E. MARTIAL AND I. PRAUD eds (2011) – Le Néolithique du nord de la France dans son contexte européen. Revue Archéologique de Picardie No. Spécial 28. pp. 249–73.

MÜLLER, J. (2010) – Dorfanlagen und Siedlungssysteme: die europäische Perspektive: Südosteuropa und Mitteleuropa. In BADISCHES LANDESMUSEUM ed. (2010) – Jungsteinzeit in Umbruch: die “Michelsberger Kultur” und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren. Karlsruhe: Badisches Landesmuseum. pp. 250–7.

LAKE, P. (1998) – Periodization, politics and “the social”. Journal of British Studies. No. 37. pp. 279–90.

MÜLLER, J. (2011) – Megaliths and funnel beakers: societies in change 4100–2700 BC: drieendertigste Kroon-Voordracht. Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie.

LEACH, E. (1982) – Social anthropology. London: Fontana. LEARY, J., FIELD, D. AND CAMPBELL, G. (2013) – Silbury Hill: the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. Swindon: English Heritage.

MÜLLER, J., BROZIO, J.-P., DEMNICK, D., DIBBERN, H., FRITSCH, B., FURHOLT, M., HAGE, F., HINZ, M., LORENZ, L., MISCHKA, D. AND RINNE, C. (2012) – Periodisierung der TrciherbecherGesellschaften: ein Arbeitsentwurf. In J. MÜLLER ed. (2012) – Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung, Band 2. Bonn: Habelt. pp. 29–33.

LE ROY LADURIE, E. (1988) – Times of feast, times of famine: a history of climate since the year 1000. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

9

NELSON, J.L. (2007) – The Dark Ages. History Workshop. No. 63. pp. 191–201.

SEIDEL, U. (2008) – Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn. Stuttgart: Theiss.

NEUBAUER, W. (2005) – Am Fusse des Heldenbergs. Die dreifache Kreisgrabenanlage Glaubendorf 2. In F. Daim and W. Neubauer eds (2005) – Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben. Horn-Wien: Verlag Berger. pp. 52–57.

SHERRATT, A. (1995) – Reviving the grand narrative: archaeology and long-term change. Journal of European Archaeology. No. 3. pp. 1–32. SHERRATT, A. (2004) – The importance of lakedwellings in European prehistory. In F. Menotti ed. (2004) – Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe: 150 years of lake-dwelling research. London: Routledge. pp. 267–75.

OLIVIER, L.C. (2001) – Duration, memory and the nature of the archaeological record. In H. Karlsson ed.(2001) – It’s about time: the concept of time in archaeology. Göteborg: Bricoleur Press. pp. 61–70.

SHRYOCK, A. AND SMAIL, D.L. eds. (2013) – Deep history: the architecture of past and present. Berkeley: University of California Press.

OLSEN, B. (2012) – After interpretation: remembering archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology. No. 20. pp. 11–34.

SIEGMUND, F. (2012) – Schnelle Zeiten — langsame Zeiten: archäologische Chronologiesysteme als Geschichtsquelle. Archäologische Informationen. No. 35. Pp. 259–70.

PÁSZTOR, E., BARNA, J.P. AND ROSLUND, C. (2008) – The orientation of rondels of the Neolithic Lengyel culture in central Europe. Antiquity. No. 82. pp. 910–24. PECHTL, J. (2009) – A monumental prestige patchwork. In D. Hofmann and P. Bickle eds (2009) – Creating communities: new advances in central European Neolithic research. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 186–201.

TINEVEZ, J.-Y. (2004) – Le site de La Hersonnais à Pléchâtel (Ille-et-Vilaine) : un ensemble de bâtiments collectifs du Néolithique final. Paris : Société Préhistorique Française.

PETRASCH, J. (2001) – Hypothesen und Befunde, alte und neue Fragen: zum Stand der Erforschung mittelneolithischer Kreisgrabenanlagen. In M. CHYTRÁCEK, J. MICHÁLEK AND K. SCHMOTZ eds. (2001) – Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West- und Südböhmen. 10. Treffen, 7–10. Juni 2000 in Ceský Krumlov. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. pp. 43– 55.

TIPPS, D.C. (1973) – Modernization theory and the comparative study of societies: a critical perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History. No. 15. pp. 199–226.

RICHARDS, C. (2004) – Labouring with monuments: constructing the dolmen at Carreg Samson, south- west Wales. In V. CUMMINGS AND C. FOWLER eds (2004) – The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 72–80.

TRNKA, G. (2005) – Kreise und Kulturen — Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. In F. DAIM AND W. NEUBAUER eds. (2005) – Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnisvolle Kreisgräben. Horn-Wien: Verlag Berger. pp. 10–18.

TOSH, J. (1991) – The pursuit of history: aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern history. (Second edition.) London: Longman.

RICHARDS, C. ed. (2013) – Building the great stone circles of the north. Oxford: Windgather Press.

TURNER, V. (1969) Harmondsworth: Penguin.

ROBB, J. (2007) – The early Mediterranean village: agency, material culture and social change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

–

The

ritual

process.

WHITTLE, A. (1977) – Earlier Neolithic enclosures in north-west Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. No. 43. pp. 329–48.

ROBB, J. (2010) – Beyond agency. World Archaeology. No. 42. pp. 493–520.

WHITTLE, A. (2006) – The temporality of enclosure. Journal of Iberian Archaeology. No. 8. pp. 15–24.

ROBB, J. AND HARRIS, O.J.T. eds (2013) – The body in history: Europe from the Palaeolithic to the future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WHITTLE, A. (2011) – Grand narratives and shorter stories. In A. HADJIKOUMIS, E. ROBINSON AND S. VINER eds (2011) – The dynamics of Neolithisation in Europe: studies in honour of Andrew Sherratt. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 10–24.

ROBB, J. AND PAUKETAT, T. (2103) – From moments to millennia: theorizing scale and change in human history, In J. ROBB AND T. PAUKETAT eds (2013) – Big histories, human lives: tackling problems of scale in archaeology. Sante Fe: School for Advanced Research Press. pp. 3–33.

WHITTLE, A. (2013) – Enclosures in the making: knowledge, creativity and temporality. In A. Anders and G. Kulcsár eds. (2013) – Moments in time: papers

10

presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th birthday. Budapest. pp. 457–66. WHITTLE, A., BAYLISS, A. AND HEALY, F. (2010) – Event and short-term process: times for the early Neolithic of southern Britain. In D.J. BOLENDER ed. (2010) – Eventful archaeologies: new approaches to social transformation in the archaeological record. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 68–87. WHITTLE, A., BAYLISS, A. AND HEALY, F. (2011) – Neolithic narratives: British and Irish enclosures in their timescapes. In A. WHITTLE, F. HEALY, AND A. BAYLISS (2011) – Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 848–914. WHITTLE, A., HEALY, F. AND BAYLISS, A. (2011) – Gathering time: dating the early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

11

Figure 1 - Sets of interpretations of activities at and dimensions of enclosures, made possible by precise timing.

1

Often attributed to Le Roy Ladurie 1988, but more reliably to an article by him in Le Figaro Littéraire, June 25, 1998: Hickey 2009.

12

remains and crouched inhumations are also found. Cremations, however, are rare. These sites, particularly with wooden palisades, and taken together with the timber facades and mortuary structure arrangements beneath long barrows (Field 2006) clearly indicate that wood was an important building material for both domestic buildings, ritual monuments and enclosures from early in the insular Neolithic. The enclosure palisades at causewayed enclosures are, however, comparatively slight though admittedly would have nevertheless formed fairly secure boundaries. (Fig 1) In the middle and later Neolithic, however, timber enclosures achieve truly monumental proportions.

ENCLOSURES & BURIAL IN MIDDLE & LATE NEOLITHIC BRITAIN Alex Gibson

ABSTRACT

Although the majority of iconic enclosures of the British Late Neolithic begin in the Middle Neolithic, they date only to the end of that period (Fig 7). Only the short-lived and enigmatic cursus monuments can be seen to be discretely Middle Neolithic and even then mainly in England. Causewayed Enclosures may well have continued to have been visited in the Middle Neolithic and depositions made there in the ditches, but they were in decline and certainly they were no longer being constructed. Of the other enclosure types, the earth, stone and timber circles are current for almost 1500 years, many seeing remodelling and transformation and two or more monument types may occur sequentially on the same site. The early palisade enclosures also emerge at the start of the 3rd millennium and though broadly associated with Impressed Ware, they continue to be constructed up until the arrival of Beakers as demonstrated at Mount Pleasant. All enclosures share a connection with mortuary ritual, usually with cremation burials, though inhumations are also found at henges and timber circles. Perhaps, however, only Stonehenge, the primary mound phase at Duggleby Howe and some of the Middle Neolithic Thames Valley sites can be regarded as cremation cemeteries sensu stricto. Elsewhere the cremation deposits are often small and incomplete suggesting that rather than ‘burials’ they represent the structured deposition of human remains. It suggests that the deposition of varying amounts of human bone whether representing ancestors, enemies, sacrifices or even people alien to their society was important to their beliefs but that mainstream formal corpse disposal may not have involved burial.

1.

Figure 1: Causewayed Enclosures at Orsett and Haddenham defined by ditches and palisades with an illustration of palisade dimensions based on excavated examples.

2. MIDDLE NEOLITHIC CURSUS MONUMENTS A short-lived phenomenon datable to the Early to Middle Neolithic are cursus monuments. Again the earliest appear to be post-defined enclosures in Scotland (Loveday 2006: Thomas 2006) and they may owe their origins to domestic architecture. However, some of these sites achieve remarkable proportions and are well laid out. The classic cursus at Aston-on-Trent in Derbyshire, measures some 2km long by 100m wide whilst the Greater Stonehenge cursus measures c.2.7km long by c.110m wide (Loveday 2006). Despite their overall size, these monuments were often quite slight with ditches only around 2m wide by 1m deep. Often described as processional ways, these monuments appear to have been no such thing. Their entrances are never at the terminals but rather occur along the longer sides and often there are several pairs of opposed entrances at the larger sites (e.g. Aston-on-Trent and Springfield, Essex). It seems as if they were for passing across rather than along and the fact that many lie parallel to rivers may suggest a boundary role (Fig 2). Even at Stonehenge, the Greater Cursus with its lateral causeways can be seen to act as a northern border to the immediate Stonehenge environment whilst the West, South and East borders are

EARLY NEOLITHIC

The well-known causewayed enclosures (Oswald et al. 2001) were the enclosures of choice in the earlier Neolithic and have been shown to have appeared in Britain in the 38thC cal BC thanks to a recent programme of dating, re-dating and Bayseian modelling (Whittle et al. 2011). Their demise is less easy to date but finds of Middle and Later Neolithic pottery as well as Beakers suggest that they continued to be visited even if their original functions and roles had changed. Importantly a number of sites were bounded not just by interrupted banks and ditches, but also by wooden stockades, for example, Orsett in Essex, Haddenham in Cambridgeshire (Oswald et al 2001) as well as Magheraboy, Co. Sligo, Ireland (Danaher 2010). Burials within the ditches of causewayed enclosures interestingly include not only the multiple disarticulated remains so common in the earlier Neolithic, but fragmentary remains, partially articulated

13

al 1993: Wainwright 1979), West Kennet in Wiltshire (Whittle 1997), and Blackshouse Burn, Lanarkshire (Lelong & Pollard 1998). Palisade enclosures have been summarised by the present writer (Gibson 1998; 2002) and the Scottish evidence has been described by Noble & Brophy (2011) so no further description is needed here save to suggest that these sites are often associated with cremation burial, they often attract later ritual monuments, and they do not appear to have been domestic. Perimeters are defined by substantial wooden posts, sometimes separated by gaps (Forteviot, Meldon Bridge, Walton) and sometimes with close-set or contiguous posts (Hindwell, Mount Pleasant, West Kennet).

defined by linear barrow cemeteries. Burials at cursus monuments are rare indeed and Loveday (2006) has also pointed out the almost total lack of human remains at excavated ‘mortuary enclosures’; rectilinear enclosures clearly related to the cursus monuments. Large in terms of area but comparatively slight in terms of their earthwork perimeters, cursus monuments were nevertheless enduring in some landscapes, especially in prehistory. Many now survive only as cropmarks having been obliterated by centuries of arable agriculture but the Stonehenge Greater Cursus can still be seen to survive as an earthwork (Fig 2) and the Drayton Cursus was fossilised by a Romano-British field system indicating that it was still visible some 3000 years after its construction (Barclay et al 2003): this indicates that though slight, the monument’s setting and importance were probably enduring.

Radiocarbon dates from the few excavated sites suggest that the spaced-post type were the earlier type dating from the 29th/28th C cal BC and, where they have been sufficiently excavated, they have produced Middle Neolithic Impressed Ware pottery. Palisade enclosures were still being used in the late 3rd millennium. Reconstruction of these sites is difficult and largely a matter of personal preference (Fig 4). Noble and Brophy (2011) prefer to see unmodified tree-trunks and living trees making up a permeable boundary, Burgess (1976) prefers a closed boundary of posts linked by horizontal timbers whilst closed boundaries are indisputable at sites with perimeters enclosed by contiguous posts (Mount Pleasant). Even the spaced post types have formalised entrances. At Walton, Forteviot and Meldon Bridge, narrow external avenues lead up to the perimeter. These could hardly have been defensive as, made of wood, they would have just encouraged attack by fire. They are, however, proscriptive in that they demand entry by a set route probably by no more than 2 or 3 people abreast. These entrances therefore control entry and for this reason the present writer prefers to envisage closed perimeters making these sites closed and private places to which some sections of the population had open access and probably also the authority to control the access of others.

G

H

Figure 2 – Cursus Monuments. A – Drayton St Leonard, B – Stadhampton, C – Benson, D – Drayton South, E – Drayton North, F – Dorchester. G – Walton Court, H – Stonehenge Greater cursus, south ditch looking W towards Fargo Plantation. A-F from Loveday 2006 (courtesy of Roy Loveday), G from Gibson 1999. 3.

Though fairly ephemeral on the ground, now comprising ploughed-out negative features, these enclosures must have been substantial undertakings involving considerable investments in labour. With perimeters enclosing areas of between 5 and 10Ha, the monuments would have required substantial woodland resources. The largest, at Hindwell, enclosed some 34Ha and must have used about 1400 mature oak trees (Gibson 1999; 2002) though recent research at the site has suggested that it may not have been totally enclosed (Britnell & Jones 2012).

LATER NEOLITHIC

3.1 Palisade Enclosures Three types of palisade enclosure can be attributed to the Middle or Later Neolithic in Britain. These are so far quite rare although it may be their size that in part masks their visibility: they all survive as cropmarks and rarely do they occur in a single field so that they are not just subject to the usual constraints of aerial photography but also to different crop regimes. Nevertheless about a dozen or so of these sites have been discovered (Fig 3) and excavations have been undertaken at Meldon Bridge, Peebleshire (Speak & Burgess 1999), Forteviot, Perthshire (Noble & Brophy 2011), Hindwell and Walton, both in Powys (Gibson 1999; Britnell & Jones 2012), Dunragit, Dumfriess (Thomas 2004), Greyhound Yard and Mount Pleasant, both in Dorset (Woodward et

The post-size estimates (Fig 4) are based on archaeological data documenting the diameter of the post from the post-pipe remains in the postholes and using a 1:3 ratio for the below-ground:above-ground elements which may even be an underestimate (Mercer 1981, 146153). The graphic representation clearly shows that these

14

enclosures, whether open or closed, must nevertheless have presented truly imposing monuments. So far, evidence for burials at these sites is limited to those with spaced-post perimeters such as Meldon Bridge (Speak & Burgess 1999) and Forteviot (Noble & Brophy 2011).

Whatever role they played at this time, if indeed it is not more than just amazing coincidence, has left no archaeological trace (Gibson 2002).

A

At the former site there was a period of pit digging activity involving the deposition of Middle Neolithic Impressed Ware prior to the construction of the perimeter. The enclosure phase has been dated to c.31002600 cal BC and a radiocarbon date from charcoal associated with a deposit of cremated bone from a child of between 3 and 8 years old suggests that at least some of the cremation deposits may have been contemporary with the palisade. There are problems, however as the facility to directly date cremated bone was not available to the excavators and as a result the date for burial K21 was from charcoal and has a large margin of error. Other cremation burials, some dating to the Bronze Age over 1000 years after the construction of the perimeter and as much as 2000 years later than the pre-enclosure activity, attest the importance and longevity of place.

C

B

Figure 4 – Reconstructions of Palisaded Enclosures. A - Meldon Bridge (Burgess, 1976: courtesy of Colin Burgess); B – The entrance to Forteviot (Noble & Brophy, 2011: courtesy of Alice Watterson); C – The dimensions of the perimeter posts of Palisaded Enclosures based on a below ground: above ground ratio of 1:3 (Gibson, 1998).

3.2 Earth Circles Earth Circles or Henges are often regarded as the iconic monuments of the British Later Neolithic and Bonze Age. It depends, however, on the definition of henge. The variety of earth circles has recently been discussed (Gibson 2012) ranging from small interrupted ditched enclosures, single entranced enclosures and double entranced sites (Fig 5). Some may have had internal banks, some external while the position of banks remains elusive at others. Certainly in the second half of the fourth millennium BC a range of circular sites had started to emerge, often associated with the deposition of cremated human remains. The double-ditched and penannular ring-ditches at Imperial College Sportsground, West London, were associated with cremation burials and date to the end of the 4th millennium BC (Barclay et al. 2009). At Dorchester on Thames, Oxfordshire, a series of small ring ditches were associated with cremations and Middle Neolithic artefacts of the type already described. A penannular enclosure at Sarn-y-bryn-caled in Powys was also associated with cremation burials and Impressed ware pottery (although only small sherds) and has been radiocarbon dated to the 30th C cal BC (Gibson 2010a). The outer ditch at Horton, Berkshire, that enclosed the inner penannular ditch and which also produced the dated Impressed Ware vessel mentioned above was filled between 3315-2920 cal BC (Ford & Pine 2003) and the first phase of Stonehenge

Figure 3 – Palisade enclosures (Gibson, 1998). This pattern is repeated at Forteviot. The perimeter was constructed at the beginning of the 3rd millennium apparently shortly after a period of pit digging and the deposition of cremated human bone (Noble & Brophy 2011) however activity at the site continued well into the Bronze Age as iot also did at Meldon Bridge. Once again the permanence of place seems important here. This can be taken further and it has been suggested elsewhere that the proximity of Roman marching camps to many of these enclosures might suggest that they were on important routeways and may even have still held socioreligious significance at the time of the Roman conquest.

15

has demonstrated that the site was in use for a considerable period of time but that there are considerable gaps in the history of the site (Gibson 2010b). Founded around 3000 cal BC and associated with foundation deposits of cremated human bone, the stone circle saw a renewed phase of burial activity after some 600-700 years just before 2000 cal BC. A third phase of burial can be dated to the 18th-17th Centuries cal BC. This clearly demonstrates how inaccurate dating a site from internal features can be.

marked by the bank, ditch and Aubrey Holes has been dated to 3000-2920 cal BC (Cleal et al 1995). These monuments clearly fall towards the end of the Middle Neolithic and herald the beginning of the Later Neolithic – Early Bronze Age continuum.

This can also be demonstrated at some timber circles. The central cremation burial was clearly a secondary insertion at Sarn-y-bryn-caled in Powys (Gibson 2010a) whilst at North Mains in Perthshire, the timber circle predated the henge monument and central burials by as much as several centuries (Barclay 2005). The henge monument would also seem to be later than the timber circles at Woodhenge in Wiltshire where a prolonged sequence has been suggested (Gibson 2012).

Figure 5 – The variety of Earth Circles or ‘henges’. The ditches are in the darker shade of grey. There are some earlier dates for circular ditched enclosures suggesting an origin in the second half of the 4th millennium such as Shepperton, Surrey (Jones 2008) and Llandegai A, Gwynedd (Lynch & Musson 2004). However scrutiny of the dates from these early sites reveals that they are derived from old wood, bulked samples and often have poor stratigraphical integrity (Gibson 2012). When the inaccurate dates are abandoned then a pattern emerges suggesting that the singleentranced sites span the entire Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and are generally associated with deposits of cremated human bone. By contrast, the double-entranced enclosures appear to have been contemporary with Beakers though admittedly, this is based on very few reliable dates (Gibson 2012). There may also be central burials associated with the earthwork construction as at North Mains, in Perthshire (Barclay 2005), Balfarg in Fife (Mercer 1981; Gibson 2010b) and perhaps also Woodhenge, Wiltshire (Gibson 2012).

Figure 7 – currency of enclosures.

3.3 Stone and Timber Circles Stone and timber circles are another manifestation of the Later Neolithic circular monument tradition (fig 6). The former are notoriously difficult to date as dating the construction of the site relies on suitable material being deliberately placed on the base of the stoneholes. Timber circles are rather easier to date providing that the timber uprights have been charred prior to being placed in the posthole. Radiocarbon dating of both types of site suffers from poor sample selection often using residual material or material from the centre of the circles which has little if any stratigraphic relationship with the uprights. Radiocarbon dating of the stone circle at Balbirnie, Fife

Figure 6 – Stone and timber circle.

16

Although the majority of iconic enclosures of the British Late Neolithic begin in the Middle Neolithic, they date only to the end of that period (Fig 7). Only the short-lived and enigmatic cursus monuments can be seen to be discretely Middle Neolithic and even then mainly in England. Causewayed Enclosures may well have continued to have been visited in the Middle Neolithic and depositions made there in the ditches, but they were in decline and certainly they were no longer being constructed. Of the other enclosure types, the earth, stone and timber circles are current for almost 1500 years, many seeing remodelling and transformation and two or more monument types may occur sequentially on the same site. The early palisade enclosures also emerge at the start of the 3rd millennium and though broadly associated with Impressed Ware, they continue to be constructed up until the arrival of Beakers as demonstrated at Mount Pleasant. All enclosures share a connection with mortuary ritual, usually with cremation burials, though inhumations are also found at henges and timber circles. Perhaps, however, only Stonehenge, the primary mound phase at Duggleby Howe and some of the Middle Neolithic Thames Valley sites can be regarded as cremation cemeteries sensu stricto. Elsewhere the cremation deposits are often small and incomplete suggesting that rather than ‘burials’ they represent the structured deposition of human remains. It suggests that the deposition of varying amounts of human bone whether representing ancestors, enemies, sacrifices or even people alien to their society was important to their beliefs but that mainstream formal corpse disposal may not have involved burial.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES BARCLAY, A., LAMBRICK, G., MOORE, J.; ROBINSON, M. (2003) – Lines in the Landscape. Cursus Monuments in the Upper Thames Valley. Thames valley Landscapes Monograph 15. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. BARCLAY, G. (2005) – The ‘henge’ and ‘hengiform’ in Scotland. In V. CUMMINGS & M. PANNETT eds (2005) – Set in Stone: New Approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 8194. BRITNELL, W. & JONES, N. (2012) – Once upon a time in the West: Neolithic enclosures in the Walton Basin. In W. BRITNELL, J.; SILVESTER, R. J. eds. (2012) – Reflections on the Past – Essays in Honour of Frances Lynch, 48-77. Cardiff: Cambrian Archaeological Association. BURGESS, C. (1976) – Meldon Bridge: a Neolithic defended promontory complex near Peebles. Burgess, C.; Miket, R. Eds. (1976) – Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC. BAR 33. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. pp. 151-79. CLEAL, R.M.J., WALKER, K.E.; MONTAGUE, R. (1995) – Stonehenge in its Landscape. London: English Heritage. DANAHER, E. (2010) – Monumental Beginnings. The Archaeology of the N4 Sligo Inner Relief Road. Dublin: NRA Scheme Monograph 1. FIELD, D. (2006) – Earthen Long Barrows. Stroud: Tempus. FORD, S. & PINE, J. (2003) – Neolithic Ring Ditches and Roman Landscape Features at Horton (1989-1996). In PRESTON, S. ed. (2003) – Prehistoric, Roman and Saxon Sites in Eastern Berkshire: Excavations 1989-199. Monograph 2. Reading: Thames Valley Archaeological Services. pp. 13-86. GIBSON, A.M. (1998) – Hindwell and the Neolithic Palisades of Britain and Ireland. In A. GIBSON & D. SIMPSON eds (1998) – Prehistoric Ritual and Religion: Essays in Honour of Aubrey Burl. Stroud: Sutton Publishing. pp. 68-79. GIBSON, A.M. (1999) – The Walton Basin Project: Excavation and Survey in a Prehistoric landscape 19937. Research Report 118. York: Council for British Archaeology. GIBSON, A.M. (2002) – The later Neolithic palisade enclosures of the United Kingdom. In GIBSON, A. ed (2002) – Behind Wooden Walls: Neolithic Palisaded Enclosures in Europe. BAR International Series 1013. Oxford: BAR Publishing. pp. 5-23.

17

GIBSON, A.M. (2010a) – New dates for Sarn-y-bryncaled, Powys, Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol. 76. pp. 351-6.

WAINWRIGHT, G. (1979) – Mount Pleasant, Dorset: Excavations 1970-71. Research Report 37. London: Society of Antiquaries of London.

GIBSON, A.M. (2010b) – Dating Balbirnie: recent radiocarbon dates from the stone circle and cairn at Balbirnie, Fife and a review of its place in the overall Balfarg/Balbirnie site sequence. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Vol. 140. pp. 51-77.

WHITTLE, A.W.R. (1997) – Sacred Mound, Holy Rings. Silbury Hill and the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures: A Later Neolithic Complex in North Wiltshire. Monograph 74. Oxford: Oxbow Books. WHITTLE, A.W.R, HEALY, F. & BAYLISS, A. (2011) – Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

GIBSON, A.M. (2012) – An introduction to the study of Henges: time for a change? In GIBSON, A. ed (2012) – Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent Studies in Britain and Europe. BAR International Series 2440. Oxford: BAR Publishing. pp. 1-20.

WOODWARD, P.J., DAVIES, S.M. & GRAHAM, A.H. (1993) – Excavations at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester, 1981-84. Monograph 12. Dorchester: Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society.

JONES, P. (2008) – A Neolithic Ring-ditch and Later Prehistoric Features at Staines Road farm, Shepperton. Monograph 1. Woking: Spoilheap publications. LELONG, O. & POLLARD, T. (1998) – The excavation and survey of prehistoric enclosures at Blackshouse Burn, Lanarkshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Vol. 128. pp. 12–53. LOVEDAY, R. (2006) – Inscribed Across Landscape: The Cursus Enigma. Stroud: Tempus.

the

LYNCH, F. & MUSSON, C. (2004) – A Prehistoric and early Medieval complex at Llandegai, near Bangor, North Wales. Archaeologia Cambrensis. Vol. 150/2001. pp. 17142. MERCER, R. (1981) – The excavation of a late Neolithic henge-type enclosure at Balfarg, Markinch, Fife, 1977– 78. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Vol. 111. pp. 63–171. NOBLE, G. & BROPHY, K. (2011) – Big Enclosures: The Later Neolithic Palisaded Enclosures of Scotland in their Northwestern European Context. European Journal of Archaeology. No. 14(1-2). pp. 60-87. OSWALD, A., DYER, C. & BARBER, M. (2001) – The Creation of Monuments. Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles. Swindon: English Heritage. SPEAK, S. & BURGESS, C. (1999) – Meldon Bridge: a centre of the third millennium BC in Peeblesshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. No. 129. pp. 1-118. THOMAS, J. (2004) – The later Neolithic architectural repertoire: the case of the Dunragit complex. In CLEAL, R.; POLLARD, J. (eds), Monuments and Material Culture. Papers in Honour of an Avebury archaeologist: Isobel Smith. Salisbury: Hobnob Press. pp. 98–108. THOMAS, J. (2006) – On the origins and development of cursus monuments in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Vol. 72. pp. 229-242.

18

In the Centre-Ouest of France, the archaeological research turns as for her in contrast. In spite of shy debuts, emblematic "camps" or ditched enclosures of the Recent Neolithic were identified from the XIXth century. The exploration in 1882 of the camp of Peu-Richard (Thénac, Charente-Maritime) by the baron Eschassériaux reports for the first time the wealth of these settlements (Eschassériaux, 1884). From then on, enclosures become a privileged piece of research, making at first the object of collections of surface and punctually not extensive excavations. It is that in the middle of the XXth century when the discoveries accelerate as multiply the archaeological operations. The development of the air prospecting in the 1960s, at the instigation of J. Dassié then M. Marsac, was also the opportunity to find number of additional causewayed enclosures. Interventions of bigger scale are led on ditches of enclosures, recently from survey archaeological digs.

THE PLACE OF HUMAN REMAINS AND FUNERARY PRACTICES IN RECENT NEOLITHIC DITCHED AND WALLED ENCLOSURES IN THE WEST OF FRANCE (IV- III MILL. BC) Audrey BLANCHARD*, Jean-Noël GUYODO*, Ludovic SOLER** *Université de Nantes, UMR 6566 CReAAH, Laboratoire LARA Département Histoire de l’art et Archéologie Chemin de la Censive-du-Tertre BP 81227 FR- 44312 NANTES Cedex 3 ** Service Archéologique du Département de la Charente-Maritime, UMR 5199 PACEA, 85 Boulevard de la République CS 600003 FR- 17076 LA ROCHELLE

1.

IVTH-IIIRD BC: VARIABILITY FUNERAL PRACTICES

OF

THE

1.1 Armorican Massif [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

The variety and the heterogeneousness of sites (domestical, funeral) made difficult the apprehension of the cultural context of the Recent Neolithic (3800/37002900/2800 BC). The definition of the cultural groups, in particular on the Armorican Massif, is also very recent (Blanchard, 2012 ; figure 8) and results from the confrontation of the material sets, lithic and ceramic in particular. The works lead to think of a division of the territory and a regionalization of the social orders, of the cultural entities of the Middle Neolithic bursting in a multitude of local to regional groups. In the Northwest of France, three chronological phases were distinguished for the Recent Neolithic (figure 9). The Recent Neolithic I (3800/3700-3400/3300 BC) is characterized by the group of Groh-Collé as well as by the ceramic style Conguel. This chronological phase sends back more or less in the Centre-Ouest of France to Matignons. The Recent Neolithic II (3400/3300-3100/3000 BC) is little documented but Groh-Collé seems to continue, whereas appears the very first productions Kerugou. The CentreOuest is then dominated by the Peu-Richard. The Recent Neolithic III corresponds to the hinge between the IVth and IIIrd millenniums BC, which of none would qualify as Late Neolithic I. Groh-Collé but especially Kerugou characterize this moment whereas Artenac makes its appearance in the Centre-Ouest of France. Each of these chronological phases is also characterized by types of specific deposits. The domestic contexts vary. If ditched enclosures exist during all the Recent Neolithic up to the Late Neolithic, other types of settlements (banked and walled enclosures) emerge in the Recent Neolithic II on the only Armorican Massif. Human remains in these various contexts and these two regions affable to wonder about their meanings.

