Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia

178 DOI: 10.4312/dp.50.3 Documenta Praehistorica L (2023) KLJUÈNE BESEDE – neolitik; halkolitik; megalitizem; kronologija; drubena kriza; Iberski polotok IZVLEÈEK – Evolucijski pristop k preuèevanju pogrebnih praks v pozni prazgodovini severne Iberije omogoèa prepoznavanje razliènih drubenih kriz. Analiza zbranih radio-kronoloških podatkov kae na pet faz uporabe – z najnovejšo prepoznavo dveh razliènih ciklov v poznem neolitiku – in kasnejših 'opustitev' v megalitih; to je v primeru sepulkralnih jam omejitev na dve fazi. Radio-kronološke rezultate interpretiramo s pomoèjo pridatkov v grobovih in dinamiko megalitske arhitekture. Naše rezultate primerjamo z rezultati drugih pristopov, ki vkljuèujejo primerljive multidisciplinarne analize. Ugotovili smo, da je megalitizem sluil kot odziv na razliène krize in spremembe, s katerimi so se sooèale vse bolj kompleksne in neenakopravne skupine. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?/Bolj ko se spreminja, bolj je enako? Kontinuitete in diskontinuitete v pogrebnih zapisih na severu Iberskega polotoka KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Chalcolithic; megalithism; chronology; social crises; Iberia ABSTRACT - An evolutionary approach to the study of the funerary systems in Late Prehistory allows the recognition of diverse contexts of social crises in the north of Iberia. The analysis of the radio-chrono- logical data that we have compiled indicates five phases of use – with the newness of identifying two different cycles during the Late Neolithic – and of subsequent ‘abandonment’ in the megaliths; this is reduced to two phases in the case of the sepulchral caves. We interpret the radio-chronological results through an examination of the material culture present in the graves and dynamics of the megalithic architecture. In addition, we contrast our results with different approaches, carrying out a complementary multidisciplinary approach. In this regard, we found that megalithism served as a vehicle for responding to the different crises and changes faced by increasingly complex and unequal human groups. Alfonso Alday-Ruiz1,2, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza1,2,3, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García4 1 Department of Geography, Prehistory, Archaeology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, ES; a.alda[email protected]; ander.rodrigue[email protected] 2 Laboratory of Human Evolution (LEH), Department of Historic Sciences, Geography, University of Burgos, Burgos, ES 3 Built Heritage Research Group (GPAC), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, ES 4 Grupo de Investigación Tellus Prehistoria y Arqueología en el Sur de Iberia (HUM-949), Department of Prehistory, Archaeology, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, ES; [email protected] Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia 179 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia Introduction Regardless of the paradigm under which we interpret the direct or indirect correspondence between the funerary archaeological record and the structure of the community (Criado Boado 1989), we will agree that social innovation will gain visibility (Hodder 1990). In this sense, the modification of the funerary expressions of prehistoric human groups represents a cultural and ideological change, although it is not easy to establish the difference between continuity and rupture when we analyse archaeological materiality. Cultures, like species (Van Valen 1973), show a strong trend, over time, to change by non-orthogenet- ic evolution, driven by internal and external factors, a dynamic that accelerates in contexts of competition. Therefore, change would not necessarily evidence a conflict. In contrast, ruptures occur in contexts of ‘crises’, a term that we reserve for the existence of systemic contradictions. In the case of Late Prehistory in northern half of Iberia, the archaeological record provides a wide range of funerary items; in fact, for certain chronologies and regions, mortuary contexts contribute more to our knowledge than household contexts. In this regard, the rich megalithic funerary structures, and their equivalence in rock shelters and caves, contrast with the weakness of information about their contemporary settlements. This is a good example of the social and ideological representativeness of the funerary sphere: a monumental architecture faced with the ephemeral household constructions, and grave goods that suggest wealth opposite to ‘anodyne’ household goods. The idea needs to be qualified. Although there is a possible research bias, unlike southern Iberia, the early steps of megalithism in our study area are accompanied by a gap in the non-funerary data. Or, as a well-known saying among archaeologists puts it – ‘people died but did not live’. In this essay we reflect on the processes of change/ rupture that occurred during Late Prehistory – from the Early Neolithic to Bronze Age – on the northern half of Iberia, through their funerary corollary. To this end, we draw upon radiocarbon dating series as well as architectural and material culture analysis. The materiality of a specific tomb is an