Chapter 10

Changing Perspectives on Mortuary

Practices in Late Neolithic / Copper
Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia

Estella Weiss-Krejci

O ne of the long-standing debates in Iberian archaeology concerns the development

of permanent structures of social inequality in late prehistory. In this discussion
dead bodies have played an important role (for example, Chapman 1990, 2003; Delibes
et al. 1995; Díaz-Andreu 1993; Díaz-del-Río and García Sanjuán 2006; García Sanjuán
1999; Gilman 2001; Gilman and Thornes 1985; Hernando 1997; Kunst 1995; Mathers
1994). During the Late Neolithic/Copper Age (ca. 3300–2200 bc), natural caves and
artificial caves (hypogea), mortuary monuments such as passage graves, gallery graves,
tholoi and tumuli, and simple pits and silos were preferred locations for the deposition
of the dead. Although the majority of the dead was deposited outside settlements, hu-
man bones have also been encountered in settlements. Late Neolithic and Copper Age
mortuary contexts usually contain multiple individuals, ranging from at least a few to
hundreds of people. The human remains — frequently associated with animal bones
(Weiss-Krejci 2006) — are often disarticulated, broken, cut, chopped, and burned (for
example, Antunes and Cunha 1998; Cardoso 1994: 143; Lillo Carpio and Walker 1987; see
also Rojo and Kunst 2002; Weiss-Krejci 2005a).
Between the Late Neolithic/Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1500
bc), significant changes in locations and types of mortuary contexts, modes of corpse
deposition, and quality and quantity of grave goods took place (see García Sanjuán 2006:
151–60; Ontañón-Peredo 2006: 57). Although Neolithic and Copper Age monuments
and caves were often reused in later times (Chapman 2005; García Sanjuán, this volume),
in the Early Bronze Age new grave types such as cists — some surrounded by stones and/
or covered by mounds — and different types of pits and small artificial caves appear (for
example, Díaz-del-Río 2006: 75; García Sanjuán 2006: 160–62; Leisner and Leisner 1943;

153
154 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

Rojo and Kunst 1999). In the Early Bronze Age, grave sites continue to be located out-
side settlements, but intramural depositions become more common. In contrast to Late
Neolithic and Copper Age mortuary contexts, early Bronze Age burials hold only a few
individuals (often only one).
In this chapter, I would like to discuss a few issues regarding treatment of the corpse
and deposition modes in Late Neolithic/Copper Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia, which
in my opinion have not received sufficient attention in the past. Considering the impor-
tance that dead bodies assume in models of social evolution, it is surprising how little
we know about body treatment, funeral and post-funeral rites, and formation processes
of mortuary deposits. In contrast to France, for example, where meticulous methods
of field documentation of human bones have been employed for some time and a large
database of well documented collective tombs exists (Chambon 2003; Duday 1997), in
the Iberian Peninsula spatial and stratigraphic relationship of grave goods and human
and animal remains often cannot be assessed from the publications. Though techniques
during recovery of human remains in the Iberian Peninsula are continuously improving
and the general awareness for the value of osteological material has grown, the meth-
ods of recording, analyzing, and publishing collective mortuary deposits with human
remains are still not sufficient. Physical anthropologists are not always present during
excavation. Since bones in the Iberian Peninsula also occur outside “mortuary contexts,”
human remains can make it into bags with animal bones, only to be discovered by zoo-
archaeologists later. Additionally, in some areas, such as Galicia and northern Portugal,
as well as parts of southwestern Iberia, soil acidity has led to the complete destruction of
osteological material. From these areas only a few Copper Age and Bronze Age human
remains have been recovered.

Treatment of the Corpse and Deposition Modes

Body Treatment

According to Carr (1995), who investigated the cultural determinants of mortuary prac-
tices in 31 non-state societies from the Human Relations Area Files, the treatment of the
corpse is most often determined by beliefs about the afterlife, beliefs about universal
orders, by social classification, and vertical social position of the deceased. The ideologi-
cal and social implications of differential treatment of corpses postulated by Carr — sup-
ported by historic sources from state societies (see Weiss-Krejci 2005a) — have impor-
tant implications. Differences in corpse treatment can help us understand status differ-
ences between groups and individuals and reveal group affiliation, belief systems, and
ethnic distinctions.
My own recent review of literature on Neolithic/Copper Age burials (Weiss-Krejci
2005a, 2006) shows that body treatment in the Iberian Peninsula was quite variable. In
the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, treatment of the dead consisted of burying the body
in the flesh, artificial dehydration, cremation (only at Abric de l’Escurrupenia, Pascual
Benito 2002), and body storage (passive excarnation). A few cases of active excarna-
tion (defleshing) may also exist. For example, in several settlements, caves, tombs, and
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 155

pits, human bones with cut marks and signs of burning have been found (for example,
Antunes and Cunha 1998; Etxeberría 2000; Martínez Navarrete 1984; Weiss-Krejci 2005a).
These cuts and burns could result from the stripping of skin and flesh as well as a variety
of procedures that may be related to the redeposition of bones. While cut and burned
bones occur in deposits of the fourth and the third millennium bc, the impregnation
of bones with ochre seems to be associated with older, fourth-millennium-bc deposits
only (for example, Gruta Lugar do Canto; Leitão et al. 1987; Serrão and Marques 1971).
In the Early Bronze Age, bodies were predominantly deposited in the flesh, although,
as I will discuss, body storage and curation probably also took place. Though dehydra-
tion of corpses was probably practiced both in the Copper and Bronze Age, all known
Bronze Age mummies are natural (for example, Castellón Alto; Molina et al. 2003).

Individual and Collective Burials

Prehistorians working in the Iberian Peninsula have interpreted the change in grave
types, grave goods, and especially the change from “collective” to “individual” burial as
a sign of increasing social complexity and of changing attitudes towards the dead. This
behavior has also fostered ideas that in the Neolithic and in the Copper Age corpses
received less attention in funerary treatment than in the Bronze Age. Collective burial
has been equated with collective identity, communalism, collectivism, and solidarism
(for example, Criado Boado 1989: 91). From a cross-cultural perspective, the presence
of multiple bodies in a collective mortuary context may have many different meanings.
In Europe, it was a frequent custom to exhume bodies from over-crowded churchyards
after corpses had decomposed and to store the bones in charnel houses or underneath
churches. These collective bone chambers (ossuaries) comprise high numbers of very
fragmentary remains and contain different kinds of people from the lower strata of so-
ciety. On the other hand, and already discussed by Kunst (1995), collective burials in
elaborate tombs are not always an expression of egalitarianism. In diverse areas of the
world and at different times, such as among the ancient Maya, the present day Sa’dan
Toraja of Indonesia, the Merina of Madagascar, and in dynastic Europe, collective tomb
burials are a hallmark of multigenerational, kinship-based corporate groups (Bloch 1971;
Waterson 1995; Weiss-Krejci 2004). The formation processes, as well as the number of
individuals buried in these tombs, are extremely variable. Some tombs were used for
sequential deposition only. Other tombs hold reburied bodies only, some a combination
of both. Death dates of reburied people can predate the tomb by centuries.
At least four different processes can be responsible for the formation of collective de-
posits: (a) contemporaneous death — simultaneous multiple deposition; (b) sequential
death — successive individual deposition; (c) sequential death — simultaneous multiple
deposition; and (d) exhumation — simultaneous multiple redeposition. The first deposi-
tion type represents people who have died at the same time and were buried simultane-
ously, in the flesh, in the same tomb (for example, mother and infant who died during
birth; people who died from an epidemic disease; warriors that were killed in the same
battle or individuals that were collectively killed during raids and attacks). In process b,
people have died at different times and were buried in one tomb one by one over a long
156 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

