Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and Materials

Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and

Materials Papers from the II International Conference of Transition Archaeology: Death Archaeology

29th April – 1st May 2013

Edited by

Leonor RochaPrimitiva Bueno-Ramirez

Gertrudes Branco

BAR International Series 27082015

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 [email protected]

BAR S2708

Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and Materials Papers from the II International Conference of Transition Archaeology: Death Archaeology, 29th April –– 1st May 2013

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2015

ISBN 978 1 4073 1359 7

Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

i

PREFACE ...........................................................................................................................................................................................v

DEATH IN THE CAVE. HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA ......1Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann

A LAPA DO SONO (SESIMBRA, PORTUGAL) – NEWS ABOUT A NEOLTIHIC FUNERARY CONTEXT ..........29Rosário Fernandes, Pablo Arias, Mariana Diniz, Frederico Tátá,Paulo Rodrigues, Leonor Rocha

LE MÉGALITHISME ATLANTIQUE : UNE ILLUSOIRE TENTATIVE DE DOMESTICATION DU TEMPS ET DE L’ESPACE ? .......................................................................................................................................................................35Luc Laporte, avec la collaboration de Yan Bernard

GRAPHIC PROGRAMMES AS IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEGALITHS: THE SOUTH OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA AS CASE STUDY. ....................................................................................................................51P. Bueno Ramirez, R. de Balbín Behrmann, R. Barroso Bermejo

TIEMPO Y PAISAJE EN LA NECRÓPOLIS MEGALÍTICA DE GUADANCIL (CÁCERES) ....................................71Enrique Cerrillo Cuenca, Raquel Liceras Garrido, Jairo Naranjo Mena,Alicia Prada Gallardo, Ivo Santos

ANTHROPOMORPHIC IMAGES AS ORIGINS OF ANCESTOR’S “CAVES”. THE STELE-MENHIR OF ANTA DO TELHAL, ARRAIOLOS. EVORA. PORTUGAL .............................................................................................................83P. Bueno Ramirez, R. de Balbín Behrmann, L. Rocha, J. Oliveira

SITES DE PASSAGE (3). LA REPRÉSENTATION DE L’ARC AU COURS DU VE MILLÉNAIRE D’APRÈS LES STÈLES DE BRETAGNE, DES ÎLES ANGLO-NORMANDES ET DE L’ALENTEJO ..............................................95Serge Cassen, Laurent Lescop, Valentin Grimaud,Pedro Alvim, Philip de Jersey

THE ROLE OF CHILDREN IN LATE NEOLITHIC. MULTIPLE BURIALS IN RATZERSDORF/AUSTRIA .........127Karin Wiltschke-Schrotta

LES PRATIQUES MORTUAIRES DU NÉOLITHIQUE RÉCENT EN ALSACE: L’EXEMPLE DU SITE DE GOUGENHEIM (FRANCE, BAS-RHIN) ......................................................................................................................131P. Lefranc, H. Réveillas, Y. Thomas

DES TRIBUS AUX CHEFFERIES DANS LES ÎLES ORCADES (ECOSSE) .............................................................145Christophe Sévin-Allouet

ENTERRAMIENTOS INDIVIDUALES Y ENTERRAMIENTOS COLECTIVOS EN NECRÓPOLIS DEL MEGALITISMO AVANZADO DEL INTERIOR: LA CUEVA 9 DE VALLE DE LAS HIGUERAS. TOLEDO .........165Rosa Barroso Bermejo, Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Antonio Vázquez Cuesta,Armando González Martín, Leonor Peña Chocarro

CONTENTS

ii

CHILDREN OF THE GRAVE: CONTRIBUTION OF NON-ADULT INDIVIDUALS IN SOME HUMAN OSTEOLOGICAL SERIES FROM COLLECTIVE BURIALS IN THE LATE PREHISTORY OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA. ..................................................................................................................................................................177Claudia Cunha, Ana Maria Silva, Daniela Pereira, Tiago Tomé,Joana Paredes, Catarina Cabrita

“AJUARES A LA MUERTE DE LOS NIÑOS”: EVOLUCIÓN DE LAS OFRENDAS FUNERARIAS EN LAS TUMBAS INFANTILES ENTRE EL NEOLÍTICO Y EL CALCOLÍTICO DEL INTERIOR PENINSULAR ..............................189Ana Mercedes Herrero-Corral

DÓLMENES, CISTAS Y MENHIRES EN LA ESTACIÓN MEGALÍTICA DE GORBEIA (PAÍS VASCO): DISTRIBUCIÓN GEOGRÁFICA Y SECUENCIA FUNERARIA ................................................................................197Juan Carlos López Quintana

THE FUNERARY MEGALITHIC OF HERDADE DAS MURTEIRAS (ÉVORA, PORTUGAL): THE (RE) USE OF THE SPACES ..................................................................................................................................................................221Leonor Rocha

THE FUNERARY SETTINGS OF SEZIMBRA´S NATURAL CAVES (ARRÁBIDA, PORTUGAL) ........................231Rosário Fernandes

FUNERARY PRACTICES AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL DATA FROM THE NEOLITHIC HIPOGEA FROM OUTEIRO ALTO 2 (PRELIMINARY RESULTS) .........................................................................................................239Ana Maria Silva, Ana Isabel Fernandes, António Valera, Vítor Filipe

LATE NEOLITHIC PIT BURIALS FROM PERDIGÕES ENCLOSURE (PORTUGAL): PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE PALEOBIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXHUMED HUMAN BONES ...............................................245Ana Maria Silva, Inês Leandro, António Valera,Daniela Pereira, Cristina Afonso

LA NECRÓPOLIS DE CUEVAS ARTIFICIALES DE LOS ALGARBES (TARIFA, CÁDIZ). ALGUNAS REFLEXIONES SOBRE ARQUEOLOGÍA FUNERARIA EN EL ÁMBITO DEL ESTRECHO DE GIBRALTAR ...............................251Vicente Castañeda Fernández, Iván García Jiménez, Fernando Prados Martínez,Yolanda Costela Muñoz

VARIABILIDAD FUNERARIA EN LAS SOCIEDADES DEL III MILENIO EN EL SECTOR SEÑORÍO DE GUZMÁN DE VALENCINA-CASTILLEJA (SEVILLA) ................................................................................................................257Pedro Manuel López Aldana, Ana Pajuelo Pando, Juan Carlos Mejías-García,Mª Rosario Cruz-Auñón Briones

LA NECRÓPOLIS DEL III MILENIO DE “EL SEMINARIO” (HUELVA). ORGANIZACIÓN ESPACIAL, CONTEXTOS Y PRÁCTICAS FUNERARIAS ......................................................................................................................................275José Antonio Linares Catela, Juan Carlos Vera Rodríguez

THE TUMULI OF SELADA DO CAVALO (SERRA VERMELHA, COUNTY OF OLEIROS, DISTRICT OF CASTELO BRANCO)........................................................................................................................................................................291João Carlos Caninas, Fernando Robles Henriques, José Luis Monteiro,Francisco Henriques, Mário Monteiro, Emanuel Carvalho

iii

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT BURIALS AND FUNERARY PRACTICES IN GEOMETRIC ARGOS, GREECE (FROM CA. 900 TO 700 B.C.E.). ...................................................................................................................................307Camila Diogo de Souza

PRATIQUES ET MONUMENTS FUNÉRAIRES PROTOHISTORIQUES EN ALGÉRIE: UN PATRIMOINE PLURIEL EN PÉRIL ........................................................................................................................................................................319Hocine Rassoul, Mohamed Dahli

THE OLIVAL DO SENHOR DOS MÁRTIRES NECROPOLIS (ALCÁCER DO SAL, PORTUGAL) IN THE CONTEXT OF THE IRON AGE FUNERARY PRACTICES OF THE SOUTHWESTERN IBERIAN PENINSULA ...................327Francisco B. Gomes

THE PREFERENCE FOR INHUMATION AT THE ROMAN NECROPOLISES FROM THE THIRD AND FOURTH CENTURIES A.D. IN PENAFIEL MUNICIPALITY (NORTH OF PORTUGAL) .......................................................343Teresa Soeiro

CIMETIÈRES ET PRATIQUES FUNÉRAIRES DES COMMUNAUTÉS JUIVES MÉDIÉVALES : CONFRONTATION DES DONNÉES ARCHÉOLOGIQUES ET TEXTUELLES .........................................................................................357Philippe Blanchard, Patrice Georges

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN ALENTEJO - PORTUGAL .........................................................367Jorge de Oliveira, Ana Cristina Tomás

1

ABSTRACT1

Burials, being complete or partial, are some of the most indicative cultural manifestations of social behaviour. Therefore they can bring us to a closer understanding of what characterises us, as people. If we add graphics to this, we have got the best possible documentation in order to reconstruct the history of thought.

Paleolithic bone remains are scarce and tend to be fragmentary. Nonetheless, they can help us in the making of some important reconstructions. Our objective is to make the most of existing documents in order to find out what selection people made in that time. This includes not only various body parts, but also their connection with the surrounding space, which can be filled with, or lacking, other cultural manifestations.

Therefore, this is not meant to be a rigurous anthropological study of human remains from the Peninsula’s last glaciation. This type of study has been carried out in each one of the mentioned cases, with various degrees of success. We, on the other hand, intend to study the meaningful content of burials, regarding their materialisation and the selected space which can contain other important expressions, for example artistic ones.

In the Iberian Peninsula few Upper Paleolithic remains have been found, and most of them are partial. We have got teeth, cranial fragments, remains from postcranial skeletons and proper burials. The smallest elements are also the most abundant ones. Possibly they were left behind by chance or transported and preserved over time to finally end up in living spaces. The whole group’s life takes place in these places. That life includes artistic representations and, for as far as we know, death.

We have no more than 4 proper burials because Morín, Balma Guilanyá and Cova Fosca are problematic. The reasons why they are considered to be problematic vary from the mere acceptation of a burial as such in the case of Morín, to chronology, in the case of the last two sites.

The sites that are said to be tombs are neither free from problems. El Parpalló and Nerja were excavated a long time ago and their documentation does not permit a proper reconstruction. El Mirón, which is still missing its final publication, and Lagar Velho were studied using current and reliable methods.

Most of the partial remains are parts of the head, most frequently teeth. Some of them contain manipulation marks or were deposited on purpose and in a prepared manner.

There is no preferred geographical area for the deposition of bones, even though the North and Levant seem to have special concentrations. Although this special feature cannot be denied, we think that it can be explained by a stronger or weaker research development. In the inland research has been very poor, a bit better in Portugal and the South, and in the Levant, above all Cantabria, investigation has been more concentrated.

It is difficult to talk about rituals and deposition procedures or, in the best case, burials. However, even if the human remains were not deposited in specially selected spaces, in the Iberian Peninsula they tend to be partial and surface alongside other signs of symbolical thought. These can be artistic, decorative or graphic, which is the case in 60% of the cases.

A work like this brings up more questions than answers. The first one would be about the very definition of a burial, which can be polemic given the variety of existing deposits. We are dealing with the preservation of certain hard parts of the human body, for reasons unknown to us, but they are surely linked to persistence. Why is it preserved? Is there any religious ideology to the corpses’ deposition?

This type of theological behaviour does not seem to be necessary for preservation. It is likely that the alive owner of those bones was appreciated, probably because of a family connection, respect or a position in the group that stands out. Close human connections are more understandable than ones that are distant and lack precision. Religion is a superstructure, requiring a superior being, an inferior one and latria between the both, manifested in positive or negative actions.

It is not easy to discover and maintain this complexity in the behaviour of Paleolithic societies.

1 University of Alcalá de Henares. Mail: [email protected]

DEATH IN THE CAVE. HUMAN REMAINS FROM THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA

Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann1

2

DEATH AS ARCHAEOLOGY OF TRANSITION

INTRODUCTION

There are few funerary remains from the Upper Paleolithic in the Iberian Peninsula, perhaps even fewer than the ones from the Middle Paleolithic. And even when we have got a complete burial, such as Lagar Velho, it is not possible to properly discuss ritual or belief. In the best-case scenario we can assess bodies without excessive gravegoods or ornaments. Usually they are bodies which have been deposited in the living area, with food remains which also appear around the dwelling.