expression of the particular circumstances of the community linked to it. We wonder if, based on this materiality, we can identify long-term patterns. In other words, we propose to change the scale of interpretation of funeral behaviour to try to infer the presence of continuities and discontinuities (Shanks, Tilley 1987). For our purpose, it is important to consider the dichotomy between natural and artificial funeral structures for two reasons. Firstly, the megalithic structures constitute an investment of energy (Vicent 1995) or a “social work deposit” (Lull, Picazo 1989.17) that has been mobilized during its erection. Secondly, the monumentality of megaliths, as opposed to collective graves in rock shelters and caves, could fulfil a function of territorial demarcation (Renfrew 1976), and would enter into a dialogue with the surrounding space. Those differentiating attributes of megalithism would be circumscribed to their phase of construction or first cycle of use, and not, most likely, to later reuse. Study area and period The archaeological record and the available 14C data determinate the area of study (Fig. 1). In fact, although we intended an analysis of the funerary structures in the northern half of Iberia, the area was restricted to the east of the Cantabrian coast, the Ebro River basin, the Pyrenees and specific locations in the Duero River basin. The sites located in the central Cantabrian region, Galicia, and the northern half of Portugal, with a few exceptions, could not be included in our radio-chronological database: due to the kind of the dated samples or due to the results obtained. However, as our methodology also deals with the analysis of structures and grave goods, we incorporate many undated megaliths into our reflections. The archaeological manifestation under study, megalithism, goes through several periods of Late Prehistory. The Late Neolithic in the northern half of Iberia, when collective funerary expressions began, is characterized by the proliferation of open-air settlements in whose structures pits are common. Understood as silos, they indicate storage practices and, therefore, surplus economies. In parallel, and particularly deep into the Chalcolithic period, the use of caves and rock shelters as pens became widespread (Estremera 2003; Fernández-Eraso et al. 2017; Francés-Negro et al. 2021; Martín et al. 2010; Pérez-Romero 2021; Straus, González 2012), which suggests an efficient li-vestock management strategy with the use of meat, milk and, in general, ‘secondary’ products. According to the latest evidence, in the heart of our area of interest (Salinas de Añana), the first megalithic groups 180 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García Fig. 1. Locations of the funerary sites used for this study. 1 Cau d’en Calvet; 2 Tafania; 3 Pasteral; 4 Costa Can Martorell; 5 Sagrera; 6 Carrer París; 7 Frare; 8 Marge del Moro; 9 Cova Bonica; 10 Cova de l’Avi; 11 Cueva de Agulles; 12 Cova de Sant Llorenç; 13 Gegant; 14 Serrat de les Tombes; 15 Les Maioles; 16 Cova del Toixó; 17 Cova de la Guineu; 18 Solar III; 19 Pera d’Ardèvol; 20 Balma del Cal Porta; 21 Povia; 22 Tomba del Moro; 23 Vilar de Simosa; 24 Megàlit del Bisbe; 25 Clará; 26 El Llord I; 27 El Llord V; 28 Ceuró I; 29 Costa dels Garrics del Caballol I; 30 Costa dels Garrics del Caballol II; 31 Santes Masses; 32 Ceuró II; 33 Feixa del Moro II; 34 Feixa del Moro III; 35 La Plana del Torrent; 36 Cova de Montanissell; 37 Reguers de Seró; 38 Galls Carboners; 39 Bòvila Casals; 40 Forat de Conqueta; 41 Trocs; 42 Moro de Alins del Monte; 43 Las Balanzas; 44 La Capilleta; 45 Cristales; 46 Cubilar del Barranco I; 47 San Juan de Loarre; 48 Corona de Hualde; 49 Padre Areso; 50 Faulo; 51 Pieza de Luis; 52 Puente de Bigüezal; 53 Tres Montes; 54 Abauntz; 55 Mina de Farangortea; 56 Sotoaldea; 57 Morea 1; 58 Aizibita; 59 Charracadía; 60 Marizulo; 61 Jentillarri; 62 Arraztarangaña; 63 Karea; 64 Larrarte; 65 Mandubi Zelaia; 66 Etxegarate; 67 La Atalayuela; 68 Longar; 69 Arantzazu; 70 Nardakoste; 71 Collado del Mallo; 72 Peña Guerra I; 73 Peña Guerra II; 74 Collado Palomero I; 75 Collado Palomero II; 76 Kobaederra; 77 Santimamiñe; 78 La Chabola de la Hechicera; 79 San Juan ante Portam Latinam; 80 Alto de la Huesera; 81 Layaza; 82 El Sotillo; 83 San Martín; 84 Atxoste; 85 Túmulo de la Sima; 86 Guerrandijo; 87 Las Yurdinas II; 88 San Quílez; 89 La Cascaja; 90 Kurtzebide; 91 Errekatxuetako Atxa; 92 Urratxa III; 93 Mendigana; 94 Arlampe; 95 Gobaederra; 96 Covachón III; 97 El Pendón; 98 El Hundido; 99 Alto de Reinoso; 100 El Mirador; 101 El Portalón; 102 Peredo; 103 Portillo del Arenal; 104 Arroyal I; 105 La Velilla; 106 La Llana; 107 El Toral III; 108 Fuentenegroso; 109 Cova do Santo; 110 Pala da Vella; 111 Quinta Água Branca; 112 Agra de Antas. 