The Montenegro Enclosure in Galicia (Northwest Iberia)

Home , Atlantic Europe, Neolithic architecture, O Morrazo

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Digital.CSIC

Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space: the Montenegro Enclosure in Galicia (Northwest Iberia)

Camila Gianotti, Patricia Mañana-Borrazás, Felipe Criado-Boado & Elías López-Romero

This article presents a comparative analysis of archaeological sites in northwest Iberia focusing on Neolithic spatial concepts and their materialization in different architectures from this period. The recently excavated site of Montenegro in Galicia is analysed to determine how the construction of circular enclosures reproduces the organizational model of space identified in monumental architectures elsewhere. The origin of these constructions, their functionality and their relation with other archaeological phenomena are explored to show how they are all different versions of the same concept. Finally the authors discuss what they consider their key point that the prevalence of circular design may be recognized behind the diverse materialities as an essential instrument of Neolithic societies which began to tame the world.

The most outstanding archaeological elements from the excavation area, dated to the mid-third millennium bc. Neolithic period in Galicia are megalithic monuments We would, however, draw attention to the fact (dolmens and mounds). Their construction covers a that the treatment of this information leads us to period between c. 4500 cal. bc and c. 3000–2500 cal. bc. propose a series of important historical and anthro- At the same time, recent investigations have revealed pological questions. The method we use here is the presence of another type of site that shared the based on a specific theoretical principle that we have space with the megalithic monuments, and which developed in our research in Landscape Archaeology has begun to be studied as a result of the large-scale for some time: all spatial forms are determined by the archaeological interventions carried out in connection spatial concept present in the socio-cultural group that with the construction of public works (Criado-Boado & produced them. This principle is applied to tangible Cabrejas Domínguez 2005; Bonilla Rodríguez et al. 2006; or intangible forms, to (amongst the first group) land- Prieto-Martínez et al. forthcoming; Varela 2008; 2009; scapes or material culture, and to (amongst the latter) 2010). Within this broad context, open-air settlements, moveable objects or architectures. pit enclosures and circular structures have come to The article proposes a deconstruction (or a form an important part of Galicia’s Neolithic landscape. reverse engineering) that leads us from the materiality The initial aim of this article is to present a of a specific archaeological item to the identification of summary of the site of Montenegro (in the Morrazo its formal regularities. Based on these, the structural Peninsula, Pontevedra, Spain), which is one of the best principles embedded within the item can be sought examples of a complex archaeological site excavated to out and compared with other similar entities. date in Galicia epitomizing this new variety of construc- So, by considering the site of Montenegro, we tion and monument beyond burial mounds. The site will develop a theoretical and methodological pro- has been defined as such due to its recognized archi- posal. As well as presenting new data for the Neolithic tectural, chronological and functional diversity. In this in the northwest Iberian Peninsula, we explore further article we will focus almost exclusively on one area of the cultural significance of circular ritual monuments the site: the circular enclosure located to the east of the of this kind, and discover the spatial design model that

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21:3, 391–406 © 2011 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research doi:10.1017/S0959774311000436 Received 2 Sep 2010; Accepted 28 Oct 2010;391 Revised 6 Jun 2011 Camila Gianotti et al.

was in place in a Late Neolithic society. It may sound the application of Lévi-Strauss’s model to prehistory ambitious, but such is the duty of producing meaning in the shape of two different patterns of rationality: beyond mere descriptions. the ‘wild’ and ‘domestic’ pattern (Criado-Boado 2000). In order to develop this approach, we need to Therefore, our examination of a circular Neolithic define the spatial pattern that is materialized in differ- enclosure is presented primarily to propose how this ent types of monuments through spatial regularities. special type of monument materializes a Neolithic Based on the Montenegro site and on further evidence concept of space that is also represented in other areas from Galicia (similar to others along the Atlantic coast), of the megalithic experience: funerary architecture, we will present what we consider to be the model for the organization of burial mounds, the construction Neolithic monumental space in this region. of funerary chambers, the representations which The article will thus be organized into three main they contain (paintings or carvings), the distribu- sections. Firstly, a general overview of the forms of tion of grave goods, the erection of standing stones Neolithic spatiality in the northwest Iberian Peninsula; and, of course, the construction of the monumental secondly, a detailed description of the Montenegro site landscape. Each of these areas must be treated as a and enclosure; and thirdly, a contextual discussion of different expressive code (in the sense conferred upon the type of Neolithic space it represents. it by Structural Anthropology for some time: Lévi- Strauss 1973). The different codes within a culture are Neolithic spatiality: concept and materiality interconnected by relations of compatibility between them, a principle which, in turn, is based on the prac- Discoveries and re-assessments of Neolithic enclosures tical requirements of linguistic and meta-linguistic and open-air settlements in the Iberian Peninsula have communication, as nobody is able to create contents multiplied in recent years (Zafra et al. 1999; Bernabeu that are significant for an audience without using the et al. 2003; Lago 2004; Costa et al. 2010), particularly references that are common to this same audience. in areas where remains of this kind had not been This gives these abstract principles a level of reality previously identified. This is the case in the northwest which, despite being characterized by structuralism Iberian Peninsula, with discoveries of this kind in both as rationalist (Layton 1997), and by mechanistic northern Portugal and Galicia (i.e. Jorge 2004; Aboal materialism as idealistic (Lull & Micó 2001–2), could et al. 2005; Bonilla Rodríguez et al. 2006; Fábregas be better understood from the notion of intersubjectiv- Valcarce et al. 2007; Gianotti & Cancela 2005; Lima ity proposed by recent hermeneutics (Gadamer 1977; 2000; Vilaseco 2009). While these new sites present Johnsen & Olsen 1992) or from the principle of ‘incor- new problems in terms of their interpretation and poreal materialism’ established by Foucault (1980). excavation (Aboal et al. 2005) — basically associated The theoretical assumption implicit in this pro- with their functional and chronological heterogeneity posal is very simple: all societies need a certain concept and the dynamics of their construction — we must of space in order to live and reproduce social life. A recognize that they contribute in some way towards proposal of this type makes it possible to advance ‘normalizing’ the situation of the monumentality of architectural analysis, studies of the landscape or the northwest Iberian Peninsula and its Neolithic stylistic analyses far beyond the point they normally record, equating it with the situation known for this reach. It also allows us to see that beyond monuments period in most of the Atlantic ‘provinces’, in which and landscapes there is pure space. the enclosures have become common realities and It is true that this treatment of the enclosures part of the phenomenon. This means that we can now conceals the historic or social significance behind their verify that Neolithic forms of monumentality present structural or cultural meaning. There are a number of in other Atlantic regions are also present in north- specific archaeological problems which, in principle, west Iberia, which apart from burial mounds at least this proposal does not resolve, and which are currently include standing stones, enclosures, stone and timber the subject of debate with regard to the Neolithic in the circles and related settlements (Villoch Vázquez 1998; northwest Iberian Peninsula, such as their chronology, Monteagudo García 2003; Gianotti & Cancela 2005; their emergence and disappearance, their relationship Bonilla Rodríguez et al. 2006; Vilaseco 2009). with other monuments, their use over time or their The field of anthropology has studied in great relationship with the settlements (Díaz-del-Río 2003; detail the structure of thought and cognitive forms, Jorge 2004; Prieto-Martínez et al. forthcoming). How- and their relationship with specific social and histori- ever, being aware of the difficulty of these issues, our cal forms (Lévi-Strauss 1973). The application of these methodological alternative is to resolve the important theories to prehistory is one of the ways in which features which should (and may) be resolved at a more Landscape Archaeology functions. We have proposed general level — the existence of a Neolithic concept 392 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

for the cultural organization of space and its definition to the circular structures (mounds and cairns) which — and then discuss the social and historical features appeared from the middle of the fifth millennium bc of the phenomenon (for this reason we will structure onwards. This model has sometimes been connected the last section of this article at both levels). In other with Mesolithic structures present by the end of the words, several works deal with current research issues sixth millennium bc in Atlantic Europe. This link has raised by circular enclosures, but there is another level mainly been discussed for regions such as southern of reality to these constructions (the meaning of their Brittany in France or the Sado and Muge estuaries in spatial design) that can also be approached from other Portugal, but it is also of relevance elsewhere (Sher- perspectives. ratt 1995; Arias & Fano 2003, 150–53). Excavation and radiocarbon dating obtained in the early 1980s Monumental spaces in the western European context at several sites in the British Isles served to provide Analysis of Neolithic spatiality at the scale of the further arguments for this view (cf. Scarre 2003, 40–41). European Atlantic Façade remains a difficult task. In a research context largely dominated by First of all, the different research traditions in different chrono-typological seriation, both spatial models — parts of western Europe have resulted in disparate which, by the way, reflect background diffusionist and approaches to material culture, landscape, space and indigenist paradigms for the origins of monumental- their interpretation. While in some parts the research ity — have probably been oversimplified, and have has largely explored the ideological and symbolic often been opposed on typological, morphological and dimensions of space, in others, more materialistic, temporal grounds. It is worth mentioning that recent chrono-typologically oriented views have tradition- research has highlighted the complexity of building ally predominated. The analysis of archaeological sequences, showing how the dialogue between circu- theory in Britain and France by Scarre (1999) is a lar and linear architectures needs further considera- good example of this kind of dichotomy. Secondly tion (L’Helgouac’h 1996; Laporte et al. 2002a). Several and partly linked to the precedent, archaeological regularities concerning long mounds — such as the division into periods becomes fuzzy when translated emphasis on the eastern parts of the structures — are from regional to interregional scales. A paramount actually reminiscent of the behaviour found within example of this is given by the use of the same division the circular ‘rationality pattern’. The structural, sym- (i.e. Early Neolithic) for different periods in northwest bolic and ideological implications of these construc- Iberia, western France and the British Isles. Such tions have also been the object of analysis by several archaeological ‘boxes’ (i.e. Neolithic, Chalcolithic or researchers since the 1990s (Criado-Boado 1989; 1993; the Bronze Age) are actually used to define a diverse 2000; Bradley 1998; 2000; 2001; Criado-Boado & Vil- range of social and economic realities. The same is true loch Vázquez 1998; Scarre 2003), thereby opening the for concepts such as ‘megalithic society’ or ‘megalithic way to further interpretations of both the archaeologi- religion’ which unify the complexity and variability of cal evidence and the landscape. social diversity at a global, transverse level. At a more particular level, other types of spatial Because of these conditioning factors, it is impor- regularities have focused the attention of research tant — as in the previous section — to place ourselves on western European monuments. Stressing certain within the theoretical, methodological and geographi- architectural features seems to have acquired a cal context in question. Once this has been stated we particular significance. The emphasis given to the can say — in an exercise of generalization — that two southeastern quadrant of monuments is one of the broad Neolithic types of architecture have usually most common regularities of this kind. This aspect been identified and contrasted in the western Euro- is more easily identified in mound-like architectures pean Neolithic: a linear and a circular type. The former like the well-known case of passage orientation or the relates to the Early Neolithic tradition of longhouses emphasis on façade composition. Differential build- and the expansion of a new mode of production; the ing strategies in the mound itself, or how orthostats later monumental development of this tradition would are negotiated within the structure, reflect this same be long-barrow construction, well known in the south- concern but are usually less discussed in these terms. ern and eastern parts of the British Isles, and linked Moreover, a deeper analysis shows that such a spatial in central and western France to the ‘Passy-Balloy’ recurrence can also be found in the architecture and structures of the ‘Cerny culture’ (Mordant & Simonin setting of other types of monuments. In the case of 1997; Midgley 2005). The association of stone align- standing stones, the specific orientation of their flat ments and earthen long barrows (tertres tumulaires) in faces or their particular situation within the landscape areas such as Brittany could also be discussed in this may well indicate similar conceptions of space man- context (i.e. Boujot & Cassen 2000). The latter relates agement (Benéteau 1993, 157; López-Romero 2005, 393 Camila Gianotti et al.