Our remains are mainly found in caves. Therefore we know little of the life outside of it and its organisation within our Peninsula. Were caves specifically elected to bury the deads? No more than to live, eat, cohabit or defecate. The fact is that our data have usually been found inside caves. Inevitably that means that it is the site of everything that has been found from this period. We know that in Central and Eastern Europe exterior rooms provide diverse behavioural evidences, including decorated objects and occasionally burials, like the ones found in Sungir, Ukraine. (Alexeeva, Bader 2000; Bader 1998; Pettitt, Bader 2000) Similar evidences have not been found in our area, but our lack of knowledge does not mean the exterior was not used similarly to the interior for decoration and burials. If the burials are found alongside material sites, it must have been like this outside as well as inside .

This is the reason for a title like the one we chose, imitating David Lewis-Williams (2005), which proposes the usual environment for Upper Paleolithic human remains in the Iberian Peninsula. But not only human remains, also any other cultural manifestation, such as evidences of daily life, symbology and belief, have been preserved better in these surroundings. Caves are not inhospitable or unpleasant, on the contrary, they are the centre of a varied life, rich in all human aspects, as we have already stated in an earlier work. (Balbín, Alcolea 1999).

This work has got several precedents. The first one, written by M.A. de Blas (1997), was already a reference for what we did in 2005 (Balbin , Alcolea). A research work, carried out with our tutelage (Perez Iglesias, 2007) extends the catalogue of human remains in the Upper Paleolithic and Epi-Paleolithic of the Iberian Peninsula. For all of the cited works M.D. Garralda Benajes’ publications are essential (1978,1980,1982,1986, 1989, 1992, 2006, Garralda et alii.1992, 1994).

To organize the description, we have grouped the remains in relation to their size or amount, starting with the most limited, to finish in that we call burials, with the reserves relatives to conservation and publications , generally deficient.

Figure 1. Human palaeolitHic sites witH Human remains in tHe iberian peninsula , clearly diFFerentiating peripHeral areas From tHe less investigated oF tHe interior.

3

rodrigo de balbín beHrmann: DEATH IN THE CAVE

CATALOGUE OF REMAINS

Given the dispersed data and the lack of uniformity in publications it is difficult to establish a body of data. The small catalogue we present here is based on existent literature. We have used the smallest to the most complete indications to make this catalogue. The sites have been included according to their geographical position within each sub-epigraph: North to South and West to East.(FIGURE 1)

TEETH

This is one of the most frequently preserved human remains, it is also the one that provides the least information, as its origin can be very varied.

LAS CALDAS. San Juan de Priorio, Asturias.

This cave has been excavated thoroughly by Soledad Corchón’s team, finding mobile art and some remains of engravings. The human finds consist of two milk teeth found in room II and another one outside of the cave. The teeth found in room II were situated in Magdalenian strata, dated to 13.185 ± 155 BP and 13.400+-150 B.P. In the exterior site 1 deciduous molar has been found in level II. It is from the Upper Solutrean, dated back to 19.390±260 BP for Corridor 1’s level 9 and 18310±260 BP for Corridor 1’s level 7. (Corchón 1981, 1990 y 1992).

TITO BUSTILLO. Ribadesella, Asturias.

This site was discovered in 1968 and archaeological fieldwork started in 1970. During A. Moure’s excavations a living space was discovered in ensemble XI, which is considered to be the old cave’s entrance. Here, three teeth appeared, 1 canine in level 1b and in level 1c an incisor and a premolar. Dating level 1c has provided the dates 13.870+ 220 BP and 13.520 ± 220 BP. Level 1b has been dated back to 14.930 ± 70 BP (Garralda 1976,1978; Moure and Cano 1976) The living space and the rest of the cave contain abundant graphic indications, mobile as well as cave art have been found.

In 2001 and 2002 we excavated the Gallery of the Antropomorphs, and found a fosse with many crushed bones and colouring remains within the cave’s ensemble V. We cannot be sure the bones are human but the whole was dated by 14C in 32.990 ± 450 BP. Nearby paintings of masculine and feminine antropomorphs were found, covered by a translucent calcite layer. (FIGURE 2)(Balbín et al. 2003). This calcite layer was dated using uranium-series dating, obtaining dates associated to the red colouring of 30.800 + 5.600 and 29.650 + 550, and other, below the painting, of 36.200 + 1.500 and 35.540 + 390 (Pike et alii 2012). This, perhaps funerary deposit, dates back to the beginning of the Cantabrian Upper Paleolithic.

At this site a human molar was discovered by H. Obermaier (1916). The tooth was found together with a decorated burin from the Magdalenian.

COBALEJOS. Puente Arce, Cantabria.

At this site a human molar was discovered by H. Obermaier (1916). The tooth was found together with a decorated burin from the Magdalenian.

MORÍN CAVE. Villanueva de Villaescusa, Cantabria.

In H. Obermaier’s classical book El Hombre Fósil this cave is mentioned as the finding place of a molar, from a Magdelenian level (Garralda 1992). Other disputable remains, which we will discuss later, have been found too.

SANTIMAMIÑE. Cortézubi,Vizcaya.

Originally it was studied by J.M Barandiarán (1962, 1976) and later it was the subject of a monography by J.C.Lopez Quintana (2011) and a work regarding its important rock art (González, Ruiz 2010).

The only Upper Paleolithic human remain that was found is a molar from the excavation’s level IV, probably from

Figure 2. Female antHropomorpHic Figure at tHe ensemble v oF tito bustillo cave, dated by uranium

series (pHoto r.de balbín)

4


the recent Magdalenian, mentioned by J. M. Barandiarán. Existing datings fluctuate between 14.650 ± 80 BP for a Late Lower Magdalenian and 12.790 ± 70 BP for the Superior-Final Magdalenian.

Other human remains present in the cave belong to Post-paleolithic periods. (Herrasti, Etxeberría 2011).

ERRALLA. Cestona, Guipúzcoa

Excavated by the Altuna, Baldeón and Mariezkurrena team, this site inspired a monographic volume of the Munibe magazine, nº 37, where every aspect of the cave is treated. Chapter 12 of the monograph, written by Concepción de la Rua, describes the human remains : an upper right molar and an upper right canine.

A year earlier (1984) the authors published a paper regarding certain ritual deposits in that cave. The human remains were dated to the Upper Magdalenian 12.310 ± 190 BP, level III-IV. They do not seem to be connected to the ritual deposits, which are from the Lower Magdalenian and are thus three thousand years older. (Altuna et al. 1985)

LAPA DO SUAO. Bombarral, Portugal.

For a long time this has been a site of reference for the Portuguese Upper Paleolithic. Research on the site was carried out first by Roche (1982) and later it was analysed by Zilhao (1995 and 1997) and Bicho (1994). Haws and

Valente carried out a research regarding the site’s fauna in 2006.

In the site’s level 9 Roche found 1 incisor and 1 premolar, both eroded, which could belong to the same individual. Roche called the teeth’s finding place Magdalenian soil, later Zilhao thought it to be Solutrean and Bicho restored it to its original condition. This level has been dated back to 12.590 ± 80 BP. Roche interpreted

the association of human teeth, perforated shells, lynx canines, ashes and ochre as a possible intentional human burial.

TEETH AND VARIOUS CRANIAL FRAGMENTS.

LA PALOMA. Soto de las Regueras, Asturias.

In the Magdalenian level 8 two upper jaws and three indeterminate teeth were found. In the levels 8I and 4P, also Magdalenian, two indeterminate teeth and a molar were found. All this surfaced during E. Hernández Pacheco’s excavations, in collaboration with the Count of Vega del Sella, J. Cabré and P. Wenert. The cave is also an important site for mobile art. (Barandiaran 1971; Hoyos Gómez et al. 1980).

LA RIERA. Posada de Llanes,Asturias.

This site was excavated by the Count of Vega del Sella and H. Obermaier in 1917 and 1918. In the 80s excavations

Figure 3. engraved plaquette witH a zoomorpHic motiF From la riera cave (pHoto m.r.gonzález morales)

5


were re-started by L. G. Strauss and G. Clark. In the Solutrean levels they found 3 cranial fragments, two of them fit together, and 1 molar. (Chapa 1975 ; Garralda 1986 ; Martínez Navarrete 1976; Straus, Clark 1986; Straus et al. 1983)between cave’s Solutrean chonology is dated back to 20.970+620 and 16.900+200 BP, including the outstanding mobile art pieces. (FIGURE 3).

CUETO DE LA MINA. Posada de LLanes,Asturias.

This important site includes levels of almost the whole Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic. It contains several deep, non figurative, engravings which seemed to be covered, at least, by level A (Asturian culture). This level was excavated by Vega de la Sella. (FIGURE 4) [González Morales 1981; Rasilla et alii 2010; Vega del Sella, 1916].

Recently, excavations were carried out by M. de la Rasilla. In the Solutrean level V a hand phalanx was found. The datings for this site are 19.100±205 BP for the Upper Solutrean and 17.545±205 BP for the Middle Solutrean (Hoyos, Rasilla 1994; Rasilla 1990)

LA CHORA. San Pantaleón de Aras, Cantabria.

In 1955 this site was discovered, and in 1962 it was excavated by a team led by J. González Echegaray and M.

A. García Guinea. During this project a fragment of an upper jaw with 4 teeth, a fragment of a lower jaw with 1 tooth and two isolated molars were found in Magdalenian VI levels. (González Echegaray, et al. 1963). The found remains do not belong to the same individual.

LA PASIEGA. Puente Viesgo, Cantabria.

A small cave, part of the El Castillo site, that opens towards the south of the mountain. In 1913 a monograph about its important rock art was written by H. Breuil, H. Obermaier and H. Alcalde del Río. This was a necessary reference for Paleolithic rock art studies. Then, in 1951 J.Carballo and E.García Lorenzo carried out reconditioning work which led to the finding of material that would be published by J González Echegaray and E.Ripoll Perelló in 1954. (González Echegaray , Ripoll Perelló 1954). The material was found in the entrance of gallery B and include 1 superior maxillary and a second implanted molar from the Magdalenian level. Located above these finds is gallery B’s most important rock art panel (FIGURE 5).

In 2009 samples of the calcite layers from the cave walls were taken for the U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain programme. The objective of this programme was to obtain absolute chronologies for the

Figure 4. external engravings in cueto de la mina, covered by levels at least From asturian time. (rasilla ,m. de la, et alii, 2010)

6


Figure 5. Horse and deer megaceros in tHe vault above tHe bones oF la pasiega. (pHoto r.de balbín)

Figure 6. bird mobile Figure in tHe cave oF el buxu ( pHoto mario menendez)

7


paintings. However, the datings were mainly negative or out of range, except for three cases. In gallery C a layer, superimposed over a red dot was dated 12.580 ± 140 B.P. , in Pasiega C a layer, superimposed over a red triangle, was dated 18.468 ± 94 and another layer, superimposed over a red reindeer was dated to 11.890 ± 450 B.P. These dates are not directly associated to the bone remains, but they are linked to the paintings nearby. (Pike et al. 2012).

FRAGMENTARY CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL REMAINS

EL BUXU. Cangas de Onís, Asturias.

Initial research was carried out by Obermaier and Vega del Sella, later the site was studied by Olábarri and Menéndez. 1 phalanx and 1 human molar were found among the site’s Upper Solutrean remains in an area filled with mobile art. This art is closely connected to the important parietal remains (FIGURE 6).

(Dams, Dams 1977; Obermaier,Vega del Sella,1918; Soto 1984;Menéndez 1984, 1992 , 1999)

RASCAÑO. Mirones, Miera, Cantabria.

In the 70s of the last century this site was excavated by González Echegaray and Barandiarán, who published their results in 1981. The publication included an anthropological study of the scant human remains. In the Magdalenian level IV 1 small cranial fragment was found, consisting of 1 parietal and 1 occipital bone. It is probably

a female individual aged 35-40. Its absolute radiocarbon dating is 15.988±193 BP. Perhaps the possibly female remain was manipulated post mortem.