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

Deposition Contexts

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

CAVES. The majority of cave burials (including rock shelters and rock fissures) have
been found in central and southern Portugal (Beira Litoral, Alto Ribatejo, Estremadura,
Peninsula Setúbal, Algarve), in north and northeastern Spain (Basque Country, Navarra,
Catalonia), in the eastern part of the Southern Meseta (Madrid, Castile-La Mancha),
in the eastern coastal region (Valenciana, Murcia, northern Almería), and in western
Andalusia. The high number of individuals in caves, age and gender distribution, and
the lack of elaborate grave goods suggest that from the beginning of the Early Neolithic
through the Copper Age caves were the preferred burial places for the members of agri-
cultural communities who lived in the surrounding areas. In some parts of the Iberian
Peninsula (on the east coast, in the Basque region, in central Portugal), deposition of the
dead in caves continues in the Bronze Age.
Since bones and artifacts in caves, especially in Late Neolithic and Copper Age con-
texts, are usually encountered in a very disturbed and messy condition, it is not easy to
determine the original body treatment and formation processes in these places. One of
the major problems of cave deposits concerns questions of whether bodies entered caves
in the flesh and what caused disturbances of bones.
The Copper Age layer of the Pico Ramos cave in Biscay was associated with 11,410 frag-
mentary human remains belonging to 104 bodies. One individual located close to the
cave entrance had been burned. Investigation of the burned skeletal remains (collarbone,
thoracic vertebra, shoulder blade, cranial fragment, and radius fragment) showed that
the fire had affected the corpse in a state of advanced decomposition (Baraybar and de
la Rua 1995: 164–67; Zapata 1995: 51). Zapata (1995: 50) considers Pico Ramos as a place
for sequential deposition of bodies in the flesh (process b) and attributes the burning
to a post-depositional accident. However, I favor simultaneous deposition (or several
episodes of simultaneous deposition) of corpses, which were brought to the cave from
another place in different stages of decomposition (process c). The cave is too small to
hold many bodies in the flesh; some body parts were still articulated, while other bones
had been snapped in two in the middle; many long bones were missing; sherds belong-
ing to one vessel and animal bones belonging to one animal were found in different parts
of the cave and in different strata (Zapata 1995: 44–53).
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 157

Bones that belong to 13 individuals in the Copper Age, pre-Bell Beaker red layer of
the Portuguese Lapa do Fumo (late fourth/early third millennium bc) were burned, cut,
gnawed, and covered with ochre. According to Serrão and Marques (1971: 136–38), a fire
had been set in a specially prepared part of the cave with disarticulated bones deposited
on top. After the fire had died, the bones were covered with grave goods, among them
schist plaques and bone objects. These artifacts were not burned. Afterwards the whole
compound was sprinkled with red ochre. Ochre was found on top of burned bones, in-
side bone cracks, on charcoal, and on the objects. It is impossible to determine whether
these bones had been reburied within the cave or were brought from somewhere else.
At Blanquizares de Lébor (Murcia, Spain), bones and lithic artifacts showed evidence
of burning, whereas other objects were entirely unaffected by the fire (Arribas Palau
1952–1953). In Covacho de los Husos (Basque Country), the tip of a flint blade was found
inside a cranium (Apellániz 1974: 134). It looks as if the stone tools were used to remove
traces of flesh.
The analysis of osteological material from the cave surface of Algar do Bom Santo,
Portugal (where at least 121 individuals were identified), reveals a clear dominance of
cranial and long bone fragments, mainly femurs and tibias. No evidence for cutting
and burning was detected. The bones date between the second half of the fourth and
the third millennium bc (Duarte 1998b). Another possible sign for reburial of bones
is a niche burial in the Cova das Lapas, which consisted of a cranium with the right
and left heel from two different individuals, both leaning against the foramen magnum
(Gonçalves 1999: 85). In the cave Algar do Barrão (end of the fourth millennium bc),
bodies were brought into the cave from outside together with sediments after a phase of
passive excarnation (Carvalho et al. 2003).
San Juan ante Portam Latinam is a rock shelter in the Ebro Valley, which was dis-
covered during work to widen a road. The site, which has been dated to 3300–3000 bc,
contained 338 individuals (Etxeberria and Herrasti 2007), some stacked on top of one
another or jumbled up. Several people had been shot by arrows; some arrowheads were
found embedded in the bones. Although the presence of fatal injuries in several bodies
suggested a sort of communal grave that was filled quickly with bodies after a massacre,
studies of the bones provided a different interpretation. Some individuals had died a vio-
lent death, and all bodies showing signs of fatal injury are male. However, some victims
had survived their injuries. Radiocarbon dating points to a long-term use of this rock
shelter by the local population. The tomb was at times emptied out, and bodies were
removed and skulls stacked up together (Etxeberria and Herrasti 2007; Guilaine and
Zammit 2005: 152–57; Kunst 2000; Vegas et al. 1999).
The state of the bones in some caves provides evidence that at least some prehistor-
ic Iberian societies performed “secondary rituals” and rites of grave reentry as known
from Indonesia, Melanesia, and other world regions (for example, Madagascar, North
America; Bloch 1971; Hertz 1907; Hutchinson and Aragon 1999; Metcalf and Huntington
1991). Temporary deposition of the corpse as part of funerary ritual is common among
many preindustrial societies (Brown 1995: 16). The bodies are not taken to their final
burial place immediately after death, but are kept in storage either in the ground, in a
tree, on a scaffold, or in the house. Once the corpses have decomposed, the bones are
158 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

gathered up, cleaned, and reburied in a place distinct from the storage place. Many years
can pass between the death of an individual and reburial. These types of reburials are
often collective, and corpses are in different stages of decay (Hutchinson and Aragon
1999). During these reburial ceremonies, the bodies are sometimes separated and treated
differently. Among the eighteenth-century Nanticoke of Maryland, for example, bodies
were first buried in the ground and then exhumed after a few months. Whereas long
bones were wrapped in cloth and buried, the remaining bones (some probably still par-
tially in the flesh) were burned and buried without wrappings (Feest 1997: 427).
On the other hand, some of the burns and cuts in the Iberian Peninsula could also
result from active defleshing as part of mortuary treatment (Etxeberria 2000) or from
reburial of much older bones without any connection to funeral rituals. Post-funeral re-
location of much older bones could explain the messy dates in the Portuguese Gruta da
Casa da Moura and in the Gruta dos Ossos. In Casa da Moura, Delgado found scraped
and incised bones in Level 1a. Ceramics from Level 1a are predominantly of the Copper
Age (Straus et al. 1988: 79), and a bone pin from the Delgado excavation was dated to
4600 ± 90 (OxA-5506) 3630–3040 2σ cal bc (Cardoso and Soares 1995). A human ulna,
on the other hand, which was excavated from the same context during a newer excava-
tion, provided a date of 5990 ± 60 bp (TO-953) 5192–4780 2σ cal bc, too old for the
Copper Age (Straus et al. 1988: 70). In the Gruta dos Ossos, in the Alto Ribatejo, a similar
discrepancy in the dates exist. The disarticulated bones from upper Levels I–III turned
out to be much older than the articulated bones from the lower Level IV. Level I–III
revealed two dates (bones, probably human): 4630 ± 80 (ICEN-465) 3633–3101 2σ cal
bc and 4460 ± 110 (I-17368) 3500–2885 2σ cal bc; Level IV was younger: 3970 ± 140 (I-
17248) 2880–2060 2σ cal bc (Carvalho et al. 2003: 117; Cruz 1997: 216).
Theoretically, some of these disarticulated “Copper Age” deposits could date to as
late as the Early Bronze Age, as many caves were reused for the burial of new corpses.
The rock shelter Covão d’Almeida (also known as Eira Pedrinha), Coimbra, Portugal,
contained a 60-cm-thick layer that began approximately 1.5 m below the cave surface
and was filled with the disarticulated human bones of almost 200 individuals (Corrêa
and Teixeira 1949: 10–11). In some parts of this so-called “camada dos ossos,” ashes and
burned bones were visible. Teixeira (Corrêa and Teixeira 1949: 12) attributes body disar-
ticulation and the burning to post-depositional natural disturbance processes, although
Corrêa (1949: 30) admits that the deposit could also have been an ossuary, that is, the de-
position of disarticulated skeletal elements. Vilaça (1990: 109) favors the idea that, given
its small size, the rock shelter served for the deposition of disarticulated bones, although
in sector A’8 the deposition of articulated bodies could also have taken place. Based on
the artifacts, the bone layer dates to between the Final Neolithic and the Copper Age.
However, the entire deposit could also date to the Bell Beaker period (with reburial of
older bones at the end of third millennium bc), since a Beaker sherd (not well contextu-
alized) was encountered in the bone layer (Corrêa and Teixeira 1949).
Though most of the bones in Late Neolithic/Early Copper Age cave contexts were
probably burned dry, the cremation of corpses in the flesh was also practiced. Abric de
l’Escurrupenia (Valencia, Spain) was used as burial site at the end of the fourth millen-
nium bc and contained 2044 fragments of remains from approximately 14 individuals
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 159