414–15). It is precisely this link with the landscape of this period in Galicia: a pair of non-monumental which may better demonstrate concerns with circular sites dated to the mid-fifth millennium (Lima 2000). spatiality. The location of several mounds, standing So far no older sites are known. Beyond Galicia, the stones and stone circles within spatially constrained first monumentalism of the European Atlantic area landforms is found throughout the Iberian Peninsula produced architectural forms such as standing stones, and beyond (cf. Criado-Boado et al. 1986; Criado-Boado stone circles, alignments, dolmens and timber circles, & Villoch Vázquez 1998; Bradley 1998). The fact that extensively documented from the fifth to the third many of these landforms are naturally open to the east millennia bc in Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal and highlights the significance of these settings. Therefore, it France (Bradley 1998; Bradley et al. 2002; Burl 2005; seems that both linear and circular monuments interact Gibson 2005; Giot et al. 1996; Hartwell 2002). with the surrounding landscape in a similar way: they In Galicia, with the exception of the funerary usually emphasize easterly and southeasterly orienta- structures that appeared around 4500 bc, the evi- tions and face away from the west. dence for other megalithic elements (standing stones, Similarly, several authors have stressed the role stone circles, etc.) is currently limited and has been that natural elements may have played in the origins, little studied (see a list of sites in Fábregas Valcarce development and reaffirmation of monumentality & Vilaseco Vázquez 2003; Monteagudo García 2003; (Criado-Boado 1993; Criado-Boado & Villoch Vázquez Villoch Vázquez 1998) (Fig. 1). Other recognizable 1998; Tilley 1996; Bradley 2000; Calado 2002). Some of sites from this period include domestic settlements, these elements even seem to have fully conditioned with evidence frequently found of structures made the construction of monuments. A good example of of perishable materials (post-holes, ditches, hearths, this is the Menga monument in Antequera (Andalusia, etc.) (Bonilla Rodríguez et al. 2006; Lima 2000; Mén- Spain). Its northeast orientation is at odds with the dez Fernández & Rey García 2005; Parcero Oubiña & general regional pattern (Hoskinet al. 1994, 78), but its Cobas Fernández 2005; Prieto-Martínez 2005; Suárez axis exactly faces the rocky massif known as the Peña Otero 1997; Suárez Otero & Fábregas Valcarce 2000), de los Enamorados (García-Sanjuán & Wheatley 2009, and the material culture mainly formed by incised 140–43). A different kind of relationship with natural pottery (Prieto-Martínez 2001; Prieto-Martínez et al. elements is connected with the replication or emphasis 2005), and stone production based on quartz techno- of topographical elements. Although this trend is once logy (Tabarés & Baqueiro 2005; Baqueiro 2006). again epitomized by funerary architecture (Laporte et Similar features are described for dwelling sites al. 2002b), the same driving principle may be found dating from the Middle Neolithic. These data support in other contexts such as henge monuments or stone a rather homogeneous model of settlement from the circles (Richards 1996). Once again, more systematic middle of the fifth millennium bc until the middle of research is needed in order to better evaluate the impli- the third millennium bc, based on small settlements cations which these recurrences have in the framework with a location pattern that coincides on occasion with of European Neolithic spatiality. We will return to the the location of monuments, or close to them (Criado- analysis of these patterns in the final part of this article. Boado et al. 1986; 2000; Lima 2000). The transition between the fourth and third Megalithic sites, structures and enclosures in the millennia bc may be seen as a moment of social northwest Iberian Peninsula intensification, in which the most monumental funer- The megalithic phenomenon in Galicia covers a period ary structures were in use. This is suggested by the of approximately 2000 years, between 4500 cal. bc, as dating of the different episodes of use at monuments documented in monuments with the oldest dates,1 such as Cotogrande 5 (Abad Gallego 2000), Dombate and 3000–2500 cal. bc, coinciding with the period phase II (Alonso Matthías & Bello Diéguez 1997), when the great chambers were sealed.2 Between five Forno dos Mouros 5 (Mañana-Borrazás 2005) and and ten thousand burial mounds were constructed A Romea (Mañana-Borrazás 2003), amongst others. across much of Galician territory, mostly in upland In traditional terms, this period may be situated areas. These are circular mounds between 10 and 30 m within the Late Neolithic, although in Galicia other in diameter and 1.5 to 3 m high. authors have attributed this to the Copper Age with The fifth millennium bc saw the development Penha-type pottery (Bonilla Rodríguez et al. 2006; of the Early Neolithic, a period that witnessed the Eguileta Franco 1999; Fábregas Valcarce & Vilaseco emergence of the earliest types of agriculture, mainly Vázquez 2003; Suárez Otero & Fábregas Valcarce 2000), based on a mixed economy, which we may actually applying a periodization more befitting central and assimilate within what is known as the ‘Meso-Neo- southern Iberia, the defining features of which (large lithic’ period (Zvelebil 1986). Little evidence remains settlements, ‘fortifications’, systematic metalworking, 394 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

social complexity) are not apparent in Galicia until some time later. In this case, we prefer to use an Atlantic categorization, in which the Late Neolithic replicates the dynamics of the southern regions, revealing an intensification of the previously existing social dynamics. Following this high point of monumental activity, critical changes in monumental funerary architecture seem to have begun — marked by an event that is repeated in several mounds with corridors — when the large chambers began to be sealed around 2800–2500 bc (Dombate phase III, Os Campiños 6). By this time, there is evidence of similar processes in other parts of the European Atlantic Façade and the Iberian Peninsula; several passage graves were sealed and new types of architecture developed (i.e. gal- lery graves in Brittany or ‘tholoi’ in southern Iberia). This moment marks an inflexion point in the construction dynamics of monumental architecture in northwest Iberia, with both change and diversification. New funerary structures — cists — were built (Casota de Berdoias, Fornela dos Mouros de Aplazadoiro, Devesa de Abaixo: Vázquez Liz Figure 1. Distribution map of megalithic sites (mounds and dolmens 2005); also smaller monuments, small excluded) and Late Neolithic settlements in the northwest Iberian Peninsula. mounds with pits or cairns, or other deposits that usually contain important grave goods, documented. Here we find superimposed archaeologi- something that has been interpreted as a change from cal structures: post-holes, hut floors, hearths, storage collective to individual monumentality (Criado-Boado structures (in the Morrazo peninsula, Montenegro, & Fábregas Valcarce 1989). Remedios, Lavapés, Mesa de Montes, A Fontenla, Gui- Work continued on existing monuments, where doiro Areoso: Bonilla Rodríguez et al. 2006; Fábregas reuse has been documented (such as well pits, holes, Valcarce & Vilaseco Vázquez 2003; Gianotti & Cancela fires, etc.), as have deposits of new materials (particu- 2005; Méndez Fernández & Rey García 2005; Prieto- larly Bell Beaker pottery), as well as remodelling work, Martínez 2005; Suárez Otero 1997), and materials that mainly involving increasing volume by adding new bear witness to a technology focused on making use quantities of material. of cultivated resources, grazing and intensification in New monumental spaces emerged. We see diver- exploitation of wild resources. It was at this time that sification of monumental architecture, transferring it the settlement of Montenegro appeared. to other spheres such as large settlements, with different areas of activity and architectural forms, palisades, Montenegro in the light of the data enclosures and stone circles. Alongside this change, many of the sites from this The archaeological site of Montenegro was discovered period are larger than their predecessors, whether open in 2003 as a result of archaeological monitoring of or ditched. Internally they consist of areas of activity in construction work on a motorway in the Morrazo which processes of repeated and intensive occupation peninsula. This initial phase led to an open-area exca- of the same space throughout long periods of time are vation, covering 5800 m2 (Gianotti & Cancela 2005). 395 Camila Gianotti et al.