In the Magdalenian level V a central upper incisor of a probably masculine individual, aged 45-50, was found. The absolute radiocarbon dating of this tooth is 16.433±131 BP. (Barandiarán 1981;González Echegaray, ; Guerrero, Lorenzo 1981)

COVA FORADADA. Xábia, Alicante.

This cave was excavated since its discovery in 1992 until 2003. Excavations were carried out by J. Casabó’s team from Valencia University. In the Aurignacian level II 1 infantile parietal fragment, 1 femur, 1 middle phalanx of a foot and 1 tibia belonging to an adult individual were found. The, not very well established, chronology of these remains suggests they are from the initial Upper Paleolithic, from approximately 30.000 BP. (Casabó 2001: 409) 18 other remains surfaced in level 1. They are mainly inferior and superior extremities of immature and adult individuals (Villaverde 2001: 300). This level’s dating provided the following dates; 310 ± 40 BP and 2.820 ± 80 BP, which is why they are, for now, labeled as uncertain. (Casabó 2001: 409).

LA CARIGÜELA or CARIHUELA. Piñar, Granada.

This cave has been known since Obermaier’s era (1934). In 1954 J.C. Spanhi started excavating the La Carigüela and La Campana caves. In the first he found human remains, which

Figure 7. Human mandible From la carigüela ( garcía sáncHez,m.,1960)

8


were published by García Sánchez in 1960. Excavations were taken up again in 1960 by a team led by H.T. Irwin, R. Fryxell and M. Almagro. (Almagro et al- 1970).

Later the Complutense University team, led by G. Vega Toscano, continued research on this site, which is of great importance for the Iberian Peninsula.

The preserved remains are:

1 small right parietal fragment with parallel artificial grooves on its inside. 1 jaw of a masculine individual, approximately 25 – 30 years old, with 5 molars.

1 right tibia from a probably female individual. The tibia is missing its distal extremity.

All of the remains have been attributed to homo sapiens. However, they were found in association with typical Mousterian industry. Unit IV, where the human remains were found, was dated using thermoluminescence, providing the following dates:

B52 19.300 ± 500 IV 16-17. B6 20.200 ± 1200 IV 16. B47 20.950 ± 1200 IV 16. B43 21.100 ± 1300 V-IV 16

CALDEIRAO. Tomar, Portugal.

A cave located few kilometres from Tomar, in the centre of Portugal. It was excavated by J. Zilhao between 1979 and

1988, when interesting, fragmentary but abundant, human remains were found in the Middle and Upper Solutrean and the Magdalenian levels. In the Upper Solutrean an engraved plaque was found. There are many remains of decorative elements such as perforated deer canines, shells, etc.

The found remains consist of the following:

Level Fc. Fragments of a Solutrean adult upper maxiliary with 2 molars (Caldeirao 1). Level dating: 18.840 ± 200 BP.

Level H. Fragments of a Solutrean young individual’s jaw with a milktooth (Caldeirao 2). Level dating: 19.900 ± 260 BP.

Level Fb. 1 incisor, 1 fragment of a proximal radius, 1 metacarp and 1 hand phalanx from a Solutrean adolescent individual. (Caldeirao 3, 7, 8 and 9) .

Level Fa. 3 young individual’s incisors (Caldeirao 4, 5 and 6). The found remains belong to two Solutrean adolescents. Level dating: 20.400 ± 270 BP.

Level Eb. 1 incisor and 1 milktooth (Caldeirao 10 and 11). The remains belong to a Magdalenian child and adolescent. Level dating: 14.450 ± 890 BP. In the upper part of this level an engraved plaque with an antropomorphic motive was found.

Figure 8. engraved plaquette and mandible Fragments From caldeirao (trinkaus, e., bailey, s., zilHao, J. 2001)

9


Assuming that levels Fa to H have not been moved, the Caldeirao remains form a series including 1 child, 2 youths, 1 adolescent, 2 youths and 1 adults. (Trinkaus et al. 2001) Zilhao proposes that the site was used continuously for funerary purposes, above all the Solutrean levels, which contain remnants of decorative elements. (FIGURE 8)

MORE COMPLETE CRANIAL REMAINS.

LA LLOSETA. Ribadesella, Asturias.

After the main entrance of this cave had been excavated by F. Jordá it has been neglected in research. In 2000 the study of the cave was taken up again by the Alcalá University team, documenting a cranium that was found before the Civil War by an amateur. We surveyed the inferior room, where we found small bone fragments on the spot where the cranium must have been found, which was photographed.

These fragments were dated back to 11.830+50 BP. Considering the context we can assume that these remains are from the Magdalenian.

The cranium itself has not been studied as its current owner, José Antonio Sánchez Feliz, denies us access to it. (BALBÍN BEHRMANN, R. de, et alii 2005 a and b)-

The cave is completely decorated, starting at the upper gallery, but above all in the lower one, where the cranium was found, and inwards. (FIGURE 9)

EL CASTILLO . Puente Viesgo,Cantabria.

It was discovered by H. Alcalde del Río in 1903 and excavated between 1910 and 1914 by Breuil, Obermaier and Wernert. This site is one of the most important sites of the Iberian Peninsula, an obligatory reference for this period’s Paleolithic and art studies (Alcalde et al. 1911). The rock art on this site is extraordinary and, on top of that, the archaeological levels are filled with mobile art. Originally, the excavations were not published adequately, this is until V. Cabrera did so in 1984.

The preserved remains are the following:

Level 8. 2 Magdalenian III frontal bones. They are considered to be skull cups by H. Obermaier (1916). Masculine and feminine.

Level 18. 1 child’s lower maxiliary bone and 1 adult molar, both Aurignacian.

Undefined level. 1 skull, consisting of 1 frontal, 1 occipital and 1 parietal bone. The individual is placed in a Magdalenian chronology and is probably feminine. Also, there are grooves of possible manipulation.

Undefined level. 1 human fibula, found in the collections of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. (Tejero et alii 2010)

(Basabe, Bennasar 1980;Cabrera et 2005; Cabrera 1978, 1984; Garralda Garralda et al.1992;Obermaier et al. 19)

Within the U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain programme several datings have been obtained from the cave, some of them remarkably old. Above one of the discs from the Disc Gallery 34.250 +170 BP, underneath this disc 35.720 + 260 BP. Above a negative hand from the Hand Panel 37.630 + 340 BP, and a disc from the same Hand Panel to 41.400 + 570 BP (Pike et al. 2012). These are the oldest datings from all Paleolithic art, they even exceed a limit that has traditionally been set for Paleolithic art. Naturally, these were not the only datings from the cave. The cave has got 14 different datings, of which 8 fall into the Paleolithic range, from the already cited 41.400+570 until 15.060 ± 990 BP. Some other datings continue in immediate Post-paleolithic times and other are even more recent. All this indicates a long tradition of graphic use in the cave, a use that also left behind physical human remains from the beginning (level 18) until the end of the Paleolithic series. The dates outside the Pleistocenic range are not necessarily unusual, they could prove that the occupation of site was not disrupted at the end of the colder times. On the contrary, it shows that the site’s occupation continued, and therefore, why not the cultural tradition too. (FIGURE 10)

Figure 9. tHe skull oF la lloseta (pHoto r.de balbín)

10


SANTIÁN .Puente Arce, Cantabria.

The cave has been known since the end of the 19th century. Thanks to its outstanding rock art it was included in the work carried out for Les Cavernes de la Région Cantabrique by Alcalde del Río, Breuil and Sierra in 1911. In 1953, when engineer García Lorenzo was preparing the cave for a visit he found a cranium with 2 premolars and 1 molar.

The anthropological study was carried out by V. Andérez (1954). He proposes that the individual is masculine and of an advanced age. Part of the remains are coloured because of a fire that was made near them.The chronology of the human remains is difficult to establish.

Generally this chronology has been based on painted elements on the walls of the cave. However, the moment when these paintings were created is also unclear, within the Upper Paleolithic, perhaps in the oldest stages.

Thanks to the U Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain programme we have a date above one of the signs of 6.552 ± 50 BP (Pike et al. 2012). This dating is not especially helpful as it only indicates that the painting is anterior to mentioned date. (FIGURE 11)

EL PENDO. Escobedo de Camargo, Cantabria.

The cave’s excavations were published by González Echegaray in 1980, containing an impressive collection of mobile art. In the 90s of the last century the archaeological activities were taken up again, led by Montes Barquín. During this research the rock art played an important role. When the cave was first studied by Carballo and Larin in 1933 an apparently Magdalenian level was found, containing a splanchnocranium and part of the neurocranium consisting of sfenoids, ethmoids and the lower part of the frontal bone. Basabe and Bennasar carried out the anthropological study, concluding the individual was approximately 10 years old, regarding the teething (permanent first molar, 3 temporary molars and 1 appearing canine). Also, they concluded the individual years old, regarding the teething (permanent first molar, 3 temporary molars and 1 appearing canine). Also, they concluded the individual was probably of the male sex, given the strength of some muscular insertions and the size of the molars. (Basabe, Bennasar 1980; Carballo, 1933;Garralda 1992; González Echegaray Montes et al. 1998; Montes 2003).

The rest might have been manipulated, cutting the frontal bone above the eye sockets, one of which could have been perforated intentionally.

Figure 10. skulls-cup and wall decoration oF tHe cave oF el castillo (pHoto r.de balbín)

11


LES MALLADETES, Barx,Valencia.

During the 1948 excavations, carried out by Pericot and Jordá, a human infantile occipital bone was found together with bone and charcoal remains in a small niche underneath a block. The level has been dated to the Gravettian by the charcoal remains, in 25.120±240 BP. (FIGURE 11) (Arsuaga et al. 2001)

COVA BENEITO. Muro de Alcoy, Alicante.

In the Solutreogravettien level B2 2 cranial fragments were found. Beneito 1 consists of 1 frontal, 1 occipital and 2 parietal fragments. It seems to be a young female adult and the cranium has got manipulation marks on its external surface. Beneito 2 consists of small fragments of 1 parietal bone and belongs to a young individual. According to the researchers this is clearly a secondary burial, with a possible burial pit where the cranial remains, two ochre-stained cores and a percussor we found together. A big stone with ochre on its upper face and side, strongly put into place, closed the possible burial together with three small stones. Between the stones a blade with ochre, a perforated shell, a big ball of ochre and, a little bit aside, a scraper were found. (Garralda, Vandermeerch 1994) The level has been dated to 16.650±480 BP (Carrión et al.

1993; Iturbe, Cortell 1982). Beneito 1 shows a series of intentional fine lines or marks on the bone.

POSSIBLE BURIALS

EL MIRÓN. Ramales, Cantabria.

This cave, known since 1903, was found by Hermilio Alcalde del Río and Lorenzo Sierra below the other caves they discovered, Covalanas and La Haza. (Alcalde del Río 1906, Alcalde del Río et alii, 1911).

During the last years excavations were carried out by a Spanish-American team led by M. González Morales and L. G. Straus. This team discovered important finds dating from the Mousterian to the Bronze Age, among them a probable secondary burial from the Lower Cantabrian Magdalenian.

The burial’s bones were bare when they were deposited. It was found directly on top of a rock with many Paleolithic parietal engravings. Also, the mobile art from that period’s levels is abundant and important. The remains are currently being studied and consist of at least 1 jaw, 1 incomplete tibia, 4 fibula fragments, 2 collarbone fragments, 15 vertebra fragments, 8 rib fragments, foot and hand bones and 2 possible pelvis fragments. The bones possibly

belonged to a young adult. Therefore we are dealing with a partial burial with red-painted bones. In the excavation of 2011 more fragmentary human remains were found below (Straus et al.2011).

The site has been dated using radiocarbon dating, providing a date of 15 740+40 BP and 18 940±18 770 cal BP for the human remains.

EL PARPALLÓ. Gandía, Valencia.

Ever since L. Pericot’s excavations, published in 1942, this cave has been a classical reference for Spanish Prehistory. This site has got the most and quality-wise best Paleolithic mobile art from the Iberian Peninsula. Apart from that it also contains rock art, which has been discovered recently. (Alcobé 1942; Bubner 1975 ;Garralda;1975 ;Villaverde 1994).