ABSTRACT It is a commonplace to call to remind the precocity of the archaeological researches of the Northwest of France, in particular in Brittany. The preservation in rise of monuments, quite particularly megalithic, intrigues very early travelers, antique dealers and collectors, to such a point that certain monuments are widely described from the XVIIIth century. It is however necessary to wait for the middle of the XIXth century to know the first real archaeological explorations. At the instigation of striking faces as Chevalier De Fréminville, A. and P. Du Châtellier, then Z. Le Rouzic, F. Gaillard, M. et St.-J. Péquart, the excavations of monuments and Breton archeological sites are numerous, in particular around the peninsula of Quiberon (Morbihan). The attention focuses then on all kind of funeral, in particular megalithic, architectures to the point that this frenzy touches the hysteria when at the very beginning of the XXth century, M. Baudoin, in Vendée, boasts of excavating a menhir in the morning and a dolmen in the afternoon. For the current archaeologists, the origin of the culture material, in particular the rare human bones, is from now on in numerous cases priceless. Last half of the XXth century is the time of the first syntheses on the megalithic architectures (L’Helgouac’h, 1965) and of well documented excavations, reference as those of the megalithic complex of Er Grah / La Table des Marchands (Locmariaquer, Morbihan; Le Roux, 2006; Cassen, 2009). Finally, it is necessary to remind that neolithic settlements is a real part of research, generator of excavations and syntheses, only since about twenty years.

On the South of the Armorican Massif, our knowledge on the funeral practices of the Recent Neolithic limit

19

themselves, for lack of isolated pits or other sites with funeral vocation, with the deposits practised in the megalithic monuments, for which it is however advisable to remain careful (figure 3). If lithic and ceramic sets are not there rare, the human rests are as for them more exceptional, as for example the passage grave A of PortBlanc (Saint-Pierre-Quiberon; Gaillard, 1883; Guyodo and Blanchard, submitted) delivers at the same time human dated bones (3930-3660 BC; Schulting, 2005) and bowls clearly Groh-Collé. In it are added the difficulties put by the age of the searches and the available reports which do not still allow to specify the origin (type of monuments, localization in the monument, stratigraphical correspondence, etc.) or the dating of the collected sets (for a cultural attribution). The megalithic monuments, open structures for the greater part, are frequently re-used on the Armorican Massif, both in the Recent and Late Neolithic until the most recent periods (Campaniforme, Bronze Age, Antiquity), what often provoked disturbances and other mixtures of vestiges. Besides new deposits within the monument (chamber, corridor), these successive passages also distinguish themselves in front of the monument, even within the cairn like at La Table des Marchands (Locmariaquer, Morbihan; Cassen and François, 2009). Re-use are so frequent, just like the numerous passage graves set up during the Middle Neolithic and always used in the Recent Neolithic (figure 7). It is in particular the case, to quote only some examples, for monuments like Kercado (Carnac, Morbihan; Le Rouzic, 1927; Galles, 1863), ManéGrageux (Carnac, Morbihan; Abbé Luco, 1881), grave H of Butten-er-Hah (Groix, Morbihan; Pontois, 1928) or still the dolmen with two corridors of Run Aour (Plomeur, Finistère; L’Helgouac’h, 1965). Sometimes, these re-use come along with modifications of the internal space. So, of rare underpinned (Gautier, 2008; Huet, 2008), sometimes disputed (Laporte, 2010), and multiple tiled floors - considered as markers of various levels of attendance of the monument - is frequently indicated in the literature, it from the end of the XIXth century (Kercado to Carnac, Morbihan; Galles, 1863; Port-Blanc to Saint-Pierre-Quiberon; Gaillard, 1883; Guyodo and Blanchard, submitted). These sites thus establish strong territorial markers the attraction of which does not contradict itself during the recent Prehistory. Some of them, built during the Middle Neolithic, are in the center of new domestic settlements during Recent and Late Neolithic: the banked enclosures of Le Lizo (Carnac), from the end of the Recent Neolithic, is implanted around an older dolmen still used (Rouzic, 1933; Lecerf, 1986).

1962), the passage grave C of Butten-er-Hah (Groix, Morbihan; Pontois, 1928) or still the monument A of Port-Blanc (Saint-Pierre-Quiberon), later than the monument B both in term of architecture and sets (Guyodo and Blanchard, submitted). Although some of the said "evolved" monuments (square grave, grave with side entrance, V form grave or still gallery graves) can be attributed to the Recent Neolithic, it seems more assured to attribute them to the only phases II and III of the Recent Neolithic (Kerugou). A big architectural diversity is then born: dolmens with a T corridor as for example that from Kerugou (Plomeur, Finistère; Du Châtellier, 1877; L’Helgouac’h, 1965), graves with side entrance (Beaumont to Saint-Laurentsur-Oust, Morbihan; Tinevez, 1988), square graves (Luffang to Crac’h, Morbihan; Le Rouzic, 1898 ; and Mané-Bihan of Mané-er-Holh to Locoal-Mendon, Morbihan; Rouzic, 1899), V form graves such Crugou (Plovan, Finistère; L’Helgouac’h, 1965), Run to Treffiagat (Finistère; Du Châtellier, 1877), simple dolmen without corridor of Lost-er-Lenn (Grand-Champ, Morbihan; Lecornec, 1972) or still gallery graves such those from Kerbannalec (Beuzec-Cap-Sizun, Finistère; Du Châtellier, 1880; L’Helgouac’h, 1965) or from Bilgroix (Arzon, Morbihan; Lecornec, 1996). The funeral gestures are more difficult to approach. The rare human rests discovered in these monuments indicate body deposits but also cremations and so allow no generalization. The collective grave appears as a well represented practice, however not excluding the possibility of individual sepultaries, still not protected or not approached by the archaeology.

1.2 Vs Centre-Ouest of France In the Centre-Ouest of France, the more important existence of human remains allows a finer approach of the funeral gestures which reflect then a bigger diversity still difficult to arrest. The reoccupation of monuments appears as a constant in the Recent Neolithic, in particular Peu-Richard (Burnez, 1976; Joussaume, 1981). Passage graves are regularly re-used such the angoumoisin dolmen of Châteauroux (Tonnay-Charente, Charente-Maritime; Burnez and Gabet, 1966), the dolmen F2 of Bougon (Deux-Sèvres; Mohen and Scarre, 2002), the dolmens A1 and A6 of Chenon (Charente; Gauron and Massaud, 1983), the dolmen II of Puyraveau (SaintLéger-de-Montbrun, Deux-Sèvres; Ard, 2011) as well as a cist of Dissay (La Jardelle, Vienne; Pautreau and Farago-Szekeres, 2006). Although one "look with difficulty [in the Centre-Ouest] for the megalithic monuments which were later built 3500 BC" (Joussaume and Laporte, 2006, p. 320), some mostly indefinite architectures can be linked with the Recent Neolithic. For example, the monuments of La Pille Verte and of Pâtisaux-Boeufs (Mauzé-Thouarsais, Deux-Sèvres) deliver a Recent to Late Neolithic set (Germond, 1998) just like the possible dolmen of Fontiaux (Raix, Charente; Burnez, 1966). With the documentation of these monuments, it is

To attribute the construction of a monument to a period and/or a cultural group is very often difficult. Nevertheless the study and/or the good description of the sets collected by the archeologists allow some proposals. Monuments attributed to the Recent Neolithic mark a continuity with the Middle Neolithic. It is indeed about passage graves from which the forms postpone few previous architectures (Boujot and Cassen, 1992): it is the case of the grave with short corridor of Conguel (Quiberon, Morbihan; Gaillard, 1892; L’Helgouac’h,

20

difficult to know if it is about grave collective primary or if these monuments welcomed only certain parts of the skeleton.

Burnez and al., 1999) and La Grande Prairie (Vibrac, Charente-Maritime; Burnez, 1994); for some in the direct contact of the river as Réjolles (Biron, CharenteMaritime; Bouchet and al., 1990) and Le Port du Lys (Salignac, Charente-Maritime). A big architectural variability exists for these structures. These ditches are regularly maintained, re-used, reorganized even for some added to the Late Neolithic, leading a long occupation of these sites. Enclosure overlappings were revealed in the Centre-Ouest, in particular in Matignons (Julliac-le-Coq, Charente; Burnez and Case, 1966) but also on more northern sites as La Chevêtelière (Saint-Mathurin/L’Ile d’Olonne, Vendée; Péridy, 1999). Internal divisions of the space enclosed by ditches were also punctually revealings in Le Chaillot (La Jard, Charente-Maritime; Bouchet and Burnez, 1991). If most of the entrances are simple, arrangements (posthole pits letting suppose woody superstructures, chicanes, "pinces de crabe") sometimes complicate the system of access. If chicanes correspond to changes of orientation of the main ditches, "pinces de crabe" are real additions of sections in the main plans. In the fillings of ditches, the stratigraphy sometimes let suppose the existence of additional bank of stones and/or earth, collapsed in ditches as to ChampDurand (Nieul-sur-l’Autise, Vendée; Joussaume, 1981, 2012) or Le Taillis – Les Arnoux (Préguillac, CharenteMaritime; Rousseau and Nibodeau, 2009). Also, fences are sometimes associated with lines of ditches (Les Prises for example) or are even implanted within the latter (Coteau du Breuil, François, Deux-Sèvres; Kerouanton, 2008). If the researches concern mostly the ditched enclosures which deliver the biggest quantity of material, the existence of internal domestic structures is clearly attested by the various pits and postholes ones: Le Coteau du Breuil (François, Deux-Sèvres) counts a plan of house (20 m of length, 3 rows of posts; Kerouanton, 2008) as well as of numerous other pits and postholes. The plan of a rectangular house of 10,50 x 21 m with two rows of side posts and a series of five rows of longitudinal posts was also highlighted on the site of La Tricherie (Beaumont, Vienne; Louboutin and al., 1998). In the same way, pits of wedging of posts were recently identified at Bellevue (Chenommet, Charente; Ard and al., 2009).

Sepulchral caves also exist in the Centre-Ouest of France. Their use seems to appear from the Middle Neolithic (Bailloud and al., 2008; Boulestin and al., 2002) and to continue well much later (Boulestin and Gomez de Soto, 1998). In the Recent Neolithic, the collective grave in context of cave is attested in Charente (Trou Amiault, La Rochette ; de Souris, 2007; Maison Blanche, SaintProjet ; Boulestin and al., 2002) and of a way less assured in Charente-Maritime (Bois-Bertaud, Saint-Léger-enPons; Burnez, 1976). The primary burial seems to dominate and sometimes comes along with reorganizations even of takings post-decomposition. Burials in pit are rarer. In Les Châtelliers du Vieil-Auzay (Auzay, Vendée; Large and al., 2004), where the treatment of bodies is particular, a pit in the most probably fitted out walls welcomes two individuals lengthened on the side, set, with superior and lower limbs folded up. This pit, in the same way as two others, was probably covered with a barrow. The burial thus seems to be the most wide-spread practice. The collective graves are frequent but the individual and/or double graves are also attested, more particularly around the Marais Poitevin. The reoccupation of megalithic monuments is common. Some cases of collective graves in caves are added to it in the continental domain. The megalithic monuments potentially built by the Recent Neolithic groups are little assured and are situated for their majority in the North of Poitou.

2.

HUMAN REMAINS IN DOMESTIC CONTEXTS

2.1 Centre-Ouest of France In a parallel to these funeral practices, on the whole classic, funeral structures and human rests meet regularly on the domestic settlements and establish unmistakably a shape of treatment of the deaths. These vestiges are particularly frequent in Peu-Richard contexts, in Charentes and around the Marais Poitevin. Besides the cultural factor, this diversity of the funeral practices can be understandable by a punctual adaptation to a series of constraints (availability of raw materials needed for the megalithic construction, accessibility to caves, etc.). On the other hand, this report is closely linked to a state of the research, the attention of which concerned since well for a long time, in this sector, to the ditched enclosures.

The human rests are not rare in these ditched enclosures, whether it is in the South of Vendée (Le Jardinet, Les Magnils-Reigniers, Sicard and al., 2002; Champ-Durand, Nieul-sur-l’Autise, Joussaume, 1981, 2012; Les Loups, Echiré, Deux-Sèvres, Burnez, 1996) or in the South of the Charente river (Peu-Richard to Thénac, Le Mourez to Berneuil, Charente-Maritime ; Matignons to Julliac-leCoq, Font-Rase to Barbezieux, Charente, etc.; Soler in Laporte, 2009; Soler submitted). They are several types: isolated bones, lots of skulls (bottom of a ditch at ChampDurand), lots of bone with or without anatomical coherence, complete skeletons in connection or not. It is mostly about simple scattered osseous rests met both inside the enclosures and in the fillings of ditches. It is sometimes difficult to link them with real graves, especially as some of these fragments are sometimes in association with food rejections. Nevertheless, certain

Since the middle of the XXth century, the archaeological operations (prospecting and excavations) multiplied in the Centre-Ouest of France, quite particularly on ditched enclosures. Most of these take place on natural eminences although setting-up with side of hillside and in bottom of valley exists to La Mercière (Jarnac, Charente-Maritime;

21

authors see deliberate deposits of fleshless bones (Boujot and Cassen, 1996). Some portions of body still in connection met punctually underlie a decomposition in position of individuals in structures hollow (Mourez, Berneuil, Charente-Maritime; Deschamps, 1902) or still in arrangements in rise, adjoining to ditches. Real sepulchral arrangements also exist in some ditched enclosures like Champ-Durand (Nieul-sur-l’Autise, Vendée; Joussaume, 2012) or Le Coteau du Breuil (François, Deux-Sèvres; Kerouanton, 2008), where children's burials accompanied with burials of dogs were noticed. They are installed in niches, of varied sizes, dug in the walls of ditches and well. The recent works led on the Champ-Durand enclosure allowed to show the existence of structures fitted out in ditches (wooden structures pressed on the wall and protecting bodies), even within the wall of these ditches, further to the study of the distribution detailed of bones in plan and in stratigraphy (Soler in Joussaume, 2012). Two bodies were volontary arranged in a natural of the wall of the ditch. These two individuals, in possible seated position, were so arranged in a vacuum closed by a low wall of dry stones. Complete skeletons partially in connection, discovered in the mass of fallen rocks of the wall adjoining originally the ditch, let expect a new sepulchral arrangement within the construction in rise. The question also settles to know if it is a question really and systematically graves. In certain cases, indeed, some individuals (man, woman, child) underwent acts of violence having pulled their death: it is in particular the case at Champ-Durand (Soler in Joussaume, 2012). In the same way, certain graves in position, in the area encircled by ditches (Le Coteau de Montigné, Coulon, DeuxSèvres), bring to wonder. Indeed, a reorganization of the latter during a reoccupation by a more recent human group can explain, for example, that we find scattered bones in the superior levels among the relatively recent furniture. Only a joint study of bones, material sets, stratigraphy and profile of ditches really allows to discuss the various scenarios (Pariat, 2007; Soler, submitted).

Loire or Fertevault to Thouars; Joussaume, 1981; Germond, 1998). Some northern settlements, located by air prospecting such La Trappe (Boistrudan, Ille-etVilaine) and La Charronière (Saint-Aubin-des-Landes, Ille-et-Vilaine; Le Roux, 1992) may be similar there, for lack of excavations clearing up the chronology and the spatial organization. In the South of the estuary of the Loire, these sites are situated a few kilometers away from the current seashore, preferentially on headlands (Tessier, 1979; Péridy, 1999). The site of Gâtineaux (Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef, LoireAtlantique) is established on a micaschist spur in the confluence of two brooks, in 2 km of the coastline. The situation is similar for the site of Les Prises (Machecoul, Loire-Atlantique), implanted on a mound of limestone / sandstone overhanging some meters only the wet low zone (current Marais breton). Further south, the enclosure of Le Priaureau (Saint-Gervais, Vendée) overhangs the same swampy area. The site of Les Caltières (Olonne-surMer, Vendée) occupies a similar position because established on the left bank of La Vertonne, near the retro-littoral swamp of Olonne-sur-Mer. The excavation of Les Prises (Machecoul, Loire-Atlantique) as well as those more recent of Gâtineaux (Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef, Loire-Atlantique), La Chevêtelière (Saint-Mathurin/L’Ile d’Olonne, Vendée), Le Priaureau (Saint-Gervais, Vendée) or still the diagnosis realized on Les Caltières (Olonne-sur-Mer, Vendée) allow to say that it is about rather equivalent structures in their forms and functions of that of the Centre-Ouest of France. Domestic structures appear regularly inside the enclosures as give evidence of the postholes and pits at Les Prises (Boujot and L’Helgouac’h, 1986), of four superimposed plans of quadrangular houses (7 to 9 m of wide, for an indefinite length) in Le Priaureau (Poisblaud, 2011) or still two plans of quadrangular houses (16 x 7 m and 2,5 x 5,5 m) brought to light in Gâtineaux (Guyodo, 2003). Their forms and sizes do not postpone (or little) more Southern models. If the latter include surfaces included mostly between three and about twenty hectares, the fenced in surfaces are more modest for the geographical area concerned, with 1,5 to more than 4 hectares. These surfaces are closed by one or several lines of ditches among which the width and the depth vary according to settlements. Nevertheless, these structures can be also positioned only on a single piece of the spur (the least abrupt in Gâtineaux); this last scenario is not rare when the edges of the spur are steep.

Finally, all the bones found in the neolithic ditches do not reflect necessarily the same intentions. The data are still rare for the average Neolithic. In the Recent Neolithic, all the scenarios are met and their meaning, as for vestiges found in megaliths, is not known. The human rests found in the levels of the Late Neolithic are mainly lots of bones or isolated bones. Unfortunately, it is not still possible to know if they belong to bodies deposited initially in the ditch, then reshaped afterward either if it is about discharges or deposits of bones which then can effectively belong to the Late Neolithic or arise from older occupations.

Although these ditched enclosures present similar characteristics to those recognized in the Centre-Ouest of France, the human rests are extremely rare on these Armorican settlements. Only the enclosure of Les Prises (Machecoul, Loire-Atlantique; Boujot and L’Helgouac’h, 1986) delivered human rests whose study suggests at the same time the deposit of complete or partial bodies as well as osseous rests (Pariat, 2007). Punctually, some osseous rests, of indefinite nature, were discovered as on Gâtineaux (Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef, Loire-Atlantique; Guyodo, 2003). For lack of more precision, our vision

2.2 Vs Armorican Massif On the Armorican Massif, ditched enclosures are rare and were mainly identified in the South of the estuary of the Loire (Tessier, 1979; Péridy, 1999) as well as on the oriental margins of the crystalline massif (Maine-et-Loire and Deux-Sèvres, in particular Matheflon to Seiches-sur-

22

stones : two parallel low walls limit the structure. Associated to transverse low walls, they arrange boxes swamped with blocks, marine pebbles and sediments (Guyodo in Molines and al., 2003). At Groh-Collé (SaintPierre-Quiberon, Morbihan), two architectural phases were identified (Guyodo, 2008). The first architecture, 5 meters wide, is bounded by two low walls of dry stones to which are added, partially central, blocks and marine pebbles. The second bank succeeds the first one on the same location but is widened in 7 meters; two rows of raised blocks realize then the new limits, the filling remaining identical to the precedent. Additional arrangements exist however because a trench of fence most probably contemporary of the first bank is set up some meters forward, outside of the camp. The architecture explored at La Pointe de la Tranche (Ile d'Yeu, Vendée) is an once again different construction, allying low walls of dry stones and raised stones within the same bank (figure 3; Blanchard, to appear). This one, wide from 7 to 7,50 m, consists of three parts bounded by vertical blocks quoted outside and a low wall of dry stones quoted inside. A central space, empty of any arrangement, is encircled by two low walls of dry stones.

concerning the human deposits in context of ditches remains incomplete for the last periods of the Neolithic on the Armorican Massif. It is however necessary to note that they exist in older contexts like that was recently revealed on the Middle Neolithic enclosure of Lillemer (Ille-et-Vilaine; Laporte and al., 2007; Laporte and al., to appear).

3.

PARTICULARITY OF THE NORTHWEST OF FRANCE: THE BANKED AND WALLED ENCLOSURES

Other types of enclosures, not ditched, make their appearance for the Recent Neolithic II (3400/33003100/3000 BC) on the Armorican Massif: spurs blocked by banks. These establishments, particular in their forms, statuses and functions, delivered this day no human rest (figure 2). Spurs blocked by banks are real sites of height, overhanging the sea or an important stretch of water (estuary, gulf, ria). In this area, for Neolithic period, the seashore traditionally admitted is situated 5 meters lower than the current sea level (Morzadec-Kerfourn, 1973). This retreat thus has only few incidences on the abrupt coast and the already partially congealed island contexts. These banks do not however surround the space in its entirety because the abrupt accesses of these headlands, directly above river or marine spaces, constitute natural obstacles. These architectures are besides still clearly visible on-surface when outcrops appear or because of topographic anomalies. The settlements of Pen-Men (Groix, Morbihan), Groh-Collé (Saint-Pierre-Quiberon, Morbihan), Ker Daniaud and La Pointe de la Tranche (Ile d'Yeu, Vendée) indicate a big variability for contemporary architectural systems even culturally identical (Pen-Men and Groh-Collé; Ker Daniaud and La Pointe de la Tranche). These banks, of curvilinear shape, are systematically implanted at the level of topographic changes, break of slope or edge of plateau. They encircle reduced spaces, rarely exceeding the hectare and half. The construction is established on a "hard" to "semi-hard" substratum (mica-schist to Pen-Men, leucogranite to Groh-Collé, orthogneiss to Ker Daniaud and La Pointe de la Tranche) who is however going to undergo various arrangements: extraction of the ground and transformation of the outcrops on certain cases and systematic addition of a limono-clayey level being of use as basis to banks. The excavated structures exist on these last sites, with a trench of fence below the bank at GrohCollé and quarries at Groh-Collé and Pen-Men (figure 6). However, these quarries are little spread and are not dug profoundly in the substratum, contrary to what is besides observed in the Centre-Ouest of France or in the South of the estuary of the Loire. The developed modes of construction diverge according to sites. So, the bank of Pen-Men (Groix, Morbihan), 80 meters long for 2,20 2,50 m of width, is established by architecture of dry

Fig. 1 – Localization of Recent Neolithic settlements The side parts correspond to triangular and trapezoid boxes bounded by stony low walls dry and swamped with marine pebbles, blocks and sediments. The bank, with curvilinear plan of which spins from an outcrop to an other one distant 80 meters, is twice interrupted by wide

23

systems of entrance marked by impressive vertical blocks. The most northern entrance is interrupted on about 3,50 m. The recent excavation revealed a structure built in front of the bank: standing stones, whose side some tipped over is it, form megalithic "pinces de crabe", what is exceptional. The entrance is besides glorified by a stone access road, followed from the outside inward by the enclosure.

The variety of the architectural models is understandable by the adaptation of these structures to the lie of the land. Solids, these architectures are not less modular there. So, the shape of internal boxes in banks seems determined by the topographic position of the architecture. At La Pointe de la Tranche, the triangular and trapezoid boxes of forms bounded by oblique transverse dry stony low walls in the longitudinal facings indeed seem to compensate for the axial and side pushes bound to the slope of the ground and offer a stability increased to the whole architecture. The position of the bank of Pen-Men does not require such internal arrangements: quadrangular boxes are sufficient in this case to compensate for the pushes. At Groh-Collé, it is the dimensions of the used blocks which seem conditioned by the positioning of the construction. The strong slope of the ground imposes the use of more massive vertical stones (1 m of height) quoted outside of the structure than inside (0,40 m), so allowing the bank to have a summit relatively plan. On the other hand, it is obvious that remains of these banks today only the basal architecture in stones. The architecture was originally swamped with sediments and only erected stones and/or low walls marking the extremities of the structure were to be visible. A wooden rise, of indefinite nature this day, probably existed on the summit of these architectures. Postholes, rather discreet, appear regularly in the filling of banks. If some of them, aligned and regularly spaced out as at La Pointe de la Tranche, suggest the existence of a fence, other, isolated, are more difficult to interpret. If the basis of the wedging countered light, the mass of sediments filling the top of the bank allowed, without doubt, to maintain standing wood, widely subject to the grip in the wind. The use of local raw materials for the construction of these banks is a constant. If a part of materials necessary for the construction can be the object of a simple collection on the foreshore (marine pebbles, blocks), the extraction of blocks is attested by quarries, revealings some meters at the back of the bank of Groh-Collé or along its plan at Pen-Men and Le Lizo (Carnac, Morbihan; Le Rouzic, 1933). The size of the blocks (and theirs negatives in the discovered quarries) and the numerous specific macro-tools - wedges, peaks and percuteurs - consolidate the idea of an extraction of materials on the coastal spurs although quarries are not systematically looked for. Inside the fenced space, pits and postholes, very rare and isolated, testify of domestic installations (Groh-Collé, La Pointe de la Tranche).

Fig. 2 – Main funeral architecture forms in the Northwest of France

The site of Ker Daniaud (Ile d'Yeu, Vendée) was only the object of a series of searches (topographic, geophysics, etc.; Guyodo, 2011) which highlights a bank about 120 m of length. Three sections which compose it take support on outcrops. Concerning the South, its extremity corresponds to an outcrop overhanging the cliff. A first segment of around thirty meters extends towards the northwest, until the most massive outcrop of the headland. The bank bends then westward on approximately 70 m to reach a new outcrop. Finally, the last section, little readable because of the erosion, turns in the southwest on about twenty meters to end in the overhang of the cliff. Only the first section allows to specify the architectural organization. The bank measures approximately 4,50 m of width and is bounded on both sides by standing blocks of average modules (0,20 - 0,30 m), which become more impressive in the south extremity (0,50 m of length). In this sector, a megalithic entrance gets free of: impressive blocks (approximately 1m of height from the surface of the ground) interrupt the bank on a width about 2 m.

4.

STATUSES AND FUNCTIONS OF THESE SPECIFIC SETTLEMENTS

The differences with ditched enclosures are numerous and send back, more than in occupations from different groups, to settlements of different statuses; statuses which maybe explain the presence or not of human rests. Ditched enclosures seem as long-lasting housing environments, occupied at the long times, what confirm the re-uses and the refittings of some ditches up to the Late Neolithic. Their forms and sizes suppose the

24

presence of a doubtless consequent community. The investment at time for the creation of such establishments is relatively important but can be balanced by the hand of available work. The closeness of sources of water, a raised vegetation (wood of work, hunting) and of cultivable grounds seems prioritized to the detriment of the availability of the other resources such lithic raw materials (Burnez and al., 2001). It is about real rustic spaces, what indicates the material, very plentiful culture, much more than on banked sites.

drying out of which leads travels of the order several kilometers for the access to the water in certain periods of the year (Groh-Collé; Guyodo, 2008). The relative lightness of the domestic structures is an additional argument to propose a temporary/seasonal status in such sites. The technical investment necessary for the construction of bank (extraction of materials, construction) is important and countered excessive for a busy housing environment occasionally. The wood of work necessary for the construction of these structures is not available nearby direct of the sites because the raised vegetation is little plentiful on the coast and the islands, even in the Neolithic (Gaudin, 2004). The strong representativeness of the oak at Groh-Collé strengthens the idea of a distant supply (Jude, 2010). Furthermore, the location of the architectures contributes not at all to protect itself climatic hazards because banks take place on the ground piece of points and thus raise of one any other function. These headlands are occupied thus more most probably at the short times but many times, the cyclic reoccupations justifying partially the construction of impressive walled banks. However, the modalities determining these movements are not known. If the natural factors play an important role, other causes, functional, can explain these migrations and regular returns. The material culture so suggests the existence of specialized activities on these sites, with an specialized lithic equipment made on local raw materials following a short and simple operating chain, and a ceramic production where the thick bowls and big volumes are a few. Finally, some imported pieces suggest regular contacts with other geographical areas, like the Massif armorican margins (Thouarsais) and beyond (CentreOuest of France).

Fig. 3 – Banked and walled enclosures and quarries: examples in Britanny. The latter may indeed be occupied only temporarily and by a reduced group. The fenced in limited surfaces (from 0,5 to 1,5 hectare contrary to ditched enclosures systematically superior to 1,5 hectare) underlie the installation of a less important community, maybe established by the fraction of a group (figure 8). These sites also know a particular localization which forces them to strong climatic constraints. These spaces of height are indeed explained and perceptible, as shown by even today the strong erosion of grounds and the vegetation shaves covering these sites. Blocked points overhanging the ocean are situated on the West islands and peninsulas, coasts traditionally said "savages" and submitted, in various periods of the year, to violent winds returning any painful annual occupation. This phenomenon is already reported in the literature at the beginning of the XXth century, under the feather of Z. Le Rouzic or still of M. and St-J. Péquart, delivering then real epic narratives of excavations realized sometimes in little captivating conditions. These unfavorable moments are nevertheless seasonal and thus punctual, what goes to the sense of temporary installations with frequent returns on sites. This phenomenon is less cut for the estuarian establishments, of bays or rias (Le Lizo), which undergo in an underestimated way these climatic effects. These settlements are furthermore nearby direct in sources of long-lasting fresh water in contrario of the littoral and island sites again forced by seasonal brooks the episodic

Various parameters seem to condition the positioning of these coastal establishments which result from a real choice and so correspond to a specific function. Zones clearly more clement and convenient to an annual and long-lasting occupation indeed exist a few kilometers away from these points, like on the oriental coast of certain islands and peninsulas. However, the advantages of the chosen sites can be many: control of exploitable natural resources, activities of particular productions, etc. The coastal character of these settlements undertakes rather logically to look for these assets towards the maritime environment: important food-producing resources, seaways, etc. These headlands have other peculiarities which it is also advisable to appreciate among which one the immediate closeness with the maritime, de facto space spread navigable. These sites postpones rather widely counters in particular known for the protohistoric and antique periods. Indeed, except estuariens sites, of bays and rias such Le Lizo, which can be similar to such setting-up, it is very difficult to accost nearby direct littoral points except by grounding because the abrupt pieces return the precarious approach. On the other hand, their position gets a cleared view on the sea, particularly favorable to the surveillance and/or to the control of the maritime domain and the possible associated activities. This possibility is not new for the end of the Neolithic because it had been discreetly

25

proposed already (Sherratt, 1998). This functional hypothesis, of surveillance and/or control, would be on no account appropriate to the Neolithic because similar proposals were already born it a few years for protohistoric period: the coastal spurs blocked by ramparts, in the Iron Age in particular, them are considered well and truly as contributing to the territorial and maritime organization. Their defensive use is minimized for the benefit of a particular function in connection with a control of techniques and/or specific products (metallic?) or with a surveillance of the seaways traffic (Maitay and al., 2009), very known for these more recent periods. Certain protohistoric strengthened littoral enclosures are even sometimes envisaged as real "lookout posts" (Maguer, 1996, p. 113). It is not moreover rare to see these Gaul populations becoming established on points already occupied to the end of the Neolithic: it is the case of Castel Coz (Beuzec-Cap-Sizun, Finistère; Maguer, 1996) or still at La Pointe du Châtelet (Ile d'Yeu, Vendée; Chauviteau, 2010). In the same way, protohistoric ramparts recover sometimes exactly prehistoric banks as to Beg an Aud (Saint-PierreQuiberon, Morbihan; Galles, 1869; Le Rouzic, 1930). This setting-up continues until modern to contemporary periods because monitoring stations take place on points in the direct contact of neolithic settlements. The SaintSauveur semaphore (Ile d'Yeu, Vendée) overhang some meters La Pointe de la Tranche and the "Maison des Douaniers" takes place on La Pointe du Percho on the West of the peninsula of Quiberon, where the Neolithic site does not correspond more than in heap of grounds moved around the modern building. The peninsula of Quiberon counts structurally equivalent establishments : the Beg er Goalennec point (Quiberon, Morbihan) is a neolithic domestic site today destroys by the construction of a fishpond in deep water in the the XIXth century... Identical sites exist on other zones of the Breton peninsula such the point of Le Souc’h (Plouhinec, Finistère) or Roc’h an Evned (Ploubazlanec, Côtesd’Armor). Finally, this particular type of occupation seems to emerge in the Recent Neolithic because no previous case was identified to this day.

increasing the speed of travel in contrario of the ground wanderings. The imports establish only a low part of the collected material culture, suggesting a punctual opening of such axes of circulation. Spurs blocked by banks and walled enclosures would so be occupied to favorable periods of the year which could correspond, as today, to a stronger maritime attendance. Things are maybe a little bit different for estuarian walled enclosures, of bays and ria. More than a surveillance and/or a control of axis of circulation, the banked enclosure of Le Lizo, for example, can get closer to the notion of counter, due to its position protected in bottom of ria, and its more important size. The human rests are non-existent on these littoral and island sites. In the northwest of France, the crystalline substratum is little convenient to the preservation of bones. Nevertheless, in cases revealed recently or formerly, we indicate a relatively satisfactory osseous state of preservation on some neolithic sites, so many domestical ones (Lillemer, Ille-et-Vilaine; Laporte and al., 2007) as megalithic others (Port-Blanc, Saint-PierreQuiberon; Guyodo, Blanchard, submitted). Furthermore, for lack of human bones, none pit or structure which can be similar to a funeral space would have been able to be revealed, like that was the case for a sepulchral pit (with osseous rests) discovered near one megalithic entrance of the Middle Neolithic enclosure of Lillemer.