The site is located in southwest Galicia, in the through two foundation trenches with post-holes, peninsula of O Morrazo, between the Pontevedra and similar to three others found in different parts of the Vigo estuaries. Situated at a transition point between settlement. Based on a sample of charcoal from one of highlands and lowlands, at a height of 180 m above sea the deposits (UE732) filling in the foundation trench level, it stands at the head of the Moaña Valley, over to the West, a date of 4125±40 bp (Ua-23591; 2880–2570 a prominent outcrop on one side of Mount Agudelo, cal. bc, 95.4 per cent prob.) was obtained, coinciding, which runs northeast–southwest along the coast. as we shall see, with that for a similar hut within the To the east it is flanked by a small basin with steep, circular enclosure. shady slopes, while to the west the land slopes gently A few metres away from this hut, a series of struc- downhill towards an open section of the valley with tures was found with relevant stratigraphic complex- a small stream. Its topographic position means that ity. This group was formed by a subcircular structure the site is very prominent in relation to its immediate excavated in the substrate and intentionally filled in surroundings, further highlighted by the presence of with the same material. At a later stage, two rectangu- a large granitic outcrop to the south of the excavated lar pits were excavated on top of this structure, filled area. Its position offers extensive views to the south- in by slime deposits and with interior walls lined east–southwest over the whole of the Moaña Valley, with medium-sized stones. In this same area, a trench part of the coastline and the Vigo estuary. However, with a length of 35 m was excavated, which exits the to the west, north and northeast, the view is partly circular enclosure (which we will describe later) and constrained by the hills of Paralaia and Agudelo. crosses the slope from southeast–northwest. The straight trench, except for a small section that splits Areas of activity, structures and material culture into two parallel sections, is 25 cm wide, between 20 Excavation work at the site made it possible to and 25 cm deep, and has a ‘U’-shaped profile. Towards document a series of archaeological structures corre- the northwest a series of post-holes was excavated, sponding to two different periods: medieval and Late leading us to put forward the hypothesis that this was Neolithic. The Late Neolithic period is represented part of some type of palisade. throughout practically all of the excavated area, and At the highest point of the site, coinciding has the most conspicuous archaeological features. with the existing plateau, one of the most peculiar The distribution and type of structures located makes monumental structures found to date in Galicia was it possible to identify three different areas. Despite identified. It is a circular enclosure with an internal difficulty in identifying correspondence between diameter of 20 m, comprising a series of perimeter structures without any direct stratigraphic relation structures and internal constructions, an access zone (a common feature in many open-air Galician settle- facing towards the southeast, and two other possible ments: see Aboal et al. 2005), we were able to identify access zones to the north and north-northeast, which at least three stages of occupation for this period that as a whole are indicative of its constructive complexity are confirmed by the dates currently available (see and sequence of use (Fig. 3). below) (Fig. 2). From an architectural point of view, the enclo- To the west, coinciding with a flat area facing sure is configured in its southern half by two stone towards the valley bottom, a settlement area was more rings, while to the north it is surrounded by a trench. clearly documented, thanks to a variety and density To the west, part of the granitic outcrop running from of structures such as post-holes, hut floors, linear north to south was altered in the process of construct- structures, foundation trenches, pits and hearths. ing the stone ring. This process involved cutting the The absence of clear occupational floors made it dif- outcrop away to a width of 1 m and including it within ficult to identify the constructive units in this sector, the general structure of the enclosure. A ring of large although two specific cases of larger oval structures stones supported by smaller blocks was connected to were identified, surrounded by other smaller, prob- this structure, set into a previously dug trench, so that ably complementary buildings. Based on a sample of the southwest quadrant was enclosed by both struc- charcoal from the base deposit (UE362) which filled tures. From one of the deposits (UE727), a sample of in a rectangular pit (UE155) located in this sector, a charcoal was sent for dating, giving a result of 7390±60 date of 3813±52 bp (CSIC-1986; 2470–2130 cal. bc, 95.4 bp (Ua-23590; 6400–6080 cal. bc, 95.4 per cent prob.). per cent prob.) was obtained. Lacking the ability to contrast this information with Another settlement area coincides with the zone new dates, this reading opens an interesting series of halfway down the hillside, and with the lowest den- questions regarding the sequence of occupation of this sity of structures and materials. Here the base of an space throughout time. Another stone ring was also oval hut measuring 3.5 × 1.5 m was found, identified identified in the southeast quadrant although, unlike 396 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

N stone ring 180 archaeological structures pits 10 m huts granitic outcrop

175 UE362

UE817

UE727 UE732

170

Figure 2. Archaeological plan of the excavated area showing the dated stratigraphic units (UE). the former, it is made of small- and medium-sized Both interruptions have been interpreted as secondary blocks laid over the underlying rock. access points to the enclosure. The northern half of the enclosure is surrounded The interior space contains a series of structures by a semi-circular trench 0.8 m wide, with a ‘U’-shaped that bear witness to the organization and use of the profile and a depth of between 0.3 and 0.4 m. The enclosure. In a central position, slightly to the north, trench is interrupted at two points, one towards the a circular structure was excavated, with a diameter of northwest where it coincides with the rock outcrop, approximately four metres formed by post-holes, with and another towards the north-northeast, which con- an access zone facing towards the southeast, marked by tinues by connecting with the stone ring to the east. the presence of an access structure defined by post-holes. 397 Camila Gianotti et al.

Figure 3. Aerial view of the circular enclosure at Montenegro.

Inside the enclosure, almost symmetrical to the (N = 4) with Bell Beaker decoration (Criado-Boado & perimeter wall and adjoining it, two hut bases were Cabrejas Domínguez 2005, 117–19). excavated similar to the one found on the sloped part The system of lithic production is mainly based of the settlement. Oval in shape, measuring 3.5× 1.5 m, on local raw materials (quartz), although there are both include foundation trenches with post-holes also pieces of flint, schist and granite. Products were in their base. These types of huts were built in an found that were representative of all of the sequences identical manner, characterized by cutting away the of the ‘operative chain’ that made it possible to estab- base rock and then digging two lateral foundation lish the technological characteristics of the production trenches (one deeper than the other), and an interior of chipped lithic tools. The site has also provided an flooring of saprolite. The base deposit (UE817) which interesting collection of pieces connected with grinding filled in one of the trenches (UE836) of the hut was activities. A total of seventeen millstones made of gran- dated to 4120±40 bp (Ua-23589; 2790–2570 cal. bc, 70.1 ite was recovered, of which only four were complete, per cent prob.). while the other thirteen were fractured and reused as Most of the materials recovered come from the construction material. Six of these millstones (Fig. 4) circular enclosure. Close to 2300 sherds of pottery were used on both sides, and had been thrown away were recovered, along with 1032 stone items, ochre, as a result of becoming overly worn or having broken. adobe and fragments of iron (the latter from the area None of the pieces were reassembled, meaning that that was occupied in the medieval period). fragments are missing from the fractured millstones. In general terms, the analysis of the pottery has Other polished pieces that were also found inside the made it possible to characterize the system of ceramic enclosure included a number of cutting tools, two axes production. One outstanding feature was the well- and an adze (Criado-Boado & Cabrejas Domínguez preserved condition of the material, which made it 2005, 117–19). possible to reconstruct 120 closed, bowl-type vessels with simple morphologies (13 per cent of the sample), Discussion and final considerations with a wide range of sizes and a high percentage of decorated pieces. The frequency of decorated vessels The monumental enclosure: a singular space is high, mainly using incised, metope or Penha-type The circular enclosure of Montenegro provides us with decoration, together with a small number of vessels new data for old problems, and provides evidence that 398 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

helps to equate Galician megalithism with the rest of elements within the sequence of use and remodel- the Atlantic coastal region, showing the diversity and ling of this monumental construction. For the time integrity of the archaeological record in the northwest being, until we obtain new dates, it seems that the Iberian Peninsula. oldest structure is the stone circle, while the huts are An initial analysis of this singular space presents apparently the last stage. However, we are unable to us with four fundamental issues to discuss here. Firstly, establish the chronology of the circular structure of the enclosure itself as a monumental space with its wooden posts, owing to the lack of any stratigraphic own entity within the settlement; secondly, its rela- connection between them. tion with other areas within the site, leading us to a But what were the reasons for maintaining, third question: the meaning behind its construction remodelling and using a space with these characteris- and the type of activities that took place there. Finally, tics throughout time? What relationship did this space the historicity of the construction, its origin and the have with other areas of the settlement? Although it development of a context in which there were still is difficult to answer the first question, especially due many other monuments in use. to the very poor preservation of organic remains in The model of Neolithic spatiality, already Galicia that prevents us from recovering direct funer- explored by a number of authors (Bradley 1998; ary remnants, there are other aspects that do allow us Criado-Boado 1989; Criado-Boado & Villoch Vázquez to suggest that it may have functioned as a worship 1998; Cummings et al. 2002), is reproduced in the archi- space, possibly related to funerary events: tecture of the enclosure, with a strong correspondence • The presence of a rectangular pit in the interior of the with the spatial organization seen in another type of enclosure, located in the access zone and function- megalithic site: mounds (see Fig. 5). The circular shape, ing as burial area, is seen in different megalithic the dual and asymmetrical organization of space in circles and timber circles in the British Isles (Burl two halves (mostly adjusting to east and west), access 2005; Gibson 2005) or sites such as the Druid’s from the southeast, the pre-eminence of the centre, Circle (Burl 2005, 33), Down Farm (Green 2000, 70). and the integration of natural elements are some of • The material culture recovered from within the enclosure these features (Criado-Boado & Villoch Vázquez 1998). stands out as a result of its uniqueness if we compare In Galicia and the north of Portugal, there are some it with other areas of the site and other sites in the examples in which it is possible to see the association region: i.e. the high density of decorated pottery between rocky outcrops, mounds and stone circles in relation to undecorated pottery (Tabarés & sharing the same space. Though the chronology of Baqueiro 2005), and the incorporation of broken some of the latter needs to be further analysed, this millstones into the architecture of the enclosure correspondence makes it possible to initially establish (Figs. 4 & 5), reused in the construction of the a chronological relationship between the enclosure surrounding wall (Gianotti & Cancela 2005). In of Montenegro and the megalithic phenomenon, and contrast, Atlantic-region level comparison merits secondly, suggest the relationship with a ritual space wider consideration, since, for instance, the inclu- (we will return to this idea later on). sion of broken millstones appears to be a recurrent One of the most problematic aspects of this (symbolic?) strategy (i.e. Giot 1959; Oliveira 1993). kind of site is their functionality and temporality; • The location of the enclosure in relation to the settlement. as the latter is reflected in sequences of use that The enclosure is located towards the east-southeast stretch over relatively long periods of time. Sites of the settlement, in a prominent position looking similar to the timber and stone circles of the British out over the Valley of Moaña. We find a similar Isles allow us to set a horizon of reference in order situation and location in other Iberian settlements to approach both aspects. Sites of this kind in the such as Perdigões, where the funerary space Atlantic regions usually appear integrated within (tombs) and a cromlech are situated to the east of larger monuments such as henges or even mounds, the settlement, with the first positioned between generally representing stages within the sequence of two ditches that surround it (Lago et al. 1998; Valera use and construction of more complex monuments 2003). (Burl 2005; Gibson 2005). Although the enclosure in So far we have focused on the enclosure, its architec- Montenegro is not exactly a timber or stone circle, ture, meaning, function and temporality; yet there can it does show similarities with the complex sites in be no doubt that in order to consider the singularity which these tend to appear, and shares a series of of this archaeological site, a complete interpretation formal features with them. The ring stone, the central should integrate its context. As we said at the begin- circular construction of wooden posts with access to ning, the site has been interpreted as a Late Neolithic the southeast and the small huts inside are three key settlement with different areas of activity, one of which 399 Camila Gianotti et al.