181 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia Mi radero cultural facies and, later, by the development of the Bell Beaker complex (Delibes et al. 2012; García-Martínez de Lagrán et al. 2005). The discovery of spatula-idols (Fig. 7.c) first in the dolmen of San Martín (La Rioja), and later in the collective burial site of El Miradero (Valladolid), was the reason to culturally connect both geographies. Currently, we know of around 100 pieces distributed by graves in the basins of the rivers Ebro and Duero. At a later date, the Bell Beaker culture was also expressed in a singular way in the same region, with the development of the Ciempozuelos beaker variety, as well as in international and mixed decorations, which are elements that can be used to trace exchange networks (Alday 2001). In the same way, although in a different geographical direction, the raw materials of siliceous manufactures link sites that are very far apart from each other (Tarriño, Mujika-Alustiza 2004). In short, the region shar es not only a common desire to erect dolmen structures, but also assumes common models and interests in habitat types, economy or material culture. From the available dates for collective burials, we se lected those obtained from samples coming from human bones, discarding, among others, the values on charcoal samples. Consequently, we eliminate the disparities caused by the ‘old wood effect’ (Bowman 1990). It should also be considered that the dates of human remains provide us with the moment of burial, while charcoal may have different origins – it may come from land clearing, natural fires prior to the construction of the dolmens, earth moving, and so on. Before discussing the methodology implemented and its results, we should stop for a moment to consider the nature of the events that are dating our 14C series. When we work with samples from human bones, we place in time the moment of death of a given subject. In this way, the radio-chronological phases are constructed from a unique meaning of the concept ‘use of the tomb’: that concerning the act of burial of an individual in the grave – always under the assumption of synchrony between death and burial. Therefore, exclusively radio-chronological approaches to the identification and determination of the duration of use cycles must be properly weighed. As opposed to the short life cycles to which the 14C dates point, we cannot discard the idea that the use was extended in time through recurrent rituals of the human group linked to the tombs, despite not receiving new burials. worked a new resource, namely salt (Plata Montero 2020). Shortly afterwards, the case of Lagunas de Villafáfila points the massive exploitation of salt (Ayarzagüena et al. 2017), and it seems clear that the related activity went beyond self-supply and trading networks had to be established. To this new source of wealth the beginnings of metallurgy were added. The emergence of a new economic order brought with it social innovations such as Bell Beaker pottery or ornamentation on exotic materials, entailing mining prac tices. This new material culture is almost exclusively visible in the funerary sphere. In fact, in the northern half of Iberia, apart from the funerary structures themselves, the typological and material distance between the grave goods of the first megalithic phases and following ones is the clearest testimony to the changes experienced by progressively more complex societies (Parcero-Oubiña, Criado-Boado 2013). Chronometry Given the continuous deposition of bodies in the enclosures, it is very difficult to determine the beginnings and phases of collective funeral systems. In recent years, the reiteration of dates on human bones has made it clear that megalithic burials did not constitute a homogeneous process; on the contrary, different phases of use have been identified, separated by hiatus. The same dynamic is repeated in natural enclosures. Being able to place these dynamics into defined periods gives us the opportunity to relate them to the cultural changes that we already know and to reflect on the processes of continuity and change. In this paper, we collected 389 radiocarbon dates from 112 funerary sites in caves, rock shelters and built architecture in the north of Iberia from the period 5315–2550 14C BP. A total of 154 come from 46 natural enclosures and 235 come from 66 megaliths (simple dolmens, passage graves, hypogea and burial mounds) (see Supplement). We only take into account the results obtained on human bones with standard deviations of equal or less than 100 years. As far as we are concerned, the number of dates that constitute the sample and its quality give robustness to the exercise. Despite the geographical dispersion, the bibliography shows the existence of a cultural re lationship between the different records in the catalogue, represented initially by the San Martin-El 182 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García ities of burials in rock shelters/caves and constructed structures, respectively (the attribution of each radiocarbon date to each specific moment based on the standard deviation and median of the marginal posterior distribution can be found in the Supplement. The incorporation of the results of the latter method is done in response to the fact that the algorithm implemented in the KDE blurs the abrupt phase endings (Bronk Ramsey 2017). Our knowledge of the archaeological record leads us to think that many of the observed funerary cycles had an abrupt end and, sometimes, their origins were also sudden. Therefore, the distribution of the sum of probabilities is a complementary approach in order to better define them. From a