Fig. 4 – Banked and walled enclosures : La Pointe de la Tranche (Ile d’Yeu, Vendée).

On the Atlantic Ocean, the axes of maritime traffic have difficulty in being recognized for the previous periods by the Protohistory. From the beginning of the Neolithic, number of exchanges on sometimes important distances is assured in the Mediterranean Sea; the obsidian is one of the most documented markers (Costa, 2007). The sailing systems must be differently considered from what we admit traditionally. The absence of direct testimonies limits inevitably this approach. One has to note however that this coastal settlements keeps pace with the development increasing exchanges and maritime traffic of raw materials, semi-finished or finished products, ideas, technicals, which so circulate along the northAtlantic facade, it from the Early Neolithic in certain cases (Sebire and al., 2012; Guyodo, to appear). The closeness of mineral sources and/or production sites with rivers and ocean strengthens the hypothesis of specific transport modalities, facilitating the circulation of big quantities of pieces and consequent masses, while

5.

CONCLUSION

In the current state of the knowledge, the human rests dating from Recent Neolithic seem to be limited, in the northwest of France, in the only megalithic contexts. In the Centre-Ouest, although the human rests are frequent in domestic contexts, they are not however systematic with regard to very large number of enclosures which did not deliver it. The configurations of discoveries (number, distribution, grouping, etc.) are varied there but gestures and intentions associated (funeral or not) are not defined still clearly. This phenomenon is not maybe due to a simple geologic dichotomy, between crystalline massif on one the hand and sedimentary margins on the other hand, and to a possible differential preservation of bones.

26

Banked and walled enclosures, littorals or estuarians, are at present unknown in the Centre-Ouest of France; on the contrary ditched enclosures are rare in Brittany (3 cases), although they exist in the South of the estuary of the Loire. In both zones, these two types of enclosures send back indubitably to communities the intention of which is to settle down preferentially in dominant position (sites of height), what makes it besides strong territorial markers, or near rivers, gulf or ocean.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ARD V. (dir.) (2011) – Puyraveau à Saint-Léger-deMontbrun (Deux-Sèvres), le dolmen II : un monument au mobilier exceptionnel de la fin du Néolithique dans le Centre-Ouest de la France. Collections particulières et collections des musées de Poitiers et des Tumulus de Bougon, Chauvigny, Éd. APC (mémoire 41), 564 p. ARD V. avec la collaboration de DUFRAISSE A., FOUERE P., FREMONDEAU D., LIARD M., MAINGAUD A., MAITAY C. (2009) – Enfin des traces d’habitat à l’intérieur d’une enceinte du Néolithique récent du Centre-Ouest de la France : premiers résultats et perspectives des fouilles du site de Bellevue (Chenommet, Charente), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 106, 3, pp. 583-601.

Finally, both types have different statuses and especially different duration and/or frequency of occupation which could explain the absence of human rests on the littoral and island sites by the temporary status and/or the specific function of these. Does this mean that the deaths would not have their place there? this latter gathering in reality under the same cairn two monuments which correspond to two construction phases / use. This networking domestic settlements/funerary monuments on a loose territory, which could reveal here the partial mobility of the groups and/or the individuals, is likely if we are held in the recent datings by the radiocarbon of Groh-Collé (recent phase; 2911-2680 BC) and of the upper level of burials of Port-Blanc (monument A, 28702590 BC; Schulting, 2005; Guyodo and Blanchard, submitted) for which the ceramic set is attribute to the only end of the Recent Neolithic (phase III; 3100/30002900/2800 BC).

BAILLOUD G., BURNEZ C., DUDAY H., LOUBOUTIN C. (2008) – La grotte sépulcrale d’Artenac à Saint-Mary (Charente). Révision du gisement éponyme, Travaux de la Société préhistorique française, t. 8, 172 p. BLANCHARD A. (2012) – Le Néolithique récent de l’Ouest de la France (IVe-IIIe millénaires avant J.-C.) : productions et dynamiques culturelles. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Rennes 1, 2 vol., 649 p. BLANCHARD A., à paraître, Eperons barrés du Néolithique récent en contexte insulaire : l’Île d’Yeu (Vendée), in Enceintes néolithiques de l’Ouest de la France, de la Seine à la Gironde, actes du colloque des Lucs-sur-Boulogne (Vendée), 08-10 septembre 2012, Chauvigny Éd. APC. BOUCHET J.-M., BURNEZ C., FOUERE P., GRUET M., MAREMBAT L., ROWLEY-CONWY P. (1990) – Le camp néolithique de Réjolles à Biron (CharenteMaritime), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 87, 10-12, pp. 368-395. BOUCHET J.-M., BURNEZ C. (1991) – Le Chaillot de la Jard (Charente-Maritime). Recherches Archéologique en Saintonge, Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie et d’histoire de Charente-Maritime, pp. 13-35. BOUCHET J.-M., BURNEZ C. (1994) – Le Moulin de Vent à Montils (Charente-Maritime). Rapport de sondage 1992, Archéologie pontoise, t. 94, pp. 3-26. BOUJOT C., CASSEN S. (1992) – Le développement des premières architectures funéraires monumentales en France occidentale, in Paysans et bâtisseurs : l’émergence du Néolithique atlantique et les origines du mégalithisme, actes du 17ème Colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Vannes, 1990), Revue archéologique de l’Ouest, 5, pp. 195-211. BOUJOT C., CASSEN S. avec la collaboration de CHAMBON P., GRUET Y. (1996) – Matignons et

Fig. 5 – Networking example : the peninsula of Quiberon

27

Moulin-de-Vent à Montagant/Le Brandard (Mainxe, Charente), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 93, 1, pp. 63-83.

BURNEZ C., FOUÉRÉ P. (dir.) (1999) - Les enceintes néolithiques de Diconche à Saintes (Charente-Maritime), une périodisation de l’Artenac, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française (XXV) et Mémoires de l’Association des Publications Chauvinoises (XV), 2 vol., 829 p., 99 fig.

BOUJOT C., L’HELGOUAC’H J. (1986) – Le site néolithique à fossés interrompus des Prises à Machecoul (Loire-Atlantique), études sur le secteur oriental, in Préhistoire de Poitou-Charentes, problèmes actuels, 111ème Congrès national des Sociétés savantes (Poitiers, 1986), Éd. CTHS, pp. 255-269.

BURNEZ C., GABET C. (1966) – Fouille du dolmen de Châteauroux, à Tonnay-Charente (Charente-Maritime), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 63, 2, pp. 343-352.

BOULESTIN B., GOMEZ DE SOTO J. (1998) – Pratiques funéraires en grottes à l’Âge du Bronze dans le bassin de la Charente et les régions voisines, Pratiques funéraires à l’Âge du Bronze en France, table ronde de Sens, 10-12 juin 1998, résumés des communications, pp. 23-24.

BURNEZ C., BRAGUIER S., SICAUD F., TUTARD J. (1999) – Les enceintes du Néolithique récent et final de la Mercière à Jarnac-Champagne (Charente-Maritime), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 96, 3, pp. 295-328. BURNEZ C., LOUBOUTIN C., BRAGUIER S. (2001) – Les habitats néolithiques ceinturés du centre-ouest de la France, in J. Guilaine. (dir.), Communautés villageoises du Proche-Orient à l’Atlantique, Paris, Éd. Errance, pp. 205-220.

BOULESTIN B., GOMEZ DE SOTO J., LAPORTE L. (2002) – La grotte sépulcrale du Néolithique récent de la Maison Blanche à Saint-Projet (Charente) : premières observations, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 99, 1, pp. 39-47.

CASSEN S. (dir.) (2009) – Autour de la Table. Explorations archéologiques et discours savants sur des architectures néolithiques à Locmariaquer, Morbihan (Table des Marchands et Grand Menhir), actes du colloque international (Vannes, 2007), Nantes, LARA, Université de Nantes, 918 p.

BURNEZ C. (1966) – La destruction du dolmen des Fontiaux à Raix (Charente), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 63, 9, pp. 307-312. BURNEZ C. (1976) – Le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique dans le Centre-Ouest de la France, Paris, Mémoire de la Société préhistorique française, 12, 375 p., 97 fig., 8 pl.

CASSEN S., FRANCOIS P., en collaboration avec MATIGNON P., REAUTER C., HAMON G., DARDIGNAC C. (2009) – Classement et diagnose de la production céramique à la Table des Marchands, in S. Cassen (dir.), Autour de la Table. Explorations archéologiques et discours savants sur des architectures néolithiques à Locmariaquer, Morbihan (Table des Marchands et Grand Menhir), actes du colloque international (Vannes, 2007), Nantes, LARA, Université de Nantes, pp. 491-567.

BURNEZ C. (1993) – Font-Blanche à Saint-Eugène (Charente-Maritime), Bulletin de l’Association archéologique et historique jonzacaise, Jonzac, t. 39. BURNEZ C. (dir.) (1994) – Enceintes néolithiques, la Grande Prairie, Vibrac, Charente-Maritime, Association archéologique et historique jonzacaise, Jonzac, 83 p. BURNEZ C. (dir.) (1996) – Le site des Loups à Echiré (Deux-Sèvres), musée des Tumulus de Bougon, Conseil Général des Deux-Sèvres, 225 p.

CHAUVITEAU A. (2010) – Inventaire des sites et du mobilier archéologiques, commune de l’île d’Yeu (85), rapport de prospection inventaire, Nantes, Service régional de l’Archéologie des Pays de la Loire, 349 p.

BURNEZ C. (dir.) (2006) - Font-Rase à Barbezieux et Font-Belle à Segonzac (Charente). Deux sites du Néolithique récent saintongeais Matignons/Peu-Richard, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1562, 489 p.

COSTA L. J. (2007) – L’obsidienne, un témoin d’échanges en Méditerranée préhistorique, Paris, Éd. Errance (coll. Hespérides), 110 p. DESCHAMPS A. (1902) – Station préhistorique de Mourez à Berneuil (Charente-Inférieure), Recueil de la Commission des Arts et Monuments Historiques de la Charente-Inférieure, pp. 275.

BURNEZ C. (2010) - Le Camp à Challignac (Charente) au IIIe millénaire av. J.-C. Un établissement complexe de la culture d’Artenac dans le Centre-Ouest de la France, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2165, 494 p.

DU CHATELLIER P. (1877) – Exploration des monuments de Kerugou, De Kerflant, de Pen-ar-Menez et de Kervilloc, commune de Plomeur et de Treffiagat, canton de Pont-l’Abbé (Finistère), Mémoire de la Société d’Emulation des Côtes-du-Nord, 14, pp. 182-194.

BURNEZ C., CASE H. (1966) – Les camps néolithiques des Matignons à Juillac-le-Coq (Charente), Gallia préhistoire, 9, 1, pp. 131-245.

28

GRUET M. (1995) – L’enceinte néolithique de Matheflon à Seiches (Maine-et-Loire), in Journée d'information archéologique, Association d'études préhistoriques et protohistoriques des Pays de la Loire, 28 janvier, Angers, pp. 13-18.

DU CHATELLIER P. (1880) – Exploration de l’allée couverte de Kerbannalec en Beuzec-Cap-Sizun, Bulletin de la Société d’Emulation des Côtes-du-Nord, 17, pp. 199-206. ESCHASSERIAUX E. (1884) – Le Camp néolithique de Peu-Richard, Bulletin de la Société des archives historiques de la Saintonge et de l’Aunis, pp. 191-215.

GUYODO J.-N. (dir.) (2003) – Le site d’habitat néolithique des Gâtineaux à Saint-Michel-Chef-Chef (Loire-Atlantique), rapport final d’opération, Nantes, Service régional de l’Archéologie des Pays de la Loire, 28 p.

FISCHER F., BURNEZ C., avec la collaboration de BRADFER I., BRAGUIER S., FOUÉRÉ P., LANDREAU C., LEROYER C., SEMELIER P. (2007) – Extension de la civilisation des Matignons en Saintonge (Charente) et vallée de la Dronne (Dordogne), Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, t. 14, 1, pp. 57-148.

GUYODO J.-N. (dir.) (2008) – L’habitat néolithique de Groh-Collé (Saint-Pierre-Quiberon, Morbihan), rapport final d’opération, Rennes, Service régional de l’Archéologie de Bretagne, 140 p.

GAILLARD F. (1883) – Rapport déposé à la souscommission des monuments mégalithiques sur les fouilles des dolmens de Port-Blanc, à M. Henry Martin, sénateur, président de la sous-commission, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 6-19.

GUYODO J.-N. (dir.) (2011) – Ile d’Yeu, rapport d’expertise 2011, rapport final d’opération, Nantes, Service régional de l’Archéologie des Pays de la Loire, 50 p. GUYODO J.-N., to appear – Iliens : mythe ou réalité ? Les presque îles Anglo-normandes durant la fin de la Préhistoire, in Ancient maritime communities and the relationship between people and environment along the European Atlantic coasts / Anciens peuplements littoraux et relations homme/milieu sur les côtes de l’Europe Atlantique, actes du colloque HOMER (Vannes, 2011), BAR.

GAILLARD F. (1892) – Le dolmen de la pointe du Conguel à Quiberon, Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, IVe série, 3, pp. 37-48. GALLES L. (1863) – Note sur un dolmen découvert sous la tombelle de Kercado en Carnac, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 5-10. GALLES L. (1869) – Compte-rendu sur la fouille du tumulus de Beg-en-Aud, Saint-Pierre-Quiberon. Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 112-116.

GUYODO J.-N., BLANCHARD A., submitted – Histoires de mégalithes : enquête à Port-Blanc (SaintPierre-Quiberon, Morbihan). Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest.

GAUDIN L. (2004) – Les transformations spatiotemporelles de la végétation du nord-ouest de la France depuis la fin de la dernière glaciation. Reconstitutions paléo-paysagères. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes 1, 764 p.

HUET, M. (2008) – Rôle des orthostates dans les dolmens à couloir de l’Ouest de la France. Mémoire de master 1 Archéologie et Histoire, Université de Rennes 2 Villejean, 1 vol., 98 p.

GAURON E. et MASSAUD J. avec la collaboration de LOTTE R., QUESNEL A., QUESNEL F. (1983) – La nécropole de Chenon. Etude d’un ensemble dolménique charentais, supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, 18, pp. 5197.

JOUSSAUME R. (1981) – Le Néolithique de l’Aunis et du Poitou occidental dans son cadre atlantique, Rennes, Travaux du Laboratoire Anthropologie-PréhistoireProtohistoire-Quaternaire Armoricains, 625 p.

GAUTIER, N. (2008) – Les monuments à chambre compartimentée et transeptée : étude du cloisonnement des espaces funéraires dans l’Ouest de la France à partir de l’exemple des fouilles effectuées par P.-R. Giot et A.M. Apsimon à Quélarn (Plobannalec, Finistère). Mémoire de master 1 Archéologie et Histoire, Université de Rennes 2 Villejean, 1 vol., 87 p.

JOUSSAUME R. (2012) – L’enceinte néolithique de Champ-Durand à Nieul-sur-l’Autise (Vendée). Chauvigny, Éd. APC (mémoire 64), 685 p. JOUSSAUME R., LAPORTE L. (2006) – Monuments funéraires néolithiques dans l’ouest de la France, in R. Joussaume, L. Laporte, C. Scarre (dir.), Origine et développement du mégalithisme de l’ouest de l’Europe, actes du colloque, Conseil général des Deux-Sèvres, Musée des Tumulus de Bougon (Deux-Sèvres), pp. 319344.

GERMOND G. (1998) – La contribution thouarsaise à la connaissance du Néolithique récent et final du CentreOuest, in X. Gutherz, R Joussaume (dir.), Le Néolithique dans le Centre-Ouest de la France, actes du 21e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Chauvigny, Éd. APC, pp. 257-278.

JUDE F. (2010) – Etude anthracologique de deux sites d’habitat néolithiques dans l’Ouest de la France

29

LE PONTOIS L. (1928) – Fouille du tumulus dit Buttener-Hah dans l’île de Groix (Morbihan), Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 26-103.Le Rouzic, 1927 LE ROUX C.-T. (1992) – Découvertes de structures d’habitats néolithiques dans le bassin oriental de la Vilaine, in Paysans et bâtisseurs : l’émergence du Néolithique atlantique et les origines du mégalithisme, actes du 17e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Vannes, 1990), Revue archéologique de l’Ouest, 5, pp. 79-83.

(Morbihan, Loire-Atlantique). Mémoire de master 1, Université de Rennes 2 Villejean, 73 p. KEROUANTON I. (dir.) (2008) – François, Coteau du Breuil (79), rapport final d’opération, INRAP GSO, Poitiers, Service régional de l’Archéologie de PoitouCharentes, 404 p. LAPORTE L. (2001) – Du Néolithique au Bronze ancien sur la façade atlantique du Centre-Ouest de la France, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 98, 1, pp. 83-101.

LE ROUX C.-T. (dir.) (2006) – Monuments mégalithiques à Locmariaquer (Morbihan) : le long tumulus d’Er Grah dans son environnement, Paris, éd. CNRS, 38e suppl. à Gallia Préhistoire, 310 p.

LAPORTE L. (dir.) (2009) – Des premiers paysans aux premiers métallurgistes sur la façade atlantique (35002000 av. J.-C.), Chauvigny, Éd. APC (mémoire 33), 810 p.

LE ROUZIC Z. (1898) – Carnac, fouilles faites dans la région en 1897 et janvier 1898, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 64-80.

LAPORTE L. (2010) – Restauration, reconstruction, appropriation ; évolution des architectures mégalithiques dans l’Ouest de la France, entre passé et présent, in J.A. Munica, J.F. Eraso (dir.), congreso internacional sobre megalithismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contempoaneas en su contexto social, ecónomico y cultural, actes du colloque international, Beasain, 2007, Munibe, 32, pp. 15-46.

LE ROUZIC Z. (1899) – Fouilles faites dans la région : Mané er Hloh, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 10. LE ROUZIC (1927) – Carnac, restaurations faites dans la région, dolmen à galerie, sous tumulus, de Kercado, commune de Carnac, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 80-89.

LAPORTE L., BIZIEN-JAGLIN C., GUYODO J.-N. (2007) – Nouvelles découvertes en milieu humide autour de l’habitat ceinturé du Néolithique moyen à Lillemer (Ille-et-Vilaine, France), in M. Besse (dir.), Sociétés néolithiques. Des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnements socio-économiques, actes du 28e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Internéo), Neuchâtel, oct. 2005. CAR 108, pp. 341-350.

LE ROUZIC Z. (1930) – Carnac, les gisements ou ateliers de silex de la région. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 4, pp. 240-247. LE ROUZIC Z. (1933) – Premières fouilles au camp du Lizo, Revue archéologique, p. 189-219.

LAPORTE L., BIZIEN-JAGLIN C., GUYODO J.-N., to appear – Enceintes néolithiques de l’Ouest de la France : une archéologie des fossés ?, in actes du colloque Enceintes néolithiques de l’Ouest de le France, de la Seine à la Gironde, Les Lucs-sur-Boulogne (Vendée), sept. 2012. Chauvigny, Éd. APC.

L’HELGOUAC’H J. (1962) – Le dolmen de Conguel en Quiberon (Morbihan), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 59, 5-6, pp. 371-381. L’HELGOUAC’H J. (1965) – Les sépultures mégalithiques en Armorique. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes, 330 p.

LARGE J.-M., BIROCHEAU P. (dir.), CROS J.-P., DUDAY H. (2004) – Les Châtelliers du Vieil-Auzay : une archéologie d’un site exceptionnel de la préhistoire récente, La Roche-sur-Yon, Groupe Vendéen d’Études Préhistorique, 686 p. LECERF Y. (1986) – Une nouvelle intervention archéologique au camp du Lizo en Carnac (Morbihan), Revue archéologique de l’Ouest, 3, pp. 47-58.

LOUBOUTIN C., OLLIVIER A., CONSTANTIN C., SIDERA I., TRESSET A., FARRUGIA J.-P. (1998) – La Tricherie à Beaumont (Vienne) un site d’habitat du Néolithique récent, in X. Gutherz, R. Joussaume (dir.), Le Néolithique du Centre-Ouest de la France, actes du 21e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, (Poitiers, 14-16 octobre 1994), Chauvigny, Éd. APC, pp. 307-325.

LECORNEC J. (1972) – La sépulture mégalithique de Lost-er-Lenn, Grandchamp (Morbihan), Annales de Bretagne, 79, 1, pp. 21-33.

LUCO Abbé (1881) – Exploration de plusieurs dolmens, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 3543.

LECORNEC J. (1996) – L’allée couverte de Bilgroix à Arzon, Morbihan, Bulletin de la Société polymathique du Morbihan, pp. 15-56.

MAGUER P. (1996) – Les enceintes fortifiées de l’Âge du Fer dans le Finistère, Revue archéologique de l’Ouest, 13, pp. 103-121.

30

MAITAY C., BEHAGUE B., COLIN A., DUCONGE S., GOMEZ DE SOTO J., KEROUANTON I., LANDREAU G., LARUAZ J.-M., LEVILLAYER A., ROUZEAU N., SIREIX C., SOYER C., VUAILLAT D., ZELIE B. (2009) – Formes et variabilité des habitats fortifiés des Âges du Fer dans le Centre-Ouest de la France et ses marges, in Les Gaulois entre Loire et Dordogne, actes du 31e colloque international de l’Association Française pour l’Étude de l’Âge du Fer, I, Chauvigny, Éd. APC (mémoire 34), pp. 371-421.

ROUSSEAU J., DUPONT C., GUYODO J.-N., SOLER L. (2000) – La Prée Noire, Le Bernard (Vendée). Sondage. 01/06 au 15/06/2000, Nantes, Service Régional de l’Archéologie, DRAC des Pays de la Loire, 33 p., 5 pl., dactylographié. ROUSSEAU J., NIBODEAU J.-P. (2009) – Les Arnoux (le Taillis), Préguillac (Charente-Maritime), fouille 2006-2007, rapport final d’opération, INRAP GSO, Poitiers, Service régional de l’Archéologie de PoitouCharentes, 3 vol.

MOHEN J.-P., BERGOUGNAN D. (1984) – Le camp néolithique de Chez-Reine (Charente-Maritime). I. Étude archéologique, Gallia Préhistoire, t. 27, I, pp. 7-40.

SCHULTING R. (2005) – Comme la mer qui se retire : les changements dans l’exploitation des ressources marines du Mésolithique au Néolithique en Bretagne, in G. Marchand, A. Tresset (dir.), Unité et diversité des processus de néolithisation sur la façade atlantique de l’Europe (6ème-4ème millénaire avant J.-C.), actes de la table ronde (Nantes, 2002), Société préhistorique française (mémoire 36), pp.163-171.

MOHEN J.-P., SCARRE C. (2002) – Les tumulus de Bougon (Deux-Sèvres). Complexe mégalithique du Ve au IIIe millénaire, Paris, Éd. Errance, 256 p. MOLINES N., DAIRE M.-Y., GUYODO J.-N. (2003) – Les premiers peuplements de l’île de Groix, rapport final d’opération, Rennes, Service régional de l’Archéologie de Bretagne, 1 vol.

SEBIRE H., HAMON G., GUYODO J.-N., RENOUF J. (2012) – Excavations at the Royal Hotel site, La Société guernesiaise, report and transactions 2011, vol. XXVII, part I, pp. 190-257.

MORZADEC-KERFOURN M.-T. (1973) – Variations de la ligne de rivage armoricaine au quaternaire : analyses polliniques de dépôts organiques littoraux. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes I, 208 p.

SHERRATT A. (1998) – Points of exchange : the later Neolithic monuments of the Morbihan, in A. Gibson, D. Simpson (dir.), Prehistoric ritual and religion. Essays in honour of Aubrey Burl, Stroud, Stutton Publishing, pp. 119-138.

PARIAT J.-G. (2007) – Des morts sans tombe ? Le cas des ossements humains en contexte non sépulcral en Europe tempérée entre les 6e et 3e millénaires av. J.-C. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1683, 195 p.

SICARD S., BRAGUIER S., DUPONT C. (2002) – L’enceinte néolithique du Jardinet aux Magnils-reigniers (Vendée), in actes de la Journée d’information INTERNEO (Paris, 2002), 4, pp.131-141.

PAUTREAU J.-P. (1982) – Le Coteau de Montigné à Coulon (Deux-Sèvres). Travaux 1978-1980, Bulletin du Groupe Vendéen d’Études Préhistoriques, La Roche-surYon, 7, pp. 12-17.

SOLER L. (2011) – Les restes humains, in V. Ard (dir.), Puyraveau à Saint-Léger-de-Montbrun (Deux-Sèvres), le dolmen II. Un monument au mobilier exceptionnel à la fin du Néolithique dans le Centre-Ouest de la France, Chauvigny, Éd. APC, mémoire XLI, 564 p.

PAUTREAU J.-P., FARAGO-SZEKERES B. (2006) – La nécropole néolithique de La Jardelle à Dissay (Vienne, France), in R. Joussaume, L. Laporte, C. Scarre (dir.), Origine et développement du mégalithisme de l’ouest de l’Europe, actes du colloque, Conseil général des DeuxSèvres, Musée des Tumulus de Bougon (Deux-Sèvres), pp. 375-379.

SOLER L. (2012) – Découverte d’une enceinte du Néolithique moyen sur le littoral atlantique. Le Fief des Quatre Chevaliers à Périgny (Charente-Maritime), in T. Perrin, I. Senepart, J. Cauliez, E. Thirault, S. Bonnardin (dir.), Dynamismes et rythmes évolutifs des sociétés de la Préhistoire récente, actes des 9e Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente de Saint-Georges-de-Didonne (17), 08 et 09 octobre 2010, pp. 141-150.

PERIDY P. (1999) – Les enceintes néolithiques à fossés interrompus entre Loire et Marais poitevin, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 96, 3, pp. 421-426. POISBLAUD B. (dir.) (2011) – Saint-Gervais (85) Le Priaureau, rapport final d’opération, INRAP GO, Nantes, Service régional de l’Archéologie des Pays de la Loire, 128 p.

SOLER L. submitted – Les dépôts humains en contexte d’enceinte néolithique. De nouveaux regards sont-ils possibles ? Le cas du Centre-Ouest de la France, in Enceintes néolithiques de l’Ouest de la France, de la Seine à la Gironde, actes du colloque des Lucs-surBoulogne (Vendée), 08-10 septembre 2012, Chauvigny, Éd. APC.

POISSONNIER B. (2010) – Bilan Régional Scientifique 2010, Poitiers, Service Régional de l’Archéologie, DRAC Poitou-Charentes, pp. 181-183.

31

SOURIS L. de (2007) – Occupations funéraires des grottes néolithiques en Poitou-Charentes : l’exemple du trou Amiault (La Rochette, Charente, France), in M. Besse (dir.), Sociétés néolithiques. Des faits archéologiques aux fonctionnements socio-économiques, actes du 28e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique (Internéo), Neuchâtel, oct. 2005, CAR 108, pp. 285-294. TESSIER M. (1979) – Les occupations humaines successives de la zone côtière du Pays de Retz des temps préhistoriques à l’époque mérovingienne. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Tours, 375 p. TINEVEZ J.-Y. (1988) – La sépulture à entrée latérale de Beaumont en Saint-Laurent-sur-Oust, Revue archéologique de l’Ouest, 5, pp. 55-78.

32

Fig. 6 – Funeral sites in the West and the Centre-Ouest of France

33

Fig. 7 – Enclosures with human remains (after Soler, Soler, submitted)

34

Fig. 8 – Recent Neolithic in the Northwest of France : cultural groups through the material production

Fig. 9 – Recent Neolithic in the Northwest of France : chronological synthesis

35

36

Additionally, funerary contexts and body manipulation practices begun to be detected in direct association to ditched enclosures and several of them started to show meaningful articulation with megalithic structures in the construction of what we might call Neolithic landscapes.

FUNERARY PRACTICES AND BODY MANIPULATION AT NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC PERDIGÕES DITCHED ENCLOSURES (SOUTH PORTUGAL).1 António Carlos Valera2 Ana Maria Silva3 Claudia Cunha4 Lucy Shaw Evangelista5

1.