PZMTN02b0061

PZMTN02b0247

20 cm

PZMTN02b0107

Figure 4. Some of the reused millstones from the circular enclosure of Montenegro. is the circular enclosure. The relationship between this (Criado-Boado et al. 2000; 2005), and which is clearer and other areas of the settlement leads us to important in some Copper Age sites such as Perdigões (Lago et al. issues we wish to explore: the convergence and indis- 1998; Valera 2003) or Bronze Age sites such as Devesa solubility of the domestic and funerary spheres in the de Abaixo (Vázquez Liz 2005). The same is true in Neolithic world, at least in its later stages, something Galicia for the recently excavated Neolithic site of A we have already pointed out in previous studies Gándara (by Fidel Méndez).

400 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

North

A00066A000666 7 A000665

A000664 B000388 A000663 B000387

B000372 B000391

A000646

A000636

A000645

A000637

B000386 A000629

B000126

A000045 A000622 B000389 A000337

B000101 A000138

B000057 A000133

A000199 A000136 A000187 B000075 A000188 A001921 A001919 A000225 A001922 B000164 B000056 A000195 A001920 B000383 A001923 A000190

B000071 A000191 A000189

B000102 A000196 B000173 B00102B001027 6 A000198 B000007 A001369 B000103 B000368 A000192

A000197 B000127

B000106 B000104 B000110 B000377 A001445 A000623 B000122 A000461 A000114 B000732 B000749 A000200 B000748 B000754 A001404 B000379 B000109 A001415B000735 A000143 A001446 A001416 A000207 B000080 B000753 B000791 A001405 A001532 B000380 A001605 B000716 B000108 A001537 A00076A000202 3 A001603 A00146A00146A0014487 8A001418 A000201 A000202 B000105 A001431A0014A0014132 7 A001578 A000145 B00072B0007343 A001429 A001531 A00157A001589 0 A001420 B000715 A001447 A001604 A00146B000726 6 A001582 B000A00139A00155111 A0014144 9 A000206 A000113 B000786 A001406 A000142 B00078A00020B000810 28A00158A001421 1A001393 A000147 B000727 A00021A001407 7 A00139A001432 0 B000107 B000009 A00160B000836 5 B000736 B000834 A001546 A000218 A000771 B000833 B000720 A001391 A000203 B000787 A001545 A000204 B000737 B0007A0002040 4 B000734 A000761 B000728 B000738 A000216 A000205 A000208 A000141 B000723 B00073B000759 5 B00081A000207 7 B000113 B000789 A000210 B000118 B000779 B000112 B000788 A000148 A00076A00075B00011094 B000768 A000772 A000205 B000115 B000078 A000766 A000209 B000719 A000206 A000758 B000116 B000058

A000146 A001924 B000729 B000460 A000462

A001412 A000211 A001414 A000757 A000299 A000300 A000756 B000163 A001403 A000297 A000298 B000731 B000843 A000308 A000309 B000730 A001372 B001030 A000212 B001029 B000949 A001413 B000741 B000887 A001373 A001764

B000907 A001358 A000310 B000706 B000891 B00072A001375 1 A000115 B001031 B000714 A00176B0005117 A001370 B000707 A001359 B000717 A001705 B000746 B000708 B000123 A000168 A001360 B000842 A000219 A00167A000224 1 A001348 B000950 A001706 A001932 B000742 A000222 B000951 A001931 B000455 A000213 B000888 A000339 A000220 B000710 A00032A0003230 A001707 A001361 A00032A00031A000324 81 B000892 A001364 B000709A00032A0003129 A001357 A000359 A001683 A001362 A001363 A000214 A001366 A001365 A000338 A00170A001704 8 B000711 B000747 A00032A0013950 A000340 A001710 B000889A00176A0013556 A000341 A000358 A001716 A000360 B000713 A000363 B001032 B000751 B000091 B000929 A001709 A001349 A00167A000325 6 A001684 B000235 A000311 B001028 B000953 A001767 B000174 A000362 A000422 B000954B000893 B000906 A000741 A000342 B000908 A001711 B000952 B00092A0013550 A001676 A000312 A001685 A000361 A001933 B000894 B000213 B000895 A001743 B000183 B000712 A001351 B000928

B000927 B000212 A001693 A000233 A001779

B000762 A0017424 A001686 B000458 B000926 A001717 A001712 B000898 B000215 A001715 A00169A001744 1 A001687 A001411

A001843 A000365 B000994 A000739 A001695 A001389 B000909 B000992 B000956 A00171B0009553 B000130 A000134 B000864 A001714 A001356 A001740 A001352 B000172 A000364 B000958B000957 A001718 B000896 B000995 A001796 A00179B0009597

A001619 A001849 A001696 A001688 B000997 B000991 B000119 B000948 A001800 A001719 B000996 A001646 B000865 B000975 A000376 A001697 A000377 B000993 A001647 A001777 A000228 A001720 B000171 A001698 A000224 B000910 A001888 B00091A001771 8 A001768 A001739 A001721 A001844 A000370 A000371 A001769 A000369 A001887 B00096A000231 9 A000238 A001601 A001886 B000960A001409 A001388 A00169A0018201 B0009B0009662 7 A001367 A001841 B00097A001776 0 A001802 A000227 B000867 A001653 A00183A001889 5 A001648 B000832 B00089A001649 9 A000223 A001368 B001004A001884 A001771 B000279 B000868A001385 A001882 B000963 A000482A000480 B000214 A00184A001880 3 A001408 A001799 A000481 A001650 A001881 B000988 B000077 A001772 A000236 A000163 A001689 A001386 A001353 A001722 A000226 B000070 A001387 A001842 B000278 B00098B001007 5 B000912A001773 B000974 A001410 A000463 A001382 A001798 A001384A001383 A001690 B000076 A000416 A000467 A001691 A001699 B00091B000263 8 A000447 A001774 B000897 B000964 A000417 A001788 B000972 A000382 B000124 A001786 A000237 A000232 B000236 B000718 A001738 B000965 A000229 B000131 A000231 A001651 A001776 B000973 A000464 A00179A001384A001790 3 B000966 A00138A001651 4 A001425 B000280 A001379 A001775 A001378 A000421 A000420A000418 A000144 A00173A00170A0017927 0 A000419 A000448 A000123 A001701 A00137A001797 5A001791 A000466 A001376 A001784 A000740 A001790 B000970 A001785 A001787 A001789 A001424 B000059 A000465 A001423 B000971 A000738 A000483 A000449 B001025 A001344 A000489 A000488 A000366 A000230 A001343 A000423 A00040A000373 5