During Pericot’s excavations a very complete Solutrean, probably young female, cranium was found. In the same level a human humerus appeared, which certainly belongs to the same individual.

The jaw was found in the National Museum of Archaeology amongst the materials from the Vilanova and Piera collection. Also, in the same collection 4 independent molars appeared. In total there are 1 jaw, 2 parietal bone fragments, 1 canine, 2 femurs, 1 humerus, 2 tibias, 1 lumbar vertebra, several vertebra fragments and 5 molars.

Figure 11. skull and paintings oF santian (andérez, v. 1954)

12


This site’s remains were gathered from at least two archaeological projects, and from the discovery of certain pieces found in the Museum of Prehistory in Valencia and in the National Museum of Archaeology. The pieces from the Vilanova and Piera collection seem to be Magdalenian. The other remains are Solutrean and seem to be linked to eachother,for as far as it has been possible to reconstruct them as some components lack positional references. Pericot’s observations could confirm that it is a burial, although the manner in which it was dug up voids any of the required scientific guarantee. These observations are mainly that stones and slabs were found near the cranium and there were remains of a fire underneath it. Moreover, there were many bones belonging to a young individual and none of them were repeated.

There are two datings for the Solutrean in this cave; 20.490 + 900 BP for the Lower Solutrean and 18.080 + 830 BP for the Upper Solutrean. (Fullola 1976)

CUEVA DE NERJA, Nerja, Málaga

In 1963 the cave’s Vestíbulo room was excavated. 4 burials were found during these works; 1 feminine A, 1 masculine B, 1 undetermined C and 1 infantile D (Gimenez 1964;Fusté 1964). Supposedly the remains were destroyed by a fire in the Anthropology Laboratory of the Barcelona University in 1969. However, it has been possible to recover them almost completely. (Turbon et al.1994). Nevertheless, the first datings are much too recent and must have been contaminated by said fire.

Between 1982-1984 F. Jordá started new excavations of the Vestíbulo room. He found a human foot whose bones were still attached in anatomical connection. It must have belonged to individual C found in the previous excavations.

There are several interesting facts which were regarded only laterally. For example the presence of a big stone between cranium B and C, another stone next to B’s extremities and an ochre remain or stone ball next to C’s head. Near the infant’s remains big stones were found. The body must have been laid to rest on these stones. The infant most probably comes from Magdalenian levels and the other three corpses from Solutrean levels. As no actual burial pits have been found it is not possible to strictly define these remains as burials, above all because of the conditions of the excavation. However, regarding the bones’ preservation there must have been burials. This would prove a diachronic use of the cave as a necropole.

The archaeological levels have been carbondated abundantly and the datings that are directly connected to the burials are the following:

Layer NV 7 12.130±130 BP. Solutrean.

Level NV8 17.940±200 BP. Solutrean, here at least three from the four burials were found.

Base NV8 18.420+530 BP.

(Aura 1986; Aura et alii 1998 a, b; Aura alii 2006; Jordá Pardo, Aura 2008)

LAGAR VELHO. Lapedo , Leiria ,Portugal.

The site was found by chance in 1998 during construction work. The remains of a child were found and this burial would be the most complete and best studied Upper Paleolithic burial from the Iberian Peninsula. The body was placed sideways under a shelter, facing the wall and belonged to a 4-5 year old child. There is no directly associated industry. What has been found as grave goods are four deer canines and two Littorina Obtusata shells, which are a certain type of winkle of decorative value. Remains of fire were found at the feet of the burial, which has been carbondated to 24.860+200 BP. Cal BP 23.480 -25.300. dating the accompanying bones and charcoal . The corpse itself did not permit a direct dating.

Rabbit bones were found next to the skeleton, possibily this was an offering as no indications of discarnation or consumption were present on the bones. Moreover, they did not alter the infant’s position. These remains and the human remains were coloured by red ochre, probably from clothing.

Although there have been discussions regarding the burial’s cultural chronology it has finally been considered to be Gravettien, regarding most importantly the radiocarbon datings. The infant is assumed to be a physical mixture between sapiens and neanderthal. Near the body, but not directly associated, peculiar micro-stone industry was found. (Arias, Alvar Duarte 2002 ; Duarte et al. 2009; Zilhao, 1999)

DIFFICULTLY ASSIGNABLE HUMAN REMAINS.

MORÍN CAVE. Villanueva de Villaescusa, Cantabria.

In the sixties of the last century a Spanish-American team led by J.González Echegaray and L.G.Freeman excavated this cave. They found interesting cultural elements and four possible burials which were preserved in a peculiar, pseudomorphic, manner (Morín I). Whether or not it is real has been much debated as the real element would be destroyed and then preserved in a piece that is difficult to observe.

Therefore we include it here as a doubtful possibility that usually is not included. It would be a complete corpse, its soft parts preserved as a mould.

Another structure was named Morín II, according to the researchers this was another burial although nothing tangible was found inside.

13


Morín III was also a mould, according to the researchers of the corpse’s lower part.

Morín IV consists of fragments of a burial mound and a burial pit.

The assumed burials provide the following carbondatings; 28.435 ± 556 BP for I, and 28.515 ± 1324 BP for III. (González Echegaray, Freeman1971, 1973,1978)

BALMA GUILANYÁ. Navés, Lleida.

This rock-shelter site at the Pyrenean foothills in Catalonia was discovered in 1992. It contains a sequence from the Upper Paleolithic to the Mesolithic. Level E, Tardiglacial and AMS carbondated, contains human remains. 3 hand phalanxes, 1 radius and a radius diaphysis, 14 isolated teeth and 19 cranial fragments were

found on the site. The cranial remains probably belonged to 1 infant and 2 adults. The post-cranial remains can be attributed to the same person, possibly a young woman. In total we can speak of three individuals; an infant, a young female adult and an older adult.

The remains appeared within an archaeological unit without any apparent funerary structure, although they were located underneath a piece of stone that had fallen down. Also a decorated plaque and decorative shells were found.

The culture seems to be a continuation between the Final Magdalenian and the Azilian. The carbon datings are 13.380-12.660 cal BP and 12.830-10.990 cal BP, and were obtained directly from the human remains. They suggest a continuity from the Upper Paleolithic to at least the Epipaleolithic and later Mesolithic. This is not the only case in which it is difficult to establish set boundaries between on the one hand the remains and behaviour and on the other hand the Pleistocene-Holocene limit. This difficulty can surely be attributed to the small cultural difference between both periods. (Casanova et al. 2007 ; García Guixé et al.2009; Martínez Moreno, Mora 2009; Parcerisas et al. 2003, Ruiz et al.2006)

COVA FOSCA. Ares del Maestre, Castellón.

This cave has been studied by the Castellón team from the 70s. Human remains, still in anatomical connection were found. It is a clear documentation analysis burial which is still being studied. (Olaria 1988, 2003).

Although the level’s carbon dating clearly places it in the Upper Paleolithic, 12.130+-100 BP = cal. BP 15.310-14.650, it was classified as Early Epipaleolithic. The burial is found in levels below the Mesolithic sequence, in supine position, with a small fire on the chest. The cranial cavity and a part of the splanchnocranium are damaged. The eastern part of the burial pit was covered by a wall of dry

stone which was later covered by stones all the way to the other side. No ornaments were found, but there was a goat horn on top of the stone bed. The site is located in an area with an outstanding concentration of Levantine rock art.

BARRANC BLANC. Rótova, Valencia.

During the 1953 excavations Pericot and Alcobé found 1 adult masculine frontal bone and a fragmentary cranium of a young individual between the age of 15 and 18. (Arsuaga et al. 2001). Apart from this, 9 other cranial fragments surfaced: 1 frontal bone, 2 left parietal bones, 4 right parietal bones, 1 small parietal bone and 1 temporal bone. These remains indicate the presence of at least 5 individuals.

No other archaeological material or C14 chronology have been found. Due to this it is not possible to clearly establish what period or periods the remains are from. Regardless, they tend to be placed in the Upper Paleolithic.

LES CENDRES. Moraira-Teulada, Alicante.

The remains were found in a mixed context within Pleistocene levels but lacking any stratigraphical guarantee. They were found in the 1995 excavation and consist of 1 lower left canine and 1 proximal foot phalanx belonging to a young individual. (Arsuaga et al. 2001).

Above we have shortly described the remains we know of and that have been published. However, most of said publications are not useful according to current criteria and they neither permit a detailed analysis.

First of all, the boundaries between Glacial and Postglacial moments should be put into perspective. Many of the datings we get fit into the Paleolithic or Epipaleolithic, according to their use, without having any actual differential categories. In other words, we often give things with the same date different names.

Another reflection, linked to the previous one, is that we talk about Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic burials as they are characterised by materials. Neverteheless, often these materials were produced in the same way, seen from a deeply cultural point of view. That is to say, individuals were buried in similar ways and accompanied by the same products and graphics. Therefore we created a section called difficulty assignable remains where, apart from Morín, the remains which lack a clear attribution are included. Remains that were assigned to the Mesolithic or Epipaleolithic after having been studied and have calibrated carbon datings that point to the Upper Paleoltihic range. We also included the Les Cendres and Barranc Blanc remains here as they have got a complicated chronology. Although perhaps it is not more complicated than others’. Finally, this section also includes the Morín cave that, although it provokes some serious doubts, has been included in literature and dealt with repeatedly.

14


Another point is that the chronological attribution of fragmentary remains is not always precise. Not only because of the above-mentioned reasons but also because they are found in contexts that are difficult to delimit, the stratigraphies and cultures present complications in terms of their connection or even because they were found or studied in poor conditions.

The remains were categorised according to their complexity or quantity. This was done because although many might have been preserved in a similar manner they can not be treated in the same way as this is a different indicator. Therefore we started with the teeth, probably the simplest and best preserved remains, and ended with the more complete remains which are more similar to an authentic burial at first glance. Does this mean that the more complete remains are intentional burials and the rest are not? We are not able to confirm or deny this, but theoretically we are not in favour of this version. The reason why will be explained below.

We do not mean to carry out a rigurous anthropological analysis of the remains. Among other reasons because of the lack of a proper training. We mean to use these scarce documents to learn about behavioural ways and cultural meanings. This is done by connecting them with the manners of deposition we know of and their environments, which are often, but not always, characterised by graphical expressions.

Isolated remains form the least varied and indicative section. However, it is not the least abundant one as these remains make up the majority of the preserved material.

Teeth have been found at Las Caldas, Tito Bustillo, Cobalejos, Cueva Morín, Santimamiñe, Erralla and Lapa do Suao. Teeth with cranial fragments surfaced La Paloma, La Riera, La Chora and La Pasiega. This makes for a total

of 11 out of 25 sites, without counting the problematic ones. 10 out of these 11 are Cantabrian.

Usually they are isolated evidences, without any mortuary context or spatial preparation, mixed among the material remains from living spaces.

At the Erralla site (Altuna et al. 1985) certain ritual depositions are mentioned, although they are not connected to the teeth in time or stratigraphical level. In the case of Lapa do Suao, Roche (1982) considered two teeth to belong to an intentional burial because of the accompanying elements.

Taking into account that cranial bones are conserved better and more abundantly we thought it adequate to include a special section for the remains that included not only cranial but also postcranial elements. Within this group we included El Buxu, Cueto de la Mina, Rascaño, Cova Foradada, La Carigüela and Caldeirao. Therefore 6 out of the total 25 sites, alongside the previous 11, form the fragmentary majority of our study. Three sites are Cantabrian, one Levantine, one Southern and another one Portuguese.

They are also incomplete evidences that are difficult to assign spatially. However, the degree of difficulty varies. The first four are poor and the last two are slightly more indicative, with possible manipulation marks at El Rascaño and La Carigüela and possibly continued use at Caldeirao.

We also included this section because the cranium seems to be the protagonist of intentional differential preservation and the remains frequently appear accompanied by other corporal remains. This section includes La LLoseta, El Castillo, Santián, El Pendo, Les Malladetes and Cova Beneito. The remains in this group have been preserved better and possess more general documentation. Four of them are Cantabrian and two Levantine.