Presently, funerary practices and manipulations of human remains in Alentejo are characterized by a considerable diversity that is in clear contradiction with the perception of a certain homogeneity traditionally induced by megalithism. Although the number of enclosures with human remains inside is still relatively low, the available evidence and the theoretical debate that is being generated clearly drifts us from that old and strict dichotomy of settlements as a profane ground versus necropolis as a sacred ground, from the image of megalithic and cave graves as the exclusive spaces for the deceased and from the idea that human body manipulations were confined to funerary rituals.

INTRODUCTION

The perception of enclosures as places where complex practices involving funerary procedures and body manipulations were performed during Recent Prehistory is an old issue in European archaeology, but a relatively recent one in Portugal, namely in the South. This is due mainly to the fact that human remains were rare in walled enclosures and to the circumstance that ditched enclosures only recently started to be detected in their real archaeological expression (in the last fifteen years).

The first occurrences, as was to be expected, were not interpreted as isolated phenomena or practice. Rather, they tended to be perceived in the framework provided by the interpretation of their contexts and by a particular ontological presumption. What the presence of these human remains means clearly depends on the social role that we conceive for the enclosures and on ideas about the human body and humanity as ontological categories. And this is frequently established a priori without much thought. Therefore, aprioristic perceptions of the context establish the framework for the interpretation of human remains and associated practices, while what we really should be doing instead is looking for the part played by these remains and practices in the construction of the contextual meaning and social role of a particular site.

In fact, until recently Neolithic and Chalcolithic funerary practices in Alentejo (South Portugal) were thought to be restricted almost exclusively to the megalithic tombs. Being a region where natural caves are almost absent (only one case, Escoural in Montemor-o-Novo was known to have human burials dating from Late Neolithic – Araújo and Lejeune, 1995), the hundreds of megalithic tombs (small cist type monuments first and larger passage graves latter) and tholoi (in the Chalcolithic) were seen as the main architectures built for funerary purposes. Scattered over the landscape or clustered in nuclear areas, they were the material expression of Neolithic and Chalcolithic attitudes towards death in the region.

This is the approach that has been followed at Perdigões enclosure, where these activities concerning death are seen as social practices that, interacting with others, contribute to the site’s social role and meaning and to the construction of a specific local landscape. We shall, then, present the available data regarding funerary practices and human body manipulations at Perdigões and then question the part they might have played in its historical development, taking into account several other evidences provided by the site and the local context.

This image has changed considerably over the last decade (Valera, 2012b). Due mainly to emergency Archaeology projects developed especially in South Alentejo, pit graves and hypogea were revealed to be quite common funerary features in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic and inclusively in the Bronze Age, where the exclusivity of cist graves is now being replaced by a more diversified scenario with pits and hypogea maintaining an important presence as funerary architectures.

2. 1

This paper results of the fusion of two talks presented at the meeting “Recent Prehistory Enclosures and Funerary Practices”: “Funerary practices in the Perdigões enclosure: time, diversity and cosmogony in the treatment conceded to the dead” by António Carlos Valera and “Human Bones, Burials and Funerary practices at Perdigões Enclosure” by Ana Maria Silva e Claudia Cunha. New data was added by Lucy Shaw Evangelista. 2 Coordinator of the Perdigões Research Program; coordinator of Era Arqueologia S.A. research unit ([email protected]). 3 Centro de Investigação em Antropologia e Saúde, Universidade de Coimbra. 4 PhD student. Centro de Investigação em Antropologia e Saúde, Universidade de Coimbra. 5 Archaeologist at Era Arqueologia S.A., collaborator of Perdigões Research Program, PhD student. Centro de Investigação em Antropologia e Saúde, Universidade de Coimbra.

PERDIGÕES CONTEXTS.

FUNERARY

FEATURES

AND

Located in the municipality of Reguengos de Monsaraz, Évora district, in South Portugal (Figure 1:1), Perdigões is a large ditched enclosure that has been investigated for the last 15 years, in a long term program of research led by the Archaeological Research Group (NIA) of ERA Arqueologia S.A., and has an extended list of publications (for general approaches, Lago et al. 1998, Valera et al. 2000, Valera et al. 2007, Valera 2008b, Valera 2010, Valera and Silva 2011, Márquez et al. 2011, Valera et al. 2014).

37

A hand bone of individual UE76 was dated and provide the following date: 4370±40: 3096-2901 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-289233) (Valera and Silva, 2011; Valera et al, 2014). That confirms the stratigraphic observation that pit 11 was posterior to pit 7.

It comprises a set of ditched enclosures with a long period of construction and use. The available chronology (Valera et al., 2014) shows that the site has its origin in the second half of the 4th millennium BC (around 34003300 BC) and developed throughout the 3rd millennium BC. Implanted in a natural theatre open to East, the site presents twelve ditches, but only seven have been surveyed and dated so far. The actual image is one of a progressive growth (Figure 1:2), starting with smaller enclosures in the centre of the natural theatre in Late Neolithic and ending with a larger ditch that runs across the top of the slopes of that topographic basin in Late Chalcolithic (the fact that there are ditches still to be surveyed and dated makes this perception provisory). During this time span, funerary practices and body manipulation were always present, but revealing diversified procedures.

2.1.1 Anthropological analyses and inferences In Pit 7 elements of a left and of right lower limb were exhumed. Despite unearthed from two different stratigraphic levels, morphological and metric data suggest that they are compatible and therefore they were considered to be from the same individual. They belong to an adult female with an estimated height of 157.3 ± 4.75 cm based on the second right metatarsus. No signs of pathology were observed on the recovered bones. In addition to the bones of this individual, fragments of phalanges of non-adult individual and fragments of an adult skull were preserved. These seem to have no relation with the previously described female individual. Their presence may have resulted from post depositional soil movements that displaced them into this pit or to later depositions of bones. Another possibility is that these bones might belong to another burial previously deposited in the pit 7. The practice of depositing parts of bodies or subtraction of bones or parts of skeletons is clear, for natural causes do not explain the absence of bones from the axial skeleton and from the upper limbs of the female.

2.1 Late Neolithic (3400 - 2900 BC) Dating from the second half of the 4th millennium/beginning of the 3rd BC (3400-2900 BC) is the central enclosure formed by a larger ditch (Ditch 6) and two smaller ones that run in parallel interiorly (Ditches 5 and 12). The only gate present in this enclosure is aligned with the summer solstice. This central enclosure was surrounded by another one designated Ditch 8, also dating from the Late Neolithic. Several contemporary small and large pits have already been recorded inside these enclosures and it is possible that the eastern cromlech, just 350m away from the enclosures and in the connection between the natural theatre and the valley, was built during this phase (Figure 1:3).

Pit 11, although cut in a significant part of its area, contained the skeletal remains of three non-adult individuals: UE 76, UE 77 and UE 78 (Figure 2). Non adult UE76 represents the most incomplete skeleton recovered. It was deposited on his right side and oriented SW – NE. Almost all left hand bones, fragments of the cranium, mandible, vertebrae, ribs, clavicles and humerus were recovered from this skeleton. Dental age assessment based on the root development of the upper left third molar suggests an age at death around 16.2 years according to Smith (1984) and 16.5 – 17.5 years considering the revision of Alqahtani et al. (2010). Concerning skeleton elements, the base and head of metacarpal 1, the bases of the preserved proximal, middle and distal phalanges are completely fused indicating an age at death above 16.5 years (Scheuer and Black, 2000). Therefore, the available age indicators suggest an age at death around 16 – 17 years. No signs of pathology were registered with exception of linear enamel hypoplasia on, at least, 6 teeth: the upper left and right central incisors, upper left canine, lower left lateral incisor, lower left and right canines. Although the precise aetiology of enamel hypoplasia is not well understood, it is accepted that it is related to periodic physiological disruptions of matrix secretion during times that teeth are developing. So, these defects are considered as unspecific metabolic stress indicators. Considering these teeth complete their crown formation between the first and the sixth year of age, factors contributing to the formation these hypoplastic defects might have happened early in this individual’s life.

It is clear that the locating of both the enclosures and the cromlech had to do with the visual interaction with the valley, where more than a hundred megalithic tombs existed, and with the eastern the horizon comprised between the topographical opening limits that coincide with the summer and winter solstices, transforming that horizon in an annual calendar at sunrise, with the elevation of Monsaraz in the middle, marking the equinoxes. So, since the beginning, a strong symbolism was embedded in the architecture and location and in the spatial and visual relations established with the local megalithic landscape. For this period we only have two funerary contexts so far, corresponding to two pits (Figure 2) located outside the enclosures, some 200m to northwest (Valera, 2008a; Godinho, 2008; Valera and Godinho, 2009): pits 7 and 11. Pit 7 is earlier and was slightly cut by pit 11 that was then cut by other pits in about two thirds of its area. In Pit 7 there were no votive artifacts associated to these remains with the exception of a Sus paw. A human bone from the female individual buried in this pit (UE114) was dated by radiocarbon, providing the date 4430 ± 40BP: 3331-2922 BC at 2σ (BETA-289265) (Valera and Silva, 2011; Valera et al, 2014). In Pit 11 the remains were associated once again to a sus paw and to a cockle shell.

38

Non adult UE 77 represents the most complete recovered skeleton from this pit, although bone fragmentation was high. He was lying on his left side with head orientated to the north. Age at death was estimated to be around 5 years considering the tooth development of several preserved teeth. With exception of linear enamel hypoplasia distinguished in several teeth (crown of the upper right second molar, lower left canine), no other signs of pathology were detected. Finally, non adult UE 78 was lying on its left side, head orientated north. With exception of the lower limbs, which were practically absent, all other skeleton elements were represented. Age at death estimations based on several teeth fall between 12.7 – 14.8 years (Alqahtani et al. 2010; Smith, 1991). The assessment of the post cranial skeletal maturation procuded an estimation of 12 years of age based on the measurements of left radius lead to an estimation of around 12 years (diaphysis length: 167mm Stloukal and Hánákova, 1978).

poor oral hygiene and the consumption of carbohydrates since the initiation of mineralization is related to the amount of plaque and thus to factors that increase its accumulation. The absence of cariogenic lesions in the teeth of these individuals suggests that carbohydrates did not contribute significantly to their diet, but high-protein foods could be related to the exploitation of cattle resources of these populations. Faunal remains from the ditches and pits in the enclosures reveal an important presence of Sus, Ovis-Capris and Bos, documenting an important pastoralism, also documented by the evidence of surrounding pastures in the pollen record of the site (Danielson and Mendes, 2013). Dental chipping can be related to masticatory and nonmasticatory activities. The presence of contaminants, as grains of sand in food like roots and tubers or other hard resistant elements, as well as the habit of cracking and chewing of dried hard seeds and nuts in Mediterranean populations are among the more documented causes of masticatory activities that can cause dental traumas (Alt and Pichler, 1998). Paramasticatory activities, such as breaking hard shells, shattering bones to extract the marrow or chewing of roots or leaves as well as work activities or accidental events can also lead to these antemortem dental traumas. In the present case it is difficult to identify the cause of dental chipping. However, the young age at death of the individuals and the high number of chipped teeth, particularly non-adult UE76, seem to exclude accidental events and suggest that the teeth were subjected to repeated traumas, especially the anterior ones, starting very early in life. Still, more data are necessary to understand the diet, dietary behavior and non-masticatory activities of these past populations.

The dental remains also provide insights into the dietary and non-masticatory use behavior of these non-adults. Dental wear is low, in the range expected in non-adult individuals. No cariogenic lesions were detected. The more noteworthy observation of the dental remains of these non-adults, namely in the two older ones, was the presence of antemortem traumatic crown factures, that is, dental chipping. Non adult UE76 (16-17 age at death) exhibit antemortem fracture on 7 teeth including anterior teeth (n=3/11, left upper central incisor is damaged postmortem, not allowing observation) and posterior teeth (n=4/18; right first and second premolars are damaged postmortem, not allowing observation). Crown wear is irregular on the right central upper incisor, both lower central incisors and particularly on the mesial/incisal edge of the lower lateral incisors where dental chipping can be observed. Moreover, on the labial surface of the crown of the right central upper incisor, a very shallow notch originating at the incisal edge of the tooth and extending toward the cemento-enamel junction is visible. Buccal chipping on the posterior dentition was observed for the right first upper premolar and on the buccal-distal cusp of the right second upper molar. Although all teeth display signs of calculus, large deposits are visible on the lingual surface of both lower central incisors, occupying around ¾ of this surface. In the lower lateral incisors the deposits of calculus are visible around half of this surface.

It is also interesting to note that individual UE78 had only the proximal parts of the femurs and that they were in anatomical connection but bent over the abdomen while there were some soft tissues still preserved. In the opinion of the excavators, this suggests that the lower limbs were intentionally turned over the abdomen and that the absence of the rest of the legs and feet are due to anthropic activity occurring during the decomposition process, meaning that these bodies were decomposing in a hollow space inside the pit and they were not initially covered with earth (Valera and Godinho, 2009). Preliminary ancient DNA results indicate that these three non-adults were male and that they did not share any matrilineal relationship since they belong to three different haplogroups. At the present, patrilineal relationships are being evaluated. The strontium (87Sr/86Sr) isotope ratio was also assessed to infer about the residence pattern of these non-adults. The strontium isotope value recorded in human teeth reflects residence patterns in the early stages of life when these tissues are forming (compared to bone which remodels throughout life and therefore reflects adolescence and adult residence patterns). For the present study, the selected teeth included lower first molars or second premolars which allow the assessment of mobility between birth and three years of age. The available results show that only the

Individual UE78 (12.7 – 14.8 years) displays chipping in 5 teeth of the anterior dentition (right upper central incisor is missing postmortem): all lower incisors exhibit chipping (lower canines are still erupting). On the labial surface of the lower left central incisor a small circular defect is visible very near the incisal line. All teeth display signs of calculus, but in this non adult, these deposits are more extensive in the labial surface of the lower incisors. The deposits of calculus are generally related to the consumption of high-protein foods which contributes to increase alkalinity in the mouth, favoring precipitation of minerals in the oral fluids. But other important factors are

39

87Sr/86Sr ratio of individual UE78 fall within the local Perdigões range. The other two display values below the local range of 87Sr/86Sr suggesting that they are nonlocal. However, at the moment more fauna samples are being process to elaborate with more precision the biological 87Sr/86Sr ratio for the Perdigões area.

construction phase, a trapezoidal compartment was also attached to the North side of the chamber defined by three other schist slabs that was probably in use for a short period before being partly dismantled. It is also important to notice that although at a certain moment the chamber starts to collapse, with the lateral schist slabs falling inwards in pieces, the use of the chamber for depositions continued without any repairing of the structures (Valera et al, 2000).

2.2 Chalcolithic There has been an exponential increase in our knowledge on funerary practices and human body manipulations during the Chalcolithic through work undertaken in recent years, not only in Perdigões but all over the South of Portugal and that has brought to light a number of funerary structures (mostly negative) that include hypogea, pits and ditches that include the deposition of human remains, cremated or not. (Valera, 2012b).

The human remains in the chamber were associated to quite rich material assemblages, composed by a large number of long blades, arrow heads, small pots, necklace beads and a great diversity of bone and ivory objects, some reused decorated schist plaques and a fragment of a copper object. In the atrium, where almost no human remains were found, there was a flint dagger, a set of arrow schist arrow heads, a set of limestone small pots, a ceramic pot with a pedestal and a Pecten maximus shell. Given the apparent secondary nature of the funerary depositions, it becomes impossible to associate individuals with specific artifacts. Consequently it is unknown whether a specific group of grave goods is associated to one sex group, one age group, or one individual. In some bone clusters, however, it is clear the association between a group of bones and a set of grave goods.

At Perdigões, and according to present data, since the end of the first quarter and until middle 3rd millennium BC the enclosed area grew larger with the construction of Ditch 3 and, later, of ditch 4. They are sinuous ditches that run at middle slope of the natural theatre, defining a sub-trapezoidal enclosure, partially obliterated at East by modern agricultural features. The absolute chronologies obtained in the excavated sections (Sector I) show that Ditch 3 is earlier and that it was half filled when Ditch 4 was opened alongside it, and just 2,5m to the inside, by the end of the first half of the millennium (Valera and Silva, 2011; Valera et al, 2014): two identical dates were obtained for the bottom and middle fillings of Ditch 3 (Beta-285098 and Beta-285096 - 4050±40: 2851-2472 cal BC at 2σ); the date obtained for a upper layer of Ditch 3 (Beta-285095 – 3980±40: 2618-2347 cal BC at 2σ) was identical to one of the two dates from the bottom of Ditch 4 (Beta-285097) and quite similar to the other (Beta289264 – 3940±40: 2568-2299 cal BC at 2σ).

The chamber depositions of Tomb 1 have now four radiocarbon dates (Valera et al, 2014): 4030±40: 28302470 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-327750), corresponds to an intermediate layer of the depositions before the first episodes of ruin of the lateral slabs; 3990±30: 2570-2460 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-311480) corresponds to the final depositions of that previous moment; 4060±30: 28302490 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-327748) corresponds to a deposition already over the first episodes of ruin; 4130±30: 2870-2580 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-327747) corresponds to a layer of plain use in ruin.

During this period at least two tholoi type tombs were built in the Eastern side, between the enclosure and the previous cromlech, in the open part of the natural theatre (Figure 1:4), but other funerary structures were identified in surface intervention and in the geophysics magnetogram. At the same time human bones were manipulated and deposited in Ditch 3 and, later, in Ditch 4 in the surveyed area (Sector I), just next to the previous pit graves from Late Neolithic.

It is interesting to notice that the dates from the “use in ruin” phases are not different from the older date of the use “previous to ruin” and older than the date from the end of that first phase. We might propose two hypothesis to explain this contradiction between the two latter dates and their stratigraphic position: one might consider that during the use and reuse of the monument, two bones from previous depositions were pushed up in the sequence by human activity; the other might suggest that, if Tomb 1 was used for secondary depositions, that older bones were brought to the tomb in later moments or at the same time as more recent ones, suggesting that bone transportation could mixtures different individuals that died in significant different times. All together, these dates place the construction of the monument clearly in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC and its use until the middle of that millennium.

2.2.1 – Tomb 1 The construction phase (Phase 1) of Tomb I includes the opening up and digging of the outline of the monument (atrium, corridor and funerary chamber) in soil and bedrock and lining it with schist slabs of at least 1.8 m high with the possible erection of four monoliths similar to those found in Tomb 2, which were probably torn out when an olive tree was planted in the corridor area. The access to the Tomb’s circular chamber which is about 3.5m in diameter was made through the small corridor (1.5m long), and a circular atrium (2m diameter) also partially excavated in the bedrock. The monument is orientated at 90º (sun rise at equinoxes). During this first

2.2.1.1 - Anthropological analyses and inferences Although in formal terms some of these Tombs may be said to belong to the megalithic tradition of orthostatic

40

funerary construction with a chamber and a corridor, (the atrium is only present in particular cases), they nonetheless possess very specific architectural characteristic and their use must be understood as part of the highly complex funerary practices known for the Southwest of the Iberian Peninsula during recent PreHistory. In fact, the paradigm for burial ritual in this region is changing drastically, not only from the point of view of archeology but mainly in terms of Funerary Anthropology.

The oldest human depositions with clear evidence of intentional deposition of votive material are set in the transition area between the corridor and the chamber. This deposit contained two sets of artifacts, one which included a ceramic pot and the other an arrow head. The human remains include the presence of an individual less than 2 years old and several adult bones (especially carpals and tarsals). At the same time, in a very distinct area of the chamber, behind the remaining slab of the original compartment a few adult bones and a tooth belonging to a two year old child were identified.

Regarding Tomb1, the laboratorial work is still in progress and follows the different archaeological phases defined for this structure that seems to have a long and complex history of utilization that continued even after it began to fall into disrepair.

Following these initial depositions, an intense use of the chamber is recorded throughout this phase 2. There were many deposits of a heterogeneous nature, including large numbers of human bones of varying concentrations spread over different areas amongst abundant slight traces of ochre and a large number of votive objects. For the most part, they were in a very poor state of conservation. It was nonetheless possible to identify the presence of a minimum number of 11 adult individuals (of both sexes). The MNI was based on the count and simple repetition of Upper Right Second Premolars. The presence of the remains of at least 4 nonadults was also registered (three under ±5 year olds and one ±1.5).

In general terms, a preliminary analysis of the human remains recovered indicates an overall poor bone preservation level and a high degree of fragmentation. All skeletal parts seem to be present although with very different levels of preservation. There seems to be a predominance of long bones and cranial fragments and a poorer preservation of more fragile portions of the human skeleton. The first phases of utilization indicate the presence of adults (both sexes) and non-adults. The provisional minimum number of individuals (MNI) rises up to 106 (Cunha in preparation; Evangelista in preparation). Because all age groups are present and both sexes appear to be equally represented, we must assume that there are no restrictions of age nor sex in what concerns the use of this tomb.

No anatomical connections were identified during fieldwork at Tomb I. No articulations, even the more persistent, were present at the feature and virtually all uncovered bones seemed to be in total disarray. Therefore, preliminary field data seems to indicate the presence of secondary depositions. The presence of small bones, like distal phalanx, carpals and tarsals cannot be interpreted as an unquestionable indicator for primary depositions. In fact, in another area of Perdigões where the remains of hundreds of cremated human bones were identified in what is unmistakably a secondary deposit, a large quantity of small bones were recovered (Silva et al, 2010) revealing a great care in the collection of bones between the previous and their final resting place.

The archaeological definition of several different moments of use of this structure through time is being confirmed by the study underway and allows us to assess potential differences in the funerary strategies regarding number of individuals, sex or age distinctions, associated objects and gestures. It is clear that phase 2 was a period of intensive use of the tomb which is evident from the great scatter and fragmentation of the osteological remains and votive material, in spite of the poor state of the bone fragments collected. This may possibly be explained by occasional collapses of the slabs covering the walls of the monument.

If the secondary nature of these depositions is confirmed by the anthropological study underway (Evangelista in preparation), several important questions are raised. Where might the first depositions have been? Is there a prolongation of the ritual of death, which implies a primary deposition of bodies with characteristics we know little about, followed by the repetition of similar acts with the deposition of parts of bodies in other structures, which were specially built for this purpose? (Valera et al, 2000:101 and following.) . 2.2.2 – Tomb 2

When the monument began to being used for the deposition of human remains in this Phase 2, the internal chamber/compartment was no longer in use. Its limits were still defined by the remaining slab and by the footing of another. In that specific area only a few teeth and long bones were recovered including elements belonging to an under 6 year old. We cannot tell if these are what was left of the first depositions in the compartment, although the lack of evidence for the use of this space raises questions as to its purpose. It is possible that nothing survived from the first utilizations of the monument or that this space was no longer used for its original purpose.

Tomb 2 (Figure 4) is also constituted by a circular chamber of about 3m diameter partially excavated in the bedrock, with walls covered by schist slabs. It has a 1m orthostatic corridor (two pillars each side), an ellipsoidal atrium also excavated in the bed rock whose walls were also covered by schist slabs (and one small pillar). It is orientated at 130º (Valera et al., 2000).

41

with a formal deposition of stones, faunal remains and pottery shards and at middle depth of the ditch, in a niche excavated in the eastern wall, a cranial fragment was recorded. As referred above, two identical radiocarbon dates for the first half of the 3rd millennium were obtained for the bottom and top of this first half sequence of the ditch 4050±40 (Beta-285096) and 4050±40 (Beta285098) : 2840-2480 cal BC at 2σ.

The anthropological study of the human remains is still to be done, but no primary depositions were recognized during the excavation and only a foot was recovered in anatomical connection, deposited in the first layer in the center of the atrium. In contrast, several ossuaries were identified, indicating some bone selection. The stratigraphy and the available absolute chronology clearly show two general moments of use. The first was probably restricted to the chamber (as in Tomb 1). At a given moment the some lateral slab start to fall in and the chamber suffered an emptying process, and only some partial contexts of that first phase were preserved in the bottom and bellow some of the broken schist slabs. This phase was dated from the first half of the 3rd millennium (Beta-308791 - 4090±30: 2860-2500 cal BC at 2σ), show that the construction and first use was contemporaneous with Tomb 1.

In Ditch 4 the human remains were collected in a bottom deposit and correspond to hand phalanges (possibly from the same hand) while another phalange was recovered in an upper layer of that ditch. The lower deposit of provenance of the human bones was dated from the middle / third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC (Beta289264 – 3940±40: 2568-2299 cal BC at 2σ and and Beta-285097 - 3980±40: 2580-2450 cal BC at 2σ). The human remains in this ditches share a same general treatment conceded to faunal remains, pottery shards, some rare lithic material and bits of copper, forming horizontal depositions of anthropic origin that were interspersed by earth layers that were filling the bottom half of both ditches. Their formation was contemporary with the use and reuse of the tholoi type tombs.

After the emptying process, the chamber was reused for secondary depositions (namely with a quadrant being bordered and filled predominantly with long bones and a complete dear antler). The atrium was also used for funerary depositions in this phase, and two moments were clearly defined: one before the falling of the slab that closed the entrance of the corridor; and other after the falling of that slab over the first layers of depositions in the atrium.

2.2.4 – Depositions of cremated human remains in the central area During the middle and third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC the manipulation of human remains in Perdigões was getting quite diversified. As depositions of human bones were taking place in Ditch 4, Tomb 2 was partially emptied and reused and Tomb 1 was receiving its last depositions, in the centre of the enclosures, cutting previous Late Neolithic structures, an intense Chalcolithic occupation was developed and cremated human remains were deposited in pits and in open air and a cist grave was built (Silva et al., 2013; Valera, 2010; 2012a, 2012b; Valera et al., 2014).

We have three radiocarbon dates related to this second phase (Valera et al, 2014): 3890±30: 2470-2290 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-308792) was obtain for the chamber; 3970±30: 2570-2460 cal BC at 2σ (Beta-308793) was obtained for the later depositions in the atrium (after the fall of the slab); 3840±30: 2460-2200 cal BC at 2σ (Beta308789). Once again, there is a situation where the dates are contradicting the stratigraphy: the dated bone recovered in the deposits before the fall of the slab is more recent that the bone dated in the deposits over the slab. The same two hypotheses might be discussed, but due to the position of the slab and the absence of evidences of significant disturbance of the previous deposits, the second possibility (the mixture of bones from different times) gains more credit.

2.2.4.1 Pit 16 Pit 16 is located in the centre of the enclosure. It was partially excavated in sediments (of a Chalcolithic occupation that interfered with previous Late Neolithic structures) and partially in the underlying bedrock, and it is the only chalcolithic funerary context completely studied in anthropological terms in Perdigões so far.

In the chamber, the materials associated with the first phase are some pots, arrow heads, some ivory and bone objects and beads. Related to the second phase we have some thin gold blades, and ivory button, ivory lunulae and zoomorphic figurines and idols, limestone idols and pots and arrow heads.

The stratigraphy showed the sedimentation of two thin layers in the bottom of the pit, followed by a “dumped” deposit with a conical shape of cremated remains that includes abundant charcoal fragments and ashes, human bones, fauna (Sus, Ovis-Capra, Bos, Canis, Cervus and rabbit), fragments of pottery, ivory idols, arrow heads and a metal awl, all submitted to fire. Evidence of ochre was found only on human remains, suggesting that these were sprinkled with this pigment. This deposit was then covered by two layers with abundant faunal remains and broken pottery with no evidences of firing and, at the top of the pit, by two more thin layers also with some fauna

2.2.3 – Depositions of human remains in ditches 3 and 4 So far, of the seven ditches already submitted to archaeological survey, only in ditches 3 and 4 the presence of human bones was documented (Valera and Godinho 2010). The deposits of the first filling sequence of Ditch 3 revealed the presence of some human bones. A radius fragment was recovered in a lower layer in association

42

and fragments of pottery. The stratigraphic evidence shows that the cremation took place elsewhere and that the remains were carefully collected, transported and deposited in the pit.

nerve course and it is mainly studied due to its potential relation to supraclavicular nerve entrapment (Jelev and Surchev, 2007). For human past populations this morphological trait is also rarely described. According to Saunders (1978) its frequency varies between 1.6% and 6.7%, with a strong genetic determinism. In Portuguese Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic populations the frequency of this trait varies between 0% and 16.7%. The exact meaning of this higher frequency in some Portuguese prehistoric samples is unknown but it could be an indicator of greater genetic relatedness of these individuals.

A radiocarbon date was obtained based on a human bone: Beta-289262 - 3990±40: 2621-2350 cal BC at 2σ (Valera and Silva, 2011; Valera et al, 2014), and shows contemporaneity (in radiocarbon terms) with the latest human bones depositions in Ditch 4, with the reutilization of Tomb 2 and with the later use of Tomb 1.

2.2.4.1.1 - Anthropological analyses and inferences

Evidence of diseases, as oral pathology, degenerative, traumatic and infectious diseases were observed in bone fragments, all belonging to adult individuals. The dental remains, mainly represented by loose teeth fragments, displayed severe damage. Usually the crown was split into several pieces and are very incomplete, being impossible to recognize dental pathologies, such as cariogenic lesions or deposits of calculus. Among the few maxilla fragments, antemortem tooth loss of both right premolars of a mandible fragment was observed. This specimen was send to strontium analyses to infer about mobility of this individual. Unfortunately, no enough enamel was preserved to obtain strontium isotopic data. Signs of non-specific infectious diseases (periostosis) were observed in 6 fragments of long bones. Degenerative diseases (osteoarthritis) were observed in a lumbar vertebra and in a proximal foot phalange. In a cranial fragment, a circular depression (diameter of around 10 mm and about 1 mm depth,) was located near the lambda suture. The most probable diagnosis of this remodelled lesion is depressed cranial fracture, although an incomplete trepanation cannot be excluded.

The human bone assemblage represents highly burned human remains. In total, around 2404 bone fragments and 63 dental remains were recorded. The cremated human bone assemblage displays heterogeneous color variation indicating that different elements of the body were exposed to different temperatures during distinct lengths of time. Most of the fragments are greyish (incompletely oxidized) or whitish (> 600º) confirming the exposition to high temperatures during some time, but black, brown and blue-grey bone fragments were also scored. The burnt bones fragments exhibit warping and several types of heat fissures such as transverse, longitudinal and thumbnail fractures in long bones (Figure 6:2), patina fractures in articular surfaces and delamination and dendritic fractures in cranial fragments. Thumbnail fractures are generally associated with the burning of fleshed and green bones, suggesting that at least some individuals were cremated as fleshed bodies. However, recently Gonçalves (2012) demonstrated that this type of fracture can also appear in burning of dry bones suggesting that it may be related to the preservation of collagen (Gonçalves et al., 2011) instead of precremation state. Unfortunately, no data about the precremations conditions of the human remains are available, so it is not possible to exclude that the cremation was performed on individuals in different stages of decomposition.