B000098 A000484 B000217 A001929 A001934 B000087 B000061 B000281 A000404 A001375 A001928 A001930 A000487 A001314 A000490 B000267 A001310 A000367 A000486 A00037A000373 2 A001180 A000485 A000383 B000084 A0004059A000450 A000374 B000099 A000169 A001374 B000128 A000424 A000368 B000064 A00117A001179 8 A001341 B000079 A001181 A000121 A001177 B000068 A0004A0003825A000404 6 B000129 A000234 B000216 A001324 A001183 A000408 A00132A001322 3 A001340 B000090 A001182 A000407 A001176 B000238 A000124 B000085 A000451 A001175 A000427 A001315 A000162 A000150 A001321 A001309 A001926 B000081 A00015A0001556 B000125 A001188 B000226 B000082 B000237 A000452 A000161 B000085 A001927 A001925 A001308 A001307 A00042A0013267 A000149 B000671 A000135 A000432 B000227 A000157 A001319 A000140 A001174 B000239 A000151 A001173 B00022A0005B00022824 9 A000120 A001426 A000160 B000092 B000446 A001320 A000440 B000073 B000687 B000693 A000378 A00043B000251 3 A000166 A000441 A000379 A001306 B000250 A000525 A000159 A000433 B00023A000470 4 B000066 A001305 A000165B000088 A000357 A000475 B000699 B000269 A000442 B000689 A001161 B000231 B000252 B000251 B000060 A001184 A000380 A000153 A000415 A000414 A000472 A001160 A000410 A00044A000446 5 A001295 A001148 B000195 A00117B0006852 B000678 A001187 A000413 A001345 B000686B000684 B000694 A000473 A000154 A001293 A001159 A000381 B000244 B00069A00114A0004483 4 B000688 A0011B000647 69 A000430 A000443 A000167 B000086 A000158 B000062 B000676 A000119 A001300 A001294 A001292 A000411 B000074 B000683 A00114A001306 1 A000429 A000126 A001291 A001299 B000668 B000232 A000428 A001170 A001342 A00115A001310 1 A000125 A000122 A001780 B000089 B000665A001142B000261 A000177A000174 A000355 A001185 B000262 A001326 A000412 A001168 A001298 A001167 B000271 B000095 A000164 A000150 A001422A001163 A00114A0013044 A00017A0001705 B000196 B000690 B000276 A000537 A001169 A001166 A001186 B000673 B000273 A000173 A00129B000696 1 A000353 A001297 B000666A001145 B000257 A001347 A000131 A000176 A000745 A001171 A001165 A000456 B000274 West East B000063 B000937 A000524 A001162 B00026B000253 B0006626 A000172A000171 B000065 B000197 B000692 B00066A001140 9 B000272 B000258 B000838B000198 B000674 B00027A000455 4 A000127 B000241 B000242 B000199 A001151 B000210 B000677 B000282 B000675 B000659 B000255B000667 A000178 B000243 A000522 A001451 B000658 B000067A000184 B000200 A00144A0014349 A00143A001459 2 A000457 A000396 A000356 B000289 A001435 A00145A001430 A001436 7 A000130 B000201 A000744 B000254 B000661 A001303 A001325 B000202 B000453 A000455 A000476 B000697 A001346 B000287 A001609 A001442 A000453 A001302 B000939 A001456 A0014A0014554 5 A000128 B000203 A001440 B000743 B000259 B000260 A000129 B000211A000354 B000288 A001441 A001453 B000938 B000204 A00147A001431 8 B000209 A001472 A001470 A001469B000750 A00039B0009407 B00020B000205 8 A000179 B000206 B000744 B000207 B000745 B000240 A000525 A000523 B000313 B000162 A001752 A000521 A001012 B000266 A000182 A001753 B000284 B000705 A000913 A000180 B000225 B000457 B000312 A000915 A000914 A000181 B000222 B000456 A001331 A000981 A000458 B000333 B000541 A000992 A001328 B000449 A001000 A00098B0005084 A000765 B000315 A001014 A001143 A001037 B000299 A000459 B000283 A001013 A000999 B000613 B00051A001045 0 A000945 A000909 A000385 B000314 A001621 A000301 A001329 B000560 B000223 B000528B000506 A00090A0009865 A0009467 B001033 B000096 A00090B0005073 B000234 A000235 A000982 A000905 A00090A000988 3 A000393 A000925 B000588 A000435 A000538 B000450 A000392 A000394 B000320 A000997 B000300 A000907 A000581A000391 B000317B000316 B000504A001038 A00103A000999 8 B000546 B000318 B000702 A000944 A001210 A000328 A00090A000941 2 B000505 A000924 A000948 A000539 A000755 A000939 B000536 A001330 A000183 A000390 B000319 A000904 A000916 A000956 A000468 A000387 A000386 B000224 B000452 A001004 A000540 A000751 B00054B0005402 A001332 B000304 A000469 A001208 B000653 A000958 B00070B0005354 B000167 A001053 A001209 A000921 A001339 A001338 A001047 A000993 A000434 B000978 A000902 A000972 B000652 B000900 B000221 B000334 A000920 B000265 B000564 A000994 B000359 B000654 B000516 A001049 A000477 B000567 A000470 A000954 B000301 A000971 A000395 A001317 B00051B000515 4 B00056A0010418 B00023B000273 0 B000501A000941 A000926 A000391 A000940 B000302 A001335 A000616 A000388 B000459 A000327 A000910 A001052 A000996 A00092A0007503 A001041 B00070A001333 4 B000525 A000959 A00133A001316 8 A001316 B000545 A000966 A000898 B000701 A001750 A000911 B000264 A000400 B000447 A001402 A000343 B000175 A001060 A00032B000309 3 B000530 A001723 A000960B000621 A000922 A001059 A000621 A001599 A000943 A001063 B00070B000300 5 A001751 A000973 A000516 A000975 B000277 B000582 B000451 A000965 A001602 A000478 A000955 A000961 A000964 A000957 A001061 A000742 B000350 A000764 B000502B000580 B00016A00097A000976 7 6 A00089B000579 8 B000524 A000390 A000517 A000963 A000974 B000572 A000399 B000901 A001724 B000165 A000980 B000573A001058 A000995 B000511 A000962 B000163 A000330 A000479 B000570 A001337 A00094B000589 1 A000754 A001154 A000938 B000503 A001072 A000543 A000747 A001153 A000635 A000401 A000749 A000753B000454 B000178 B000159 A00047A000951 0 A000544 A00116A0018164A00116A0011676 B000628 A001078 A000302 A001062 B000571 A000991 A000927 A000398 A00101A001166 5 B000509 A00120A000611 7 A000746 A001159A001162 B000164 A000900 B000168 B000354 A001199 A001161 A0003A0010914 7 A000582 A000583 A000560 A00115A0011683 A000303 A001056A000460 A000743 A000934 A001077 A000331 B000219 A001160 B000629 A001096 A001484 B000569 A000990 A000618 B000335 A000619 B000645 A000389 A000347 A001098 A000402 B00044B0003386 A001400 A001099 B000510 B000365 A001526 B000722A00139A000937 5 B000495 B000583 A001474 B000496 B000646 A000752 A001202 A000558 A000542 A001399 A000897 A001127 A000566 A001396 A0B00017011249 A001100 A001071 A000919 A000625 A001525 A001395 B000176 A000313 B000306 A000912 A000541 A000748 A001157A00035A000340 9 A001125 B000553 B000373 B000220 A001126 A001476 B000497 A000951 A001398 A000936 A001401 B000218 A001101 A000918 B000721 A00089A001176 5 A001473 A000315 A001003 A00095B0005123 A000346 B000161 B000512 A000527 A001128 A001131 A000317 A001622 A000348 A001174 A001005 B000759 A000917 A001636 A000895 A001156 A001171 A001130 B000756 A000624 B000651 A001527 A001182 A000937 A001173 A001136 A000953 B000760 B000376 A001172 A001170 A00112A001009 6 A000628 B000374 B000635A001183 A000894 B000602 A001132 B000597 A000316 B000169 A000627 A001623 A001123 A000561 A000344 B000598 B000836 A001137 B000757 A001728 B00017A001167 9 B000603 A001138 B000539 B000369 B000914 B000931 B000181 B000930 B000924 B00060B000624 2 B000339 A001735 B000905 A001679 A001001 B000614 B000180 A00035A0003512 B000623 A000626 B000605 A001555 B000941 B000375 A000436 A001624A001625 B000799B000902 A001550 A001556 B000863 A00089A001683 0 A001002 A001642 B00063B0001892 A001726 A001181 A001755 A001194 A01191 A001727 A001640 A000345 A001643A001725 A001207 A001639 B000778 A001198 A001615 B000246 A001682 B000886 B000160 A001475 A001457 A001672 B000592 B000861 A001681 A001119 A001458 B000554 A001197 A001644 B000245 B000813 A001568 A001703B000903 B000862 B000552 A001665 B000186 B00069A001626 8 A001610 A001567 B000849 A001667 A00131A00162A001182 9 8 A001132 A001702 B000190A001673 B000593 A001196 A01192 A001630 A00163B000877 4 B000890 A001120 A001533 B000600 A001754 B000860 B000853 A001664 B000194 B000640 B000594A001534 A001478 A001631 A001665 A001671 A001200 A001613 B000904 A001660 A00166B000872 6 B000884 A001539 B000847 B000185 B000885 B000531 A001503A001477 B000852 B000846 B000595 B000761 A01189 A001645 A001666 B000812 B000848B000877 B000873 A001641 A001634 B000854 B000883 A001570 B00085A001668 3 A001195 A01190 A001666 B000856B000875 A001638 B000193 A001616 A00163A001563 9 A001661 B000919 B000921 A001203 B000878 B000855 A001669 A000892 A00153B0005989 B00018A001679B000880 2 A001121 B000607 B000325 A001635 A001586 B000869 B000918 B000920 B000606 B000797 B000844 B000857 B000765B000596 A001479 A00119B0008390 B0009A0017317 2 B000881 A000987 B000859 B000191 B000807 B000357 A001632 B000880B000192 A001485 A000526 A00120A0005569 A001587 B000850 B000798 A001668 B000534 B00038A000634 4 B000776 B000356 A001626 A001122 A001134 A000988 B000385 A001145 B000808 B000323 B000615 B000634 B000879 B000358 B000349 B000533 B000608 A000649 A001612 A001627 B000532 B000188 B000763 A001614 A001483 B000393 B000394 A000650 A001179 A000555 A000989 A001502 A001617 B000187 UE729 A001176 A000651 A001010 A000652 A000648 A001558 A000653 B000641 A001178 A001608 A000565 B000324 B000611 A001180 A001808 A001557 A001205 A001177 B000766 A001540B000557 B000559 A000305 A001155 A001026 A001607 A001541 A001559 B000612 B000837 A001204A00154A0015423 A000647 B000551 B000247 A000596 A001064 B000800 A000304 B000642 A001729 A001560 B000915 A001498 A001008 A000969 B000360 A00105B000834 0 A001528 A001482 A000587 A001501 B00034A0015414 A001028A001050 A001846 B000566 B000916 A001193 B000367 A001073 B000579 A001075 A001144 A001500 A001029 A001571 A000584 A001497A001499 A001588 A000551 A001481 A000968 A000586 A000585 A001731 A001149 A001051 A001730 A001015 A001019 A001074 A00096B0005687 A001082 A001838 A00157A001574 3 A001805 B000577 B000932 B000353 B000340 B000310 B000945 B000946 A001150 A001081 B000342 B000814 A001017 B000764 A001762 B000309 A001189 A001057 A001065 A000534 A000564 A001535 A000545 B000943 A001480 B000555 A001763 A000546 A001759 A001018 A001034 B000556 A001809 B000548 A000535 A001083 B000589 B000841 A000563 A001035 B000840 B000944 A001496 A001011 B000977 A001592 A001079 B000517 B000942 A001761 B000297 A001139 A00058A001058 5 B000562 B000947 B000547 A000978 A000493 B000311 A001758 A001517 A001583 A000547 B000338 B000366 A001033 A001036 B000565 A001031 B000322 B000352 A001520 A001102 A00050A000515 8 A000306 A000620 A001590 A001591 A001864 B000332A000511 B000816 A001007 A001110 A001760 A001589 A001095 A001070 B000344 B000574 A001009 B000321 A001108 A001487 A001513 A001069 A001090 A000504 B000355 B000576 A001088A001515 A000494 A00106B00057A00058A00150859 5 B00058A04 01118 A001510 A001860 A001086 A000979 A001109 A001486 A001105 A001042 B000295 B000296 A000512 A000492 A001032 A001518 A001085 A001514 A00150A0011169 A001030 A00108B000599 0 A001757 A000307 A001067 A001490 A001106 A001114 A001043 B00083A001861 2 A001493 B000587 A0005A0015601 6 A000510 A00159A0015A001574 76A00049A000515 A001751 4 6 A001508 B000585 A001550 A000548 B000815 B000345 A000606 A001076 A00155A001481 8 A001113 A001093 A001863 A001489 A001091 B000591 A001865 A000500 A000437 A001577 B000327 A001519 A001492 A00161A08 01112 B000773 A001117B000775 B00029B0008458 A001861 A000502 A000519 B000829 A001094 A001104 A001506 A001511 B000767 B000826 A000531 A000607 A001516 A001491 A001092 B000990 B001002 A000498 A00110A0014934 B000774 B000550 B000781 A000508 B000249 A000529 A000562 B000378 A00149B0006059 B000989 A001066 A001512 B000777 A001598 A000530 A001084B000769 B000601 A000520 A000986 A00057A001847 5 A000497 A001107 A00057A000576 A000563 7 B000390 A001530 A001115 A000578 B000785 B000292 A000528 A00067A000677 8 A001552 A00057A00056A000574 91 B000821 A000438 B000526 A000970 B000770 A00056A000578 0 A000552 A00159B0008243 A000579 B000827 A001187 A001111 A001554 A000499 A00118A001185 6 B000784 B000293 B000330 A000439 B000819 B000828 A001572 B000796 A001135 A001142 A000509 A000679 B000820B000795 B000326 A000595 A001529 A000495 A000503 B000822 B000805 B000783 A000335 A001553 A000532 A000572 A000594 B000792 A000550 B00080A00050A000549 6 9 A000580A000575 A000507 B000771 A000533 B000810A000553 B000813 B000291 A001076 B000794 B000806 B000823 A000496 A001080 B000803 B000814 A000554 A001087 B000294 A001562 A000659 A001151 A000593 A001620 A000933 B000563 B000804 B000790 B000331 B000801 B000170 A0000638 B000802B000812 A001563 A001046 B000811