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

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

HYPOGEA. Hypogea are artificial limestone caves. They are less frequent than and not
as widely distributed as caves. Hypogea, which usually show up in clusters (four at
Palmela, four at Monte Canelas, etc.) have been found in central and southern Portugal
(Estremadura, Setúbal Peninsula, Algarve) as well as in southern, central, and north-
ern Spain (Western Andalusia, Murcia, Toledo, and Navarra). They were predominantly
used from the Late Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age (especially in Bell Beaker times in
the Portuguese Estremadura).
In some areas, hypogea co-occur with caves. Like caves, hypogea usually contain a
large number of disarticulated individuals (for example, Carenque 3 held over 150 bod-
ies; São Pedro Estoril I held 100 people, etc.; Silva 1997: 243); unfortunately, the forma-
tion processes are equally ambiguous. According to Silva (1997), sequential deposition of
individuals in the flesh was the predominant process in the hypogeum of Monte Canelas
1 (Algarve, end of the fourth millennium bc; Parreira and Serpa 1995). The grave con-
160 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

sisted of two separate layers, divided by collapsed limestone. The lower layer (fig. 10.1),
which precedes the upper layer by approximately a century, contained the remains of 147
individuals (97 adults, 50 subadults; bones covered with red ochre), the upper layer 24
bodies (12 adults, 12 subadults, no ochre). Like caves, Neolithic and Copper Age hypogea
could have been burial locations for the members of entire communities, which were
either deposited simultaneously or in a sequential order.
However, there exist two important differences between hypogea and caves: (a) Burned
bones are lacking from hypogea. If burning of dry bones is indeed a sign for multistage
burial rituals in caves, this could support the evidence that hypogea (at least the hypo-
geum of Monte Canelas I) were used for the deposition of bodies in the flesh; (b) In
comparison to caves, animal bones in hypogea are also rare (Weiss-Krejci 2006). Monte
Canelas, for example, only held around 20 animal bones. Considering the frequent as-
sociation of human remains with animal bones (deer, hares, rabbits, wild and domestic
pigs, goats, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, reptiles, rodents, fish, and birds) in caves as well as
in some other grave types, this is a rather small number. Some of these animal remains
in caves and megalithic monuments are probably not simply remains of food but could
have played a symbolic role in the reburial ritual. Rabbit and hare bones, in particu-
lar, often appear in combination with reburied and altered bones. Reburied bones of at
least 27 individuals were associated with bones of rabbits (and ovicaprids) in the Cueva
del Abrigo I de las Peñas (Palomar Macian 1982–1983: 132). Other examples include the
Neolithic deposit P94 at Pirulejo, where human bones were mixed with bones of hare
(Asquerino 1999: 34–37), and Cueva Sagrada I (Sánchez Carrasco 1987). Rabbits and
hares may have served as symbols of birth and fertility. Small rabbit ornaments made
from bone have been encountered in a variety of Copper Age caves, hypogea, and dol-
mens in Portugal (for example, Anta Grande do Olival da Pega, Cova da Moura, Cabeço
da Arruda, Lapa do Bugio, Lapa do Suão; Cardoso 1992: fig. 17/10; Furtado et al. 1969: fig.
8/35; Leisner and Leisner 1951: 145).

MEGALITHIC TOMBS. In the Copper Age, a large number of bodies were interred in
chambered tombs such as dolmens and tholoi. Tholoi, which were constructed in the
third millennium bc, are less widely distributed than dolmen (see also García Sanjuán
2006: 155). They primarily occur in the Algarve, Alentejo, Extremadura, and Andalusia.
Regarding the treatment of corpses in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, several inter-
esting differences between bodies in megalithic tombs and bodies in caves exist. Some
megalithic tombs contained burned bones (in combination with a low number of bodies)
that may have resulted from the treatment of a fresh corpse. Many years ago, Leisner and
Leisner (1943: 546–47) suggested that megalithic tombs held artificial mummies (for ex-
ample, seated bodies in the Dolmen de Soto 1), and that small fires in the tombs promot-
ed the dehydration process since many tombs have hearths (see Rojo and Kunst 2002).
I think this idea is plausible and worthy of future consideration to explain some finds
in prehistoric Iberia. Like secondary ritual, dehydration (mummification) of corpses
was also a frequent practice in preindustrial societies all over the world (Aufderheide
2003). The Bangala from the Upper Congo eviscerated and smoked bodies in order to
display them in huts for some time before final deposition. The Muisca of Precolonial
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 161

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

Colombia also mummified the bodies of the dead by suspending them above or between
fires (Aufderheide 2003: 35, 50). In ancient Mesoamerica, seated corpses were sometimes
dehydrated in front of a fire, leaving charred skulls and leg bones behind (Sempowski
1994: 142–44). Two skeletons, which once were mummies, have recently been detected at
the Bronze Age settlement of Cladh Hallan, Scotland. The body parts had been curated
for several hundred years before being deposited under the primary floor of a house.
One body, which appeared as an articulated corpse, was composed of bones from three
different individuals (Parker Pearson et al. 2005).
Smoking and dehydration of corpses in prehistoric Iberia could have taken place
long before deposition. There may be some evidence for smoked corpses in the Anta
Arquinha da Moura, Portugal. Silva (1995: 142) identified three femur fragments, which
had been exposed to heat while still in the flesh. The number of individuals in the Anta
Arquinha da Moura was low. There were around seven adults and one subadult (Silva
1995: 143). Among many special grave goods, 400 arrowheads and a gold leaf were found.
The orthostats are painted (Cunha 1993, 1995: 136–39). For comparison, in the Dolmen
de Soto there were also eight individuals (one was a child), and the orthostats are en-
graved. If the Leisners are right and certain tombs (the more elaborate ones) of Copper
Age Iberia were deposition places for a few individuals who had been desiccated, these
bodies could belong to members of a special stratum of society, such as the elite.
At Los Millares, bones were burned in 13 tombs, a few more tombs held ashes and re-
mains of fire, and the rest (approximately 60) showed no evidence for fire (Almagro and
Arribas Palau 1963). Unfortunately, we know very little about the corpses in these tombs,
such as whether bones were burned green or dry and the specific deposition processes
(fig. 10.2).
162 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

The deposition process-

es of corpses in megalithic
tombs are probably as
variable as those in caves.
Sequential deposition of
bodies and disturbance of
older bones by younger
bodies, rituals of com-
memoration and visits,
sporadic reuse, exhuma-
tion, and the deposition
of older bones from else-
where all form plausible
scenarios. The reburial of
bones older than the mon-
ument, for example, could
explain a very early fifth-
millennium-bc date on
a bone in the Dolmen de
FIG. 10.3 Five people were buried in the “hut floor” of Cabaña xiii
Azután (Bueno Ramírez
at Polideportivo de Martos in the Guadalquivir Valley (Lizcano et al.
1991: 57). This individual 1991–1992: fig. 2).
was probably dead long
before the monument came into existence, whereas the other individuals in the tomb
had died after the construction of the monument. This find clearly implies that dates of
human bones should not be used to date the initial construction of a tomb. Monument
1 of Perdigões, a tholos tomb from the Alentejo, contained large amounts of what looks
like reburied bodies (Duarte 1998a). The bones were neither cut nor burned. Burned
bones are absent from all Alentejo and Spanish Extremadura tholoi.