In order to infer on the thoroughness of the retrieval of human remains from the cremation site and their subsequent deposition into this pit, bone representation of adult individuals was assessed. The methodology used for this assessment is based on the representativeness of each bone class in the total weight of a sample (Silva et al., 2009). Following that approach, bones are weighed according to their category and the obtained values are converted to percentages. These are compared with the references values to check for deviations (Silva et al., 2009) in order to observe any possible irregularity in the composition of the sample. Few studies have documented skeletal weight from burned remains (Gonçalves, 2012; Herrmann, 1976; Malinowski and Porawski, 1969; McKinley, 1993). Recently, Gonçalves et al. (2011), recorded weight of two samples (cadavers and skeletons) from contemporary cremations of Portuguese individuals. However, the proposed reference values are difficult to apply in archaeological cremations, particularly in secondary contexts, once we do not know the sex of the individuals or even the pre-cremation conditions (cadaver or dry bones). We cannot dismiss the possibility that this and other collective cremated deposits in the site might contain individuals in different pre-cremation conditions. Therefore, we chose to use the reference values of Silva et al. (2009) since they represent the results from the

The human remains represent a minimum of nine individuals, six adults and three non-adults, these later ones with age at death estimation of 6-7 years, 11-12 years and around 14 years (all assessed by methodology on teeth development by Smith, 1991). Among the adult sample the presence of two lumbar vertebrae without fusion of the vertebral arch and the epiphyseal line of iliac crest still visible in a fragment of ilium, suggest the presence of at least one young adult (20-25 years) in this assemblage. Evidence of mature adults was also noticed by the advanced obliteration of the sagittal suture in a parietal bone fragment. No inferences about sex were possible. Among the morphological analysis, two nonmetric characters were registered: complete supraclavicular perforation in a right clavicle diaphysis (Figure 6:1) and the presence of supranasal suture in a small frontal bone fragment. The former one is considered a rare anatomical variant of the clavicle. This canal seems to result from an unusual supraclavicular

43

skeletal weight of a Portuguese sample dated of the 20th century in which both sexes were pooled together although these were obtained from unburned skeletons. Non adult bones had to be excluded from this analysis since no reference values are available.

with the picking and transport of the burned human bones. 2.2.4.2 – Pit 40, cist and open air depositions Nearby pit 16, just 5 meters east, there is an area that revealed a sequence of structures and contexts with several deposits of human cremated remains (Figure 5). The sequence is composed by a pit (Pit 40), a cist integrated in a semicircular stone cairn and several episodes of depositions of cremated remains in open air over the cairn structure.

An amount of 4845.18 g of human bones was recovered from this pit. Among them, 339.58 g correspond to unidentified bone fragments and 69.1 g to non-adult bone fragments. The remaining 4436.50 g belong to adult bone fragments. This last value was used in the analysis of bone representation to check for possible irregularities of the different parts of the skeleton in the sample. Bone weight of the five categories (cranial bones, long bones, hand bones, foot bones and other - remaining skeletal bones - bones) was converted to percentages in order to be compared to the reference values. As observed in Figure 6:4, the distribution of percentages for most bone categories are similar to the expected values with some derivations in the categories of “other bones” and foot bones, being these less represented than expected. For the former one, the nature of the bones with higher content of trabecular structure can probably explain poorer preservation due to taphonomic factors. The lower values for foot bones are more difficult to explain, since these are usually well preserved and easily identified, at least in unburnt bones. One possible explanation could be related to a more deficient recovering of this terminal part of the skeleton: foot bones could be less accessible for gathering.

Pit 40 is 2.70m diameter and is still under excavation. So far, it has about 40cm deep and is excavated in deposits of previous chalcolithic occupations in the central area of the enclosures, just like the top half of Pit 16. At the present depth an apparently disturbed primary burial of an adult male individual with partial connections was uncovered. Until now, no signs of submission to fire were detected. This deposition was surrounded and covered by deposits of human cremated remains, mixed with ashes and faunal remains and archaeological material also burned. Those deposits filled the pit, spilling over in some areas. When Pit 40 was filled a stone cairn forming a semicircular plan was built, overlapping a small part of the pit and surrounding on the south side. This cairn contain a rectangular cist made with a schist slab in one side and blocks of local stone (diorites and gabros) in the others. Inside there were several river pebbles, some faunal remains and a human long bone, covered by other schist slabs.

According to the literature, archaeological cremations of adult individuals vary from 375 g to around 1200 g (Cullen, 1995; Grévin et al. 1998; McKinley, 1993). These values are lower than modern cremations, since they were subjected to post cremation taphonomic disturbance. Thus, if we considered the bone weight of the adult sample, 4436.5 g, bearing in mind that the NMI for the adults in this sample is 6, the mean weight per individual would be 807.5 g, a value that falls within the expected weight range of archaeological human cremations.

Finally, covering part of the cairn there was a sequence of thin deposits (Ambiance 1) with abundant cremated human bones, fauna and archaeological material also burned. The archaeological material associated with these contexts is abundant, but highly selected. There are several hundreds ivory burned fragments, several of them of anthropomorphic figurines (Valera and Evangelista, 2014), burned limestone and marble idols, burned arrow heads, burned beads, a marble pot, some burned metal awls and fragments of pottery.

The presence of bones from all parts of the skeleton, including small hand and foot bones, and the results of bone weight analysis, reveal some care in the recovery of the cremated remains (as well as of the fauna and artefacts) prior to their final deposition in the pit. We might probably infer that complete bodies had been burnt, instead of disarticulated body parts, as sometimes suggested for prehistoric deposits of cremated bones, generally incomplete and underweight bone assemblages (Duffy and MacGregor, 2008). It is unclear why and where were these individuals cremated. However, there seems to be no doubt that they were intentionally cremated, carefully collected and finally deposited in this pit, by all the mentioned evidences. Moreover, the level of cremation suggest a significant effort to reduce these remains to very small fragments, although some fragmentation probably results from post-depositional disturbance and mechanical pressure related, for example,

So far, only the open air deposits have been dated (Valera et al, 2014). The top layers provide dates from the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC (Beta-308784 3900±30 BP 2470-2290 BC at 2 s and Beta-313720 3850±30BP 2460-2200 BC at 2 s) and the lower layers dates from the middle third millennium (Beta-308785 3970±30BP 2570-2460 BC at 2 s and Beta-313721 4000±40BP 2620-2460 BC at 2 s). It is interesting to note that, although these layers are extremely thin, the two sets of dates are statistically different. This could mean two things. One might be that the depositions in open air occur during a long period. This is neither consistent with the thin thickness of the layers nor with the circumstance of the open air depositions (it is not credible that those

44

contexts would be preserved for long periods of time in an open air situation). The second possibility is that the depositions were made in a short period of time, but contained bones cremated in different moments or bones from different times were cremated together and then deposited there. Since we do not know the provenance of these cremated remains it is not possible to establish the precise significance of this data. Further dates must be obtained before we can be more conclusive about the procedures that gave origin to this complex context.

Krejci, 2005). The major problem with these funerary contexts is that most were excavated many years ago and nowadays there is no or very little information about the disposition of the recovered human remains. The lack of radiocarbon dates of the burnt and unburnt human bones from the same sites hinder the chronological interpretation of this kind of burial. Hence interpretations of these funerary contexts are limited. A review of Portuguese Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic burials suggests that when burned bones are present, they are usually a small part of the recovered human remains. Moreover, the dominant colors of the fragments are black and brown, indicating they were mostly charred human bones (exposed to low temperatures around 300ºC). This kind of data is not enough allow a proper interpretation of these contexts, namely to decide if they are accidental or intentional burning. The Dolmen of Cabeço dos Moinhos (Figueira da Foz), the cave of Cova da Moura and the tholos of Paimogo 1 are examples of tombs where few burned human bones (with black color) were recovered when compared with unburnt ones. More recently, more evidence of cremated bones was published: in Olival da Pega 2b (OP2b), a context located a few kilometers from Perdigões. A mass of in loco cremated human bones was excavated inside the OP2b tomb. They were covered by thin slabs and the tomb presented sequent funerary use. This was interpreted as a form of “sanitizing” the space, although the burnt bones were not removed from the tomb (Gonçalves, 1999). At the site of Monte do Carrascal 2, one of the most recently discovered burials sites, an ossuary with cremated or charred human bones was excavated from a ditch near a set of hypogea (Valera, 2012b). The funerary contexts here described are different from all the above mentioned cases. They can be characterized as being collective and secondary contexts of cremated bones.

One interesting fact, though, is that this set of dates is identical to the one obtain for the last use of Tomb1 and reutilization of Tomb 2 located in the eastern limits of the site. By radiocarbon standards they are contemporaneous, during the middle / third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. But the architectures, the involved treatment of the human remains and the associated votive material are substantially different, as well as their relative location in the site, raising interesting questions regarding the nature of these differences. 2.2.4.2.1 - Anthropological analyses and inferences The MNI has already surpassed 150, with a high number of bones belonging to non-adults. Once again, color changes suggest bones submitted to high temperatures. Also the presence of many small skeleton bones suggested great care in the collection of the human bones, which includes distal phalanges of hands and feet, sesamoid bones among other small skeletal elements that were not burned there. So far, the most striking find from the context is a circular hole in a cranial fragment, with a diameter of around 10 mm (Figure 6:3). Although this remodeled lesion can be considered a complete depressed cranial fracture, trepanation is another possible diagnosis. If the later could be confirmed, this would be relevant, since all confirmed cases of trepanation dated from the Late Neolithic through to Bronze Age, were recovered from coastal samples in present Portuguese territory. Also, scraping was the predominant method used in all cases known (Silva, 2003), but this new case used a drilling technique, less frequent and apparently only described for earlier findings (Middle Neolithic – Boaventura et al. 2013).

Recent review of the osteological samples from the ‘tholoi’ 1 and 2 of Perdigões also revealed some burnt fragments of bones and teeth. Their limited number and the lack of evidence of in loco fire in the tombs indicate that they might have been incorporated into the deposits of unburnt remains instead of cremated inside the monuments.

Although still under excavation, pit 40, underlying the previous context, continues to reveal human burned bones along with few non cremated bones.

A survey of the literature on cremated remains in collective Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic funerary contexts from other parts of Iberian Peninsula and France revealed that this practice is not so unusual. Human bones with signs of exposition to fire are documented in several caves from the Northwest of Catalonia (Agustí I Farjas, 2002), Southwest of Spain (Gutiérrez Sáez et al. 2002; Idáñez Sanches, 1984) and several regions of France such as in the North-central, region of Loiret (Chambon, 2003) and the Southwest (region of Var; Agustí I Farjas, 2002; Chambon, 2003). In most cases human remains were cremated in loco (primary deposits) with different levels of exposition to fire. Some fragments of bones are only charred or blackened, while others are white and they seem to have been calcined. Evidence of collective secondary cremations is less frequent but it has been

These new findings in Perdigões enclosure highlight the importance of fire in mortuary practices during the Chalcolithic period. Evidence of burnt bones from Portuguese Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic funerary contexts are described since the end of the 19th century (Boaventura, 2009; Silva, 2002, 2003; Silva et al. 2013). These findings were recovered from collective burials of different types: natural caves, rock shelters, dolmens, tholoi, stone structures in walled enclosures, etc. Such diverse depositional contexts have fuelled the discussion whether burning was accidental or intentional, and promoted by practical or ritual considerations (Weiss-

45

material such as lithic artifacts, ivory objects, gold, beads and limestone idols and pots. In the center, though, the depositions were of cremated remains associated with typologically different arrow heads and beads, metal awls, anthropomorphic figurines in ivory or bone and a variety of stone idols. Here, not just the treatment conceded to the body was drastically different (with ontological implications) but the material assemblages were also contrasting with what was being deposited in the eastern tombs, suggesting the expression of diverse group identities.

documented for Spain and France. In Cueva de la Mostela, located near Barcelona, the presence of cremated human bones without the presence of ashes was interpreted as such. In this case the cremation would have taken place outside the cave. That was followed by a selective recovery of the human remains that were then deposit inside the cave. Similar contexts were described for other Spanish caves as Cueva de Can Sadurní and Cueva de la Guia (Agustí I Farjas, 2002: 66). The Dolmen II of San Sébastien (Var) is an example from Southwest of France (Chambon, 2003; Gatto, 2007). This secondary context includes a minimum number of 78 individuals, with differential representation of skeleton elements, in favor of skull parts (Chambon, 2003). These examples, far from representing an exhaustive list of sites with cremated bones dated to the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, show the diversity of mortuary practices linked with cremation. Moreover they strengthen the unparalleled collective secondary cremation contexts here described for Perdigões Enclosure. 3.

MANIPULATING PERDIGÕES

HUMAN

REMAINS

In order to understand these practices, though, we have to link them to several other characteristics of the enclosures, such as the location chosen for the site, the architectonic design of the enclosures, the specific practices of filling ditches with intentional and formal deposits, the absence of clear evidences of residential structures and the meaningful relationship the place establishes with the local terrestrial and celestial landscape.

AT

Let us start with topography. Following the available chronological sequence (Valera et al. 2014), the Late Neolithic enclosures were built in the center of the natural theatre, in a location that only has visibility to the cromlech and to the valley behind it, full of contemporary megalithic monuments. No defense strategy or a large visual control of surrounding landscape was intended. On the contrary, the enclosure itself would be a sort of stage for people standing around it in the higher parts of the local slopes. Visibility was clearly conditioned to East and in a way where the rising sun declination is captured by the limits of topography between the two annual solstices, transforming the horizon in a sort of a timetable.

The general picture in Perdigões, particularly during the 3rd millennium BC, is of a progressive diversification of rituals and places involving the deposition of human remains. If for the Neolithic we still have scarce information, pointing to primary depositions in pits (with the possibility of post depositional manipulations of the bodies), possibly outside the enclosures, during the 3rd millennium things seem to have changed and funerary practices and body manipulation emerge as major practices being carried out at Perdigões. If during the second quarter of the 3rd millennium tholoi type tombs were built and used for secondary and eventually primary depositions in the eastern side of the natural theatre, apparently still outside the new and larger enclosure defined by ditch 3 (and a bit later by ditch 4), more or less at the same type manipulated human bones start to be deposited in structured depositions inside those ditches, beginning (?) a process that would merge the spaces of the living and of the dead. By the middle of the millennium, we would have secondary depositions in the tholoi tombs, scattered bones being deposited in the ditches, the construction of cists, cremated remains being deposited in pits in the central area of the enclosures and the outside ditch was open, respecting and enclosing the tombs still in use in the eastern area.

We may argue the same scenario for the middle sinuous enclosures built in the first half of the 3rd millennium, and only with the outside ditches, in the beginning of the second half of that millennium, does the site reach the top of the slopes. But whoever was inside still had the visibility restricted to East. We should also draw attention to the fact that the geological area of the weathered gabbros and diorites is much bigger and covers the top of the hill where the natural theatre is located, which is exactly limited by the granites. So, the location of the site was clearly selected by the topography and the visibility conditions it presented, and both have nothing to do with defense or territorial control.

But not just different places and containers were being used. Different ritual were performed and diversified material assemblages were constituted. In the ditches, human bones and other materials shared a similar status in the construction of the meaning of those formal deposits. It is clearly not a situation where human remains are escorted by votive material, but rather a circumstance where they participate as one more element in the construction of contextual meaning. In the eastern side, the tholoi in ruin were still being used for secondary depositions associated with large amounts of votive

Using that topographical gap to the East, there is an astronomic orientation of the gates. In the Chalcolithic outside enclosures the two eastern gates are orientated to the summer and winter solstices at sun rise and the two western gates mark the area of the same moments of the year at sunset. The gates of the Neolithic enclosures are facing the summer solstice. There is almost a millennium between the building of the first and the last of these structures, but a same general concept seems to be present: Perdigões was being built to face the rising sun

46

This perspective is reinforced by some archaeometric studies of pottery (Dias et al., 2008). They have shown that a specific production of pots with weathered schist clays with a provenance from more than 5 kms away from Perdigões is only present at Tomb 1, suggesting that the use of that tomb was in part due to a foreign, but regional, group.

all over the year and capture its annual declination in its eastern topographical gap (Valera, 2008b) and between that horizon and the enclosures we have a highly symbolic landscape, full of megalithic funerary and none funerary monuments. Perdigões architecture was impregnated of cosmological meaning and it is clear that the site had an important role in the construction of a meaningful local landscape.

Preliminary studies of human remains also point to significant mobility. Strontium isotopic analyses of several individuals showed that only three presents values that fit the local range. All the others showed values that put their birth outside the region and one of them is closer to Lisbon Peninsula values (Hillier et al., 2010). This high mobility is also consistent with the presence of artifacts and raw materials that are foreign, showing links, especially during the 3rd millennium, to other regions of Iberia an even North Africa. Perdigões shows signs of a strong capacity of attracting people and things.

Another important issue is the ditches and what got out and in. From only seven ditches we estimate that almost 22.000 cubic meters, corresponding to almost 63.000 tons of removed bedrock. This amount of geological material is not present at the site. Not inside the ditches and not outside them, and we are just talking about a half of the ditches and forgetting the hundreds of pits. So, it seems that a large enterprise of moving out bed rock was accompanying the opening of ditches and pits. Inside the ditches, we find some evidences of natural processes of filing, but they are filled mainly by human activity, resulting in structured depositions of selected material, not compatible with ordinary trash assemblages. This is evident since the Neolithic, where we have ritual depositions of Almerienses idols in the bottom of ditch 12 that was closed with the depositions of an “avenue” of pottery shards (Valera, 2012c), a practice also documented in several layers of the filling of ditch 8. During the 3rd millennium, horizontal depositions of stones, pottery shards and faunal remains were also recorded in the lower deposits of ditches 3, 4 and 1. This data suggests that the intentional filling of the ditches was a regular routine that took place during the time span of the site and was probably related to ritualized social practices that were carried on inside the enclosures.

Finally, we have to pay attention to the evidences that we have about the way the human body is treated in social practices at Perdigões as in other similar sites. We have evidences of body manipulation after the first deposition on the Late Neolithic funerary pits. During the 3rd millennium, we have evidences of manipulation of bones and parts of bodies and finally of cremation. This diversity implies attitudes towards the human body far more complex and diversified than just the simple integrity of a deposition of a diseased in its own particular territory. On the contrary, the manipulations of the dead and of human remains seem to be an active part of the whole activity that was occurring in Perdigões, especially during the 3rd millennium, assuming diversified ways, apparently mixed in time and space with whatever else was occurring there. And they probably means quite different ontologies, where animistic fluidity between categories was not yet restricted by more recent religious thought.

But apart from what is inside ditches, their design is also something to take into account. If some are linear, several present sinuous patterns that seem to be, until further information, a particularity of western Iberia. This layout does not respond to traditional functionalities of defense or to a modern rationality of economy of effort. From that point of view they just don’t make sense. Furthermore, in some recently identified enclosures (Valera and Becker, 2011; Valera, 2013) there is evidence that some of the wavy ditches were cut by sections in a sequence and that the enclosing just happened at the end of the sequence. This sinuous design responds more to ideologies that to practical functionalities and only that can explain why, in Perdigões, ditch 4 was opened just two meters inside ditch 3 when this ditch was just half filled.

In his famous essay on the gift in Polynesian societies, Marcel Mauss built a portrait that might be useful to understand what was happening in Perdigões. He noted about their practices that in the end they were mixtures. Souls were mixed in things and things were mixed in souls. People and things were getting out of their natural sphere and combined. And he goes further, stressing that the facts we study are total social facts, for they put in movement the totality of the society and its institutions: all of these phenomena are simultaneously juridical, economical, religious, esthetical, morphological, etc. (Mauss, 2008).

Coming back to certain particularities of the funerary contexts, namely to the use of the tholoi tombs, what we see is a continuing use of these structures while they became progressively in ruin. This suggests a prolonged, but intermittent, use that is compatible with the idea that they were used by people coming to Perdigões from time to time, bringing remains of their deceased and use particular tombs. And this becomes more credible if we add the fact that secondary depositions are present.

In a mixing context, another circumstance that needs to be stressed is that during the Chalcolithic funerary practices and body manipulations clearly invaded the enclosures in Perdigões. If the in Late Neolithic the pit graves are out of the known enclosed areas for that chronology, in the second quarter of the 3rd millennium human bones started to be deposited inside the ditches and by the middle of the millennium the tholoi, still in use, were embraced by the outside ditch and the cremated

47

In fact, in western Iberia, the presence of body manipulation practices seems to be restricted to some enclosures, especially the ones that grew to large proportions (Perdigões, Porto Torrão, Alcalar, San Blás, Pijotilla, Valencina de la Concepción and possibly Salvada). If that is an historical fact or just a distortion of research, in time we will hopefully know. But what the available data suggests is that those practices assumed an important role in some enclosures, especially during the 3rd millennium, and not in others. And that has implications in the meanings and social roles we may assume to these sites. Without disregard for the general picture, we focus in trying to understand those particular roles in Perdigões: how the site, through its life and in its singularity, expresses and assumes a general Neolithic tradition that we can observe all over Europe.

remains started to be deposited in the center of the enclosures. It seems that a clear frontier between the space of the living and the space of the dead started to fade way. Recently approaches to this subject were developed for de enclosures of Valencina de la Concepción (Costa Camaré et al., 2010). There, 25% of the minimum number of individuals (NMI) recorded so far (135) came from features inside the enclosures, question the notion of a clear demarcated necropolis area as opposed to a settlement area. A similar analysis is developed for Porto Torrão (Rodrigues, in this volume). Here, and according to presented data, only 6% of the MNI (238) came from the enclosed area, suggesting that a clear spatial demarcation exists (and there is evidence of a grate concentration of funerary monuments not excavated around the enclosure). In Perdigões, however, and taking into considerations the features that were outside in a moment and inside and in use after the building of new ditches, the situation is quite different: in a NMI of 272, 70% were located in features inside the enclosures and amongst the remains no primary depositions were recorded (except the male individual in pit 40). Although the excavated area is still relatively small in Perdigões, this data suggests that, at least since the second third of the 3rd millennium, human remains became common inside the enclosures.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES AGUSTÍ I FARJAS, B. (2002) – Depósitos funerarios con cremación durante el Calcolítico y el Bronce en el Noreste de Catalunya. In: ROJO GUERRA, M., KUNST, M. eds. (2002) – Sobre el significado del Fuego en los Rituales Funerarios del Neolítico. Studia Archaeologica 91. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, pp. 65 – 82. ALQAHTANI, S. J.; HECTOR, M. P. LIVERSIDGE, H. M. (2010) – Brief Communication: The London Atlas of Human Tooth Development and Eruption. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 142. pp. 481–490.

In summary, funerary practices and body manipulations seem to have been a main activity in Perdigões and, related to all the other enumerated elements (topography and visibility, cosmological architecture, formal depositions, capacity of attracting people), they helped to build a space that reflects what might be called a Neolithic cosmogony, a world view organized through architectures and perpetuated through social practices, with a strong capacity for communal aggregation. If we assume this general picture, then it is interesting to come back to the location of Perdigões in the context of the Álamo valley occupation. It is as if the concept of a megalithic passage grave was transferred to the landscape and Perdigões was a large ceremonial chamber that, with the valley as a passage was orientated to East.

ALT, K.; PICHLER, S. (1998) – Artificial modifications on human teeth. In Alt, K:; Rösing, FW; Teschler-Nicola; M eds. (1998) – Dental Anthropology. Fundamentals, Limits and Prospects. Wien: Springer Verlag. pp. 387 – 415. ARAÚJO, A.C. & LEJEUNE, M. (1995) – Gruta do Escoural: necrópole neolítica e arte rupestre paleolítica, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 8. Lisboa: IPPAR. BOAVENTURA R. (2009) – As antas e o Megalitismo da região de Lisboa. Doctoral Thesis. Lisbon : University of Lisbon. Printed.

All the aspects discussed are parts of a mosaic that reflects a symbolic construction of a local landscape that seems to have a cosmogonic meaning and funerary practices and body manipulations at Perdigões might have been central in that scenario.

BOAVENTURA, R.; FERREIRA, MT; NEVES, MJ; SILVA, AM. (in press) – Funerary practices and anthropology during Middle-Late Neolithic (4th and 3rd millennia BCE) in Portugal: old bones, new insights. Anthropologie.

In fact, while dealing with a specific part of what was going on we must not forget the social role of the site. Independently of the general social framework, of European or more regional scale, that we might assume to explain this kind of sites, we must bear in mind that the whole is more than an addition of the parts and that a part is a singular way of expressing the whole. That is to say: parts, although similar, cannot be submitted to a process of simplistic homology. Independently of the theoretical background we choose to support, ditched enclosures can hardly be seen as the same and one reality, with an absolute identical social meaning and function.

CHAMBON, P. (2003) – Les morts dans les sépultures collectives Néolithique en France. Du cadavre aux restes ultimes. XXXV supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. Paris: CNRS Editions. COSTA CAMARÉ, M.E., DÍAZ-ZORITA BONILLA AND GARCÍA SANJUÁN, L. (2010) – The Copper Age settlement of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain): demography, metallurgy and spatial organization. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 67(1). pp. 85-117.

48

GONÇALVES, V.S. (1999) – Reguengos de Monsaraz. Territórios megalíticos. Câmara Municipal de Reguengos de Monsaraz.

CULLEN, T. (1995) – Mesolithic mortuary ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Antiquity, 69. pp. 270–289. CUNHA, C. (in preparation) – Caracterização da Morfologia Dentária no Médio Guadiana no Neolítico Final-Calcolítico: Fundamentação para o Mapeamento Morfológico das Populações Locais na Pré-história Recente. PhD Dissertation to be presented for the Degree of Doctor in Biological Anthropology at the Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra.

GRÉVIN, G., BAILET, P., QUATREHOMME, G., OLIVIER, A. (1998) – Anatomical reconstruction of fragments of burned human bones: A necessary means for forensic identification. Forensic Sci. Int., 96. pp. 129134. GUTIÉRREZ SÁEZ, C., GÓMEZ LAGUNA, A., OCEÑA CARRRETÓN, A. (2002) – Fuego y Ritual en el enterramiento colectivo de Cueva Maturra (Argamasilla de Alba, Ciudad Real). In: ROJO GUERRA, M., KUNST, M. eds. (2002) – Sobre el significado del Fuego en los Rituales Funerarios del Neolítico. Studia Archaeologica 91. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. pp. 99 – 126.

DANIELSON, R.; MENDES, P.M. (2013) – Pollen analysis of Late Neolithic ditch deposits from the Perdigões archaeological site. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 9/2013. pp. 13-20. DIAS, M.I., VALERA, A.C., LAGO, M. E PRUDÊNCIO, M.I. (2008) – Proveniência e tecnologia de produção de cerâmicas nos Perdigões. Actas do III Encontro de Arqueologia do SW (Aljustrel, 2006). Vipasca, nº 2, 2ª Série.

HERRMANN, B. (1976) – Experimentelle und theoretische beiträge zur leichenbrand Unterschung. Homo, 27. pp. 114-118. HILLIER, M.; BOAVENTURA, R.; GRIMES, V. (2010) – Moving around? Testing mobility with strontium isotopes (86Sr/87Sr) in the Late Neolithic of SouthCentral Portugal. Poster presented at the IX Congresso de Arqueologia do Algarve, Silves.

DUFFY, P., MACGREGOR, G. (2008) – Cremations, Conjucture and contextual taphonomies: material strategies during 4th and 2nd millennia BC in Scotland. In: FAHLANDER, F.; OESTIGAARD T eds. (2008) – The Material of death. Bodies, burials, beliefs. Bar International Series 1768.

IDÁÑEZ SANCHEZ, J. (1984) – Incineración parcial en los enterramientos colectivos eneolíticos del Sudeste Español. Actas de la Mesa Redonda sobre Megalitismo Peninsular. pp. 165 – 167.

EVANGELISTA, L. S. (In preparation) – Life And Death In Perdigões: Mortuary Practices And Anthropological Characterization Of Individuals Exhumed From Tomb I In The Pre-Historic Enclosure Of Perdigões (Reguengos De Monsaraz). PhD Dissertation to be presented for the Degree of Doctor in Biological Anthropology at the Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra.

JELEV, L., SURCHEV, L. (2007) – Study of variant anatomical structures (bony canals, fibrous bands, and muscles) in relation to potential supraclavicular nerve entrapment. Clin. Anat., 20. pp. 278 – 285.

GATTO, E. (2007) – La crémation parmi les pratiques funéraires du Néolithique récent-final en France. Méthodes d’étude et analyse de sites. B. Mem. Soc. Anthro Par, 19 (3-4). pp. 195 – 220.

LAGO, M.; DUARTE, C.; VALERA, A.; ALBERGARIA, J.; ALMEIDA, F. E CARVALHO, A. (1998) – Povoado dos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz): dados preliminares dos trabalhos arqueológicos realizados em 1997. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 1, nº 1. Lisboa: IPA. pp. 45-152.

GODINHO, R. (2008) – Deposições funerárias em fossa nos Perdigões: dados antropológicos do Sector I. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 3/2008. Lisboa: NIA-ERA. pp. 29-34.

MALINOWSKI, A., PORAWSKI, R. (1969) – Identifikations Möglichkeiten menschlicher Brandknochen mit besonder Berücksichtigung ihres Gewichts. Zacchia, 5. pp. 1-19.

GONÇALVES, D. (2012) – Cremains: The value of quantitative analysis for the bioanthropological research of burned human skeletal remains. Doctoral Thesis. Coimbra: Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra.

MÁRQUEZ, J.E.; VALERA, A.C.; BECKER, H.; JIMÉNEZ, V. AND SUÁREZ, J. (2011) – El Complexo Arqueoló-gico dos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal). Prospecciones Geofísicas – Campaña 2008-09. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 68(1). pp. 175-186.

GONÇALVES, D., THOMPSON, T.J.U., CUNHA, E. (2011) – Implications of heat-induced changes in bone on the interpretation of funerary behaviour and practice. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38. pp- 1308 – 1313.

MAUSS, M. (2008) – Ensaio sobre a dádiva. Lisboa: Edições 70.

49

MCKINLEY, J.I. (1993) – Bone fragment size and weights of bone from Modern British cremations and the implications for the interpretation of archaeological cremations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 3(4). pp. 283-287.

unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Wachtstumsfragen. Homo, 26 pp. 53-69.

von

VALERA, A.C. (2008a) – O recinto calcolítico dos Perdigões: fossos e fossas do Sector I. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 3/2008. pp. 19-27.

RODRIGUES, F. (in this volume) – Skeletons in the ditch: funerary activity in ditched enclosures of Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo, Beja).

VALERA, A. C. (2008b) –Mapeando o Cosmos. Uma abordagem cognitiva aos recintos da Pré-História Recente. ERA Arqueologia, 8. pp. 112-127.

SAUNDERS, S. (1978) – The development and distribution of discontinuous morphological variation of human infracranial skeleton. Dossier 81. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series.

VALERA, A. C. (2012a) – “Mind the gap”: Neolithic and Chalcolithic enclosures of South Portugal In: GIBSON, A. ed. (2012) – Enclosing the Neolithic. Recent studies in Britain and Europe. British Archaeological Reports. pp.165-183.