Figure 12. calvaria oF les malladetes (villaverde bonilla,v.,ed.2001)

15


Some of them are very complete, such as La Lloseta and El Castillo, and the rest are more fragmentary. There are no signs of intentional preparation in the first two cases although traditionally the opposite was believed of Castillos. At the time Obermaier (1916) interpreted the remains as beaker skulls. Having the information we have nowadays, this interpretation is very arguable.

Santián appeared next to remains of fire which coloured part of the cranium. However, there is nothing more to be said about this remain of questionable chronology. El Pendo’s frontal bone and eye sockets might have been manipulated although this interpretation would seem to be a reflection of Castillo’s traditional interpretation.

At Les Malladetes a human occipital bone was found. It seems to have been deposited intentionally in a niche, together with charcoal and bone remains.

Cova Beneito is better documented. Thanks to this it has been possible to confirm its organization as a secondary burial.

In the case of possible burials we find the most complete evidences, most abundant and best preserved components and a superior information capacity. Nevertheless, the documentation is not up to date as several excavations are old or incomplete and in another case the definite study has not yet been carried out.

The most recently found grave is El Mirón, which is still being studied. However, it already suggests the existence of a secondary burial with bones that were not connected at the moment of their deposition and were placed intentionally on an engraved slab. The remains are from a single individual.

The documentation of El Parapalló and Nerja is old and deficient, although they could have provided the best documentation.

Without any doubt the best studied case at the moment is the Portuguese Lagar Velho. It does have some problems, which is normal, but it offers up to date and manageable information.

DEPOSITION SYSTEMS

These systems can tell us more about the deepest cultural principles, norms of conduct and similarities between groups as long as they contain enough common descriptive elements or reflect similar ideas. All this assuming that human conduct can rarely be codified mechanically and varieties are not only frequent but also necessary.

About isolated elements such as teeth there is little to say. They surface among the settlement and food remains, forming part of the habitual deposit. Therefore they could have fallen on the floor casually, from a bigger human remain, or they could be part of something that was transported. As they are small and not very notorious they have not been treated with any special attention, simply noting their presence and nothing more. In some cases, such as in Lapa do Suao, they can be interpreted as intentional deposits or even burials thanks to their association to decorative elements such as perforated shells, deer teeth, ashes or ochre (Roche 1982). This interpretation is made possible by rigorous observation during the fieldwork, which has not always been the case.

The same can be said regarding cranial remains and fragmentary postcranial remains. Their deposition has rarely been interpreted taking into account the other present elements. Most of the cases did not go further than anthropological studies of varied depth. This is especially visible in the Carigüela case, where the human remains are sapiens and the accompanying industry is Mousterian. This is a very important fact which, positive or negative, should be treated in a special way. Unfortunately we do not have any evidences to further assess this due to the way the remains were excavated, the absence of an original report and the poor reconstruction by those who finally did publish the excavations (Almagro et al. 1970).

The repetition and abundance of fragmentary remains at Caldeirao permit Zilhao and others (Trinkaus 2001) to propose a continued funerary use of the site. Above all in Solutrean levels, with accompanying decorative elements but nothing else that would permit a complete reconstruction of the deposition.

Strictly speaking, craniums are more indicative as they are a fundamental body part and also indicate a clearly secondary burial deposition in which the head was separated. Given that no other resistant bones or cervical vertebrae associated to the cranium are preserved. It is not always possible to confirm that they were deposited separately but this does seem to be the case of La Lloseta, Figure 13. cova beneito skull (museum oF valencia)

16


the two craniums from level 8 at the El Castillo cave, and Santián, Malladetes and Cova Beneito. The state of preservation varies, but this is not hardly surprising as the complete preservation of secondary burials is problematic.

Without a doubt, the actual burials provide the most information regarding human behaviour in that period. Nevertheless, as we have seen before, these cases are less frequent than we would like them to be and their documentation is usually insufficient.

The most recent discovery is the one from the El Mirón cave in Cantabria. It is so recent that it has still not been published completely. It is another secondary burial containing bones that were bare before being deposited, coloured red, gathered in a deposit next to a rock and at a depth which has been changing during successive excavations. It is a package, we do not know whether it was a bundle or not, whose components do not appear in anatomical position or in any ordered manner. It is accompanied by bone and stone instruments and objects which have been interpreted as offerings (Straus et al. 2011). Its ochre colouring, possible offerings and placing on an engraved stone near other engraved and painted surfaces does not leave any doubt regarding its interpretation as an intentional burial. We will learn more when the final publication is finished.

The remains from El Parpalló were published by Pericot in 1942, including scarce photographical references and no setting or drawing. This was a normal course of events then. As a consequence this very important, apparently primary, deposition has not been documented adequately. The bones were dispersed over several centres and belonged at least to the Solutrean and Magdalenian. This proposes a diversity or variety of the elements. The unit where the cranium, a young individual’s cranium,

was found contained elements permitting a complete reconstruction. A stone accompanied the cranium and below the corpse, apparently in supine position, remains of fire were detected. As far as the photographs permit us to interpret the skeleton it seems to be in anatomical position. This indicates its primary deposition. The preservation is good and the remains have been subject of repeated anthropological studies, although no cultural studies were performed.

In Nerja we find another faulty burial. It is a multiple burial as four bodies were found in anatomical position, indicating it is probably a primary deposit. The reconstruction was very complex and praiseworthy. It was carried out by Aura Tortosa’s team, who were able to assess a series of important elements linked to the corpses, whose placement had been treated laterally according to the habit, unfortunately. The bones were accompanied by big stone blocks and ochre fragments, without any other offerings or accompanying elements we know of. D, an infant, belongs to a Magdalenian stratigraphical chronology and the other three were placed in the Solutrean by carbon dating. This indicates a large funerary continuity in the cave. According to Gimenez Reyna’s sketch the first three burials A, B and C would be in supine position and the infant, D, in a huddled lateral position.

The last complete burial is Lagar Velho. It represents another way of dealing with funerary remains, a good one in this case. Everything that has been found so far was found in the cave, a preferential preservation space. Moreover, in the Iberian Peninsula the excavated Upper Paleolithic sites are almost exclusively found in caves.

But every rule has got its exception, and in this case that is Lagar Velho, found almost on the surface of a

Figure 14. tHe engraved rock oF el miron , mandible and engraved sHoulder blade (pHotos r.gonzález morales)

17


Figure 15. old pHoto oF el parpalló burial (pHoto l.pericot).

Figure 16. tHe skull and depictions From el parpalló (pHotos museum oF valencia).

rock-shelter. It is a child whose head was detached, due to the construction of a road, and later reconstructed. This complete deposition was placed in a burial pit in a slightly lateral position, accompanied by offerings such as animal bones, perforated shells and perforated deer teeth. A peculiar industry of microstones was found in a slight stratigraphical interruption from the burial, though

according to the authors it is associated to the corpse. The child is considered to be a possible mixture between neanderthal and sapiens, which is reasonable regardless the many arguments against this possibility.

Obviously we do not have the best documents necessary for the reconstruction of a possible burial ritual. They are

18


not all the same, not in their preservation, documentation, or way of deposition. The dominant deposition method is the supine position, which in Lagar Velho’s case becomes an extended lateral position. Most of the complete burials we know of seem to be primary depositions, such as El

Parpalló, Nerja and Lagar Velho. Secondary remains seem to be preserved fragmentarily, even when all of their elements seem to form a complete body.

At Morín all findings have been scientifically questioned, and in general they are currently not admitted. Among

Figure 17. burial and depictions From nerJa cave (pHotos e.aura y r.de balbín)

Figure 18. lagar velHo burial and ornaments. (zilHao, J., trinkaus, e. 2002).

19


Figure 19. context and dating oF tHe Human remains

20


others because of the contradiction the presence of this peculiar fossilization presents in a level where bones have also appeared in normal conditions. Such an original preservation should be the same for all of the remains from the same time in the same level. In any case, this type of fossilization does not have any known parallels from this period . Also it lacks artistical associations.

Balma Guilanyá or Cova Fosca is another case of a secondary deposit and a proper burial with good reconstruction possibilities and a complete attribution. Its researchers assign an Epipaleolithic cultural chronology to both, but absolute chronologies indicate an Upper Paleolithic range. This case is too difficult to discuss here as the border between the two periods is very subtle and even arguable. This goes for material remains, funerary and even artistic manifestations. This is the moment when

Figure 20. Human remains distributed by zones.

Figure 21. skeletal remains and art.

21


our style V was developed, which is another important indication of cultural continuity, not rupture (Bueno et alii 2009).

CONSIDERATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

This small summary of Upper Paleolithic human remains offers more questions than answers, among others because of the incomplete documentation. But even if this would not be the case we would still have many questions we can not answer yet.

Firstly, the definition of a burial. This can be polysemic due to the variety of existing deposits and the lack of a general norm of conduct. The more complete the skeleton is, the more obvious this becomes. We are dealing with the preservation of certain hard parts of the human body, for reasons unknown to us, but they are surely linked to persistence. Why is it preserved? Is there any religious ideology to the corpses’ deposition?

A teleological behaviour of this type does not need to seem necessary for the preservation. It is beyond any doubt that the life in those bones is appreciated, probably because of a family connection, respect or a position in the group that stands out. Close human connections are more understandable than ones that are distant and lack precision. Religion is a superstructure, requiring a superior being, an inferior one and latria between the both, manifested in positive or negative actions.

We are not quite sure why human bodies are preserved, but we know even less about the ideological condition of the group carrying out the burials. To assume that the motives

are always religious, like ours, is a simplistic transposition from what we know now and the behavioural elements we establish in order to organise the reality that surrounds us. Paleolithic reality was different, and so were the answers to it. They were probably anterior to strictly religious behaviour and at least varied. It did not strictly depend on a cult or a relation with higher beings or the afterlife. The bodies are preserved, entirely or partially, which means that it was something intentional. The act was repeated and that what was preserved possessed value for the ones who did it. The possible motive behind it could be the easiest, most understandable and close one familiar proximity, ancestors.

Why do some bodies appear buried in their entirety, and other times there are only some parts of it? This is another question we can not reply to with certainty. Nevertheless, Cauwe’s (1997 and 2001) proposal of moving skeletons is rather suggestive. He describes the transport of certain body parts that would finally become a secondary burial. Were parts of the head selected specifically? If we look at the statistics of the remains we would have to say that this is indeed the case.

The preserved more complete bodies, or at least some of them, can be associated with burial pits or spaces where they are surrounded by stones and leave depositions which we call ritual. But, are there specific spaces to deposit bodies apart from the spaces used in daily life? If we look at the statistics we would have to say no. Even proper burials are placed in living spaces where people eat, sleep, work, live together and defecate. There are no cementeries.

And regarding the fragmentary remains that appear in living spaces, are they intentional deposits, remains of an accidental fall in the teeth’s case, food remains? It has to be said that cannibalism is one of the first social human behaviours that is recognised in the human context. Therefore it is not completely rejectable to interpret the presence of some bones as food remains. But, if they are food remains, is this a daily meal or is it the consumption of a respected something or somebody? Cannibalism has got many possible motives, one of them is the obtaining of proteins. But there is also the obtaining of the deceased’s qualities through their ingestion. In this case, the person being eaten was one worthy of respect or affection. The Christian communion, when the body and blood of Christ are ingested, could be a memento from this custom. Aimed at unifying divinity and the rest of the believers.

Human remains are being deposited, but not in a very marked way, as far as we can tell. This is a peculiar fact as specific spaces are created for the dead from the ending of the ice ages. Then burials are indicated and even deposited in outstanding, big spaces such as megaliths. Paleolithic burials lack external visibility, which could have an explanation.

Not all sites contain human remains. This is a problematic statement as not all sites we know have been excavated completely, or according to current menthods. Therefore there must be more remains than the ones we know of.

Figure 22. percentage oF skeletal remains witH or witHout accompanying art

22


Moreover, we need to take into account that the fossilization of remains from that period presents difficulties. Thus, our possibilities are limited.