SETTLEMENTS. Depositions of human remains in Copper Age settlements and the

many isolated finds of human bones (often intermixed with animal bones) suggest that
the living and the dead were in close physical relation to each other before the Early
Bronze Age (Alcázar Godoy et al. 1992). Burials below habitations were discovered at
Polideportivo de Martos (fig. 10.3), a site dating from the late fourth millennium bc
(Lizcano et al. 1991–1992); deposits with human remains as well as isolated human bones
without associated graves are known from a variety of Copper Age Portuguese walled
enclosures (for example, Castelo Velho, Leceia, Zambujal; Cardoso 1994; Jorge et al.
1998–1999) and settlements of Andalusia (for example, La Cima, La Gallega in Sevilla; El
Prado de Jumilla in Murcia; Alcázar Godoy et al. 1992; Lillo Carpio and Walker 1987). At
the unwalled Copper Age settlement of El Prado (Jumilla, Murcia), human bones were
found in all excavated sectors (Lillio and Walker 1987). They were mixed with the much
more numerous faunal remains and were not enclosed in any special structure. All larger
bones were missing, and the proportion of human bones is very small in comparison with
animal bones. Many more bones have been found at walled enclosures of the Portuguese
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 163

Estremadura. Usually these bones are

mixed (and therefore registered and
collected) together with animal bones
(Duarte, personal communication).
Structure E.R. in the Copper Age
walled enclosure Castelo Velho, in
northern Portugal, contained a de-
posit of eight to eleven fragmen-
tary individuals of different age and
sex groups. Some of the bones had
been burned, cut, and gnawed, and
the majority of body parts, such as
the heads of the adults, were miss-
FIG. 10.4 Burial 80 at Fuente Álamo, Almería, is a
ing. One body was still partially ar-
double covacha burial. It contained the disarticulated ticulated (Antunes and Cunha 1998).
remains of a woman, who had died considerably earlier Although the bones have not been
than the man, whose bones were entirely articulated (from dated, I think that this indicates a
Schubart et al. 1985: fig. 8). process of temporary storage of sev-
eral individuals above the ground
(which would explain the gnawed bones) and a one-time redeposition (after processing)
of some of the bones into Structure E.R. A similar deposit was excavated at the site of
Leceia in Structure II (Cardoso 1994). Like Structure E.R., Structure II is a round stone
structure that dates to the second part of the third millennium bc. In Structure II, only
remains of heads were present. Seventeen skull fragments, 18 teeth, and one atlas or axis
from three adult males had been deposited together with “domestic waste.” Although
burns or cuts are not present on the bones, the presence of the first or second vertebra
indicates that at least one head was severed from the corpse. Unfortunately, no date for
these bones has been published. Cardoso (1994: 143) interprets the individuals as attack-
ers who had been killed and who did not deserve a funeral and were therefore discarded
in the garbage. I think that Structure II is not a garbage bin but a mortuary structure that
held the remains of “important” people. Unfortunately, there exists no artifactual evi-
dence to corroborate this theory, since the associated artifacts have not been published.
The southeastern Bronze Age (or El Argar culture, ca. 2250–1500 bc) exhibits a drastic
change in burial patterns from the preceding Copper Age (Los Millares Culture). The
standard Argaric grave (cists, pits, covachas, and urn deposits) is individual, although a
few multiple burials have also been found (fig. 10.4). Argaric graves are usually located
within settlements and beneath house floors or embedded in the walls of domestic struc-
tures (for example, Aranda and Molina 2006; Castro Martínez et al. 1993–1994; Chapman
2005). At Gatas, some multiple depositions (with two and three bodies) are those of chil-
dren, of children and adults, and of two adults (a male and female). Recent AMS dating
of Argaric double graves has shown that multiple depositions of adults do not represent
individuals of one generation but people who lived and died at least one century apart
(Castro et al. 1995). This implies that the graves were either reused by later generations,
or that we are looking at simultaneous depositions of people who were stored or curated
164 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

until their final disposal. Reuse is suggested at Gatas (Lull 2000), and evidence for simul-
taneous deposition of one adult and a child comes from El Castellón Alto.
The site of El Castellón Alto, which is located in the municipality of Galera, dates to
about 1900–1600 bc. Burial 121 was found under a house floor. It contained the strongly
flexed, mummified, and wrapped corpse of one adult in his late 20s. Skin and hair (even
the beard) were still present. The accompanying child was still partially articulated and
mummified. Four ceramic containers, copper bracelets, silver rings, one axe, and animal
remains were also found in the tomb. According to Botella (personal communication;
Molina et al. 2003) the child had died earlier, but was exhumed from somewhere else
(still partially articulated), put into a bag, and reinterred with the adult.
This mummy find has important implications for Argaric multiple graves. At Cerro
de la Encina, Tomb 21 held three articulated bodies, which look like bundles. Aranda
and Molina (2006) regard this burial as a simultaneous deposition of individuals who
lived and died together. Theoretically, these bodies could also be the remains of people
who had lived at different times (as at Gatas) and were stored or kept in different places
until collective final deposition in Tomb 21. Hence, Aranda and Molina’s assumption of
familial relationship between individuals in graves at Cerro de la Encina could be wrong.
The lack of dates for the Cerro de la Encina bones constitutes a serious problem for this
interpretation as well as other reasons. The authors claim that the bones represent evi-
dence for social variation between tombs of the western sector and the central sector of
Zone B. However, these differences may be chronological; the site was occupied without
interruption from 2000 to 1450 bc.

Discussion

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

Unfortunately, because in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age the funer-
ary record is dominated by single graves with bodies containing grave goods,
it has proved possible for some archaeologists to imply that this horizon saw
“the birth of the individual” in the contemporary sense … According to these
arguments, these were people just like us (Thomas 2002: 39).
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 165