SCHEUER, L.; BLACK, S. (2000) – Developmental Juvenile Osteology. London: Academic Press.

VALERA, A. C. (2012b) – Ditches, pits and hypogea: new data and new problems in South Portugal Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic funerary practices. In GIBAJA, J.F; CARVALHO, A.F. & CHAMBOM, P. eds. (2012) – Funerary practices from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic of the Northwest Mediterranean. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. pp.103-122.

SILVA, AM. (2002) – Antropologia funerária e paleobiologia das populações portuguesas (litorais) do Neolítico final/ Calcolítico. Doctoral Thesis. Coimbra: Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra. SILVA A.M. (2003) – Portuguese Populations of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods exhumed from Collective burials: an overview. Anthropologie, XLI, 1-2. pp. 55 - 64.

VALERA, A.C. (2012c) – Ídolos Almerienses provenientes de contextos neolíticos do complexo de recintos dos Perdigões. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 8/2012. pp. 19-27.

SILVA, A.M. (2012) – Antropologia Funerária e Paleobiologia das populações Portuguesas (Litorais) do Neolítico Final/ Calcolítico. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.

VALERA, A.C. (2013) – Recintos de fossos da PréHistória Recente em Portugal. Investigação, discursos, salvaguarda e divulgação. Almadan, II Série, n.º 18. pp. 93-110.

SILVA, A.M., CRUBÉZY, E.,CUNHA, E. (2009) – Bone weight: new reference values based on a Modern Portuguese Identified Skeletal Collection. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 19 (5). pp. 628-641.

VALERA, A.C. AND BECKER, H. (2011) – Cosmologia e recintos de fossos da Pré-História Recente: resul-tados da prospecção geofísica em Xancra (Cuba, Beja). Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 7/2011. pp. 23-32.

SILVA, A.M., LEANDRO I.; PEREIRA D., COSTA, C., VALERA, A.C. (2013) – Collective cremation burial in Pit 16 from Perdigões Enclosure: a unique funerary context in the Portuguese Chalcolithic burial practices. In preparation.

VALERA, A.C.; EVANGELISTA, L.S. (2014) – Anthropomorphic figurines at Perdigões enclosure: naturalism, body proportion and canonical posture as forms of ideological language. Journal of European Archaeology, 17(2). pp. 286-300.

SILVA, A.M., VALERA, A., COSTA, C.; DIAS, M.I. (2010) – A new research project on funerary practices at Perdigões enclosure. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 5/2010. Lisboa: Era Arqueologia. pp. 43-48.

VALERA, A.C. AND GODINHO, R. (2009) – A gestão da morte nos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz): novos dados, novos problemas. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras, 17. Oeiras: Câmara Municipal de Oeiras. pp. 371387.

SMITH, B.H. (1984) – Patterns of molar wear in huntergathers and agriculturalists. Am. J. Phys. Anthopol., 63. pp. 39 – 84.

VALERA, A.C. AND GODINHO, R. (2010) – Ossos humanos provenientes dos fossos 3 e 4 e gestão da morte nos Perdigões. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 6/2010. Lisboa: Era Arqueologia. pp.29-40.

SMITH, B. (1991) – Standards of human tooth formation and dental age assessment. In KELLEY, M. LARSEN, C. eds. (1991) – Advances in Dental Anthropology. New York: Wiley-Liss. pp. 143-168.

VALERA, A.C.; LAGO, M.; DUARTE, C.; DIAS, M.I. AND PRUDÊNCIO, M.I. (2007) – Investigação no complexo arqueológico dos Perdigões: ponto da situação

STLOUKAL, M. & HANAKOVA, H. (1978) – Die Länge der Längsknochen alt slawischer Bevölkerungen

50

de dados e problemas. In JORGE, S. O.; BETTENCOURT, A. M.; FIGUEIRAL, I. eds. (2007) – A concepção das paisagens e dos espaços na Arqueologia da Península Ibérica. Actas do 4º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular. Faro (2004). Faro: Universidade do Algarve. pp. 53-66. VALERA, A.C.; LAGO, M.; DUARTE, C.; EVANGELISTA, L.S. (2000) – Ambientes funerários no complexo arqueológico dos Perdigões: uma análise preliminar no contexto das práticas funerárias calcolíticas no Alentejo. ERA Aqueologia, 2. Lisboa: ERA/Cilibri. pp.84-105. VALERA, A; SILVA, A. M. (2011) – Datações de radiocarbono para os Perdigões (1): contextos com restos humanos nos sectores I e Q. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 7. pp. 7-18. VALERA, A.C., SILVA, A.M. E MÁRQUEZ ROMERO, J.E. (2014) – The temporality of Perdigões enclosures: absolute chronology of the structures and social practices. SPAL. No. 23. pp. 11-26 WEISS-KRECJCI, E. (2005) – Formation processes of deposits with burned human remains in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Portugal. Journal of Iberian Archaeology, 7. pp. 37-73.

51

Figure 1 – 1. Perdigões in Iberian peninsula; 2. Magnetogram of Perdigões enclosures; 3. Enclosures during Late Neolithic; 4. Enclosures during Chalcolithic; 5. Enclosures during Late Chalcolithic.

52

Figure 2 – Pit graves from Late Neolithic and humans remains from pit 11.

53

Figure 3 – Sequence of excavation of Tomb 1 and some votive materials.

54

Figure 4 – Sequence of excavation of Tomb 2 and some votive materials. 2. Corresponds to remains of the first phase of use and 3. to remains of the reuse of the chamber.

55

Figure 5 – Deposition of cremated remains over a primary deposition in pit 40 at the center of the enclosures and some associated votive materials.

56

Figure 6 – 1. Complete supraclavicular perforation of a right clavicle recovered from Pit 16 from Perdigões Enclosure; 2. Thumbnail fracture on a long bone fragment from Pit 16 from Perdigões Enclosure; 3. Cranial fragment recovered from ambience 1 with a circular hole. Possible diagnosis include complete trepanation or depressed cranial fracture; 4. Comparison of the weight percentage of bone fragments recovered from Pit 16 with the reference values (Silva et al. 2009).

57

58

Alentejo, a project developed by EDIA, SA (Empresa de Desenvolvimento e Infra-Estruturas de Alqueva, SA). EDIA also promoted all the archaeological works carried out both within the known limits of the site and on its vicinity.

SKELETONS IN THE DITCH: FUNERARY ACTIVITY IN DITCHED ENCLOSURES OF PORTO TORRÃO (FERREIRA DO ALENTEJO, BEJA) Filipa Rodrigues5

A number of archaeology companies were involved in this comprehensive preventive archaeology project, working in different sectors of the archaeological site6, under the coordination of Dr. António Faustino de Carvalho7, an external consultant of EDIA, SA.

ABSTRACT

Porto Torrão is a prehistoric settlement site in the Alentejo lowlands. The site is crossed by the Ribeira do Vale do Ouro (stream), which flows into the Sado River a few kilometers away from the archaeological site. The site is known since the early 1980’s for its impressive dimensions and important archaeological occupation, from Late Neolithic to the Bell Beaker period (Arnaud, 1982, 1993); rescue excavations have been carried out since 2003. A double-ditch system was recognized on the right bank of the stream during the archaeological intervention (Valera and Filipe, 2004). In 2008, archaeological work at the site was extended due to the implementation of an irrigation system, in connection with and paid for by the management of the Alqueva reservoir (EDIA, SA). A topsoil strip disclosed a large number of find-rich features (Rebelo at al., 2009), which were then excavated in the framework of a collaborative effort that brought together a number of archaeological companies. Among others, the features include a double-ditch system identified on both sides of the stream, several pits located inside and outside the enclosed area, megalithic graves (tholoi) and hypogea (Santos et al., in print; Valera, in print). Thus, the total area of the archaeological site extended up to >500 ha.

The information included in this paper results not only from the empirical data gathered by the author during the field and laboratory work carried out under her direct responsibility, but also from reports issued by the different archaeological teams working at the site and submitted to the Portuguese Archaeological Heritage Authority - IGESPAR, IP. Those reports were not yet approved by the Authority at the time when they were accessed by the author. Therefore, any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author, excepting any information not included in the above referred documents. According to the current Portuguese legislation8, the excavation, recovery and preliminary analysis of human remains identified at Sector 3 East were performed by a physical anthropology expert, Dr. Íris Naire Otte.

2.

The Porto Torrão archaeological site is located in Southwest Iberia, in the Portuguese region of Alentejo, near the town of Ferreira do Alentejo, some 25 kilometers from the city of Beja, which is the district capital (38º04’28.03’’ N; 8º07’35.80’’ W).

This paper will discuss a particular type of funerary context excavated as part of the project, consisting of human skeletal parts mixed with faunal remains, sherds and stones. This context was found at the base of the inner ditch, on the left side of the stream. The human bones formed disorganized heaps and bore evidence that suggested defleshing. Both children and adults are present, but sexing of the remains has not been possible (Otte, 2010).

In geomorphological terms, the Porto Torrão area is part of the Baixo Alentejo peneplain, a major relief unit in Southern Portugal, which is bounded northerly by the 6

Sectors 1 and 2 were excavated by Neoépica company, under the direction of Raquel Santos, Paulo Rebelo, Nuno Neto and Ana Vieira; sector 3 West by Archeoestudos company, under the direction of João Rebuge, Anabela Sá and António Cheney; sectors 3 East, 4 and 6 by Crivarque company, under the direction of Filipa Rodrigues. The identified burial grounds, associated with the Porto Torrão archaeological site, were likewise excavated by different companies. The Monte do Pombal site was excavated by Era, Arqueologia company, under the direction of Susana Dias and Margarida Figueiredo; the Monte do Cardim site was excavated by Era, Arqueologia company, under the direction of Margarida Figueiredo; the Horta do João da Moura site was excavated by Era, Arqueologia company, under the direction of Tiago do Pereiro and by Styx, Estudos de Antropologia company, under the direction of Mónica Corga e Maria Teresa Ferreira; the Monte do Carrascal site was excavated by Era, Arqueologia company, under the direction of Helena Santos and by Styx, Estudos de Antropologia company, under the direction of Maria João Neves and Catarina Mendes. 7 Universidade do Algarve 8 Decreto-Lei n.º 270/99, de 15 de Julho, Anexo I – Regulamento dos Trabalhos Arqueológicos, Artigo 8.º.

KEY-WORDS: Porto Torrão, ditched enclosures, SW Iberia, human remains.

1.

LOCATION

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

During the 2009-2010 biennium a major preventive archaeological intervention was carried out at the already known archaeological site of Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo, Beja). The intervention took place following the implementation of the Bloco de Rega de Ferreira do

5 Crivarque, Lda/ FCT/ FCHS – Ualg [email protected] Translation by Armando Lucena

59

Serra de Portel, westerly by the Sado river basin and the Serra da Vigia, southerly by the Serra do Caldeirão and easterly by the Serra de Barrancos.

the study of the Bell Beaker issues, its chronology and origin. Several sondages were carried out on a small elevation, considered as the geometrical center of the settlement, assuming (1) a thicker stratigraphy and (2) evidence of any existing defensive structures. The excavation of a 24m2 area revealed a 1m thick stratigraphic sequence with 3 well defined layers. Absolute dates for each of these layers were obtained by the radiocarbon method.

On that basis, two phases of occupation were established: • •

Layer 1 corresponds to a pre-Bell Beaker period; Layer 3 corresponds to a Bell Beaker context.

A continued occupation of the site, without any hiatus, was thus assumed (Arnaud, 1982; 1993).

Since the first results from Porto Torrão were published, the site has been referred several times in Iberian archaeological bibliography. These references always acknowledge the importance of its study to understand the evolution of the first food-producing societies in the Iberian Peninsula.

Fig. 1 – Porto Torrão: Location.

This area is also defined by some authors as "Superfície de Beja", a sometimes perfect flattening, with scarce residual relief, resulting from slow erosion rejuvenation. Throughout this region, the average altitude of the peneplain ranges from 80 to 180 meters AMSL.

However, in spite of the site’s relevance, it was only in 2002 when new archaeological works were carried out at the site, in the scope of a “rescue archeology” project, carried out by Era, Arqueologia Company, under the direction of Iola Filipe and Antonio Carlos Valera. This project brought up "the" big news about the prehistoric occupation of Porto Torrão: unlike the early '80s assumption that a walled structure existed at the site, it was obvious that Porto Torrão fitted into the "ditched enclosure” type of site. Two sections of large ditches and some pit structures were identified; a whole new type of architecture, unknown until then in Porto Torrão (Valera & Filipe, 2004).

The Porto Torrão archaeological site location is also part of the Sado river basin, which features a poorly developed drainage system in this area, with little constrainment and a small number of temporary and permanent watercourses. The main permanent watercourses are the streams of Canhestro, Capela and Vale do Ouro, with an E-W orientation and runoff. The latter runs across the archaeological site, which suggests a “centralization” of this natural resource, which is critical for communities that set their economical subsystems upon agro-pastoral activities.

Regarding the site’s diachrony, occupations and the filling phases of the ditches, it was observed that this has occurred in two distinct periods of recent Prehistory.

Concerning Geology, this area is characterized by the presence of Miocene sedimentary lithologies, featuring clays, marls, limestone and conglomerates, mostly corresponding to soft, pulverous rocks.

Thus: 3.

•

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERIES

•

The site was identified in the early 80’s of the twentieth century by Diogo Patricio. During that decade, several archaeological research works were carried out under the scientific direction of José Morais Arnaud.

Ditch 1, corresponding to the inner ditch, has been filled during Late Neolithic; Ditch 2, corresponding to the outer ditch, has been filled during Chalcolithic, and the last phase of the filling period already occurred in the Bell Beaker Period (Valera & Filipe, 2004).

In 2008, work at the site was extended due to the implementation of an irrigation system, in connection with and paid for by the management of the Alqueva reservoir (EDIA, SA). A topsoil strip disclosed a large number of find-rich features (Rebelo at al., 2009), which were then excavated in the framework of a collaborative effort that brought together a number of archaeological companies.

In paper published in '93, apart from providing a plan with the estimated area for the occupation of the site (about 100ha), J. M. Arnaud states that this site was "[...] one of the most important "Bell Beaker" sites of the Peninsula [...] ", due to the density of this type of pottery (about 20 fragments/m2) (Arnaud, 1993). Thus, the research works conducted by Arnaud focused mainly on

60

Table 1 – Porto Torrão: radiocarbon dates

Over 3000m2 were excavated, both inside and outside the enclosure, allowing to observe what no one, until now, had been able to see: a complex "web" of negative structures, with different morphologies and chronologies, and interspersed occupation levels, confirming the site’s long diachrony, which undoubtedly begins in the 2nd half of the 4th millennium and extends continuously throughout the 3rd millennium and up to Bronze Age.

(Santos et al., in print; Valera, in print). Thus, the total area of the archaeological site extended up to >500 ha.

3. THE 2009-2010 INTERVENTION: SECTOR 3 EAST DOUBLE-DITCH SYSTEM As referred above, a double-ditch system was identified during the 2009-2010 archaeological intervention, on both sides of the Ribeira do Vale do Ouro; this confirms the architecture observed in 2003.

Among others, the features include a double-ditch system identified on both sides of the stream, several pits located inside and outside the enclosed area, megalithic graves (tholoi at Monte do Cardim, Horta do João da Moura and Monte do Pombal), and hypogea (at Monte do Carrascal)

The identification of this ditch system is supported by four integrally excavated sections on sectors 1, 2 (Santos

61

et al., 2012), and 3 East, located on the left bank of the Ribeira do Vale do Ouro, and on sector 6, located on the stream’s right bank.

However, and considering the stratigraphic sequence observed in each of the ditches, filling appears to have occurred not only in different ways (natural/anthropic processes), but also at different occupation times, and always within the Chalcolithic diachrony. To illustrate the above, see the ditch system identified on Sector 3 East, which corresponds to the context discussed in this paper.

3.1. SECTOR 3 EAST: OUTER DITCH – DITCH II

Fig. 2 – Porto Torrão archaeological site: excavated areas. The system features large parallel, negative structures up to 6 m deep and 12 m wide.

Fig. 4 – Porto Torrão: Sector 3 East – Ditch II (Outer Ditch) Schematic Profile (South)

Apart from their truly monumental dimensions, another aspect of these structures ought to be highlighted as well: the presence of transversal tunnels connecting the ditches. This particular feature might support the hypothesis that both ditches were opened simultaneously, in order to fulfill a common purpose, functioning as a single structure rather than as two separate and independent blocks. This approach assumes that this functionality would have existed prior to the ditches’ filling.

The outer ditch (Ditch II) is some 12m wide and about 6m deep, and roughly V-shaped. The inner interface features the opening for the above mentioned tunnel. From the stratigraphic point of view, its filling took place mainly due to natural processes. However, at a stage when it was already substantially filled, a small ditch was reopened, and later on delimited by an alignment of stones. We must also mention that the groundwater level was reached at the base of the structure, corresponding to the actual topographic elevation of the stream. The first deposit which accumulated inside the ditch, featuring laminated sediments, possibly indicates the circulation of water within the structure.

3.2. SECTOR 3 EAST: INNER DITCH – DITCH I As far as the inner ditch is concerned, the sedimentation process is completely different, with a complex stratigraphic sequence, which features different structures and occupation levels, within successive and intercalated deposits of both anthropogenic and natural origin. Thus, the filling processes of such a structure can have different dynamics and probably different meanings, all within the same chronocultural stage.

Fig. 3 – Porto Torrão: Sector 3 East double-ditch system

62

The funerary context was found inside this ditch, but there is an interesting sequence of archaeological occupations above the burial, which should be addressed here as well:

structure, molded into the sediment itself, "combustion" / "brazier" taking place inside.

the

A large number of sherds were recovered around these combustion structures, along with lithics (including a knapping area) and a faunal assemblage, featuring mammals and a lesser amount of malacological remains. The degree of preservation of these remains suggests a rapid sedimentation process, which allowed for in situ conservation, with few post-depositional processes that would have altered the original position of the finds; nevertheless, some degree of horizontal distribution was assumed from the beginning.

The three-dimensional piece-plotting used helps to corroborate this hypothesis, as organized distribution patterns were identified. Both pottery and lithics were concentrated in areas near the structures, the faunal remains being somewhat scattered all over the reference grid. Fig. 5 – Porto Torrão: Sector 3 East – Ditch I (Inner ditch) N Profile; A – reproduction of field drawing; B – photographic view Phase 7: Clay structure ([32007)] After the filling of the ditch, but at a time when its interfaces were still visible, a parallel positive structure was built in the center of the negative structure, using clay as the main raw material. This structure is partially truncated by a soil profile ([∅]) which provided the few Bell Beaker pottery sherds recovered in this area. This soil profile, which exists in the whole of Sector 3 East, sealed Ditch I of Porto Torrão, making it absolutely imperceptible on the surface.

Fig. 7 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: Occupation Level 2 – overall view and detail of the combustion structures.

Fig. 6 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: clay structure; A – Overall photo taken from the Southern side; B – Overall photo taken from the Western side; C – Field drawing, including the clay structure and the limits of the ditch.

Phase 6: Occupation Level 2 ([32043]) Two combustion structures of different types, which must have worked simultaneously, were identified close to the inner interface. These are: 1) a paved surface of irregular morphology composed of rock fragments from different lithologies, broken by the action of fire; 2) and a circular

Fig. 8 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: Occupation Level 2 – 3D Piece-Plotting

63

Phase 5: Waste dump area

along each interface, which might indicate the existence of a palisade. The formation of this deposit is clearly anthropic and shows signs of fire exposure (reddening).

Below Occupation Level 2, a different deposit was identified, which revealed an assemblage of faunal remains; its main feature is the frequency of the same anatomical elements, among which: shoulder blades, jaws, vertebrae, radii, ribs and pelvises. The species are not yet fully identified, but the presence of pig and ovicaprids is confirmed. A canid jaw was also recognized. A total of 159 animal bones and bone fragments were recovered and three-dimensionally piece-plotted, in a rather restricted area. It should be noted that these ecofacts were found on the ditch’s central axis, despite the fact that at this depth the structure is some 6 m wide. It is important to mention that the arrangement and preservation of these elements indicates, once more, a moment of rapid sediment deposition, a hypothesis also supported by the horizontality of this sedimentary unit, along with the horizontality and spatial distribution of the ecofacts.

Fig. 10 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: waste dump area – 3D Piece-Plotting

Phase 5: Anthropic deposit

Fig. 11 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: Occupation Level 1 – pit hearth excavation sequence Fig. 9 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: waste dump area; A – aerial photo of Ditch I, during excavation (courtesy of EDIA, SA); B – Overall photo taken from the Southern side Below this stratigraphic unit, there is a deposit similar to the bedrock, which in this area is a soft rock, locally known as "caliço" due to its similarities with lime. This deposit occupies the central part of the negative structure, although it does not occupy its entire width (which in this excavation phase, at about 2.50 m below surface, was approximately 2m). This deposit stops abruptly near the interfaces of the ditch, which may indicate the existence of a "barrier" along the walls of the structure that, in a way, prevented the expansion of the deposit. This abrupt interruption is also related to the presence of two small trenches, one

Fig. 12 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: anthropic deposit; A – Overall photo taken from the Northern side; B Overall photo after the excavation of the small

64

trenches skirting the deposit, taken from the Northern side; C – Detail of a trench (east)

4.

SKELETONS IN THE DITCH: THE CONTEXT (SECTOR 3 EAST, DITCH I)

The funerary use of this ditch was recognized when the ditch was already approximately 3.50 m deep and there was a pronounced narrowing of the walls, which also indicated that the base of the structure was near. In terms of excavation area, no more than 7m2 of this context were excavated; its thickness was less than 1m. This funerary use of the inner ditch from Sector 3 East of Porto Torrão was revealed by the presence of about a hundred human bones, mixed with pottery sherds, stones and faunal remains, namely disorganized mammal bones. In some cases, the concentration of bones forms real piles and there are some anatomical connections, although a complete skeleton has never been found. Different types of depositions were recorded, such as the following:

A.

Two nearly complete non-adult crania, one of them articulated with the mandible and the first cervical vertebra; below the skulls, it was possible to see a cluster of bones belonging to young adults and adults, namely pelvis, right and left femur, scapula, humerus, ulna and clavicle (Otte, 2010);

Fig. 13 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: overall photo, taken from the Southern side

B. A femur and tibia / fibula in anatomic articulation, which would have been deposited in flesh; below them a left hand was recorded, which kept in anatomical connection 7 carpal bones, 5 metacarpals, 5 proximal phalanges, 2 medial phalanges, articulating with ulna, humerus and radius; both limbs belong to adults (Otte, 2012); C. A real "amalgam" of animal bones, human bones, pottery sherds and "caliço" stones. In anatomical terms, nearly all human skeletal parts are represented.

Fig. 14 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: example A

Concerning age groups, the best represented groups are adults (26%), followed by subadults (8%), and only 6% of the remains are assigned to the young adult group. However, 60% of the exhumed remains could not be assigned to any age group. From the graph showing the skeletal representation by age groups, we can infer the following: the subadults are best represented by the mandibles, skulls and vertebrae; the young adult group by the pelvic region and lower limbs; limbs are the best represented elements in adults. These hundreds of human bones correspond to a minimum number of six individuals, including both adult and subadult individuals (Otte, 2010).

Graphic 1 – Skeletal part representation (by age groups

65

Fig. 15 – Spatial distribution of remains (by age groups

Knowing that this type of context is common all over Europe and considering the interpretive hypothesis normally assigned to it, the following questions can be formulated:

1) Is this a "dump"? If so, why do we have human bones in anatomical connection? 2) Would this context be the result of emptying a funerary area located near the ditch (e.g., from the pit burials or the megalithic monuments)? If so, why are there more faunal remains than human bones? 3) Will it be the result of cannibalistic practices? Cut marks or any other form of forceful dismemberment were not visible to the naked eye. However, the high fragmentation degree of the collection added to the missing extremities of most bones can be a problem in the correct evaluation of this issue.

Fig. 16 – Sector 3 East, Ditch I: example B The truth is that all issues and questions arising when interpreting this context are centered on a single problem: would it be a primary deposition where human bones are deliberately deposited after partial fleshing, this hypothesis being compatible, for example, with the idea of cannibalism? Or is it a secondary deposition resulting from the primary treatment that was possibly given to the dead?

5. DISCUSSION Now that the context was presented, its interpretation should be discussed. However, at this time there are more questions and doubts than answers and certainties about these facts.

66

single situation, of only one individual, but rather a pattern that implies a collective practice.

Furthermore, the multiplicity of funerary activities already known in this archaeological site only generates more doubts.

What might be the meaning of such dichotomies as or “inside/outside”, “megalithic/non-megalithic” “single/collective”?

As mentioned before, the archaeological works carried out during the 2009-2010 biennium, covered not only a significant part of the enclosed area, but also neighboring areas, including the locations known as Monte do Cardim, Horta do João da Moura, Monte do Carrascal and Monte do Pombal. The interventions carried out in these areas allowed not only to extend the archaeological site area to more than 500ha, but also to recognize a number of well defined burial areas, with distinct architectural solutions.

The archaeological excavations in these areas were carried out by different teams. The data described below are either included in the archaeological reports submitted to the project owner or personal communications from the excavation directors.

Fig. 17 – Porto Torrão: variety of funerary activities The following are the demographic data obtained so far:

Thus, Monte do Cardim and Monte do Pombal match the tholos type structures, each of them being apparently isolated (Figueiredo, 2009; Dias & Figueiredo, 2009). On the other hand, Horta do João da Moura includes a group of at least five tholoi. Only two of these five tholoi were fully excavated (Pereiro, 2010; Corga & Ferreira, 2011) and the remaining three were identified during the archaeological monitoring of an urbanization project (personal information of Raquel Santos, Nuno Neto e Paulo Rebelo).

Table 2 – Porto Torrão: demographic data (A = Adult; YA = Young Adult; SA = Subadult)

The site known as Monte do Carrascal features a distinct architectural solution: this is a set of hypogea, featuring four securely identified structures (Santos, 2010; Neves & Mendes, 2011). However, the geophysical survey performed at this site revealed dozens of anomalies that can be interpreted as similar structures (personal information of António Valera).

So far a minimal number of 238 individuals have been recognized in all interventions.

However, some of these contexts were only partially excavated. And, in other cases, the funerary structures were identified, but not excavated – three tholoi from Horta do João da Moura and at least two hypogea and a probable tholos at Monte do Carrascal (Pereiro, 2010; Corga & Ferreira, 2011).

Furthermore, burial pits were also recognized inside the enclosed area (Granja, 2009; Umbelino & Amorim, 2010; Neoépica, 2011).

All these facts clearly indicate that the minimum number of individuals would grow exponentially if these contexts were excavated. Not only because they are funerary contexts, but also because the cases mentioned - Horta do João da Moura and Monte do Carrascal - correspond to the areas with the highest number of individuals.

Thus, the funerary activity recorded so far in Porto Torrão can be described as follows:

A) non-megalithic burial pits, single or double, inside the enclosed area; B) collective burials, such as tholoi (megalithic) and hypogea (non-megalithic) outside the enclosed area;

Regarding population data, there is some discrepancy concerning the sexual diagnosis of the individuals: female individuals are better represented than males. However, it should be taken into account that it was not possible to determine the gender of 79% of the sample, so there is a relevant margin of error, which suggests that this difference has no significance.

C) and precisely in the place that allows to differentiate what is "inside" from what is "outside", there are partially defleshed human remains, some dispersed, others in anatomical connection, as referred above; this is not a

67

All age groups are represented with the highest incidence for adults (60%), followed by subadults (20%) and young adults (only 4%). In this case, the percentage of uncertainty concerning "age group" is much smaller, at only 16%.

Despite the fact that human remains appear throughout the entire archaeological complex, there is a clear prevalence of this type of context outside the enclosed area. And that is compatible with the notion of a relatively well bounded necropolis. Not in a particular place (there are funerary monuments on the East and South sides of the enclosed area) but markedly out the enclosed area. If we pay attention to the dichotomy "individual burial" / "collective burial" the values show that 5% of the individuals were identified in single or double funerary contexts, while the remaining 95% were identified in collective funerary contexts. Despite the size of the area excavated inside the enclosure (>3 000 m2), where a larger number of single burials were identified, this practice is only residual when the overall characteristics of the site are considered.

Graphic 2 – Porto Torrão: sexual diagnosis Despite the high margins of error, it can be said, in broad terms, that the skeletal population associated with the Porto Torrão ditched enclosure is balanced and numerous.

Graphic 5 – Porto Torrão: relation between “individual or double” and “collective” funerary contexts What could this mean, in social terms?

Graphic 3 – Porto Torrão: age groups

At the current stage of research at this archaeological site, the multiplicity and variety of funerary contexts is still missing radiometric datings for each of these contexts; this issue is expected to be solved in the near future.

Concerning architecture, a statistical overview of the table shows the difference between the non-megalithic and megalithic burials. About 65% of the skeletal population was identified within the hypogea, 29% comes from the tholoi type megalithic monuments, 4% from inside the pit, and only 2% is from the inner ditch of Sector 3 East.

However, if one considers their relative dating, these activities have possibly been synchronic, at some point:

• the inner ditch of Sector 3 East has a chronology based on the techno-typological analysis of material culture and chronostratigraphy, which fits in the first half of the third millennium BC;

In other words, and considering the location of these funerary contexts, 94% of the skeletal population was identified outside the enclosed area, only 4% inside the enclosed area and the remaining 2% in the boundary between both areas.

• for the pit burials, in cases where a chronological attribution was possible, also based on the material culture associated with the burials, there are two distinct stages: Chalcolithic or Bell Beaker period (Santos et al, 2012; Rebuje et al., 2010; • for the collective funerary monuments located outside the enclosed area, different phases of the monument's use were defined in some cases, but in almost all situations, the end of the fourth millennium BC is a likely date for the beginning of its use, lasting until the beginning of the Bell Beaker period (Granja, 2009; Figueiredo, 2009; Dias & Figueiredo, 2009; Pereiro,

Graphic 4 – Porto Torrão: architecture and location of funerary contexts

68

2010; Umbelino & Amorim, 2010; Santos, 2010; Corga & Ferreira, 2011; Neoépica, 2011; Neves & Mendes, 2011).

GRANJA, R. (2009) – Relatório Antropológico da 2ª fase de intervenção arqueológica em Porto Torrão, Ferreira do Alentejo. Neoépica. Printed version.

Without absolute datings that would enable the establishment of relationships between “single or double” and “collective” funerary activities, a social reading might be risky.

Neoépica (2011) Relatório antropológico da 2ª fase de intervenção arqueológica em Porto Torrão, Ferreira do Alentejo. Sectores 1 e 2, Neoépica, policopiado. NEVES, M. J.; MENDES, C. (2011) – Monte do Carrascal 2 - Trabalhos arqueológicos e antropológicos de minimização de impactes decorrentes do Bloco de Rega de Ferreira, Figueirinha e Valbom – Fase de obra. Styx, estudos de antropologia, Lda. Printed version.