B000337 A000333 A001021

A000592 A000591 A001564 A001553 A000590 A000932 B000772 A000536 B000328 A001020 A001140 A001565 A001141 B000351 A001022 A000334 A000656 B000343 A000332 A000657 A001023 B000248 A000931

A000661 A001024 A001025 A000930 A0000639

B000631

B000402 A000658

A000662

A00092A00006409 A000670 A000608 B000329 B000403 A000676

A001152 A000928

A0000643 B000361

A000680 A000681

A00067A000672 1

A000673

A0000642

B000401

A0000641

South 5 m

Distribution of archaeological elements

Architectural elements 1: Architectural elements 2: Archaeological remains: trench, perimeter stone ring, outcrop post-holes, pits lithics & pottery (scatter) broken millstones (dots) complete millstone (triangle)

North North North

natural outcrop

closed space earthern structures low density of artefacts

West s East West East West East

structure

stone open space / access high density of artefacts

Abstract deconstruction model built stone ring

South South South

Figure 5. Model of Neolithic space represented in the circular enclosure of Montenegro.

At the Montenegro site, the settlement was emonial, settlement and domestic sphere? We believe founded and expanded, integrating a previously exist- the latter to be the case because this enclosure was con- ing space (the circular enclosure), and also reproduc- structed during a later period of Galician megalithism. ing and maintaining the previous spatial order. This can be seen in the huts that were built onto the sides The structure in time and its historicity of the interior of the enclosure (described in previous The data obtained make it possible to situate the con- sections) and the central circular construction. These struction of the circular enclosure into what we refer structures, which were clearly built after the enclo- to as the Atlantic Neolithic, establishing points of coin- sure, do not significantly alter its original shape, and cidence between Montenegro and constructions such re affirm the organization of the existing space. We will as stone or timber circles from the Neolithic period return to this point later on in this article. in several regions along the Atlantic Façade (Bradley These issues raise questions that should be 1998; Bradley et al. 2002; Burl 2005; Gibson 2005; resolved in future excavations and new explorations Hartwell 2002). In addition, the circular enclosure of the archaeological record: are circular enclosures within its context, the settlement, puts Montenegro at such as that at Montenegro complementary to funer- the forefront of a new reality in Galicia: research into ary monumentality when megalithism appeared — open settlements from the Late Neolithic. making funerary and ritual monumentality operate Considering again the long life-history of these together — or do they represent a change, at a given sites, the Montenegro enclosure makes it possible moment of funerary monumentality, to the ritual cer- to understand the megalithic phenomenon — as

401 Camila Gianotti et al.

do mounds — as a long-lasting historical and social the disposal of archaeological material in the south process which maintains a common formal-spatial and east, and placing domestic millstones in this half; and temporal background. The desire for permanence 5. close relationship with natural elements (such as and visibility is typical of the nature of monuments, in rocky outcrops). opposition to the concealment represented by burials This pattern, translated into different areas and in chambers or pits, or the fact that while dwelling types of Neolithic architecture, such as monumen- structures were perishable those used for the dead tal architecture (Bradley 1998; Criado-Boado 1999; are permanent. Also, the presence of breaks within Criado-Boado & Villoch Vázquez 1998) reflects the this phenomenon, which are marked by peaks of continued existence of an idea: the circular spatiality monumental activity followed by periods of inactivity, and the concentric model of organization so com- allow us to maintain that this process is neither con- monly seen in Neolithic architecture, reproduced tinuous nor linear (Blas Cortina 2006; Criado-Boado et later in the large settlements surrounded by ditches. al. 2005; Mañana-Borrazás 2003). The combination of The continued use, reuse and reconstruction of the the stratigraphic analysis of the monuments, together circular enclosure of Montenegro reveals a general with the dates of their different stages, provide reliable spatial concept that was maintained, an earlier idea proof that this model of a long lifespan with disconti- that continued not only in the architecture of the nuities in their use is increasingly recurrent, leading enclosure, but also in its dual, asymmetrical organi- us to propose that this ‘cultural rhythm’ is something zation, as shown by the greater density of materials inherent in monumentality itself (Criado-Boado et al. found in the southeast sector. The concordance 2005; Mañana-Borrazás 2003). between spaces and cardinal points is also an expres- In the case of Montenegro, so far we have four sion of this same code, a code that is not exclusive of C14 dates. Three of these fall around the first third and northwest Iberia (Hoskin 1998). Examples all along middle of the third millennium bc. Like other monu- the European Atlantic Façade show that similar mental sites — mounds and stone or timber circles — concerns regarding spatiality are to be found at the historical process of the enclosure in Montenegro different levels of analysis, from the micro-spatial reveals a series of stages that involved the remodelling, organization of architectural elements and deposits maintenance and even replacement of previously to the relationship and setting of the monuments in existing structures with new ones although, above all, the landscape. The use of the landscape in this respect it reveals the continued existence of the significance — by integrating circular landforms and visibilities, and use of certain places with a ritual character (Hol- constrained places, etc. in the global monumental torf 1996; Bradley 2002; L’Helgouac’h 1996; Hartwell project — is especially significant, for it implies the 2002; Mañana-Borrazás 2003; Lorrio & Montero 2004; human construction of space by means other than García-Sanjuán 2005; Prieto-Martínez 2007). physical building. In summary, we may consider monumental Returning to the Neolithic model of spatial organization architecture to be a constructive project, as a mecha- In closing, we should like to return to the idea pre- nism for reproducing a concept, and for making an sented at the start of this article, that all spatial forms idea reality. What we have, beyond mounds and enclo- are determined by the concept of spatial design that sures, is a Neolithic spatial design with its regularities; exists in the socio-cultural formation that produces an abstract model of this concept of space underlying them. The absolute coherence between the spatial monuments, landscapes and materiality from the organization of the enclosure of Montenegro and Neolithic period in the northwest Iberian Peninsula Neolithic spatiality is a clear example of the materiali- and beyond. The fact that the materialization of this zation of this principle. From a purely formal perspec- Neolithic rituality takes shape through a constructive tive, we see that the Neolithic pattern of organization action that combines negative artificial architectures is repeated in the circular enclosure which once again (ditches) with the use of natural forms (rocky out- reaffirms the model already proposed by several crops), the proliferation of artificial elements towards authors (Bradley 1998; Criado-Boado 1999; Criado- the east with a relative absence of these elements to Boado & Villoch Vázquez 1998): the west, and the symbolic reuse of worn-out mill- 1. circularity; stones, would metaphorically indicate the presence 2. access from the southeast; of a diffuse Neolithic, with a limited domestication 3. asymmetrical organization of space; of the world, which correctly represents the nature 4. dual arrangement by halves, ‘built’ by leaving the of the Neolithic period in Galicia (Prieto-Martínez et rocky outcrops towards the west and north, using al. forthcoming, in the same way as other parts of the ditches in the south, east and north, concentrating Atlantic world. 402 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

Camila Gianotti sin estratigrafía: Devesa do Rei, ¿un sitio cultual de Eastern Regional University Centre (CURE) la Prehistoria Reciente y la Protohistoria de Galicia? Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology and Heritage Trabajos de Prehistoria 62(2), 165–80. (LAPPU-FHCE), associated unit of CURE Alonso Matthías, F. & J.M. Bello Diéguez, 1997. Cronología y periodización del fenómeno megalítico en Galicia a University of the Republic of Uruguay (UdelaR) la luz de las dataciones por Carbono 14, in O Neolítico Rincón esquina Florencio Sánchez Atlántico e as orixes do megalitismo, ed. A. Rodríguez 27000 Rocha Casal. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Uruguay Santiago de Compostela, 507–20. Email: [email protected] Arias, P. & M.A. Fano, 2003. Shell middens and megaliths: Mesolithic funerary contexts in Cantabrian Spain and Patricia Mañana-Borrazás their relation to the Neolithic, in Stones and Bones: Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit) Formal Disposal of the Dead in Atlantic Europe During the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) Mesolithic–Neolithic interface 6000–3000 bc. Archaeologi- cal Conference in Honour of the Late Professor Michael J. San Roque 2 O’Kelly, eds. G. Burenhult & S. Westergaard. (British 15704 Santiago de Compostela Archaeological Reports International Series 1201.) Spain Oxford: BAR, 145–66. Email: [email protected] Baqueiro, S., 2006. La producción lítica del yacimiento neolítico de O Regueiriño (Moaña, Pontevedra). Felipe Criado-Boado Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 119, 55–85. Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit) Benéteau, G., 1993. L’alignement de menhirs de ‘La Pierre’ Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) à Avrillé (Vendée). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique San Roque 2 Française 90(2), 151–8. Bernabeu, J., T. Orozco, A. Díez, M. Gómez & J. Molina, 2003. 15704 Santiago de Compostela Mas D´is (Penàguila, Alicante): aldeas y recintos de Spain monumentales del Neolítico inicial en el Valle del Email: [email protected] Serpis. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60(2), 39–59. Blas Cortina, M.A., 2006. La arquitectura como fin de un Elías López-Romero proceso. Zephyrus 59, 233–55. Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit) Bonilla Rodríguez, A., M.C. Vila & R. Fábregas Valcarce, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) 2006. Nuevas perspectivas sobre el espacio doméstico San Roque 2 en la prehistoria reciente del NO. Zephyrus 59, 257–73. 15704 Santiago de Compostela Boujot, C. & S. Cassen, 2000. Tertres et pierres dressées, in Eléments d’architecture (Exploration d’un tertre funéraire Spain à Lannec er Gadouer, Erdeven, Morbihan. Constructions Email: [email protected] et reconstructions dans le Néolithique morbihannais. Propositions pour une lecture symbolique), ed. S. Cassen. Notes (Mémoire 19.) Chauvigny: Éditions chauvinoises, 181–206. 1. Forno dos Mouros 5 de Ortigueira — A Coruña (UA- Bradley, R., 1998. The Significance of Monuments on the Shaping 20009; 4552–4351 cal. bc: Mañana-Borrazás 2005), the of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. dating of the painting from the chamber of Coto dos London: Routledge. Mouros (CAMS-83631; 4540–4240 cal. bc 2σ: Steelman Bradley, R., 2000. An Archaeology of Natural Places. London: et al. 2005) or the tumular mass of Catasol 2 (CSIC-1039; Routledge. 5030–4800 cal. bc 2σ), and the oldest from the tumular Bradley, R., 2001. Orientations and origins: a symbolic mass of Alto da Barreira (CSIC-1039; 5030–4800 cal. bc dimension to the long house in Neolithic Europe. 2σ: both in Alonso Matthías & Bello Diéguez 1997). Antiquity 75, 50–58. 2. The enclosures in Os Campiños (Fábregas Valcarce & Bradley, R., 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Fuente Andrés 1991/92) or Dombate (Alonso Matthías Routledge. & Bello Diéguez 1997) have been dated to this period. Bradley, R., C. Ball, S. Croft & T. Phillips, 2002. The stone circles or northeast Scotland in the light of excavation. References Antiquity 76, 840–48. Burl, A., 2005. Prehistoric Stone Circles. Buckingham: Shire Abad Gallego, X.C., 2000. Actuaciones arqueológicas en la Publications. necrópolis tumular de Cotogrande (Cabral – Vigo). Calado, M., 2002. Standing stones and natural outcrops: the Campañas 1989–1992. Brigantium 12, 75–84. role of ritual monuments in the Neolithic transition Aboal, R., X.M. Ayán Vila, F. Criado-Boado, M.P. Prieto- of the central Alentejo, in Monuments and Landscape Martínez & M. Tabarés Domínguez, 2005. Yacimientos in Atlantic Europe: Perception and Society during the