What really makes a difference be-

tween our modern society and many
preindustrial people are the long-
term relationships in which the liv-
ing and the dead engage with each
other. In prehistory, the dead were an
integral part of society, and there are
many ways and forms in which this
relationship could be expressed.
Overall, the attitudes towards the
dead between the Neolithic, Copper
Age, and the Bronze Age seem less
clear-cut when one carefully exam-
ines the evidence. Body storage and
curation of bones was practiced in
the Neolithic and the Copper Age,
but as the examples from Argaric
sites show, this may have also been
the case in the Bronze Age. Remains
of some dead bodies have been recov-
FIG. 10.5 Cueva de Gobaederra in the Basque region ered in Neolithic and Copper Age set-
contained disarticulated and burned bones of at least 67
tlements, suggesting that dead bodies
people. The bodies of the most recently buried individuals
were found articulated and extended on their backs (from were present in settlements before the
Apellániz et al. 1967: fig. v). Bronze Age. And although Bronze
Age people buried their dead in new
types of graves, they also reused collective tombs of earlier time periods.
Additionally, in certain contexts, the dichotomy between “individual” and “collective”
may simply result from the formation processes of a burial site. As already mentioned,
caves were used for the deposition of corpses in Bell Beaker times and in the Early Bronze
Age in several parts of the Iberian Peninsula. Corpses appear more individualized (pro-
tected by stones, set apart, and so on). Cueva de Gobaederra, for example, contained at
least 67 individuals, many disarticulated, burned, and mixed with ashes (probably all
dating to the Copper Age). Two individuals (probably dating to Bell Beaker times) were
articulated and extended on their backs (fig. 10.5). They had been deposited in the center
of the cave; one of them was covered by a cattle skull (Apellániz et al. 1967). The fact that
only the latest burials are individualized does not imply that earlier ones originally were
not deposited the same way. The individualized Bell beaker burials are only the last in
a long sequence of deposition. I want to illustrate this process using a historic example
from Europe.
According to mortuary records, 4,000 people — mostly lower nobility and employees
of the Imperial court — were buried individually in coffins in the subterranean burial
vault of St. Michael’s Church in Vienna between ad 1630 and 1784. Excavations carried
out in the 1950s showed that in some parts of the vault at least two times in the past older
coffins had been intentionally destroyed and buried in the ground. Each time — proba-
166 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

bly once in the seventeenth and once in the eighteenth century — the bones and remains
of clothing were covered by a layer of sand and clay. There exists a written protocol,
which states that during in the eighteenth century the crypt floor was raised by 1.5 m.
Today, a visitor to the subterranean vault of St. Michael’s will only see the remaining “in-
dividualized” coffins, but stands on the invisible, intermingled fragmentary and collec-
tive remains of thousands of corpses all tightly packed into the ground in several layers
(Rainer 2005: 30).
There exist many ethnographic and historic examples of collective burials that illus-
trate the various formation processes and meanings of these types of graves (for example,
Bloch 1971). Specific types of collective graves, especially elaborate tombs, are known to
hold members of noble houses. The example of European aristocratic tombs has been
used by Kunst (1995) to support the argument that Iberian societies were already strati-
fied by the Early Copper Age, a view which is shared by Lacalle (2000). Lillios’ investi-
gation of Copper Age slate, schist, and sandstone plaques deriving from mortuary con-
texts also points in this direction. Lillios (2004) considers the plaques as genealogical
mnemonics that were consulted for ritual and social decisions when collective burials
were revisited episodically.

The Mummy Problem

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

Tomb Reuse

Another phenomenon that has also seriously been underestimated is the reuse of older
tombs in the Early Bronze Age (see also García Sanjuán, this volume). Chapman (2005)
has recently suggested that older megalithic monuments may have served as grave sites
for some members of Bronze Age populations. This idea is based on the investigation of
dead bodies from the Argaric site of Gatas, where a series of bones were dated and care-
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES 167

ful investigation by physical anthropologists was carried out. At Gatas, not all the dead
were actually disposed of within the settlement. Prior to 1900 bc, mainly adults were
buried, and it seems that infants and children were deposited elsewhere or received mor-
tuary treatment that left no trace. Between 1700 and 1500 bc, on the other hand, more
children than adults are present. Adults between the ages of 20 and 40 years are scarce
throughout the occupation of Gatas. Hence, the burial population of Gatas does not re-
flect a real population. Chapman (2005) thinks that some of these missing adult bodies
could have been deposited in megalithic tombs, both in the coastal and interior areas.
It is possible that through the reuse of megalithic monuments Bronze Age people
were able to establish symbolic ties with long vanished, elite corporate groups. Indeed,
the use and reuse of tombs in prehistoric Iberia may have served a similar purpose as in
other parts of the world. In Europe, reuse of dynastic tombs and the choice of specific
burial locations often helped to legitimize power and claims to territories (Weiss-Krejci
2005b). Maybe some Bronze Age individuals also needed political legitimization. As
land became a basic means of production, the dead were increasingly linked to the land
(Hernando Gonzalo 1997: 89).
There certainly exists a relationship between burial monuments and land use. In the
Austronesian world, the association between a corpse and the other ancestors in the
tomb serves as a basis for defining kinship groupings (Waterson 1995) and claims to
property and land. Among the Sa’dan Toraja of highland South Sulawesi, members of a
descent group (tongkonan, the house) have the right to be buried in the collective house
tomb (liang), which is often referred to as “the house of the ancestors.” If a body is placed
in the “wrong” tomb, that is, in a tomb where it has no right to be, years later the body
may be retrieved and placed in its own family liang (Waterson 1995: 208–10). Burial in
the wrong tomb may eventually lead to improper claims to social position, land, and
property by the descendants.

Violence and Warfare

Body processing as well as exhumation and reburial are probably responsible for the dis-
articulated and broken state of Neolithic and Copper Age bones. However, violent death
and mutilation is also a distinct possibility for some of the dismembered corpses. The
proposed rationales (for example, see Cardoso 1994: 143 for Leceia) for their creation
have been simplistic with regard to why the violence would be expressed in such a way.
At present, there exists little data to support such ideas. Unequivocal osteological evi-
dence for trauma caused by weapons and evidence for violent death have been recovered
only from a few contexts, predominantly located in the northeastern part of the Iberian
Peninsula: the dolmen of Collet Su, Cova H. De Arboli, Hipogeo de Longar, the rock
shelter San Juan ante Portam Latinam, San Quirce del Valles, and the burial pit of La
Atalayuela (Armendáriz et al. 1994; Etxeberria and Vegas 1992; Kunst 2000: 131; Vegas et al.
1999). These injuries, which were responsible for the death of at least some of the buried
individuals, have been interpreted as the outcome of interpersonal violence and warfare.
Otherwise, osteological evidence for interpersonal and communal violence is scant
(Silva 2005; Silva and Marques 2010). Many archaeologists interpret walled enclosures,
168 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES

such as the sites of Los Millares in Andalusia and Zambujal and Leceia in Portugal, as
evidence for people’s concern for adequate protection (Fernández Castro 1995: 17–23,
48–50; Guilaine and Zammit 2005: 188–90; Monks 1997, 1999). However, some archae-
ologists have suggested a ritual role for walled enclosures (Jorge 2002).
For yet unexplained reasons, the issues of violence and warfare have only started to
play some role in the recent past. Most Iberian archaeologists even consider the burning
of entire mortuary structures on the Northern Meseta and in Navarra (La Peña de la
Abuela, El Miradero, Tumulo de la Sima, and Tres Montes) as the result of ritual behavior
(see Rojo and Kunst 2002 and articles therein). However, the nature of these fires re-
mains ambiguous, and violence in the form of deliberate hostile destruction should not
be ruled out. There exist many historical examples which show that one form of impos-
ing violence on the living is to destroy the remains of their dead (Weiss-Krejci 2005b).
Unless entirely covered up, many of the tombs above the ground would have been easy
targets for enemies.

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

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Portuguese of the University of Iowa. It was a wonderful
Science Foundation (FCT project SFRH/ experience. My special thanks go to Katina
BPD/8608/2002). I would like to thank all Lillios who has also made valuable comments
the people involved in the organization of the on this chapter and has been incredibly patient
Obermann conference, both staff and students throughout the editing process.