However, all these empirical data are compatible with the idea that Porto Torrão functioned as an aggregation site in a specific territory, where phenomena of social differentiation necessarily occurred, regardless of the subsystem that sets off that differentiation (economic, political, symbolic). And the different solutions / funerary activities already known also demonstrate a culturally diversified society.

OTTE, I. (2010) – Physical anthropological report on the human skeletal material from Porto Torrão (Sector 3 Este). Crivarque. Printed.

6. CONCLUSION

PEREIRO, T. (2010) – Relatório dos Trabalhos Arqueológicos. Horta do João da Moura 1. Era Arqueologia, S.A. Printed.

So, returning to the funerary context of Sector 3 East inner ditch, is this just another way of dealing with Death?

REBELO, P. (2009) – Relatório Final da intervenção arqueológica no Povoado de Porto Torrão, Ferreira do Alentejo. Neoépica. Printed.

The data that were presented here are relatively recent. At this time, the programming of a research project is underway; it will seek to compile the data of all archaeological interventions performed, so far, in the archaeological site of Porto Torrão.

REBUGE, J. et al. (2010) – Intervenção arqueológica em Porto Torrão (Sector 3 Oeste). Archeoestudos. Printed version.

It is expected that more empirical data will be available in the near future, which will enable us to chronologically and culturally characterize the economic subsystem and the symbolic behavior of the community who built, used and abandoned the archaeological site of Porto Torrão.

SANTOS, H. (2010) – Relatório dos Trabalhos Arqueológicos. Monte do Carrascal 2. Era Arqueologia, S.A. Printed version. SANTOS et al. (in print) Porto Torrão: resultados preliminares, Actas do 4.º Colóquio de Arqueologia de Alqueva. O plano de rega, 2002 – 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ARNAUD, J. M. (1982) – O povoado calcolítico de Ferreira do Alentejo no contexto da bacia do Sado e do Sudoeste Peninsular. Arqueologia. N.º 6. Porto: GEAP. p.48-64.

SANTOS et al. (2012) Relatório Final da intervenção arqueológica no Povoado de Porto Torrão, Ferreira do Alentejo – Sectores 1 e 2, Neoépica, exemplar policopiado.

ARNAUD, J. M. (1993) – O povoado calcolitico de Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo): síntese das investigações realizadas. Vipasca. nº2. Aljustrel: C.M.A. p.51-61.

UMBELINO, C.; AMORIM, A. (2010) – Intervenção arqueológica em Porto Torrão (Sector 3 Oeste). Relatório Antropológico. Archeoestudos. Printed version.

CORGA, M.; FERREIRA, M. T. (2011) – Horta do João da Moura 1: Trabalhos arqueológicos e antropológicos de minimização de impactes decorrentes do Bloco de Rega de Ferreira, Figueirinha e Valbom - Fase de obra. Styx, Estudos de Antropologia, Lda. Printed version.

VALERA, A. C.; FILIPE, I. (2004) – O povoado do Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo): novos dados e novas problemáticas no contexto da calcolitização do Sudoeste peninsular. Era Arqueologia. N.º 6. Lisboa: ERA/Colibri. pp.28-61.

DIAS, S. & FIGUEIREDO, M. (2009) – Relatório Preliminar dos Trabalhos Arqueológicos e Antropológicos. Monte do Pombal 1. Era-Arqueologia, SA. Printed version. FIGUEIREDO, M. (2009) – Relatório dos Trabalhos Arqueológicos. Monte do Cardim 6. Era-Arqueologia, S.A. Printed version.

VALERA, A. C. (in print) – Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic in South Portugal: aspects of the new agenda. In KUNST, M.; GAUβ, R.; BALTERHEIM, M. eds (in print) Vom Erz zum Kupferartefakt. Metallurgie des 3. Jahrfausends in Zambujal und im Sudwestender Iberischen Halbinsel. Madrid: DAI.

69

70

hand, such an exercise have, necessarily, a goal: to define, in the past of the III / II Millennium B.C., spatial indicators (enclosures) that identify certain levels of social development.

ENCLOSURES AND FUNERARY PRACTICES: ABOUT AN ARCHAEOLOGY IN SEARCH FOR THE SYMBOLIC DIMENSION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS. Susana Oliveira Jorge 9

2.

In the last twenty years I have been studying an archaeological site of the III / II Millennium B.C., the monumental walled enclosure of Castelo Velho de Freixo Numão in the north of Portugal. At this site, located at the spur of a hill, were discovered several contexts of deposition: a deposit of fragments of pottery, a deposit of seeds of wheat, several deposits of loom weights, and also, among other kinds of deposition, a deposit with human bones (Fig.1).

ABSTRACT: Starting from the analyses and interpretation of a human remains deposition in the monumental enclosure of Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão, Vila Nova de Foz Côa (3rd/ 2nd millennium B.C.), we question the nature of an Archaeology that aims to decode the symbolic mechanisms of construction and redefinition of social bounds, through its materialities.

In 1994, considering some of these deposits, and also the interpretation of similar sites in Europe, I proposed that Castelo Velho could be interpreted as a place of ritual practices relating to the reinforcement of local identity. Therefore, Castelo Velho was no more considered a defensive place, as it was traditionally understood (Jorge, S. O. 2003).

KEY-WORDS: enclosure; deposition; interpretation.

1.

WHAT ARE THIS MEETING AIMS?

By looking at the theme proposed by the organization enclosures and funerary practices in III / II Millennium B.C. in Europe - this meeting aims to identify the social roles played by the enclosures of this period in its relationship with death. So, is it some kind of an Archaeology of Death.

Since then, I started to look to all of the Iberian Peninsula monumental enclosures of this period. In other words, I no longer accepted the traditional interpretations of these sites as fortified settlements (followed by historicalcultural, Marxist or processual approaches) (Fig.2). In 1996, A. Whittle, in his book Europe in the Neolithic, also referred to III Millennium enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula as "deliberate demarcations of space, as takings of place, as eye-catching statements of communal identity" (Whittle, A. 1996).

As a result of this, we can suppose that the organizers want us to discuss how the enclosures have been a setting for the negotiation of inter and intra-community conflicts. The so-called Archaeology of Conflict. At the same time, we may think that it is supposed that we should discuss enclosures as architectonic devices, which promote different forms of power. The so-called Archaeology of Power.

Such interpretations (Whittle's and mine) are integrated in a perspective very much in vogue in the 1990's, the socalled cognitive processualism. This perspective emphasized the symbolic dimension of social relations, incorporating contributions from Ian Hodder's contextual archaeology and Michael Shanks and Chris Tilley's interpretative archaeology. Nevertheless, this interpretation was still processualist.

Finally, we may think that we are called to discuss how enclosures have contributed to the reinforcing of identity. The so-called Archaeology of Identity.

3.

Therefore, I think that the overall aims of this meeting are markedly processual: on the one hand, one intend to infer from specific materialities (supposedly funerary contexts at enclosures), patterned human behaviors; on the other

9

CASTELO VELHO AND “DEPOSITION”

NEO-PROCESSUAL INTERPRETATION OF CASTELO VELHO DE FREIXO DE NUMÃO

How I interpreted Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão since 1994? (Jorge, S.O. 1999; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2005;). How do materialities, including the deposit with human

Oporto University : [email protected]

71

bones, allow me to construct an interpretation of the site and of the community that had conceived and used it? (Fig. 3).

both sexes). The deposit points to the previous manipulation of the elements that constitute it, outside the stone structure. I would like to emphasize something that is extremely important: the fragment is the main artifact in the constitution of the deposit. This aspect demands us to think about the life of these fragments in the contexts prior to its deposition at Castelo Velho.

A - The structure of human bones and its levels (Fig. 4 and 5) In 1997 I had identified and excavated a deposit with human bones inside a stone structure, located outside the area defined by the higher precint of Castelo Velho. This act of deposition took place during the second half of the III millennium BC, when the place was fully operational.

This deposit can be interpreted as evidence for ritual practices in which human bones are manipulated. About this deposit, one can highlight the following aspects: it is an ordered deposit of fragments of things, particularly bone fragments, fragments of pottery and loom weights. It is understood that this fragmentation is intentional- and it could have been previously performed outside the structure which housed the deposit. Considering this last aspect, the deposition of human bones it is at the end of a process of manipulation of things in different contexts: fragmentation, circulation and the final deposition of those things. Thus, it was thought that the deposit of human bones from Castelo Velho reflected a complex ritual practice, and operated in different missing contexts spread across the surrounding territory.

Deposition presented five levels: Level 1: on clay ground were placed some fragments of a human skeleton in anatomical connection, associated with three loom weights, several fragments of ceramic vessels, and bones of sheep and goat (Fig.6); Level 2: the first level is followed by the construction of a small stone structure that encloses the earlier fragments of human bones and circumscribes more human bones in anatomical connection from the same individual identified at level 1 – a young female. In this space, there were bones of pig and sheep. Inside the niche there were five fragments of pottery and two loom weights. Outside the niche were found fragments of human bones belonging to disconnected skeletons of children and adolescents, a bead from a green necklace, seven loom weights and more than an hundred fragments of pottery ( most of which do not refit). About these human bones in anatomical connection we can ask: where are the rest of the remains of the body? (Fig. 7).

B - Ritual?.... Can we maintain today this neo-processual interpretation? How does archaeology imports from anthropology the concept of ritual and tries to identify it in the so-called "archaeological record" (Jorge, S.O., 2012) ? Ritual is seen as: • A set of planned and formalized collective actions: a device to constrain action; • As having a coercive nature, being used by the social mechanisms of each group to promote social differentiation; • As a separate sphere to that of the secular, even if in a close relationship. Ritual is mainly a performative action used by social integration and power devices; However, current archaeology admits it is not easy to identify ritual in the archaeological record: not only because the "ritual practice" may not have left traces in autonomous materialities; but more importantly, because not all repetitive, formalized, and formally discontinuous actions can be included in a paradigm of rationality / subjectivation which assumes the dichotomy ritual / secular.

Level 3: the area outside of the niche is covered with long slabs of blue schist. These stones do not cover, however, the deposit of human bones in anatomical connection; nor the animal bones, or two loom weights, a small vase and a group of near twenty sherds (Fig.8). Level 4: the whole structure is intentionally closed by placing large stones and a group of near eighty fragments of pottery (most of which do not refit) (Fig.9). Level 5: the structure was hidden by small stones that were added to mask it (Fig.10). About this context, I would like to highlight some aspects: this is a deposit that brings together part of the body of a female individual, between 18 and 20 years old, with fragments of human bones corresponding to about 9 individuals (children, adolescents and young adults from

This results from knowing that the past, any past, work according to different standards of rationality / subjectivation which, contrary to what we are induced to believe, are not familiar to us.

72

The Past is not a variation of the Present. The past can only be approached by analogy, which implies the use of concepts such as distance and mediation.

temporality or life of things. In other words, it is possible to know what happened in terms of a net of actions of fragmentation, different kinds of manipulation, and final deposition in a certain context.

In this exercise focused on analogy, emerges the necessity of conceiving the interpretation of the mediators elements. With the prehistoric past, entails the discussion of the nature of archaeological materialities.

However, the second face refers to a kind of impossibility. It infers from the identified actions the meanings that motivated them: it tries to explain the actions of fragmentation, handling, deposition, etc. through a set of activities ordered towards what is called identity a consolidation of identity and an establishment of power. This second face of the neo-processual interpretation of Castelo Velho comes from the assumption that it is possible to project in the Past the Present, in a rational and subjective way, and the belief that the archaeological materialities reveal the intentions of those who created and used them.

In short, we deal with an analogous past, unfamiliar, strange, possibly undecidable, a past, which is discontinuous to our present. C - Rituals at Castelo Velho? Let me recall the way I interpreted acts of deposition at Castelo Velho between 1998 and 2005 (Jorge, S.O.1999; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2005;): certain things were circulating in the territory, assuming the existence of missing contexts, before their arrival at Castelo Velho (Fig. 11); the manipulation of fragments of things in the different missing contexts, and in the final deposits of Castelo Velho, would act as "socially binding elements" of the groups dispersed throughout the territory; thus fragmentation / deposition of things in ritual contexts throughout the territory would support an increase in the social bonds of the groups.

Nevertheless, for over thirty years the critics of new archaeology have been warning about the impossibility of this project. Correlations between materiality and human behavior only indicate what happened in the past, but they do not explain why this or that happened. Explanations require an operational relationship of regularities that link a cause to an effect. Thus, materialities never reflect in a linear way the human behavior. The relationship between materiality and behavior is mediated by a series of unreachable conceptual frameworks.

This interpretation, which is, in fact, a processual one, not a post-processual approach, has several assumptions: • The main assumption is a basic foundation of current archaeology: from studying the materialities we can reach the specific meanings contained within the• social behavior. • Ritual is a key mediator of meaning as regards the construction of identity. • The ritual handling of the dead in symbolic contexts operates within a network of linked points in a given territory. • Places like Castelo Velho are spatiotemporal devices in such ritual manipulation. Therefore, they are places that polarize the building and reinforcing of social bonds (Fig.12). 4.

POSSIBILITIES AND INTERPRETATION

LIMITS

OF

5.

RETURNING TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING

Prehistoric archaeology, for nearly thirty years, has been struggling with a huge discomfort: we know that the things of the past were deposited (in structures, ditches, pits, etc) for reasons that we, today, not understand at all. To call these depositions, as did for example Joanna Brück (1999), “critical points in the life cycle of the settlement” or “site-maintenance practices” means that we are actually building abstract descriptions that do not explain anything about the system of values which gave meaning to those specific deposits. Brück, herself, recognizes this.

THIS

The contexts, which we as archaeologists describe in detail using, for example, the analysis of the biography of fragmented things (such as the study developed by Lesley McFadyen) are non-categorized contexts (McFadyen, L., forthcoming). These help us understand that the pottery was broken, deposited, re-used, re-deposited in various contexts spread over a territory and this help us to realize that the past is more complex than previously we thought it could be. But at the same time, and by showing the complexity of this manipulation (strange to us today)

Considering all I've said, this neo-processual interpretation about the social function of Castelo Velho presents two faces: the first one is related to the possibility of describing a sequence of actions, and it is easy to do. We report the deposition of fragments of things; we determine the spatial coordinates of those fragments. If we have luck, we can strive to speak of the

73

such analysis further affirms the distance that separates us from the past.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES BARRETT, J.C. (1991) – Towards an archaeology of ritual, sacred and profane. In Proccedings of a conference on archaeology, ritual and religion, Oxford, 1989, Oxford University: 1-9.

The specific meanings of the past are unintelligible. Archaeology reaching this temporary answer - the “horizon of meaning” of the past is absent- opens up the possibility of a new approach. Archaeology does not deal with the meanings of the past. It deals, from my point of view, with the identification of signs-systems, which point to the existence, in the past, of codes, which however are sealed to us because we have no key to open them. Archaeology is therefore not a matter of meaning but a matter of identification of codes.

BRADLEY, R. (1991) – Ritual, time and history, World Archaeology, London, 23/2: 209-219. BRÜCK, J. (1999) – Ritual and Rationality: some problems of interpretation in European Archaeology, European Journal of Archaeology, London, 2: 313-344.

In the twentieth century the great French thinker André Leroi-Gourhan, by analyzing the Paleolithic FrancoCantabrian cave rock art dared to look at the past precisely as if it was a "foreign territory" where he ventured. But in this foreign territory he did not seek to find specific meanings to the Paleolithic rock art, rather he sought to identify a system of signs based on the binomial male-female. Such an approach, whatever position we may have today about the theory of LeroiGourhan, is based on a counter-intuitive assumption within the classical archaeological paradigm: we, as archaeologists of the prehistoric past, do not deal with meanings, rationalities or subjectivations of the past. We can never reach them, instead we deal with sign systems, with closed codes for which there are no instruments to get inside.

BRÜCK, J. (2006) – Death, exchange and reproduction in the British Bronze Age, European Journal of Archaeology, London, 9: 73-101. INSOLL, T. (2004) – Archaeology, Ritual, Religion, London. Routledge. JONES, A.M.; Pollard, J.; Allen, M.J.; Gardiner, J. eds. (2012) – Image, Memory and Monumentality: archaeological engagements with the material world, The Prehistoric Society, OxBow Books. JORGE, S.O. (1999) – Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão (Vila Nova de Foz Côa). Geschichte der Interpretationsversuche, Madrider Mitteilungen, 40: 8096.

The past is an encrypted territory (Fig. 13), and our mission is to detect the coded structure of it, the meaning of which, obviously, does not fail to keep itself hidden. I think that the so-called post-structuralism (which is, since the 80’s, the theoretical basis of many post-processual archaeologies), is alive today. I quote R. W. Preucel: “(…) Post-structuralism embodies a critique of totalizing, essentializing and foundationalist knowledge expressed by structuralism and other systems approaches. It holds that all knowledge is contingent and constructed through signs, which are themselves linked to other texts through social practices. Since every text exists only in relation to other texts, meaning circulates in discourse creating variable economies of representation.” (Preucel, R. 2006:145).

JORGE, S.O. (2001) – Castelo Velho (Freixo de Numão, Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Portugal) et la problématique des “habitats fortifies” de la Péninsule Ibérique, Communautés Villageoises du Proche –Orient à l’Atlantique ( dir. J. Guilaine), Paris, Ed. Errance: 241252. JORGE, S.O. (2002) – From “fortified settlement” to “monument”: accounting for Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão (Portugal), Journal of Iberian Archaeology, 4: 75-82.

We are now, apparently, very far from “ Enclosures and Funerary Practices”, and, yet, I feel that we are closer. But this discussion should lead us to another kind of meeting concerning interpretation in prehistoric archaeology.

JORGE, S.O. (2003) – Revisiting some earlier paper on the late prehistoric walled enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula, Jounal of Iberian Archaeology, 5: 89-135. JORGE, S.O. (2005) – O Passado é Redondo. Dialogando com os sentidos dos primeiros recintos monumentais, Porto, Ed. Afrontamento.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Joana Alves-Ferreira, Sérgio Gomes and Lesley McFadyen for their help and support, especially in the translation and editing of this text.

JORGE, S.O. (2012) – Pensar a arqueologia do ritual: breve apontamento, 1ª Mesa-Redonda Artes Rupestres da

74

Pré-História e da Proto-História: paradigmas e metodologias de registo (coord. M.J.Sanches), “Trabalhos de Pré-História”, 54: 25-32. MCFAYDEN, L. (forthcoming) – The breakage and postbreakage histories of the pottery at Castelo Velho, in Castelo Velho (ed. S.O. Jorge), Porto, Secretaria de Estado da Cultura PREUCEL, R. Blackwell Publ.

2006,

Archaeological

Semiotics,

THOMAS, J. (2004) – The ritual universe, Scotland in Ancient Bronze Age, The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age at Scotland in their European Context, Edinburgh, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland: 171-178. WHITTLE, A. (1996) – Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

75

Fig. 2 – 3rd /2nd Millennia B.C. Monumental Enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula.

Fig. 1 – Monumental walled enclosure of Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão (North of Portugal)

76

Fig.3 – The Monumental Walled Enclosure of Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão (North of Portugal): aerial view.

Fig. 4- The structure of human bones in the top of the site of Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão.

77

Fig. 5- The structure of human bones: detail of the level 3.

Fig. 6- Structure of human bones: level 1.

78

Fig. 7 – Structure of human bones: level 2

Fig. 8 – Structure of human bones: level 3

79

Fig. 9 – Structure of human bones: level 4

Fig. 10- Structure of human bones: level 5.

80

Fig. 11- The site of Castelo Velho (circle) and other contemporary sites in Douro ‘s Upper Valley territory. (Map designed by João Muralha)

Fig. 12- The site of Castelo Velho as a place that polarizes, in its territory, the building and the reinforcement of social bonds.

81

Fig. 13 – A perspective from the top of the site: Castelo Velho gazing the Northern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula.

82

two prominent settlement sites in the Estremadura region of Portugal (Leceia and Zambujal) are examined (Fig. 1) in order to investigate how settlement burials may relate to individual identity, and/or temporal and spatial aspects of community life.

HUMAN BONES FROM CHALCOLITHIC WALLED ENCLOSURES OF PORTUGUESE ESTREMADURA: THE EXAMPLES OF ZAMBUJAL AND LECEIA. Michael Kunst1 João Luís Cardoso2 Anna J. Waterman 3 1

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Madrid, Spain. [email protected] 2

Aberta University and Centre for Archaeological Studies, Oeiras Municipality, Portugal. [email protected] 3

Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Mount Mercy University, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA. [email protected]

1.

INTRODUCTION

The traditional view of burial practices during the Chalcolithic period of the Iberian Peninsula was that settlements and burial locations were geographically distinct with burials taking place in natural and artificial caves, tholoi, and rock cut tombs some distance from hilltop and valley settlements (for example Almagro & Arribas, 1963: 19,fig. 3; Arteaga & Cruz Auñón, 1995: 590, fig. 2; Lillios et al. 2010; 2014; Morán & Parreira, 2004:31, Map; Soares, 2003: 180-181; Spindler , 1981: 4, fig. 2;). However, excavations during the last 20 years show that large amounts of human skeletal remains are recovered from settlement sites suggesting some diversity in burial practices. While in Sangmeister & Schubart (1981:116) finds of human bones from excavations at Zambujal are mentioned, at the time of publication this did not lead to an open discussion of the topic. In fact, only when a burial tholoi was found in the ditched settlement of Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal) (Lago et al. 1998: 60-70. 75-79), and S. Oliveira Jorge published the finds of human bones at Castelo Velho de Freixo do Numão (Vila Nova de Foz Côa, Portugal) and used them as the starting point for a ritual interpretation of the site (Jorge 1999) were human bones and burials inside of Chalcolithic settlements observed with more interest. However, the real breakthrough came some years later when salvage excavations completed in the region around Madrid found evidence of a diverse array of human burials within Chalcolithic settlements. Particularly interesting examples of this are found at the ditched settlement site of Camino de las Yeseras where archaeologists found evidence of several complex burial-structures with collective and single graves (Blasco et al. 2009). These new findings of diverse settlement burial practices in late prehistoric Spain have led to the reassessment of settlement burials at Chalcolithic sites in Portugal as well. To this aim, in this paper human skeletal remains from

Fig. 1 – Location of Leceia, Zambujal and Vila Nova de São Pedro in the Iberian Peninsula.

2.

ZAMBUJAL

2.1Introduction. M. Kunst – A. Waterman The earliest evidence of human bones at Zambujal was published by E. Sangmeister and H. Schubart in 1981(Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981:116). Sangmeister and Schubart discuss their finding of 82 human bones in the entrance of small corridor. This corridor corresponds with the structures built during period 5 and lie on top of the destruction horizon of phase 4d and the older entrance of tower L. In 1987 Franz Parsche of the University of Munich (Germany), with the help of his assistant, Veronika Zaya, began a preliminary examination of all of the human remains recovered from Zambujal between 1964 and 1973 and found that there were even more recovered human bones from scattered areas around the site. Unfortunately, this study was never completed or published because of Parsche’s untimely death some

83

years later. Additionally, in subsequent excavations between 1994 and 2007 small deposits of human remains continued to be recovered.

walls were at that time still covered by earth, and therefore at first glance appeared to be a huge burial mound. On top of this mound L. Trindade dug a small test pit and showed the recovered artifacts to Eugénio Jalhay, a Jesuit priest who was at the time excavating at the Chalcolithic fortified settlement of Vila Nova de São Pedro. Jalhay later published L. Trindade early finds at Zambujal (Jalhay 1946).

Recently, a reexamination of the human skeletal remains from Zambujal was undertaken for several reasons. First, to date, a significant amount of human bones have been recovered at Zambujal. Secondly, two recent research projects analyzing human remains from Chalcolithic archaeological sites in Portugal have reported findings that may help to answer questions about the context and importance of the human remains recovered from Zambujal. At the suggestion of M. Kunst, Dr. Katina Lillios of the University of Iowa began excavations at the rock shelter of Bolores, located 2 km from Zambujal. Artifacts found during agricultural work at the site suggested that Bolores was a Chalcolithic burial (Kunst & Trindade, 1990:38-41. Taf. 4-5), and in 1986, the museum of Torres Vedras made a first test excavation at the site. Lillios subsequently carried out four excavation campaigns at Bolores between 2007 and 2012, in which the remains of at least 37 individuals were recovered (Lillios et al. 2010, 2014). In conjunction with the Bolores project, A. Waterman conducted a preliminary comparative bioanthropological study on a portion of the Zambujal human remains (Waterman et al. 2014, Waterman 2012), as there may be a relationship between the settlement site of Zambujal and the burial site of Bolores. The other project which piqued our interest in undertaking a new examination of the Zambujal human remains was an article published by Susana Oliveira Jorge (translated by M. Kunst into German) on her excavations at the settlement of Castelo Velho de Freixo de Numão, where she found some intriguing contexts related to the human bones recovered (Jorge, 1999:8894). Since Waterman’s initial review of the human remains from Zambujal in 2012 more human remains have been identified from faunal assemblages. Thus, in this paper we will review the total number of bones found to date.

Fig. 2 – Location of Zambujal on a promontory above the small valley of the Ribeira de Pedrulhos; areophotograph (august 2007), view from northeast (Photo: D-DAI-MAD-MK-DG-25-07-777, photographer M. Kunst). Years later in 1959-1961 L. Trindade, and Aurélio Ricardo Belo who was at the time the director of the Torres Vedras museum, undertook three excavation seasons focusing on the walls around the mound. Belo died in 1961 and the excavations ceased for a short time. In 1963 Vera Leisner acquainted L. Trindade with Hermanfrid Schubart of the German Archaeological Institute. L. Trindade invited H. Schubart to continue with the excavations of Zambujal. Thus, in 1964 a new series of six excavation campaigns were started, directed by H. Schubart of the German Archaeological Institute in collaboration with Edward Sangmeister, then director of the Institute of Prehistory of the University of Freiburg (Germany) and L. Trindade. They excavated until 1973 and the results are published in numerous articles and a series of monographs (Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981; Kunst 1987; Sangmeister & Jiménez 1995; Uerpmann & Uerpmann 2003). Almost twenty years later, the town of Torres Vedras decided to install an archaeological museum in Zambujal and to facilitate this work two new excavation campaigns, under the direction of M. Kunst and H.-P. Uerpmann, were undertaken in 1994 and 1995 (Kunst & Uerpmann, 2002). Additionally, in collaboration with M. Höck from the University of Covilhã, topographic campaigns were started (Höck, 2007) and campaigns continued under the direction of M. Kunst in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2012. The 2002 campaign was done in collaboration with E. Morán and R. Parreira (Kunst, Morán & Parreira, 2013).

2.2 Archaeological background. The Chalcolithic settlement of Zambujal belongs to the township of Torres Vedras (in the district of Lisbon) and is situated south of the Torres Vedras on a promontory of the Cabeço da Calvina, a hill with its highest point at 164 m above the sea level (Fig 2). Currently the Chalcolithic fortifications at Zambujal lie between 75 and 104 m above the sea level and from this height the settlement must have dominated the valley of the Ribeira de Pedrulhos, a smaller tributary of the river Sizandro. On clear days from Zambujal it is also possible to overlook parts of the Sizandro valley, and at the horizon to see the Atlantic Ocean which lies approximately 10 km to the west. Zambujal was discovered by Leonel Trindade Sr during his excavations of the cave site of Cova da Moura (Kunst, 1993: 47-50). The best preserved parts of the fortification

84

Chronologically the occupation of Zambujal spans from the 3rd to the beginning of the 2nd millennia BC (Kunst & Lutz, 2011: 454-461). E. Sangmeister and H. Schubart established a system for a relative chronology by phases of construction including phases of demolition (Versturz) and settlement activities like layers of fire places (hearths). Based upon observations of the formations of the fortification walls, according to this system, there were 5 periods of defense construction (Fig. 3) which can be subdivided into16 “construction phases”(Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981: 226-255). New excavations in the area of the farm house and the fourth line of fortification walls, which were discovered in 1995, continue to expand our understandings of the boundaries of the site. Thus, the most recent outline of the Chalcolithic fortifications differs a little bit from the ones published in 1981, and now include the recently excavated fourth line of fortification structures within the sequence of construction phases (Kunst & Lutz, 2011: 447-454) (Fig. 2 and 3).

phase Este 3: KIA-27564 (3992±24 BP) BC (2 σ) 2572-2468; 2572-2512 (60,1%)

phase 3b: GrN-7003 (4055±40 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2852-2474; 2696-2474 (84,3%) phase 3b: GrN-7004 (3995±35 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2620-2459; 2586-2459 (93,5%) phase 3c: GrN-7005 (4055±40 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2852-2474; 2696-2474 (84,3%)

The absolute chronology of these 5 periods of defense construction and 16 subdivisions of construction phases is not very precise because of the plateau in the calibration curve of the late 3rd millennium BC. However, even with the calibration curve, according to the radiocarbon dates (Kunst & Lutz, 2011: 454-461; Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981: 263-275) the beginning of settlement at Zambujal dates back to the beginning of the 3rd millennium:

bef. ph. Este 4: KIA-28668 (3999±29 BP) 2575-2469; 2575-2469 (95,4%)

cal BC (2 σ)

bef. ph. Este 4: KIA-28669 (4001±28 BP) 2575-2470; 2575-2470 (95,4%)

cal BC (2 σ)

bef. ph. Este 4: KIA-27557 (3996±23 BP) 2572-2470; 2572-2512 (62%)

cal BC (2 σ)

after p. Es. 3b: KIA-27555 (3941±32 BP) 2566-2309; 2497-2338 (81,8%)

cal BC (2 σ)

after p. Es. 3b: KIA-27556 (3965±32 BP) 2574-2348; 2574-2432 (84,8%)

cal BC (2 σ)

The dates of period 4 reach the second millennium. They are all charcoal dates, which mean they may be too old in some cases, which is obvious in the case of sample GrN7006. phase 4a-c: GrN-7006 (4090±40 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 28662493; 2763-2563 (68,6%) phase 4b: GrN-6669 (4025±95 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 28752300; 2875-2334 (93,6%)

before phase 1a: KIA-27565 (4445±31 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 3333-2936; 3133-3009 (47,9%)

phase 4b: GrN-7007C (3950±65 BP) BC (2 σ) 2623-2209; 2623-2276 (92,7%)

before phase 1a: KIA-27559 (4238±29 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2910-2705; 2910-2861 (66,3%)

cal

phase 4c/d: GrN-6668 (3625±65 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2198-1776; 2150-1871 (87,7%)

before phase 1a: KIA-7260 (4134±43 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2875-2581; 2875-2617 (89%)

Lastly, there are two dates, which likely come from period 5, but for which the exact phase in not clear. Either way the dates do coincide:

14

The C-dates for the periods 1, 2 and 3 come mainly from the first half of the 3rd millennium and date around 2500 BC, excluding a series of date from animal bones without three-dimensional locations (Kunst & Lutz, 2011: 460, Fig. 35).

phase 5: KN-4507 (3466±53 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 19211641; 1921-1663 (94,4%) phase Este 5?: KIA-27566 (3467±36 BP) 1886-1691; 1886-1691 (95,4%)

phase 1c: GrN-7009 (4200±40 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2899-2638; 2818-2665 (67,1%)

cal BC (2 σ)

Thus, the sequence of radiocarbon dates show continued use and construction at the site from circa 3300-2000 cal BC. However, between periods 4 and 5 a hiatus in site activity may have occurred (Sangmeister & Schubart 1981, 247, 272).

phase Este 1: KIA-27558 (4129±31 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2872-2581; 2781-2617 (62,6%) phase 2: GrN-6671 (4170±55 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 28912586; 2891-2619 (93,4%) phase Este 2: KIA-27561 (4155±32 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 2878-2630; 2822-2630 (76,5%)

2.3 Materials and Methods In this study human remains from all regions of the site of Zambujal (Fig. 4) to date were examined and the results integrated with the published findings in Waterman (2012). Skeletal and dental materials were identified by criteria outlined in standard osteological

phase 2: GrN-7002 (4050±40 BP) cal BC (2 σ) 28512472; 2680-2472 (85,4%) bef. ph. Este 3: KIA-27563 (4065±37 BP) 2855-2486; 2697-2486 (80,9%)

cal

cal BC (2 σ)

85

2.4 Results and Discussion

texts (Baker et al. 2005; Scheuer and Black 2000; White 2000). Duplicate skeletal elements, age-at-death estimations, and skeletal morphology were used to identify distinct individuals. Instances of pathology were evaluated on the skeletal and dental remains based on Ortner and Putschar (1981), Hillson (1996; 2005) and Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). Results of previously completed isotopic analyses are discussed (Waterman 2012; Waterman et al. 2014).