403 Camila Gianotti et al.

Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, ed. C. Scarre. London: vación da mámoa 6 de Os Campiños (Leiro, Rianxo): Routlege, 17–35. campaña de 1984. Brigantium 7, 91–149. Costa, M.E., M. Díaz-Zorita, L. García-Sanjuán & D. Wheat- Fábregas Valcarce, R. & X.I. Vilaseco Vázquez, 2003. El ley, 2010. The Copper Age settlement of Valencina de Neolítico y el megalitismo en Galicia: problemas la Concepción (Seville, Spain). Trabajos de Prehistoria teórico-metodológicos y estado de la cuestión, in 67(1), 85–117. Muitas antas, pouca gente? Origens, espaços e contextos Criado-Boado, F., 1989. Megalitos, espacio, pensamiento. do megalitismo, ed. V.S. Gonçalves. Lisbon: Instituto Trabajos de Prehistoria 46(1), 75–98. Português de Arqueologia, 281–304. Criado-Boado, F., 1993. Visibilidad e interpretación del Fábregas Valcarce, R., A. Bonilla & C. Vila, 2007. Monte dos registro arqueológico. Trabajos de Prehistoria 50(1), Remedios (Moaña – Pontevedra): un asentamiento de la 39–56. prehistoria reciente. Santiago de Compostela: Tórculo Criado-Boado, F., 1999. Del terreno al espacio: planteamientos Edicions. y perspectivas para la arqueología del Paisaje. (CAPA 6.) Foucault, M., 1980. El orden del discurso. Barcelona: Tusquets. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago [Original edition: Paris, 1970.] de Compostela. Gadamer, H.G., 1977. Verdad y método: edic. Salamanca: Criado-Boado, F., 2000. Walking about Lévi-Strauss: contri- Ediciones Sígueme. [Original edition: 1960.] butions to an archaeology of thought, in Philosophy and García-Sanjuán, L., 2005. Las piedras de la memoria: la Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the 21st Century, permanencia del megalitismo en el suroeste de la eds. C. Holtorf & H. Karlsson. Goteborg: Bricoleur Península Ibérica durante el II y I milenios a.n.e. Press, 277–303. Trabajos de Prehistoria 62(1), 85–110. Criado-Boado, F. & E. Cabrejas Domínguez (eds.), 2005. García-Sanjuán, L. & D. Wheatley, 2009. El marco territorial Obras públicas e patrimonio: estudo arqueolóxico do de los dólmenes de Antequera: valoración preliminar Corredor do Morrazo. (TAPA 35.) Santiago de Compos- de las primeras investigaciones, in Dólmenes de Ante- tela: Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento, quera: tutela y valorización hoy, ed. B. Ruiz González. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 128–43. Criado-Boado, F. & R. Fábregas Valcarce, 1989. The mega- Gianotti, C. & C. Cancela, 2005. Testimuña da ocupacion lithic phenomenon of northwest Spain: main trends. humana durante o Neolítico final e o período Alto- Antiquity 63, 682–96. medieval na península do Morrazo, in Obras públicas Criado-Boado, F. & V. Villoch Vázquez, 1998. La monumen- e patrimonio: estudo arqueolóxico do Corredor do Mor- talización del paisaje: percepción y sentido original razo, eds. F. Criado-Boado & E. Cabrejas Domínguez. en el megalitismo de la Sierra de Barbanza (Galicia). (TAPA 35.) Santiago de Compostela: Instituto de Trabajos de Prehistoria 55(1), 63–80. Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento, Consejo Superior Criado-Boado, F., M.J. Aira Rodríguez & F. Díaz-Fierros de Investigaciones Científicas, 50–54. Viqueira, 1986. La construcción del paisaje: megalitismo Gibson, A., 2005. Stonehenge and Timber Circles. Stroud: y ecología en la Sierra de Barbanza. (Arqueología/Inves- Tempus. tigación 1.) Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia. Giot, P.-R., 1959. Le tumulus de Kermené en Guidel (Mor- Criado-Boado, F., C. Gianotti García & V. Villoch Vázquez, bihan): fouilles de 1957–1958. Annales de Bretagne 66, 2000. Los túmulos como asentamientos, in Neolitizaçao 5–30. e Megalitismo da Península Ibérica. Actas del 3º Congreso Giot, P.-R., J. L’Helgouac’h & J.-L. Monnier, 1996. Préhis- de Arqueología Peninsular (Vila Real, sept 1999), vol. 3, toire de la Bretagne. Rennes: Éditions Ouest-France ed. V.O. Jorge. Porto: ADECAP, 289–302. Université. Criado-Boado, F., P. Mañana-Borrazás & C. Gianotti, 2005. Green, M., 2000. A Landscape Revealed. Stroud: Tempus. Espacios para vivos — espacios para muertos: per- Harris, M., 1979. Cultural Materialism: the Struggle for a Science spectivas comparadas entre el Atlántico ibérico y of Culture. New York (NY): Random House. sudamericano, in Actas del III Congreso de Neolítico Hartwell, B., 2002. A Neolithic ceremonial timber complex (Santander, 2–8 octubre 2003), eds. P. Arias, R. Ontañón at Ballynahatty Co. Down. Antiquity 76, 526–32. & C. García-Moncó. Santander: Universidad de Can- L’Helgouac’h, J., 1996. Mégalithes armoricains: stratigra- tabria, Santander, 857–65. phies, réutilisations, remaniements. Bulletin de la Cummings, V., A. Jones & A. Watson, 2002. Divided places: Société Préhistorique Française 93(3), 418–24. phenomenology and asymmetry in the monuments Holtorf, C., 1996. Towards a chronology of megaliths under- of the Black Mountains, Southeast Wales. Cambridge standing monumental time and cultural memory. Archaeological Journal 12(1), 57–70. Journal of European Archaeology 4, 119–52. Díaz-del-Río, P., 2003. Recintos de fosos del III milenio AC Hoskin, M., 1998. Studies in Iberian archaeoastronomy: en la Meseta peninsular. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60(2), (5) orientations of megalithic tombs of northern and 61–78. western Iberia. Archaeoastronomy 23, 39–87. Eguileta Franco, J.M., 1999. A Baixa Limia galega na prehistoria Hoskin, M., E. Allan & R. Gralewski, 1994. Studies in Iberian recente: arqueoloxía dunha paisaxe da Galicia interior. archaeoastronomy: (1) orientations of the megalithic Ourense: Deputación Provincial de Ourense. sepulchres of Almería, Granada and Málaga. Archaeo- Fábregas Valcarce, R. & F. Fuente Andrés, 1991/92. Exca- astronomy 25, 55–82.