References
Alcázar Godoy, J., A. Martín Espinosa, Investigaciones Científicas, Diputación
and M.T. Ruiz Moreno Provincial de Almería, Madrid.
1992 Enterramientos calcolíticos en zonas
de habitat. Revista de Arqueologia 137: Antunes, M.T., and A. Santinho Cunha
18–27. 1998 Restos humanos do Calcolítico – Idade
do Bronze de Castelo Velho, Freixo de
Almagro, M., and A. Arribas Palau Numão, Vila Nova de Foz Côa. Nota
1963 El poblado y la necrópolis megalíticos preliminar. Côavisão 0: 35–42.
de Los Millares (Santa Fe de Mondújar,
Almería). Bibiliotheca Praehistorica
Hispana Vol. 3. Consejo Superior de
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES
Apellániz, J.M.
1974 El grupo de Los Husos durante la pre-
historia con cerámica en el país Vasco.
Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa Vol. 7.
Vitoria.
Apellániz, J.M., A. Llanos, and J. Fariña
1967 Cuevas sepulcrales de Lechon, Arralday,
Calaveras y Gobaederra (Alava). Estu-
dios de Arqueología Alavesa 2: 21–47.
Aranda, G., and F. Molina
2006 Wealth and power in the Bronze Age
of the Southwest of the Iberian Penin-
sula: The funerary record of Cerro de
la Encina. Oxford Journal of Archaeo-
logy 25: 47–59.
Armendáriz, A., S. Irigarai, and F. Etxeberria
1994 New evidence of Prehistoric Arrow
Wounds in the Iberian Peninsula. In-
ternational Journal of Osteoarchaeology
4: 215–222.
Arribas Palau, A.
1952–1953 El ajuar de las cuevas sepulcrales
de Los Blanquizares de Lébor (Murcia).
Memorias de los Museos Arqueológicos
Provinciales 13–14: 78–125.
Asquerino, M.D.
1999 Sepulturas de la prehistoria reciente en
Priego de Córdoba. Anales de Prehisto-
ria y Arqueología 15: 29–39.
Aufderheide, A.C.
2003 The Scientific Study of Mummies. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Baraybar, J.P., and C. de la Rua
1995 Estudio antropológico de la población
de Pico Ramos (Muskiz, Bizkaia). Con-
sideraciones sobre la demografía, salud
y subsistencia. Munibe (Antropologia-
Arkeologia) 47: 151–75.
Bloch, M.
1971 Placing the Dead. Seminar Press,
London.
169
Brown, J.A.
1995 On Mortuary Analysis – With Special
Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research
Program. Pp. 3–26 in Regional Ap-
proaches to Mortuary Analysis, ed. L.A.
Beck. Plenum Press, New York.
Bueno Ramírez, P.
1991 Megalitos en la Meseta Sur: los dolmenes
de Azutan y La Estrella (Toledo), Exca-
vaciones arqueológicas en España Vol.
159. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
Cardoso, J.L.
1992 A Lapa do Bugio. Setúbal Arqueológica
9–10: 89–225.
1994 Leceia 1983–1993. Escavações do povo-
ado fortificado pré-histórico. Estudos
Arqueológicos de Oeiras. Centro de
Estudos Arqueológicos do Concelho de
Oeiras, Câmara Municipal de Oeiras,
Oeiras.
Cardoso, J.L., and A.M. Monge Soares
1995 Cronologia absoluta das grutas arti-
ficiais da Estremadura Portuguesa.
Al-madan 4, Série II: 10–13.
Carr, C.
1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Phil-
osophical-religious, Circumstantial
and Physical Determinants. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 2:
105–200.
Carvalho, A.F., N. Antunes-Ferreira,
and M.J. Valente
2003 A gruta-necrópole neolítica do Algar do
Barrão (Monsanto, Alcanena). Revista
Portuguesa de Arqueologia 6: 101–119.
Castro Martínez, P.V., R.W. Chapman, S. Gili
Suriñach, V. Lull, R. Micó Pérez, C. Rihuete
Herrada, R. Risch, and M.E. Sanahuja Yll
1993–1994 Tiempos sociales de los contex-
tos funerarior argáricos. Anales de Pre-
historia y Arqueología 9–10: 77–105.
Chambon, P.
2003 Les morts dans les sépultures collectives
néolithiques en France. Du cadavre aux
restes ultimes. CNRS Editions, Paris.
170 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES
Chapman, R.W.
1990 Emerging Complexity: The Later Prehis-
tory of South-East Spain, Iberia and the
West Mediterranean. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
2003 Archaeologies of Complexity. Routledge,
London.
2005 Mortuary Analysis: A Matter of Time?
Pp. 25–40 in Perspectives on Mortuary
Archaeology for the New Millennium,
eds. G.F.M. Rakita, J.E. Buikstra, L.A.
Beck and S.R. Williams. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Corrêa, A.M.
1949 Notas sobre o espólio antropológico
de Eira Pedrinha. Pp. 29–37 in A jazi-
da pré-histórica de Eira Pedrinha, eds.
A.M. Corrêa and C. Teixeira. Publica-
ções do Serviço Geológico de Portugal,
Lisbon.
Corrêa, A.M., and C. Teixeira
1949 A jazida pré-histórica de Eira Pedrinha.
Publicações do Serviço Geológico de
Portugal, Lisbon.
Criado Boado, F.
1989 Megalitos, espacio, pensamiento. Tra-
bajos de Prehistoria 46: 75–98.
Cruz, A.R.
1997 Vale do Nabão: Do Neolítico à Idade do
Bronze, ARKEOS Vol. 3. CEIPHAR,
Tomar.
Cunha, A.L. da
1993 Pinturas rupestres na Anta da
Arquinha da Moura (Conc. de Tondela,
Viseu): noticia preliminar. Estudos Pré-
Históricos 1: 83–95.
1995 Anta da Arquinha da Moura (Tondela).
Pp. 133–51 in 1º Congresso de Arqueolo-
gia Peninsular (Porto, 12–18 de Outubro
de 1993). Actas VII. Trabalhos de Antro-
pologia e Etnologia, Vol. 35. Sociedade
Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnolo-
gia, Oporto.
D’Altroy, T.N.
2002 The Incas. Blackwell, Oxford.
Delibes de Castro, G., J. I. Herrán Martínez, J.
de Santiago Pardo, and J. del Val Recio
1995 Evidence for Social Complexity in the
Copper Age of the Northern Meseta.
Pp. 44–63 in The Origins of Complex So-
cieties in Late Prehistoric Iberia, ed. K.L.
Lillios, pp. 44–63. International Mono-
graphs in Prehistory, Archaeological
Series 8. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Díaz-Andreu, M.
1993 Las sociedades complejas del Calcolí-
tico y Edad del Bronce en la Peninsula
Iberica. Pp. 245–63 in 1º Congresso de
Arqueologia Peninsular (Porto, 12–18 de
Outubro de 1993). Actas I. Trabalhos de
Antropologia e Etnologia, Vol. 33. So-
ciedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e
Etnologia, Oporto.
Díaz del Río, P.
2006 An Appraisal of Social Inequalities in
Central Iberia (c. 5300–1600 cal. BC).
Pp. 67–79 in Social Inequality in Iberian
Late Prehistory, eds. P. Díaz del Río and
L. García Sanjuán. BAR International
Series 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Díaz del Río, P., and L. García Sanjuán (eds.)
2006 Social Inequality in Iberian Late Pre-
history. BAR International Series 1525.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Duarte, C.
1998a Gestão do espaço funerário no Monu-
mento Funerário 1 dos Perdigões: Da-
dos da análise osteológica. Revista Por-
tuguesa de Arqueologia 1: 75–79.
1998b Necrópole neolítica do Algar do Bom
Santo: Contexto cronológico e espaço
funerário. Revista Portuguesa de Arque-
ologia 1: 107–18.
Duday, H.
1997 Antropología biológica de campo, tafo-
nomía y arqueología de la muerte. Pp.