Currently there are 349 human bone fragments recovered from Zambujal. Over two-thirds of these remains were recovered in a highly fragmented condition. In general the only complete bones found were small, taphonomically resistant bones such as teeth, carpals and phalanges. Nonetheless, basic skeletal element identifications were possible for over 90% of the remains. Skeletal elements from all body regions have been identified suggesting that there may have been some primary interments and the remains of both adults and subadults have been recovered (Fig. 5). However, most bone fragments are found in isolated conditions often with >10 human bone fragments recovered together in a location. This suggests some dispersal of the human remains either through anthropogenic or taphonomic means. The exceptions are remains recovered from region S, region KM Tower L, region KM cut 40a and region AP where larger caches of human bones were recovered. It is possible that the remains recovered in these areas may represent primary burial spaces. In the next sections, the amounts and types of human remains are discussed according to region.

2.4.1

Region S

At the eastern edge of the site, in region S, 95 fragments of human remains were recovered. These fragments represent elements from all regions of the human body, and include 2 vertebral fragments, 13 rib fragments, 2 scapula fragments, 5 ulnar fragments (4 of which refit to form mostly complete right ulna), 4 radial fragments (which refit to form an almost complete right radius), 3 humerus fragments (one example Fig. 5 f), 3 carpals (a lunate, capitate and scaphoid), 16 right and left metacarpal fragments (8 of which are complete or nearly complete), 13 hand phalanges (9 of which are complete or nearly complete), 1 fibular fragment, 2 tarsal fragments (talus and calcaneus), 1 complete metatarsal and 5 metatarsal fragments, 2 foot phalanges, a right mandibular fragment with the right third and fourth premolars, and right first and second molars, a second right mandibular fragment with the right fourth premolar, and the right first and second molars, a maxillary fragment with the upper left canine, third and fourth premolar and first molar, plus five addition isolated teeth and two unidentified bone fragments. The fact that a right ulna and radius were recovered with a large cache of other hand bones suggests that primary burials could have occurred here. However, the bones were recovered in a highly fragmented and disarticulated state and the general lack of pelvises, vertebrae, and femora suggest the possibility that this, alternatively, may be the site of a secondary burial deposit. Based upon the occurrence of two right mandible fragments with in situ duplicate tooth types, we know that at least two individuals are represented by these remains. From the low levels of occlusal wear on the molars on both mandibular fragments these appear to have both been young to middle-aged adults at the time of death. Because of the

Fig. 3 – The five phases of defense constructions of Zambujal (after Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981, 226251, modified by M. Kunst and G. Casella).

86

fragmentary nature of the recovered remains no determination of biological sex was possible.

2.4.3. Region U In the western edges of Zambujal, in region U, two isolated human bones were recovered. The first is an isolated adult human phalanx and the second is the distal end of the humerus of an older child. There is no clear relationship between these bones nor is the chronology clear for these finds, one comes from the surface and one could belong to all five periods. Therefore, in region U we have skeletal elements that represent at least one adult and one subadult.

Only one radiocarbon date exists from region S (GrN7009: 4200±40 BP; 2899 and 2665 cal BC, see Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981, 264; Kunst & Lutz 2011, 456). The sample of this date belongs to complex Z-971, from which the majority of the region S human remains were found. It belonged to a layer from phase 1c (Tower S, interior, southern half, layer 5 directly above the rock) which was active during the first use-phase of the site. However, later wall constructions also occurred in the area very possibly dating to the end of phase 4 or even possibly into phase 5 (Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981 217-223). The apparent mixing of materials from different archaeological layers also makes clear dating of the human remains difficult.

2.4.4. Region GH In the GH region in the southwest of the site three more isolated human bones were recovered. This first is an adult carpal bone, a capitate, and the second is a fragment of an adult long bone, likely a tibia. The third bone is a fragment of the distal end of a fibula. Again, as with the two bones recovered from region U, the relationship between these bones is not clear. However, both long bone fragments (the tibia shaft and the distal end of fibula) come from the same phase, 1a, and were found in close proximity to one another. Thus, chronologically and by their local proximity they could belong to the same individual. The carpal bone was found in cut 44, in front of entrance G and has a less certain chronology being considered either younger than period 1 or older than phase 5b. Hence, in this region we have partial remains of at least one and possibly two individuals.

2.4.2. Region RW In the RW region in the far southeastern reaches of Zambujal another cache of human remains was recovered. This group of 11 adult bone fragments includes 4 cranial fragments, 1 metatarsal shaft fragment, 1 cervical vertebra fragment, 3 radius and 2 ulna fragments. The lack of other body elements makes the origination of this deposit unclear. As region RW is situated at the southern slope of the site, it is possible that these bones may have accumulated here through sedimentary processes.

2.4.5. Region EG

All of the human remains in this area appear to be from adult individuals and no duplicate skeletal elements were recovered suggesting these could all be from one adult individual. However, some questions remain concerning the relationship between these bones. For example, the ulna fragments originate from a complex that relates to the destruction of wall ht in period 1 (Sagmeister & Schubart, 1981, 205; Abb. 37; Beilage 1). The metatarsal was found in the first stone layer located 2 meters east of wall ht and 3 or 4 meters south of tower W and may also relate to wall destruction, however, the three radius fragments were found in the filling around entrance “R,” and should relate to period 3, Thus, the relationship between this assemblage of bones is unclear and it is possible that they represent more than one individual.

In the EG region, located in the central east portion of Zambujal, three isolated human bones were recovered. These remains include a fragment of a rib head, a maxilla fragment with two teeth, and a complete first metacarpal. The rib, maxilla and teeth were all identified as adult skeletal elements and the degree of wear on the teeth suggests that these are from a middle-aged or older adult. The metacarpal originated from a subadult. Concerning the relationships between these fragments, the rib fragment was recovered from the filling (middle layer 6) of the barbican, and therefore, dates to phase 3b. However, the earth and stones that form this gravel fill may have been brought in from another area of the site. The subadult metacarpal was found in layer C of Tower B, which was the occupation layer of the tower, and belonged to phase 4a, but we cannot exclude any mixture with younger sediments during the tower’s destruction. The maxilla fragment belongs to the yellow layer in cut 14 at the inside of the first fortification line, which can be dated to phases between 1c and 3b. As these bones all belong to different phases and different locations it is likely that these bones originated from three different individuals. Furthermore, it is possible that they came into this region of the site in earth brought in for construction. In the case of the metacarpal, it is possible that it was the result of a violent altercation, as Zambujal had extensive fortifications and a large number of arrow heads were found around the barbican suggesting that this

The four cranial fragments come from the western side of tower R and are from a yellow clay destruction layer related to period 2, 3 or 4, and the cervical vertebrae fragment was recovered to the west of the others from a layer likely related to phases 3c and 4b. Again these skeletal elements could be from a separate individual than the arm bones, but it is not possible to be certain. If all bones in RW were from one individual, it seems likely that these bones should have been deposited in a higher level of the wall between lh and h in order to end up in this configuration. Consequently, we can conclude that we find the remains of at least one, but more likely two, individuals in this region of the site.

87

was the site of some armed conflicts (Uerpmann & Uerpmann, 2003, 100).

some of the iliopubic ramus. Based upon morphology of these features the individual appears to have been a female who was middle-aged or older at the time of death. The dental wear on the four recovered teeth also suggests a middle-aged adult.

2.4.6. Region VX In the VX region, located in the west central portion of Zambujal, 23 human bone fragments were found representing upper limb bones, including 2 humeral fragments, two ulnar fragments, 1 metacarpal and 4 hand phalanges, lower limb bones, including 4 femoral fragments, 1 tarsal and two metatarsals, and parts of the axial skeleton, including 3 rib fragments and 1 vertebral fragment. Two isolated teeth were recovered, but no other skull or tooth fragments were found. All of these remains are from adults and no duplicate skeletal elements were recovered so at first glance it seems possible that all of these bones may belong to the same individual. However, when the positions and chronologies of the recovered remains are examined, it appears more likely that in this region we find the partial remains of several different people. For example, the fragments of femur and humerus belong to a different phase (phase 1b) than the vertebral fragment, phase (1c/ 2). A distance away, in the southern portion of the region in cut 71, another portion of the VX bones were found. These bones generally appear to relate to phase 3 a/b, although one rib fragment was recovered from sediments linked to phase 4b. The remaining bone fragments come from the northern region of VX, from cuts 46 and 39. These were recovered from both the surface and from destruction levels 1, 2 and 3, which relate to phases 4b, 4c, 4d and 5. Hence, because of the disparate spacing and chronologies, it is likely that the bones recovered in the VX region represent 3-4 different individuals.

Temporally, most of the remains including the female pelvic and infant remains are from the filling of the lower entrance from phases 2 and 3, although there may have been some mixing with phase 4. A metatarsal fragment and tarsal were recovered from sediments related to phase 1 and a metacarpal fragment, a calcaneus fragment and an unidentified bone fragment were recovered from phase 5 or surface sediments. Thus, in this area it appears we have the partial remains of an infant and a middle-aged women dating to phase 2 and/or 3 from the site. It is possible that the older remains relate to additional individuals but the relationships are unclear. 2.4.8. Region KM, cut 40a From cut 40a in the KM region of Zambujal, located in the northeast region of the site, 47 fragments of human remains were recovered. All but one of these come from an adult individual and include 16 vertebral fragments (see Fig. 5 d for an example), 1 clavicle fragment, 13 cranial fragments, 1 femoral fragment, 1 humeral fragment, 1 fibular fragment, 1 patella, 2 pelvic fragments, 2 rib fragments, 4 sacral fragments, 2 tibial fragments, 1 mandibular fragment with lower left and right second incisors, and 1 isolated upper left second incisor (Fig. 6 a). For this collection of remains it was possible to refit many of the fragments of vertebrae, two of the pieces of cranium and the two pieces of tibia (which form an almost complete right tibia). Based on the morphology of the remains and the fact that there are no duplicate skeletal elements it is likely that these remains only represent one adult individual. The humerus and the other long bone remains were quite robust suggesting these came from a large individual, likely a male. In addition to these 45 adult bone fragments one subadult thoracic vertebra centrum was recovered. Thus, the remains of at least two individuals were recovered from this region, an adult (likely male) and a child. The bones recovered from Region KM cut 40a do not have a clear chronology as they were recovered in early excavations at the site and cannot be securely connected with radiocarbon dates based on wall construction and destruction.

2.4.7. Region KM, Tower L Tower L in the KM region of the site is another place where a large amount of human remains were found at Zambujal. These remains were the same ones first recorded and discussed by E. Sangmeister and H. Schubart in 1981 (Sangmeister & Schubart, 1981:116). In this area 91 fragments of human remains were recovered representing all body regions. Over half of the recovered elements (45 bones or bone fragments) were identified as infant remains. These infant remains include 14 rib fragments, 9 cranial fragments, 2 clavicle fragments (see Fig. 6 b for an example), 1 femoral fragment, right and left fibulas (nearly complete), 1 metatarsal fragment, 2 metacarpal fragments, 1 radial fragment, a compete right ulna (Fig. 6 e), a left ulnar fragment and 11 vertebral fragments (see Fig. 6 c for an example). The remaining 46 bone fragments were fully developed and appear to be from an adult individual. These include, 1 humeral fragment, 1 metacarpal fragment, 3 complete hand phalanges, 3 rib fragments, 1 vertebral fragment, 2 metatarsal fragments, 2 tarsal fragments, 1 complete foot phalanx, 5 pelvic fragments, 1 patella, 4 teeth, 4 cranial fragments and 17 unidentifiable bone fragments. One of the pelvic fragments included the pubic symphysis and

2.4.9. Region KM In the rest of the KM region, excluding cut 40a, an additional 13 fragments of human remains were recovered. These recovered fragments include both adult and subadult elements. The subadult remains consist of 5 fragments including 2 rib fragments, 1 long bone fragment likely from a femur or tibia, 1 complete hand phalange, and 1 complete unfused ilium (pelvic bone). These bones all appear to have originated from a young infant.

88

Fig. 4 – Distribution of the human bones over all regions of the Chalcolithic settlement of Zambujal. Circles indicate larger and smaller caches of bones (GIS-map created by D. Schäffler).

Fig. 5 – Distribution of the human bones over all regions of Zambujal; colors indicate the different phases to which they belong (GIS-map created by D. Schäffler).

89

The remaining 8 bone fragments appear to be from an adult and originate from all regions of the body. These include 2 rib fragments, 1 vertebral fragment, a tibia shaft fragment and a humeral shaft fragment, a metacarpal fragment, an isolated lower left 3rd molar and an unidentifiable bone fragment. Ten of these bones come from Tower M. The oldest of these date to phase 1 b/c and are exclusively adult remains. The bones from complex Z-521 relate to the phase 2 and/or 3 in the occupation history of the tower and are again exclusively adult remains. The remaining bones relate to phase 4 from the filling of the tower and are exclusively subadult remains. One remaining bone is recovered from tower N and relates to phase 2a. Therefore, in the rest of the KM region partial remains from an adult and an infant were recovered. It is possible that these remains are related to those recovered from KM cut 40a, however without better chronological control this relationship is unclear.

composed of cranial fragments, teeth, and arm bones. Slightly north of cut 46 in cut 40/45 more mixed subadult and adult bones are found, this time including fragments of subadult and adult humeri and subadult femora. It is not clear if these relate directly to the bones recovered from cut 46 but as they are from the same chronology and the subadult age-at-death appears similar it suggests that the bones may be from the same individuals. Consequently, when we consider the location and chronology of the bones it appears that we have human bones representing 2 children, 1 adolescent/young adult and 1 adult in this region. 2.4.11. Other locations. For 6 bone fragments, the provenience is unknown. These include two teeth, ulnar fragments, a rib fragment and a proximal hand phalanx. Additionally, several human bone fragments were recovered from the surface of the site including 2 cranial fragments and a radius fragment. An ulnar and a humeral shaft fragment were also recovered from the fourth line during more recent excavations. For these no clear chronology or relationship is currently discernable.

2.4.10: Region AP In the AP region in the north central area of Zambujal 50 human bone fragments have been recovered. These remains include adult and subadult elements. The 11 recovered subadult bone fragments include 2 cranial fragments, rib fragments, 2 femoral shaft fragment, a distal humerus fragment and 5 teeth. The teeth include both deciduous and permanent dentition. With the exception of one (an upper right third molar) all of the other teeth belong to a child who was between 5-10 years old at the time of death. The development of the humerus also fits this same time frame, thus, it appears that in this area there are the partial remains of an older child. The upper right third molar does not have fully developed roots which suggest this tooth came from an older adolescent or young adult. Of the recovered human remains 34 adult fragments have been identified. These include 21 cranial fragments many of which were found in close proximity and likely belong to the same individual, 2 humerus shaft fragments that refit, 3 ulna shaft fragments, 1 femur shaft fragment, a distal foot phalanx, an upper canine tooth with a broken crown and 4 unidentifiable bone fragments. Thus, in the AP region of Zambujal we have the partial remains of at least one older child and one adult. It is possible that the upper right third molar may belong to the same individual as the adult skeletal remains, suggesting that this individual may have been an older adolescent or young adult at the time of death. When we consider the chronology and find location of the bones, we find that one fragment of subadult vertebrae was recovered on its own from house P in the westernmost area of AP. This area relates to phase 3c, while the adolescent tooth, a cranial fragment, two ulnar fragments and a femoral fragment appear to all relate to the beginning or middle of phase 3 (3a/b). A foot phalanx was found near these bones but from higher destruction layer and may or may not relate to the same individuals. All of the rest of the recovered remains relate to the destruction levels of phase 4d and 5b and come from the northern part of cut 46. These include both subadult and adult skeletal elements which are mainly

2.4.12. Conclusion, Zambujal Past assessments of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented by the Zambujal human remains, calculated the MNI based on the total aggregate of bones recovered at the site (at the time of analysis) (Waterman 2012). These assessments provided an MNI of only 5 for Zambujal. However, when the geographic location and the chronological relationships of the finds are considered, we suggest that the MNI is much higher – in the range of 20 individuals. Nonetheless, this is not to say that we find 20 inhumations at Zambujal –quite to the contrary we find little evidence of intact burials or otherwise curated whole human bodies. Instead we find scattered adult and subadult human skeletal elements which, only occasionally, seem to be from related areas of the body or even from the same individuals. The only circumstances where it appears we may have evidence of primary burials are in region S where a large cache of bones belonging to two adults were recovered, in tower L where a large amount of remains from a middle-aged women and an infant were found, and in KM, cut 40a where bones of an adult male were unearthed. An additional primary interment is possible in region AP, but the complexity of the chronology and recovery locations make it harder to discern (Fig. 4 and 5). One of the main goals of this analysis was to attempt to understand how these human remains came to be buried at the settlement rather than in the standard burial locations in the surrounding landscape. Based upon the diverse array of contexts in which the human remains were recovered at Zambujal, it seems prudent to consider that many factors and events contributed to these distributions. As Zambujal was a heavily fortified site, and must have been the site of numerous armed conflicts, it seems likely that at least a portion of these remains

90

were the results of violent deaths and/or dismemberments. Some settlement interments could have occurred based upon funerary practices which may have excluded particular classes of individuals from other burial locations. For example, young infants are rarely recovered from burial sites in the region (Waterman and Thomas 2011), but one is found at Zambujal in the KM region. This may suggest that infants were more commonly interred in settlement or household contexts. It is not clear if the partial remains of the middle-aged female found near the infant are related, but it is possible that this represents a peripartum or postpartum mortality event.

patterns may have also contributed to these assemblages, and lastly some of these finds may represent intrusive burials from later time periods. In order to tease out these different possibilities a more fine-grained analysis of the human remains should be undertaken.

In order to ascertain if any of the potential primary settlement interments represent individuals that are somehow socially differentiated from the rest of the population in the area, Waterman (2012) and Waterman et al. (2014) gathered stable isotope data from bone and tooth samples from some of the Zambujal individuals. Based upon comparisons of these data with stable isotope data from non-settlements burials in the regions, the sampled adults ate diets that are comparable with other adults of this time and region, consisting of terrestrial protein sources and C3 plants. For the older child from the AP region, the δ13C apatite value was strongly divergent when compared to the rest of the population and could provide evidence of C4 or CAM plant intake. As C4 plants such as millet did not become prominent in human diets and animal feed in the region until the later Bronze Age it is possible that this child represents a later intrusive burial. Alternatively, this apatite enrichment could be due to diagenesis. The very young infant from tower L exhibited enriched δ15N and δ13Cco values which are probably due to in-utero patterns of isotope fractionation and, thus, not necessarily a product of dietary differentiation with regard to the infant or its mother. Also, in general, the low standard deviations in δ18O values suggest similar water sources for all of the Zambujal individuals. Based upon the analysis of 87Sr/86 Sr isotope ratios none of the tested individuals from Zambujal were migrants into this region. Thus, only in regard to the older child do we see dietary patterns that may provide evidence of some differential identity in relationship to burial practice.

Fig. 6 – Six examples of human remains recovered from Zambujal, a. Adult left mandible fragment with in situ teeth (Z-831-45-01). b. Subadult right clavicle fragment (Z-571-45-01). c. Subadult thoracic vertebra fragment (Z-572-45-23) d. Adult cervical vertebra fragment (Z-831-45-02). e. Subadult right ulna (Z485-45-02). f. Adult right distal end of humerus and shaft (Z-971-45-08) (photos by M. Kunst). 3.

While some of the Zambujal remains were found in cluster with many other bones, in other cases only a handful were found spread across a region. We must consider other processes to explain these recoveries. One strong possibility is that an occasional bone was brought into Zambujal with stones and earth moved in for construction. The stone wall fortifications at Zambujal required the moving in of large amounts of earth and stone and it is highly likely that some of these materials could have been recycled from older burial structures. In many cultures throughout time individual human bones, or larger portions of skeletons, have been used as religious relics. It is possible at Zambujal that some of the human remains were curated for religious or other cultural reasons. Animal activity, weather, and erosion

LECEIA J. L. Cardoso – A. J. Waterman

3.1. Introduction This paper presents a synthesis of new and old analyses on the recovered human remains from the prehistoric settlement of Leceia. As no large scale cemetery features are associated with Leceia and burial places during this time are normally geographically distinct from settlements, the aim of this study is to identity the special contexts in which human remains have been recovered from three distinct loci of the site. In particular because the construction of, and successive reinforcements to, the fortifications at Leceia suggest a climate of instability and social competition in the region across the third millennium BC, we are interested in assessing the

91

possibility that incidents of violent conflict could explain the occasional finding of human remains inside the settlement enclosure. 3.2. Archaeological background Leceia is located on the right slope of a steep hillside overlooking the valley of the Ribeira de Barcarena (Oeiras), about 4 km from the Tejo estuary (Fig.1). Continuous excavations of the settlement were carried out between 1983 and 2002, under the direction of J. L. Cardoso (Cardoso, 1999; Cardoso, 2008; Cardoso, 2012). Stratigraphic records correlated with over 40 radiocarbon dates provide a detailed account of the cultural sequence and the construction phases at Leceia which span over a millennium (Fig. 7).The earliest human occupation at Leceia dates back to the late Neolithic (second half of the 3rd Millennium BC). This occupation was followed by a short period of abandonment, lasting as long as one hundred and fifty years. Then, in the beginning of the Early Chalcolithic (2900/2800 to 2600/2500 years BC), human occupation resumed and imposing defensive structures were erected, in the form of three semi-circular lines of ramparts and bastions. These fortifications supplemented the existing natural defenses at Leceia, which consisted of two Cretaceous era limestone cliffs overlooking the valley (Fig. 8). The defensive structures were continually refurbished and reinforced over the next 300 years, until approximately the middle of the millennium, suggesting that social instability and conflict were serious concerns for the community which occupied this landscape. Around the middle of the third millennium BC, during the beginning of the Full Chalcolithic, the building of these defensive structures stopped and the archaeological record suggests that populations were declining in the previously defended occupied area. By the end of the Chalcolithic, which coincides with the last quarter of the third millennium BC, Leceia had been abandoned.

Fig. 7–Table of cultural and construction phases at Leceia and their correlation with the stratigraphy and absolute chronology (table created by J.L. Cardoso)

3.3. Materials and Methods The human remains examined in this study come from three distinct locations, two located within the walled area, Locus 1 (a closed circular structure) and Locus 2 (exterior wall of a bastion); the other, Locus 3, is a small burial cave located on the escarpment that delineates the eastern side of the site (Fig. 8). For loci 1 and 3 the human remains had been previously published (Cardoso, Cunha & Aguiar, 1991). In this study human remains from Locus 2 were examined for the first time and the results integrated with the published findings. For Locus 2 skeletal and dental materials were identified by criteria outlined in standard osteological texts (Baker et al. 2005; Scheuer and Black 2000; White 2000). Duplicate skeletal elements, age-at-death estimations, and skeletal morphology were used to identify distinct individuals. Instances of pathology were evaluated on the skeletal and dental remains based on Ortner and Putschar (1981), Hillson (1996; 2005) and Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994).

Fig. 8 – Aerial photograph of Leceia, and the corresponding plan of the excavated area, with the locations of the finds mentioned in the text.

92

occupation of the site, was that these three individuals were part of an attacking group and after being captured and killed, they were disposed of in the circular structure, as trash. However, AMS radiocarbon dating completed on four human bone fragments from Locus 1, made by initiative of one of us (J.L.C.) reveal that all of these remains came from a slightly later time (Middle Bronze Age). Thus, we suggest that these remains do not represent an episode of conflict, but rather the reuse of this Chalcolithic structure during the Bronze Age, when the site was already completely abandoned. The reuse of this closed circular structure may have been in the form of a collective grave site for primary burials, or more likely, given the state of mixing, fragmentation and disconnection evidenced by the bones and the absence of grave goods, as a secondary burial space used for the disposal of human remains from other locations. Therefore, although archaeological evidence of Bronze Age occupations at Leceia is lacking, it appears likely that these Chalcolithic fortifications continued to be sporadically visited and used over the years by small groups of people. In fact, such reuse has been observed in other large fortified settlements in the Extremadura, such as Vila Nova de São Pedro, Azambuja, where many artifacts from the Bronze Age were collected (Soares, 2008).

3.4 Results and Discussion

3.4.1 – Locus 1. Closed circular structure Based upon the data published in Cardoso, Cunha & Aguiar (1991), 36 human bones, bone fragments, and dental remains were found inside a closed circular structure excavated in 1988, situated in the area adjacent to one of the passages in the second line of defense. As indicated by the mixed faunal remains and archaeological materials, in the final phase of occupation at Leceia, during the Full Chalcolithic, this structure was used as trash pit (Fig. 9). Mixed in with the debris in this location were the human skeletal remains. All of these remains were portions of the axial skeleton consisting of 18 teeth, 1 mandibular fragment, 1 vertebral fragment and 16 cranial fragments. The previous published analysis of the teeth indicates that these remains are from at least three individuals, all adult males who likely were in their mid-thirties at the time of death. On the teeth of at least two of these adult males, dental enamel hypoplasias were noted which may indicate a period of childhood illness or stress. A carious lesion was also noted on the tooth of one of the adults.

The AMS radiocarbon results obtained are as follows: Individual

Age-at-death

Biological sex

Adult 1

30-40 years old

Male

Adult 2

30-40 years old

Male

Adult 3

30-40 years old

Male

1 – Fragment of a cranium (calotte) Wk – 34420 – 3236 +/- 26 BP, 1606-1574 cal BC (7,9%); 1538-1436 cal BC (86,5%) 2 – Fragment of a cranium (distinct individual from 1) (calotte) (Cardoso, Cunha and Aguiar, 1991, Est. 1, n.º 1) Wk – 36309 – 3201 +/- 25 BP, 1516-1426 cal BC (2 σ)

Table 1. Individuals identified in Locus 1

3 – Mandibular fragment (Cardoso, Cunha and Aguiar, 1991, Est. 1, n.º 2) Wk – 36307 – 3217 +/- 25 BP, 1527-1431 cal BC (2 σ) 4 – Maxillary fragment (Cardoso, Cunha and Aguiar, 1991, p. 30, n.º 5) Wk – 36306 – 3207 +/- 25 BP, 1520-1428 cal BC (2 σ).

3.4.2. Locus 2. Exterior wall of a bastion Human remains were also found at one of the existing bastions of the first defensive line (Fig. 8), the Bastion EQ (Fig. 10). The 41 bone fragments represent all body regions – upper limb, lower limb, and the axial skeleton including the skull – and were recovered from a circumscribed area suggesting a primary interment. No duplicate skeletal elements or skeletal landmarks were identified that would suggest an assemblage from multiple individuals and no pathologies were identified on any of the bones. While in some cases it was possible to refit multiple bone fragments, the only complete skeletal elements consist of a patella and a hand phalanx. Additionally, although all body regions are present, the

Fig. 9 – Locus 1 in Leceia, silo later used as trash pit (photo by J.L.Cardoso). As the individuals from which these bones originated were not given the typical funeral treatments of this time period and region, in the past we have suggested that these individuals were not native inhabitants (Cardoso, Cunha and Aguiar, 1991). One possible explanation for these remains, if they were from the Chalcolithic

93

recovered skeletal elements represent only a small number of the total bones present in the human body, small bones, such as carpals and tarsals are noticeably absent and only one phalanx is found in the assemblage suggesting a high level of disturbance of the remains. While many of the skeletal elements, in particular a partial tibia, appear adult-size and rather robust in comparison with other skeletons of Chalcolithic populations in this region, proximal and distal ends of the recovered tibia remain unfused, as do the proximal end of the humerus, the femoral condyles and the proximal epiphyses of the recovered hand phalanx. Additionally, the two recovered premolars exhibit no wear. Thus, it is clear that these human remains represent a subadult. The distal epiphyses of the femur and proximal and distal ends of the tibia fuse in late adolescence between the ages of 16 and 20 years-old. Considering the size and robusticity of many of the recovered lower leg bone fragments, it seems likely that these skeletal remains belonged to a male individual who died during late adolescence.

de S. Pedro), it has generally not been possible to identify directly associated primary or secondary burial grounds. Instead, only small collective burials (primary or secondary depositions) in the surrounding regions are known. Thus, the situation at Leceia is an exception.

The AMS radiocarbon result obtained is as follows:

In contrast with the human remains found in the other areas of the site, the distribution of age and sex of this set of individuals is more compatible with the characteristics of typical prehistoric burial populations in the area. Recovered remains from all regions of the body – including the upper and lower limbs and the axial skeleton –are present. However there is a distinct absence of vertebral and cranial remains, although 3 mandibles were recovered. This suggests that this cave may contain secondary burial deposits. Based upon the previous analyses (Cardoso, Cunha & Aguiar, 1991), there are a minimum of 5 individuals represented by these skeletal elements including two young adults (1 male and 1 female), 1 adolescent and 2 young children. Five isolated teeth belonging to at least 1 subadult exhibited hypoplasic defects suggesting childhood illness or malnutrition.

Adolescent 1 16-20 years old

Biological sex

Adult 4

Adult