404 Deconstructing Neolithic Monumental Space

Johnsen, H. & B. Olsen, 1992. Hermeneutics and archaeo- públicas e patrimonio: estudo arqueolóxico do Corredor do logy: on the philosophy of contextual archaeology. Morrazo, eds. F. Criado-Boado & E. Cabrejas Domín- American Antiquity 57(3), 419–36. guez. (TAPA 35.) Santiago de Compostela: Instituto de Jorge, S.O., 2004. Pensar o espaço da pré-história recente: a Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento, Consejo Superior propósito dos recintos murados de Península Ibérica, de Investigaciones Científicas, 95–105. in Recintos murados da pré-história recente: técnicas con- Midgley, M., 2005. The Monumental Cemeteries of Prehistoric strutivas e organizaçao do espaço: conservaçao, restauro e Europe. Stroud: Tempus. valorizaçao patrimonial de arquitecturas pré-históricas, ed. Monteagudo García, L., 2003. Menhires y marcos de Portu- S.O. Jorge. Porto: Universidade do Porto, Faculdade gal y Galicia. Anuario Brigantino 26, 25–50. de Letras, 13–50. Mordant, D. & D. Simonin (eds.), 1997. La culture de Cerny. Lago, M., 2004. Arqueologia em construçâo e o complexo Nouvelle économie, nouvelle société au Néolithique: Actes arqueológico dos Perdigôes, in Recintos murados da du Colloque International de Nemours 1994. (Mémoires pré-história recente. Técnicas construtivas e organizaçao du Musée de Préhistoire de l’Ile de France 6.) Nemours: do espaço: conservaçao, restauro e valorizaçao patrimonial Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche de arquitecturas pré-históricas, ed. S.O. Jorge. Porto: Archéo logique en Ile-de-France. Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Letras, 225–40. Oliveira, J., 1993. ‘Reutilizaçoes e reaproveitamentos de Lago, M., C. Duarte, A. Valera, J. Albergaria, F. Almeida & materiais em sepulturas do nordeste Alentejano’, in A.F. Carvalho, 1998. Povoado dos Perdigões (Reguen- Actas do 1º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular gos de Monsaraz): dados preliminares dos trabalhos (Porto, 12–18 october 1993), ed. V.O. Jorge. Trabalhos arqueológicos realizados em 1997. Revista Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia 33(1–2), 131–44. de Arqueologia 1(1), 45–152. Parcero Oubiña, C. & I. Cobas Fernández, 2005. La arqueología Laporte, L., R. Joussaume & C. Scarre, 2002a. Le tumulus en la gasificación de Galicia 17: actuaciones en asentamien- C de Péré à Prissé-la-Charrière (Deux-Sèvres). État tos prehistóricos en el entono de Santiago de Compostela. de recherches après 6 années d’intervention. Gallia (TAPA 34.) Santiago de Compostela: Instituto de Préhistoire 44, 167–214. Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento, Consejo Superior Laporte, L., R. Joussaume & C. Scarre, 2002b. The perception de Investigaciones Científicas. of space and geometry: megalithic monuments of Prieto-Martínez, M.P., 2001. La cultura material cerámica en west-central France in their relationship to the land- la prehistoria reciente de Galicia: Yacimientos al Aire. scape, in Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. (TAPA 20.) Santiago de Compostela: Laboratorio de Perception and Society during the Neolithic and Early Arqueología y Formas Culturales, Universidad de Bronze Age, ed. C. Scarre. London: Routledge, 73–83. Santiago de Compostela. Layton, R., 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Prieto-Martínez, M.P., 2005. La cerámica neolítica en Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galicia: estudio de síntesis desde la perspectiva de Lévi-Strauss, C., 1973. Antropología estructural. Buenos Aires: la arqueología del Paisaje, in Actas del III Congreso de Eudeba. [Paris: Plon, 1961.] Neolítico (Santander, 2–8 octubre 2003), eds. P. Aias, R. Lima, E., 2000. La arqueología en la gasificación de Galicia 12: Ontañón & C. García-Moncó. Santander: Universidad intervenciones en Yacimientos prehistóricos. (TAPA 16.) de Cantabria, 337–48. Santiago de Compostela: Laboratorio de Arqueología Prieto-Martínez, M.P., 2007. Volviendo a un mismo lugar: y Formas Culturales, Universidad de Santiago de recipientes y espacios en un monumento megalítico Compostela. gallego (NW de España). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueo- López-Romero, E., 2005. Arqueología del Paisaje y megalitismo logia 10(2), 101–25. en el centro-oeste peninsular: evolución de las pautas de Prieto-Martínez, M.P., M. Tabarés & S. Baqueiro, 2005. poblamiento en torno a la cuenca del río Sever (España- Estudo da cultura material do xacemento O Reguei- Portugal). Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones de la riño, in Obras públicas e patrimonio: estudo arqueolóxico Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. [CD publication.] do Corredor do Morrazo, eds. F. Criado-Boado & Lorrio, A. & I. Montero, 2004. Reutilización de sepulcros E. Cabrejas Domínguez. (TAPA 35.) Santiago de colectivos en el Sureste de la Península Ibérica: la Compostela: Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre colección Siret. Trabajos de Prehistoria 61(1), 99–116. Sarmiento, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Lull, V. & R. Micó, 2001–2002. Teoría arqueológica III. Científicas, 125–30. Las primeras arqueologías posprocesuales. Revista Prieto-Martínez, M.P., P. Mañana-Borrazás, M. Costa-Casais, d’Arqueologia de Ponent 11–12, 21–41. et al., forthcoming. El Neolítico en Galicia, in El Mañana-Borrazás, P., 2003. Vida y muerte en los megalitos. Neolítico en la Península Ibérica, ed. M. Rojo. Madrid: ¿Se abandonan los túmulos? Era Arqueologia 5, 164–77. Ed. Crítica. Mañana-Borrazás, P., 2005. Túmulo 5 de Forno dos Mouros Richards, C., 1996. Monuments as landscape: creating the (Ortigueira, A Coruña). Primeiros resultados. Cuader- centre of the world in Late Neolithic Orkney. World nos de Estudios Gallegos LII(118), 39–79. Archaeology 28(2), 190–208. Méndez Fernández, F. & X.M. Rey García, 2005. De conxun- Scarre, C., 1999. Archaeological theory in France and Britain. tos materiais a poboados: patróns de asentamento en Antiquity 73, 155–61. O Morrazo durante a Prehistoria Reciente, in Obras Scarre, C., 2003. Diverse inspirations: landscapes, long-

405 Camila Gianotti et al.

houses and the Neolithic monument forms of north- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 63–9. ern France, in Stones and Bones: Formal Disposal of the Vilaseco, I., 2009. O círculo que foi: A Mourela no seu con- Dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic–Neolithic texto histórico, in Círculo de engaños: excavación de A Interface 6000–3000 bc. Archaeological Conference in Mourela (As Pontes de García Rodríguez, A Coruña), eds. Honour of the Late Professor Michael J. O’Kelly, eds. G. A. Bonilla Rodríguez & R. Fábregas Valcarce. Viseu: Burenhult & S. Westergaard. (British Archaeological Cámara Municipal de Sabrosa, 37–58. Reports International Series 1201.) Oxford: BAR, 39–52. Villoch Vázquez, V., 1998. Menhires y losas antropomorfas Sherratt, A., 1995. Instruments of conversion? The role en Galicia, in Actas do Colóquio ‘A Pré-História na Beira of megaliths in the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition Interior’ (Tondela, Nov. 1997), ed. Centro Estúdios Pré- in north-west Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology históricos da Beira Alta. Viseu: Cámara Municipal de 14(3), 245–60. Sabrosa, 175–87. Steelman, K.L., F. Carrera Ramírez, R. Fábregas Valcarce, T. Zafra, N., F. Hornos & M. Castro, 1999. Una macro-aldea en Guilderson & M.W. Rowe, 2005. Direct radiocarbon el origen del modo de vida campesino: Marroquíes dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia. Bajos (Jaén) c. 2500–2000 cal. ANE. Trabajos de Prehis- Antiquity 79, 379–89. toria 56(1), 77–102. Suárez Otero, J., 1997. Del yacimiento de A Cunchosa Zvelebil, M., 1986. Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies al Neolítico en Galicia. Primera aproximación al of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming. contexto cultural de la aparición del Megalitismo en Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galicia, in O Neolítico Atlántico e as orixes do megalitismo, ed. A. Rodríguez Casal. Santiago de Compostela: Author biographies Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 485–506. Suárez Otero, J. & R. Fábregas Valcarce, 2000. O Neolítico en Camila Gianotti is Assistant Professor at the Eastern Galicia: estado da cuestión, in Neolitizaçao e megalitismo Regional University Centre (CURE), University of the da Península Ibérica, ed. V.O. Jorge. Porto: ADECAP, Republic of Uruguay (UdelaR) and researcher in the 135–47. Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit, CSIC). Her main Tabarés, M. & S. Baqueiro, 2005. Estudo da cultura material research areas are Landscape Archaeology and the origins do xacemento Montenegro, in Obras públicas e patri- and development of prehistoric monumentality in South monio: estudo arqueolóxico do Corredor do Morrazo, eds. American lowlands. In this context, her work has mainly F. Criado-Boado & E. Cabrejas Domínguez. (TAPA focused on the social and economic contexts of monumental- 35.) Santiago de Compostela: Instituto de Estudios ity, on the funerary record and on the territorial behaviour Gallegos Padre Sarmiento, Consejo Superior de of these societies. She has analysed complex hunter-gatherer Investigaciones Científicas, 117–19. societies in the lowlands of Uruguay and Brazil (cerritos Tilley, C., 1996. The powers of rocks: topography and monu- de indios) and the Neolithic evidence for northwest Iberia. ment construction on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology 28(2), 161–76. Patricia Mañana-Borrazás is research technician in the Valera, A.C., 2003. A propósito dos Recintos Murados do Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National 4º e 3º milénios AC: dinâmica e fixação do discurso Research Council (CSIC). Her main interest lies in the appli- arqueológico, in Recintos murados da pré-história recente, cation of advanced methods to the study of archaeological ed. S.O. Jorge. Porto-Coimbra: Faculdade de Letras, and cultural heritage. She has also conducted research in Universidade do Porto, 149–68. several megalithic monuments in Galicia. Varela, M.P. (ed.), 2008. Actuacións arqueolóxicas. Ano 2006. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia, Consellería Felipe Criado-Boado is Research Professor in the CSIC. de Cultura e Deporte, Dirección Xeral de Patrimonio His main research focuses on Landscape Archaeology and Cultural. the analysis of monumentality, cultural landscapes and Varela, M.P. (ed.), 2009. Actuacións arqueolóxicas. Ano 2007. cultural heritage. From 2003 to 2009 he was Coordinator Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia, Consellería of the Humanities and Social Sciences area of the Spanish de Cultura e Deporte, Dirección Xeral de Patrimonio National Research Council (CSIC). Cultural. Varela, M.P. (ed.), 2010. Actuacións arqueolóxicas. Ano 2008. Elías López-Romero is a postdoctoral researcher in the Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia, Consellería JAE-CSIC Program of the Institute of Heritage Sciences de Cultura e Deporte, Dirección Xeral de Patrimonio (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). His Cultural. research mainly focuses on the monumental landscapes of Vázquez Liz, P., 2005. Idade do Bronce: devesa de abaixo – os Atlantic Europe, with special interests in the contexts of the Torradoiros, in Obras públicas e patrimonio: estudo arqueo- Iberian Peninsula and western France. He is also currently lóxico do Corredor do Morrazo, eds. F. Criado-Boado & E. undertaking research on the archaeology and vulnerability Cabrejas Domínguez. (TAPA 35.) Santiago de Compos- of coastal heritage in collaboration with French researchers tela: Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento, at the CNRS.

406