Not all sites contain human remains. Is their presence an indication of special places? If the site contains decoration apart from burials, is this an indication it is a special place? Could it be said that the accumulation of cultural manifestations makes the site special? Is this related to the so-called aggregation sites? Could this be the reason why there are no external indications found at Paleolithic burial sites?

Paul Pettitt (2011) proposes the existence of a mortuary operational sequence which starts when the tomb is excavated, continues when the body is placed in it and ends with the covering or closing of the burial site. It is a way of describing a complicated behaviour which is not always carried out in this way, according to us. Even we do not wish to apply this procedure universally the steps seem to be more complex. It should start with the abandonment, or in the case of secondary burials exposition, then a posterior deposition, with or without burial pit, with or without offerings, with or without covering, always aimed at the preservation of the remains. These to be preserved remains were selected entirely or specific parts of them. The most problematic step is the generalisation of a system, which in our opinion is not applied universally, or at least not homogeneously. It offers different possibilities regarding the corpse’s position, the offerings, the preparation of the tomb and the preservation of body parts, being a primary or a secondary burial.

THE DECORATION, THE DECEASED AND THE SURROUNDING

We started by talking about burials and graphics as cultural manifestations, of the utmost importance in order to understand the world of Paleolithic even though their deeper meaning might be lost to us. We have tried to analyse the remains and to link them to their immediate surroundings, of which decoration and decorated objects form an important part, if present.

Apparently we can not establish differentiated spaces for the deposition of skeletal remains within caves where the bones tend to be found. When the remains are fragmentary they appear alongside food and objects of daily use. When the remains are more complete the only preparation that differentiates them is the presence of burial pits or stone delimitations, but always in daily dwelling areas. The dead are a part of the world of the living, without having their own space.

And, how about mobile art and rock art? Mobile art is found as anagraphic or imaginary decoration which accompanies the deceased, providing shapes he could have worn while still alive. Rock art forms part of the transited and lived-in space, as we already mentioned in earlier works. (Balbín, Alcolea 1999, 2005a). We think the dead received a similar treatment as the living. Not only

because of the space where they were placed, but also because they are accompanied by objects and images from their life, within a space that was frequented by the group. As we said earlier, rock art is found at places that were used for living, without any spatial selection that would separate it from daily life. This is also the case for the deposition of corpses and other human remains that are results of human activity.

Rock art is not always found at living- or burial-spaces, neither are they always directly linked. However, human remains have been found in decorated caves frequently. Sometimes, as at El Mirón, the connection between the buried body and the rock art is immediate and consciously established. Decorations are a part of many outstanding places, and at some of these places human bone remains are present too. We would like to highlight this accompanying presence.

A vision of the remote future is not necessary in order to decorate caves. What is important is the necessity of transmitting something important for an unknown period. It is not necessary to believe in the eternity of the afterlife in order to preserve human remains. Nonetheless, the accompaniment of the two manners of action and thought is frequent and seems to comprise a way of group communication and a collective understanding.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALCALDE DEL RÍO, H. (1906). Las pinturas y grabados de las cavernas prehistóricas de la Provincia de Santander. Altamira, Covalanas, Hornos de la Peña y El Castillo. Blanchard y Arce. Santander.

ALCALDE DEL RIO, H.; BREUIL, H.; SIERRA, L. (1911). Les Cavernes de la Région Cantabrique. A. Chêne, Mónaco.

ALCOBÉ, S. (1942). El cráneo de Parpalló. En Pericot,L: La cueva del Parpalló (Gandía) CSIC,Madrid, pp: 272-274.

ALCOBÉ, S. (1954). Guía para el estudio antropológico de las poblaciones prehistóricas de España. IV Congreso Internacional de Ciencias Prehistóricas y Protohistóricas. Madrid

ALEXEEVA, T. I., BADER, N.O. (eds) (2.000). Homo sungirensis. Upper Palaeolithic man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of the investigation.” Scientific World, Moscow (2000).

ALMAGRO,M.,FRYXELL,R.,IRWIN,H.T.,SERNA,M. (1970). Avance a la investigación arqueológica, geocronológica y ecológica de la cueva de La Carigüela (Piñar, Granada). Trabajos de Prehistoria. Nº 27, 45-60

ALTUNA,J., RUA, C. de la. (1989) Dataciones absolutas de los cráneos del yacimiento prehistórico de Urtiaga. Munibe 41, pp.23-28.

ALTUNA,J. ,BALDEON,A.,MARIEZKURRENA,K.1984.Depôts rituels magdaléniens de la grotte d’Erralla (Pays Basque). Munibe 36, (Antropologia, Arqueologia)3.10, San Sebastian.

23


ANDÉREZ, V. (1954). El cráneo prehistórico de Santián. Estudio antropológico. Patronato de las cuevas prehistóricas de la Provincia de Santander. Santander

ARIAS,P.,ALVAREZ,E. (2004). Iberian Foragers and Funerary Ritual.A Review of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Evidence of the Peninsula. En: GONZÁLEZ MORALES, M.R. ,CLARK,G.A.EDS. The Mesolithic of the Atlantic Façade: proceedings of the Santander Symposium. Tempe :Arizona State University Press, Anthropological Research Papers, 55, pp.225-248.

ARSUAGA,J.L.,MARTINEZ,I.,VILLAVERDE,V.,LORENZO,C.,QUAM,R.,CARRETERO,J.M.,GRACIA,A. (2001). Fósiles humanos del País Valenciano. En: VILLAVERDE BONILLA, V. ed. 2001. De Neandertales a cromañones. El inicio del poblamiento humano en las tierras valencianas.. Valencia. Pp.265-322.

AURA TORTOSA, J. E. (1986): La ocupacion magdaleniense de la Cueva de Nerja (la Sala de la Mina). En JORDA PARDO,J. F. (ed.): La Prehistoria de la Cueva de Nerja. Trabajos sobre la Cueva de Nerja, 1. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja, pp. 203-267.

AURA, J.E. (2010). Uno de los nuestros. Notas para una arqueología de las prácticas funerarias de los cazadores prehistóricos de la Península Ibérica. En: VVAA. Restos de vida, restos de muerte .Exposición: La muerte en la Prehistoria. Muséu de Prehistória de Valencia.2010. pp. 31-44.

AURA TORTOSA, J. E.; GONZÁLEZ TABLAS, J.; JIMÉNEZ, S. (1998 a). Los enterramientos «Solutrenses» de la cueva de Nerja”. En: SANCHIDRIÁN TORTI, J. L.; SIMÓN VALLEJO, M. D. (eds). Las culturas del Pleistoceno Superior en Andalucía. Patronato de la cueva de Nerja. Málaga: 237-249

AURA TORTOSA, J. E.; GONZÁLEZ TABLAS, J.; JIMÉNEZ, S. (1998 b). Secuencia arqueológica de la cueva de Nerja: La sala del vestíbulo. En: SANCHIDRIÁN TORTI, J. L.; SIMÓN VALLEJO, M. D. (eds). Las culturas del Pleistoceno Superior en Andalucía. Patronato de la cueva de Nerja. Málaga: 217-236

AURA TORTOSA,J.E., JORDA PARDO,J.E., FORTEA PEREZ,F.J. (2006). La Cueva de Nerja (Málaga, España) y los inicios del solutrense en Andalucía. Zephyrus, 59, 2006, 67-88

BADER, N. O. (1998).Upper Palaeolithic site Sungir (graves and environment). Moscow: Scientific World

BALBIN, R. de. (1989). L’art de la Grotte de Tito Bustillo (Ribadesella, Espagne).Une vision de synthèse. L’Anthropologie,t.93,nº 2, 1989, p.435-462.

BALBIN, R. de, ALCOLEA, J.J. (1999) Vie quotidienne et vie religieuse. Les sanctuaires dans l’art paléolithique. L’Anthropologie, 96. París. pp. 397-452

BALBÍN BEHRMANN, R de.; ALCOLEA GONZÁLEZ, J. J. (2005). Espace d´habitation, espace d´enterrement, espace graphique. Les coincidences et les divergences dans l´art paléolithique de la corniche cantabrique. En: VIALOU, D.; RENAULT-MISKOWSKY, J.;

PATHOU-MATHIS, M. (eds). 2005. Comportements des hommes du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Europe: territoires et milieux. Actes du colloque du G. D. R. 1945 du CNRS. Paris. 8-10 Janvier2003. ERAUL. Nº 111. Liége: 193-206

BALBÍN BEHRMANN, R. DE.; ALCOLEA GONZÁLEZ, J. J.; GONZÁLEZ PEREDA, M. A.(2003). El macizo de Ardines, un lugar mayor del arte paleolítico europeo. En: BALBÍN BEHRMANN, R. DE.; BUENO RAMÍREZ, P. (eds). El arte prehistórico desde comienzos del siglo XXI. Primer Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella. Ribadesella: 91-151

BALBIN,R.de.ALCOLEA,J.J.,GONZALEZ PEREDA, M.A. (2005). La Lloseta: une grotte importante et presque méconnue dans l’ensemble de Ardines, Ribadesella.. L’Anthropologie 109, 2005, pp.641-701

BALBIN BEHRMANN, R. de, GONZALEZ SAINZ, C.(1993). Nuevas investigaciones en la cueva de La Pasiega (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria).Boletín del S.E.A.A.Valladolid ,pp.9-34.

BALBIN BEHRMANN, R. de,GONZALEZ SAINZ, C (1994).Un nuevo conjunto de representaciones en el sector D.2 de la cueva de La Pasiega (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria). Homenaje al Dr .Joaquín González Echegaray.Monografía nº 17 .Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira.

BALBIN BEHRMANN, R. de,GONZALEZ SAINZ, C (1995).L’ensemble rupestre paléolithique de «La Rotonda», dans la Galerie B de la grotte de La Pasiega(Puente Viesgo, Cantabria) L’Anthropologie, tome 99, nº 2/3, pp.296-324.

BALBÍN, R. de., ALCOLEA, J. , GONZALEZ, M.(2005). La Lloseta : une grotte importante et presque méconnue dans l’ensemble de Ardines, Ribadesella. L’Anthropologie 109 (2005) 641–701

BARANDIARÁN J. M. (1962). Santimamiñe. En: Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España. Nº 7. Madrid

BARANDIARÁN, J. M. (1976). Exploraciones en la caverna de Santimamiñe. Memoria 1ª. En:

BARANDIARAN,I.(1971).La cueva de La Paloma (Asturias).Munibe,año XXIII,n1 2/3, 1971, pp.255-283

BASABE, M.; BENNASAR, I. (1980). Algunos restos humanos del Paleolítico santanderino” En: II Symposium de Antropología Biológica de España. Oviedo: 653-666

BERG,P.L.V,,CAUWE,N..(1996).”Magdalithiques” et “Mégaléniens”. Essai sur les sources des

structures spatiales du Néolithique européen. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française. 1996, tome 93, N. 3. pp. 366-387.

BICHO, N.F. (1994): The end of the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic in Portugal. Current Anthropology, 35/5: 31-42.

BINANT,P. (1991)Les sépultures du Paléolithique. Ed.Errance.Paris.

BLAS CORTINA, M.A. de.(1997) En torno a los restos esqueléticos humanos del Paleolítico Superior-

24


Epipaleolítico cantábrico. Homenaje a Juan Uría Riu. Vol I. Universidad de Oviedo

BREUIL, H. ,OBERMAIER, H. (1909) Crânes paléolithiques façonnés en coupes. L’Anthropologie, t.XX,pp.523-530.

BREUIL, H. ,OBERMAIER, H. (1912) Les premiers travaux de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, L’Anthropologie, XXIII, 1, 13.

BREUIL, H. ,OBERMAIER, H. (1984).Reed. La cueva de Altamira en Santillana del Mar. Madrid, Ed .El Viso.

BREUIL, H., OBERMAIER,H., ALCALDE DEL RIO, H.(1913).La Pasiega a Puente-Viesgo (Santander)(Espagne).Institut de Paléontologie Humaine.