91–126 in El cuerpo humano y su trata-
miento mortuorio, eds. E. Malvido, G.
Pereira, and V. Tiesler. Colleción Cien-
tífica. Instituto Nacional de Antropolo-
gía y Historia, Mexico City.
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES
Etxeberria, F.
2000 The Accidental, the Intentional and the
Ritual in Human Burials. Pp. 291–308
in Contributos das Ciências e das Tecno-
logias para a Arqueologia da Península
Ibérica. Actas do 3º Congresso de Ar-
queologia Peninsular. Utad, Vila Real,
Portugal, September 1999, Vol. 9. ADE-
CAP, Oporto.
Etxeberria, F., and Herrasti Maciá, L.
2007 Los restos humanos del enterramiento
de SJAPL: caracterización de la mues-
tra, tafonomía, paleodemografía y pa-
leopatología. Pp. 159–282 in San Juan
ante Portam Latinam: una Inhumación
Colectiva Prehistórica en el Valle Medio
del Ebro. Memoria de las Excavaciones
Arqueológicas 1985, 1990 y 1991, ed. J. I.
Vegas Aramburu. José Miguel de Ba-
randiarán, Diputación Foral de Álava,
Vitoria.
Etxeberria, F., and J.I. Vegas
1992 Heridas por flecha durante la Prehisto-
ria en la Península Ibérica. Pp. 129–36
in Actas del I Congreso Nacional de Pa-
leopatología. IV Reunión de la Asocia-
ción Española de Paleopatología: Enfer-
medad y muerte en el pasado. Donostia–
San Sebastián 21–23 junio 1991. Munibe,
Suplemento No. 8, San Sebastián.
Feest, C.F.
1997 Zwischen den Welten – zwischen den
Disziplinen: Archäologische und histo-
risch-ethnographische Perspektiven zu
Bestattungsformen im Küstenland von
Virginia und North Carolina. Ethno-
graphisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 38:
419–432.
Fernández Castro, M.C.
1995 Iberia in Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford.
Furtado, A., A. da Silva Mauricío, V. Côrtes,
and J. de Almeida Monteiro
1969 Lapa do Suão (Bombarral). O Arqueó-
logo Português 3, Série III: 63–70.
171
García Sanjuán, L.
1999 Expressions of Inequality: Settlement
Patterns, Economy and Social organi-
zation in the Southwest Iberian Bronze
Age (c. 1700–1100 BC). Antiquity 73:
337–51.
2006 Funerary Ideology and Social Inequal-
ity in the Late Prehistory of the Iberian
South-West (c. 3300–850 cal. BC). Pp.
149–69 in Social Inequality in Iberian
Late Prehistory, eds. P. Díaz del Río and
L. García Sanjuán. BAR International
Series 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Gilman, A.
2001 Assessing Political Development in
Copper and Bronze Age Southeast
Spain. Pp. 59–81 in From Leaders to
Rulers, ed. J. Haas. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum, New York.
Gilman, A., and J.B. Thornes
1985 Land-use and Prehistory in South-east
Spain. George Allen and Unwin, London.
Gonçalves, V.S.
1999 Time, Landscape and Burials. 1. Mega-
lithic Rites of Ancient Peasant Societies
in Central and Southern Portugal: An
Initial Overview. Journal of Iberian Ar-
chaeology 1: 83–91.
Guilaine, J., and J. Zammit
2005 The Origins of War: Violence in Prehis-
tory. Blackwell, Oxford.
Hernando Gonzalo, A.
1997 The Funerary World and the Dynamics
of Change in Southeast Spain (Fourth–
Second millennia BC). Pp. 85–97 in The
Archaeology of Iberia: The Dynamics of
Change, eds. M. Díaz-Andreu and S.
Keay. Routledge, London.
Hertz, R.
1907 Contribution à une étude sur la
représentation collective de la mort.
Année Sociologique 10: 48–137.
Hutchinson, D.L., and L.V. Aragon
2002 Collective Burials and Community
Memories: Interpreting the Placement
172 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES
of the Dead in the Southeastern and
Mid-Atlantic United States with Refer-
ence to Ethnographic Cases from Indo-
nesia. Pp. 27–54 in The Space and Place
of Death, eds. H. Silverman and D.B.
Small. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association
No. 11. American Anthropological As-
sociation, Arlington.
Jorge, S.O.
2002 From “Fortified Settlement” to “Monu-
ment:” Accounting for Castelo Velho
de Freixo de Numão (Portugal). Journal
of Iberian Archaeology 4: 75–82.
Jorge, S.O., M. de Lurdes Oliveira, S.A. Nunes,
and S.R. Gomes
1998–1999 Uma estructura ritual com ossos
humanos no sítio pré-histórico de Cas-
telo Velho de Freixo de Numão (Vila
Nova de Foz Côa). Portugália, Nova Se-
rie 19–20: 29–70.
Kunst, M.
1995 Central Places and Social Complexity
in the Iberian Copper Age. Pp. 32–43
in The Origins of Complex Societies in
Late Prehistoric Iberia, ed. K.L. Lillios.
International Monographs in Prehisto-
ry, Archaeological Series 8. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
2000 A Guerra no Calcolítico na Península
Ibérica. ERA Arqueologia 2: 128–42.
Lacalle Rodríguez, R.
2000 El megalitismo en el S. O. de Andalucía:
Un indicador de jerarquización social.
Madrider Mitteilungen 41: 54–70.
Leisner, G., and V. Leisner
1943 Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halb-
insel. Der Süden (1), Römisch-Germa-
nische Forschungen Vol. 17. Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin.
1951 Antas do Concelho de Reguengos de
Monsaraz. Instituto para a Alta Cultu-
ra, Lisbon.
Leitão, M., C.T. North, J. Norton, O. da Veiga
Ferreira, and G. Zbyszewski
1987 A Gruta pré-histórica do Lugar do Can-
to, Valverde (Alcanede). O Arqueólogo
Português 5, Série IV: 37–65.
Lillo Carpio, P.A. and M.J. Walker
1987 Los restos humanos dispersos en el
asentamiento eneolítico de El Prado de
Jumilla (Murcia). Anales de Prehistoria
y Arqueología 3: 105–9.
Lillios, K.
2004 Lives of Stone, Lives of People: Re-view-
ing the Engraved Plaques and Late Neo-
lithic and Copper Age Iberia. European
Journal of Archaeology 7: 125–58.
Lizcano, R., J.A. Camara, J.A. Riquelme, M.L.
Cañabate, A. Sanchez, and J.A. Afonso
1991–1992 El polideportivo de Marto. Pro-
ducción económica y símbolos de co-
hesión en un asentamiento del neolítico
final en las Campiñas del Alto Guadal-
quivir. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la
Universidad de Granada 16–17: 5–101.
Lull, V.
2000 Argaric Society: Death at Home.
Antiquity 74: 581–90.
Martínez Navarrete, M.I.
1984 El comienzo de la metalurgia en la pro-
vincia de Madrid: la cueva y cerro de
Juan Barbero (Tielmes, Madrid). Tra-
bajos de Prehistoria 41: 17–91.
Mathers, C.
1994 Goodbye to All That?: Contrasting Pat-
terns of Change in the South-East Ibe-
rian Bronze Age c. 24/2200–600 BC.
Pp. 21–71 in Development and Decline
in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, eds.
C. Mathers and S. Stoddart. Sheffield
Archaeological Monographs 8. J.R.
Collis, Sheffield.
Metcalf, P., and R. Huntington
1991 Celebrations of Death. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES
Molina, F., M.O. Rodríguez-Ariza, S. Jiménez,
and M. Botella
2003 La Sepultura 121 del yacimiento argári-
co de El Castellón Alto (Galera, Grana-