BUENO RAMIREZ,P., BALBIN BEHRMANN, R.de. ALCOLEA GONZÁLEZ, J.J. (2009) . Estilo V en el ámbito del Duero : Cazadores finiglaciares en Siega Verde (Salamanca) En : R de Balbín Ed. Arte Prehistórico al aire libre en el Sur de Europa. Actas. PAHIS.Junta de Castilla y León. pp.259-286.

BUBNER, T. (1975). Acerca del cráneo paleolítico de la Cueva del Parpalló (Gandía, Valencia). En: Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina. 14: 21-35

CABRERA, V. (1978). El Magdaleniense B de la cueva de El Castillo: Los restos humanos y su entorno cultural. En: MARIA DOLORES GARALDA (ed). I simposio de Antropología Biológica de España. Madrid: 63-65

CABRERA, V. (1984) El yacimiento de la cueva de « El Castillo » (Puente Viesgo, Santander). Bibli.Preh.Hispana, vol. XXII, Madrid.

CABRERA,V., BERNALDO DE QUIROS,F., MAÍLLO,J.M., PIKE- AY,A., GARRALDA, M.D. (2005). Excavaciones en El Castillo: Veinte años de reflexiones. Museo de Altamira. MONOGRAFÍAS nº 20: 505-526. 2005. Santander

CARBALLO,J. (1924). Prehistoria Universal y especial de España. Madrid.

CARBALLO,J. (1960) Esqueleto humano del período asturiense. En : Investigaciones Prehistóricas II, Publicaciones del Museo Provincial de Prehistoria, Santander, pp.125-157

CARBALLO, J., LARIN, B.(1933). Exploración de la cueva del Pendo, Santander. Junta Superior de Excavaciones y Antigüedades. Memoria Nº 123. Madrid

CARRIÓN, J., FUMANAL, P .,ITURBE. G. (1993). La secuencia polínica de Cova Beneito en su marco litoestratigráfico, arqueológico y geomorfológico. FUMANAL y BERNABEU (eds.). Estudios sobre Cuaternario. Medios sedimentarios, cambios ambientales y hábitat humano (1993): 139-148.

CASABÓ, J. A. (1997). Cova Foradada (Xàbia). Aproximación a la economía y al paisaje de la costa norte alicantina durante el Paleolítico superior inicial. Cuaternario y Geomorfología, 11(1-2): 67-80.

CASABÓ, J. A. (2001). Cova Foradada (Xàbia, Alacant). In: V.Villaverde Ed. De neandertales a Cromañones. El inicio del poblamiento humano en tierras valencianas. 407-410. Valencia, Universitat de València.

CASANOVA, J., MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, J. Y MORA , R. (2007). Traçant l’ocupació dels Pirineus : la Balma Guilanyà i els caçadors-recolectors del Tardiglaciar i l’Holocè antic al Prepirineu Oriental . Tribuna d’Arqueologia: 59-83.

CAUWE, N.(1997). Les morts en mouvement. Essai sur l’origine des sites funéraires mégalithiques. En: A. Rodríguez Casal, ed: O neolítico Atlántico e as origes do megalitismo. Santiago de Compostela.PP.719-737

CAUWE, N.(2001). Skeletons in Motion, Ancestors in Action: Early Mesolithic Collective Tombs in Southern Belgium. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:2 (2001), 147–63.

CHAPA BRUNET, T. (1975). Magdaleniense medio y superior de Cueto de la Mina (Asturias). En: Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Asturianos 86. Oviedo: 755-780

CORCHÓN, M.S. (1990) La cueva de las Caldas,(Priorio,Oviedo),. Investigaciones efectuadas entre 1980 y 1986. En: Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1 (1983-1986) ,pp. 37-53.

CORCHÓN, M.S (1992) La cueva de Las Caldas( Priorio, Oviedo). II. Investigaciones efectuadas entre 1987 y 1990. En: Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 2 (1987-90), pp.33-47.

DAMS, M. y L. (1977) Topografía e iconografía complementarias de la caverna del Buxu.T.P.34,pp.327-330

DUARTE, C. (2002). The Burial Taphonomy and Ritual. En: Portrait of the Artist as a Child. ZILHAO, J.; TRINKAUS, E. (eds). Trabalhos de Arqueologia 22. Lisboa

FERNÁNDEZ, S., FUENTES, N., CARRIÓN, J. S., GONZÁLEZ-SAMPÉRIZ, P., MONTOYA , E., GIL, G., RIQUELME, J. A. (2007). The Holocene and Upper Pleistocene pollen sequence of Carihuela cave, southern Spain. Geobios, 40(1), 75-90..

FULLOLA, J.M. (1976). Revisión de la industria lítica de los niveles solutrenses de la Cova del Parpalló.Pyrenae, 12, pp.35-72

FUSTÉ.,M. (1956).Raíces prehistóricas del complejo racial de la Península Ibérica. Zephyrus VII-8, 109-124.

FUSTÉ,M. (1964). Restos humanos paleolíticos del a cueva de Nerja. XXVIII Congreso Luso- Español para el progreso de las Ciencias. Bilbao 1964, Madrid 1965.pp.207-300

GARCIA DIEZ,M.,GONZALEZ MORALES, M.R.,STRAUS,L.G. (2012).El grafismo rupestre paleolítico de la cueva de El Mirón (Ramales de la Victoria,Cantabria,España): una propuesta para su datación estratigráfica. T.P. 69,nº 1,2012,pp.21-36.

GARCIA-GUIXÉ, E., MARTINEZ-MORENO, J., MORA, R., NUÑEZ, M., RICHARDS, M.P. (2009). Stable isotope analysis of human and animal remains from the Late Upper Palaeolithic site of Balma Guilanya` , southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 1018–1026

25


GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ, M. (1960). Restos humanos del paleolítico medio y superior y del neo-eneolítico de Piñar (Granada). Trabajos del Instituto Bernardino Sahagún de Antropología y Etnología. Vol. XV. Nº 2. Barcelona

GARRALDA, M. D. (1975). Nuevos restos humanos de la Cueva del Parpalló (Gandía, Valencia). En: Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina. 14: 37-47

GARRALDA, M. D. (1976). Dientes humanos del magdaleniense de Tito Bustillo (Asturias). En: MOURE ROMANILLO, J. A., CANO HERRERA, M. 1976. Excavaciones en la cueva de Tito Bustillo (Asturias). Diputación Provincial de Oviedo. Instituto de Estudios Asturianos. Oviedo: 196-200

GARRALDA, M. D. (1978). Datación absoluta y restos humanos en la Península Ibérica. En: C 14 y Prehistoria en la Península Ibérica. Nº 77. Fundación Juan March. Madrid: 7-15

GARRALDA, M. D.(1980). Problemática antropológica en la Prehistoria de la Región Valenciana. Primer Congreso de Historia del País Valenciano, Valencia 14-18 de Abril de 1971, Vol,II, Universitat de Valencia, pp.99-105.

GARRALDA, M.D. (1982). El cráneo asturiense de Cuartamentero (Llanes, Oviedo). Kobie nº 12, pp.7-29.

GARRALDA, M. D. (1986). Human remains from Solutrean levels at La Riera cave. En: STRAUS, L. G.; CLARK, G. et al. 1986. La Riera Cave. Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in Northern Spain. Arizona State University. Anthropological Research Papers Nº 36. Tempe. Arizona

GARRALDA, M. D. (1992). Les magdaléniens en Espagne: anthropologie et contexte paléoécologique. En: Le peuplement Magdalénien. Comité de Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques. París: 63-70

GARRALDA, M. D. (1989) .Upper Paleolithic human remains from El Castillo cave (Santander, Spain). En Giacobinni, G. (Eds.): Hominidae: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Human Paleontology. Jaca Book: 479-482. Milán.

GARRALDA, M. D. (2006). Las gentes del Paleolítico Superior antiguo de Europa Occidental. En: MAILLO, J. M.; BAQUEDANO, E. (eds). Miscelánea en homenaje a Victoria Cabrera. Zona Arqueológica 7. Vol 1: 320-335.

GARRALDA, M. D., TILLIER, A. M., VANDERMEERSCH, B.,CABRERA, V. , GAMBIER, D. (1992) Restes humains de l’aurignacien archaique de la cueva de El Castillo (Santander, Espagne). Anthropologie (Brno) 30 (2): 159-164.

GARRALDA, M. D.; VANDERMEERSCH, B. (1994). Nuevos datos sobre el paleolítico superior. Los Solutrenses de Cova Beneito (Alicante). En: Actas VIII Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Antropología Biológica (Madrid, septiembre de 1993) : 63-73

GIMENEZ REYNA,S.(1964). La cueva de Nerja. Patronato de la cueva de Nerja.Málaga.

GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J. (1972) Notas para el estudio cronológico del arte rupestre de la Cueva del Castillo. Santander Symposium, pp.409-420.

GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J. et al. (1980) El yacimiento de la cueva del Pendo (Excavaciones de 1953-1957). Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana V. Madrid.

GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J., BARANDIARÁN MAESTU, I. (1981) El Paleolítico Superior de la cueva del Rascaño (Santander) CIMA, Monografía nº 3.

GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J.; FREEMAN, L. G. (1971). Cueva Morín: Excavaciones 1966-1968. Publicaciones del Patronato de las Cuevas Prehistóricas de la Provincia de Santander. Santander

GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J.; FREEMAN, L. G. (1973). Cueva Morín: Excavaciones 1969. Publicaciones del Patronato de las Cuevas Prehistóricas de la Provincia de Santander. Santander

GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J.; FREEMAN, L. G. (1978). Vida y muerte en cueva Morín. Institución Cultural de Cantabria, Diputación Provincial. Santander

GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J., GARCÍA GUINEA, M.A., BEGINES, A., MADARIAGA, B. (1963) Cueva de La Chora (Santander) EAE nº 26.

GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J., GONZALEZ SAINZ, C.(1995). Conjuntos rupestres paleolíticos de la cornisa cantábrica. Complutum 5,1994. ARTE PALEOLITICO. Madrid.pp. 21-43.

GONZALEZ ECHEGARAY, J., RIPOLL PERELLO, E.(1953-54).Hallazgos en la cueva de La Pasiega (Puente Viesgo,Santander) Ampurias XV-XVI, pp.43-65.

GONZÁLEZ MORALES, M.R. (1997). Changes in the uses of caves in Cantabrian Spain during the Stone Age. En: Bonsall,C. y Tolan-Smith,C (Eds.) :The Human Use of the Caves. BAR International Series, 667, Oxford, pp.63-69.

GONZÁLEZ MORALES, M.R. (1981) Grabados exteriores lineales de surco profundo en cavernas de Llanes, Asturias : Cueto de la Mina, Samoreli y El Covarón. En : Altamira Symposium, Madrid, pp.267-276

GONZÁLEZ SAINZ, C. (1989) El Magdaleniense Superior-final de la región cantábrica. Tantín y univ.de Cantabria. Santander.

GONZÁLEZ SAINZ, C., RUIZ IDARRAGA. R. (2010). Una nueva visita a Santimamiñe. Precisiones en el conocimiento del conjunto parietal paleolítico. Kobie anejo 11.

GUERRERO SALA, L. A.; LORENZO LIZALDE, J. L. (1981). Antropología Física en Rascaño. En: GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY, J.; BARANDIARÁN MAESTU, I. 1981. El Paleolítico Superior de la cueva del Rascaño (Santander). Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira. Monografía Nº 3. Santander: 278-321

HAWS,J.A., VALENTE,M.J. (2006). Animal carcass utilization during the Late Upper Paleolithic occupation of Lapa do Suão (Portugal). BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES, 1564, 29-38

26


HERNANDEZ PACHECO, E . (1923) La vida de nuestros antecesores paleolíticos según los resultados de las excavaciones de la caverna de La Paloma (Asturias) CIPP, Memoria 31.

HERRASTI,L.,ETXEBERRÍA,F. (2011). Estudio de los restos humanos de la cueva de Santimamiñe (Kortézubi, Bizcaia) Campañas de 2004 a 2006.En: Lopez Quintana, J.C. dir. La cueva de Santimamiñe: revisión y actualización. Kobie.Excavaciones arqueológicas en Bizcaia nº 1, pp.375-381.

HOYOS, M. y RASILLA, M. de la.(1994). Dataciones C14 del Paleolítico Superior del abrigo de Cueto de la Mina (Posada de Llanes, Asturias). Trabajos de Prehistoria 51, 2, 143-147.

HOYOS GÓMEZ, M.; MARTINEZ NAVARRETE, M. I.; CHAPA BRUNET, T. (1980). La cueva de la Paloma, Soto de las Regueras (Asturias). En: Excavaciones arqueológicas en España. Nº 116. Madrid

ITURBE, G.; CORTELL, E. (1982). Cova Beneito: Avance Preliminar. En: Saguntum. 17: 9-44

ITURBE, G.; CORTELL, E. (1987). Las dataciones de Cova Beneito y su interés para el Paleolítico Mediterráneo. En: Trabajos de Prehistoria. 44: 267-270

JORDÁ, F. (1958). Avance al estudio de la cueva de La Lloseta. Diputación Provincial de Asturias, Oviedo.

JORDÁ, F., MALLO, M., PÉREZ, M. (1970). Les grottes du Pozo del Ramu et de La Lloseta (Asturies, Espagne) et ses représentations rupestres paléolithiques. Préhistoire Ariégeoise XXV, 95–140.

JORDÁ PARDO,J.F., AURA TORTOSA,J.E. (2008). 70 fechas para una cueva. Revisión crítica de 70 dataciones c14 del Pleistoceno Superior y Holoceno de la cueva de Nerja (Málaga, Andalucía, España).Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I, Nueva época. Prehistoria y Arqueología, t. 1, 2008. pp. 239-256

LALUEZA,C.(1995).Restos humanos del nivel solutrense de la cueva de Nerja (Málaga). Zephyrvs, XLVIII, 1995. 289-297

LEROI GOURHAN, A. (1971).Préhistoire de l’art occidental.Mazenod,Paris.

LEROI GOURHAN, A. (1976).Les religions de la préhistoire. Paris, PUF.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS,D.(2005).La mente en la caverna. La conciencia y los orígenes del Arte. Akal, Madrid.

LOPEZ QUINTANA,J.C.DIR.(2011).La cueva de Santimamiñe : revisión y actualización (2004-2006) Kobie BAI nº 1.

MALLO, M., SUAREZ, J.M. (1973) Las pinturas de las cuevas de La Riera y Balmori. Zephyrus, XXIII-XXIV, Salamanca, pp.19-37.

MARTÍNEZ NAVARRETE, M. I. (1976). La cueva de la Riera (Posada de Llanes, Asturias). En: Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Asturianos. Nº 87. Diputación Provincial de Oviedo: 231-257

MAY, F. (1986). Les sépultures préhistoriques. CNRS.Paris.

MENENDEZ, M. (1984) La cueva del Buxu.Estudio del yacimiento arqueológico y de las manifestaciones artísticas. BIDEA, 111, pp.143-185.

MENENDEZ, M. (1992) Excavaciones en la cueva del Buxu (Cardes, Cangas de Onís) Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1987/1990, pp. 69-74. Consejería de Educación, Oviedo.

MENENDEZ, M. (1999) La cueva del Buxu.Cangas de Onís.Campaña de 1998 y resumen de los trabajos anteriores.Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1995/1998 pp. 69-74. Consejería de Educación, Oviedo.

MONTES, R., SANGUINO, J. Dirs. (2001) La cueva de El Pendo. Actuaciones arqueológicas 1994-2000. Gobierno de Cantabria.

MONTES BARQUÍN,R. (2003). El conjunto rupestre paleolítico de la cueva de El Pendo (Escobedo de Camargo) La Arqueología de la Bahía de Santander,Fundación Marcelino Botín, Santander 2003 PP. 227-249

MORA, R., MARTÍNEZ-MORENO,J. (2009). Balma Guilanyà (Prepirineo de Lleida) y el Aziliense en el noreste de la Península Ibérica. TP.66, N.º 2, pp. 45-60,

MOURE ROMANILLO, A.(1989).La caverne de Tito Bustillo( Asturies,Espagne).Le gisement paléolithique. L’Anthropologie,93-2,pp.407-434.

MOURE ROMANILLO, A .(1989).La cueva de Tito Bustillo (Ribadesella,Asturias) :el yacimiento paleolítico. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias 1983-86.pp.107-127.

MOURE ROMANILLO, A .(1991-1992). Documentación del arte rupestre cantábrico: la cueva de Santián (Piélagos, Cantabria). Zephyrus 44 - 45, pp.7-15.

MOURE ROMANILLO, J. A., CANO HERRERA, M. (1976). Excavaciones en la cueva de Tito Bustillo (Asturias). Diputación Provincial de Oviedo. Instituto de Estudios Asturianos. Oviedo: 196-200

OBERMAIER, H. (1916 y 1925) El Hombre Fósil. Comisión de Investigaciones Paleontológicas y Prehistóricas, Memoria nº 9, Madrid.

OBERMAIER, H. (1934). Estudios prehistóricos en la provincia de Granada. Anuar.del Cuerpo Facult. de Arch., Biblio. Y Arq. Vol 1.

OBERMAIER,H.,VEGA DEL SELLA,C.de la.( 1918) La cueva del Buxu.CIIP, Memoria nº 20,Madrid.

OLARIA, C. 1988. “Cova Fosca. Un asentamiento meso-neolítico de cazadores y pastores en la serranía del Alto Maestrazgo”. En: Monografies de Prehistòria i Arqueologia Castellonenques 3. SIAP. Diputació. Castelló de la Plana

OLARIA i PUYOLES, C. (2002-2003)”La muerte como rito transcendental. Los rituales funerarios del epipaleolítico-mesolítico y su probable influencia en el mundo megalítico. En: Quad. Preh. Arq. Cast. 23. 2002-2003: 85-106

PANTOJA,A.,NOHEMI SALA. M. T., GARCÍA, N. , RUIZ ZAPATA,B., GIL GARCÍA,M.J., ARANBURU,A., ARSUAGA ,J.L., CASABÓ ,J. (2011). Análisis paleontológico del yacimiento del Pleistoceno superior

27


de Cova Foradada (Xàbia, Alicante, España) Bol. R. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. Sec. Geol., 105 (1-4), 2011, 53-66.

PARCERISAS, J.; MORA, R.; PALLARÉS, M. Y MARTÍNEZ-MORENO,J. (2003). Balma Guilanyà (Navès, Solsonès). En : Jornades d’Arqueologia i Paleontologia- 2000. Comarques de Lleida (Lleida 2000),73-90. Barcelona.

PÉREZ IGLESIAS,J.M. (2005).Las prácticas funerarias en el Paleolítico Superior de la Península Ibérica . Tesis doctoral inédita. Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.

PÉREZ IGLESIAS,J.M. (2007). Restos fósiles humanos en el Paleolítico Superior de la península Ibérica. Arqueoweb Número 8-2 - enero de 2007.pp.1-17.

PERICOT, L. (1942). La cueva del Parpalló (Gandía). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Diego Velázquez. Madrid

PETTITT,P.(2011). The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. Routledge, Londres/Nueva York, 2011.

PETTITT, P.B, BADER ,N.O .(2000 ) Direct AMS Radiocarbon dates for the Sungir mid Upper Palaeolithic burials .Antiquity, 2000, vol. 74, no284, pp. 269-270

PIKE,A.W.G.,HOFFMAN,D.L.,GARCIA DIEZ ,M., PETTITT, P.B.,ALCOLEA,J., DE BALBIN, R., GONZALEZ SAINZ, C.,DE LAS HERAS,C.,DE LAS HERAS,J.A., MONTES, R., ZILHAO,J.(2012). U-Series Dating of Palaeolithic Art in 11 Caves of Spain. Science vol 336,nº 6087,pp.1409-1413.

RASILLA,M. de la. (1990) Cueto de la Mina.Campañas 1981-1986.Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias, 1, pp.79-86.

RASILLA,M. de la. , RODRÍGUEZ .V, SANTAMARÍA,D.,FORTEA,J.(2010). Los grabados parietales paleolíticos del Abrigo de Cueto de la Mina (Posada de Llanes, Asturias).MUNIBE (Antropologia - Arkeologia) nº 61 29-42 SAN SEBASTIÁN 2010

ROCHE, J. (1982). A gruta chamada Lapa do Suao. En: Arqueología. Nº 5: 5-18

RUA, C. de la. (1985) Restos humanos de Erralla.Munibe,37,pp.195-198

SOTO, E. (1984) Restos faunísticos de la cueva del Buxu(Oviedo) BIDEA 112, pp.803-810.

RUIZ, J.; GARCÍA-SÍVOLI, C.; MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, J. Y SUBIRÀ, M.E. (2006). Los restos humanos del Tardiglaciar de Balma Guilanyà”. En J. Sanchidrián, A. M.ª Márquez y J. M.ª Fullola (eds.): La cuenca mediterránea durante el Paleolítico Superior. IV Simposio de Prehistoria Cueva de Nerja, 458-467. Nerja.

STRAUS,L.G.,CLARK,G. (1986) La Riera Cave. Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations in Northern Spain. Tempe,Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers, nº 36.

STRAUS, L. G., LAVILLE, H., CLARK, G., LEROI-GOURHAN, A., ALTUNA, J., MENENDEZ DE LA HOZ, M., ... & ORTEA, J. (1983). Excavaciones en la cueva de La Riera (1976-1979). Un estudio inicial. Trabajos de prehistoria, 40, 9-58.

STRAUS ,L.G., GONZALEZ MORALES,M., CARRETERO ,J.M. (2011) .Lower Magdalenian

secondary human burial in El Mirón Cave, Cantabria,Spain . ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 1151–1164

TEJERO,J.M., AVEZUELA,B., WHITE,R., RANLETT,S., QUAM,R., TATTERSALLL,I., BERNALDO DE QUIRÓS , F. (2010). Un pedazo de la Prehistoria cántabra en Nueva York.Las Colecciones de la Cueva de El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria) en el American Museum of Natural History (Nueva York, EEUU) MUNIBE,61,5-16.

TRINKAUS, E.; BAILEY, S.; ZILHAO, J. (2001). Upper Paleolithic human remains from Gruta do Caldeirao, Tomar, Portugal. En: Revista Portuguesa de Arqueología. Vol. 4. Nº 2: 5-17

TURBON,D.,PEREZ-A.,LALUEZA,C.(1994). Los restos humanos del nivel solutrense de la cueva de Nerja (Málaga) Actas del VIII Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Antropología Biológica (Madrid, septiembre de 1993)pp.51-62.

VALLOIS, H.V.,DELMAS, L. (1976) Los frontales de la cueva de El Castillo (España. TP, vol 33,pp.113-120.

VEGA TOSCANO, L.G.,HOYOS,M.,RUIZ BUSTOS,A.,LAVILLE,H.(1988). La séquence de la grotte de la Carihuela (Piñar, Grenade) : Chronostratigraphie et Paléoécologie du Pléistocène Supérieur au sud de la Péninsule Ibérique. Colloque de l’Homme de Néandertal, vol.2, L’ENVIRONNEMENT,Liège, 1988, pp.169-180.

VEGA DEL SELLA, C. de la. (1916) Paleolítico de Cueto de la Mina (Asturias) Comisión de Investigaciones Paleontológicas y Prehistóricas , Memoria nº 13, Madrid.

VILLAVERDE,V. (1994). Arte Paleolítico de la Cova del Parpalló.Diputació de Valencia.

VILLAVERDE BONILLA, V. Ed. (2001). De Neandertales a cromañones. El inicio del poblamiento humano en las tierras valencianas. Valencia

ZILHÃO, J. (1995). O Paleolitico Superior da Estremadura Portuguesa. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa.

ZILHAO, J. (1997). O Paleolítico Superior da Estremadura Portuguesa. Colibrí. Lisboa

ZILHAO, J.; TRINKAUS, E. (2002). Portrait of the Artist as a Child. The Gravettian Human Skeleton from the abrigo do Lagar Velho and its archeological context. Trabalhos de Arqueología 22. Instituto Portugués de Arqueología. Lisboa.

Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and Materials

Documents

Transcript of Death as Archaeology of Transition: Thoughts and Materials