da). Trabajos de Prehistoria 60: 153–58.
Monks, S.J.
1997 Conflict and Competition in Span-
ish Prehistory: The Role of Warfare in
Societal Development from the Late
Fourth to Third Millennium BC. Jour-
nal of Mediterranean Archaeology 10:
3–32.
1999 Patterns of Warfare and Settlement in
Southeast Spain. Journal of Iberian Ar-
chaeology 1: 127–71.
Ontañón-Peredo, R.
2006 Early Social Inequality in Cantabrian
Spain (IV–III Millennia BC). Pp. 53–
65 in Social Inequality in Iberian Late
Prehistory, eds. P. Díaz del Río and L.
García Sanjuán. BAR International Se-
ries 1525. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Palomar Macian, V.
1982–1983 La Cueva del Abrigo I de las Pe-
ñas (Navajas, Castellón). Cuadernos de
Prehistoria y Arqueología Castellonenses
9: 123–34.
Parker Pearson, M., A. Chamberlain, O. Craig,
P. Marshall, J. Mulville, H. Smith, C. Chenery,
M. Collins, G. Cook, G. Craig, J. Evans, J.
Hiller, J. Montgomery, J.-L. Schwenninger, G.
Taylor, and T. Wess
2005 Evidence for Mummification in Bronze
Age Britain. Antiquity 79: 529–46.
Parreira, R., and F. Serpa
1995 Novos dados sobre o povoamento da
região de Alcalar (Portimão) no IV e III
milénios a.c. Pp. 233–56 in 1º Congresso
de Arqueologia Peninsular (Porto, 12–18
de Outubro de 1993). Actas VII. Traba-
lhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, Vol.
35. Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropo-
logia e Etnologia, Oporto.
Pascual Benito, J.L.
2002 Incineración y cremación parcial en
contextos funerarios neolíticos y cal-
colíticos del este peninsular al sur del
173
Xúquer. Pp. 155º89 in Sobre el significa-
do del fuego en los rituales funerarios del
Neolítico, eds. M.A. Rojo and M. Kunst.
Studia Archaeologica Vol. 91. Secreta-
riado de Publicaciones e Intercambio
Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid,
Valladolid.
Rainer, A.
2005 Geschichte der Michaelergruft. Pp.
21–36 in Die Michaelergruft. Retten,
was zu retten ist, ed. A. Rainer. Mi-
chaelerkirche, Vienna.
Rojo Guerra, M.A., and M. Kunst
1999 Zur Neolithisierung des Inneren der
Iberischen Halbinsel. Erste Ergeb-
nisse des interdisziplinären spanisch-
deutschen Forschungsprojekts zur
Entwicklung einer prähistorischen
Siedlungskammer in der Umgebung
von Ambrona (Prov. Soria). Madrider
Mitteilungen 40: 1–52.
Rojo Guerra, M.A., and M. Kunst (eds.)
2002 Sobre el significado del fuego en los ri-
tuales funerarios del Neolítico, Studia
Archaeologica, Vol. 91. Secretariado de
Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial,
Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.
Sánchez Carrasco, G.
1987 Apéndice IV: Estudio preliminar de
la fauna hallada en el enterramiento
colectivo de la Cueva Sagrada. Anales
de Prehistoria y Arqueología 3: 41–43.
Schubart, H., O. Arteaga, and V. Pingle
1985 Fuente Álamo. Informe preliminar so-
bre la excavación de 1985 en el pobla-
do de la Edad del Bronce. Empúries 47:
70–107.
Sempowski, M.L.
1994 Mortuary Practices at Teotihuacan. Pp.
2–314 in Mortuary Practices and Skel-
etal Remains at Teotihuacan, eds. M.L.
Sempowski and M.W. Spence. Urban-
ization at Teotihuacan Vol. 3. Universi-
ty of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
174 10. CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON MORTUARY PRACTICES
Serrão, E. da Cunha, and G. Marques
1971 Estrato pré-campaniforme da Lapa do
Fumo (Sesimbra). Pp. 121–42 in Actas
do II Congresso de Arqueologia (Coim-
bra 1970), Vol I. Coimbra.
Silva, A.M.
1995 Os restos humanos exumados da Anta
da Arquinha da Moura (Tondela, Vi-
seu). Estudos Pré-Históricos 3: 141–50.
1997 O hipogeu de Monte Canelas I: Con-
tribuição da antropologia de Campo e
da paleobiologia na interpretação dos
gestos funerários do IV e III milénios a.
C. Pp. 241–48 in II Congreso de Arque-
ología Peninsular. Neolítico, Calcolítico
y Bronce. Tomo II. Zamora, del 24 al 27
de Septiembre de 1996, eds. R. de Bálbin
and P. Bueno Ramírez. Fundación Rei
Afonso Henriques, Zamora.
2005 A necrópole da Serra da Roupa: caracte-
rização demográfica, morfológica e pato-
lógica de uma população portuguesa do
Neolítico Final/Calcolítico. Pp. 787–92 in
III Congresso de Neolítico en la Península
Ibérica, eds. P. Arias Cabal, R. Ontañón
Peredo and C. García-Moncó Piñeiro.
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Univer-
sidad de Cantabria, Santander.
Silva A.M., and R. Marques
2010 An Arrowhead Injury in a Neolithic
Human Axis from the Natural Cave
of Lapa do Bugio (Sesimbra, Portu-
gal). Anthropological Science. Advance
Publication http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/
browse/ase/_vols, accessed July 18, 2010.
Straus, L.G., J. Altuna, M. Jackes,
and M. Kunst
1988 New Excavations in Casa da Mou-
ra (Serra d’el Rei, Peniche) and at the
Abrigos de Bocas (Rio Maior), Portu-
gal. Arqueologia 18: 65–95.
Thomas, J.
2002 Archaeology’s Humanism and the
Materiality of the Body. Pp. 29–45 in
Thinking Through the Body: Archaeolo-
gies of Corporeality, eds. Y. Hamilakis,
M. Pluciennik, and S. Tarlow. Kluwer
Academic, New York.
Vegas, J.I., A. Armendáriz, F. Etxeberria, M.
Fernández, L. Herrasti, and F. Zumalde
1999 San Juan ante Portam Latinam: Una
sepultura colectiva en el valle medio
del Ebro. Revista de Arqueología 224:
14–25.
Vilaça, R.
1990 Sondagem arqueológica no Covão
d’Almeida (Eira Pedrinha, Condeixa-
a-Nova). Antropologia Portuguesa 8:
101–31.
Waterson, R.
1995 Houses, Graves and the Limits of Kin-
ship Groupings among the Sa’dan Tora-
ja. Bijdragen tot de Taal, Landen Vol-
kenkunde 151: 194–217.
Weiss-Krejci, E.
2004 Mortuary Representations of the Noble
House: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
between Collective Tombs of the An-
cient Maya and Dynastic Europe. Jour-
nal of Social Archaeology 4: 368–404.
2005a Formation Processes of Deposits with
Burned Human Remains in Neolithic
and Chalcolithic Portugal. Journal of
Iberian Archaeology 7: 37–73.
2005b Excarnation, Evisceration, and Exhu-
mation in Medieval and Post-Medieval
Europe. Pp. 155–72 in Interacting with
the Dead. Perspectives on Mortuary Ar-
chaeology for the New Millennium, eds.
G.F.M. Rakita, J.E. Buikstra, L.A. Beck
and S.R. Williams. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
2006 Animals in Mortuary Contexts of Neo-
lithic and Chalcolithic Iberia. Pp. 35–45
in Animais na Pré-história e Arqueolo-
gia da Península Ibérica. Actas do IV
Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular,
Faro 2004, ed. N. Bicho.. Universidade
do Algarve, Faculdade de Ciências Hu-
manas e Sociais, Faro.
Zapata, L.
1995 La excavación del depósito sepulcral
calcolítico de la Cueva Pico Ramos
(Muskiz, Bizkaia): La industria ósea y
los elementos de adorno. Munibe (An-
tropologia-Arkeologia) 47: 35–90.