radio-chronological point of view, we can ob - serve that the practice of using natural structures such as collective graves begins in the second half of the fourth millennium BC (c. 3500 cal BC). Although, in fact, during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods, individual burials were occasionally practiced between levels of occupation – Aizpea, La Braña, Los Ca nes or J3 are some examples of this (Barandiarán, Cava 2001; Vidal et al. 2008; Iriarte et al. 2010; Arias 2012). Their meaning and rituality, however, had no connection with what we are dealing with now. The beginning of this practice is abrupt, configuring a Methodology For the analysis of the probability distribution of the data set we use the Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) proposed by Christopher Bronk Ramsey (2017), which is an alternative to the sum of the probability distribution that combines the use of Kernel density with a Bayesian model. The method assumes that the events we are analysing are not completely independent. Among the advantages of the implemented procedure we would like to highlight: the reduction in the noise inherent to the sum of the probability distribution that, sometimes, makes it difficult to observe the underlying distribution; the decrease in the uncertainty associated with the sample bias; a lesser effect of the uncertainties of each of the dates; and its good performance in multinomial distributions (Bronk Ramsey 2017; McLaughlin 2019). However, this approach has some limitations when it comes to identifying the abrupt end of a phase, an issue we will return to later (for a general critique of Bayesian dominant paradigm, see Weninger, Edinborough 2020). On the procedure and its limits let us simply recall the reflection of Bernhardt Weninger et al. (2011.17) here: “Most importantly, however, perhaps we should not overlook the simple fact that it has never been claimed that Bayesian analysis can provide a closed solution to all archaeological applications, under all circumstances.” Certainly, it is ne cessary to have good control over each sample, its context and meaning in order to clarify the conclusions of this type of exercise, otherwise we sum up things that we do not understand. This is, moreover, fundamental because sometimes the trends that are marked by statistical modelling are opposed to the particular results of some samples: this is because statistical ‘outliers’ may not be sampling errors, reporting, on the contrary, concrete human actions that impede the standardization of historical processes. Results Figures 2 and 3 show the model ling resulting from the KDE me thod and the sum of probabil- Fig. 2. KDE for the 14C dating set from the inhumations in natural enclosures, performed with OxCal v4.4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2017; Reimer et al. 2020). In dark grey the KDE estimated distribution; blue line for the mean value; blue band for the standard deviation (±1σ); light grey for the sum of the probability distributions; black crosses for the medians of the marginal posterior distributions for the events from the KDE. 183 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia concrete social and ideological situations, about which we will say more later. In summary, the dynamics of col lective tombs distinguish five phases and three hiatuses – where the case of collective burial caves must be matched, as we have pointed out. Origins (c. 3800–3550 cal BC) The construction of the first me - galiths was set in place by communities that carried out a stable production economy in valleys and mountains. These are simple structures, such as those of the Catalan pre-Pyrenees (Castany i Llussà 2009) – perhaps not me galithic and with more individual than collective development (Molist, Clop 2010) – or of marked monumentality such as those of La Rioja (Galilea 2011). They are represented by the San Martín-El Miradero funerary facies (Delibes et al. 2012), at least in the northern half of the region, and what was once called the ‘Pyrenean culture’ (Pericot 1950). Probably in the pre-Pyrenean area some mo numents were closed after the end of this phase – at least, they have neither more advanced dates nor grave goods. However, it will be necessary to discuss the significance of some dates which, due to their an tiquity, fall outside this chronological framework. First hiatus (c. 3550–3250 cal BC) This period was two and a half centuries in which, in general, the graves ceased to receive new burials. Generalization (c. 3250–2900 cal BC) Together with the erection of new structures, several of the preceding ones underwent a new cycle of use. In the course of this phase, various signs of violence have been observed, as well as, at the end of the cycle or perhaps in the hiatus that followed it, actions of destruction, closure and ‘appropriation’ of some monuments. It is noticeable that in several inhumations (Aizibita, Charracadía, La Chabola de la Hechicera, Lar rarte) most of the dated individuals belong to this phase, but there is little or no evidence of representative archaeological material assigned to these first phase of great vitality until c. 2350 cal BC. Afterwards, the use of caves as burial sites is sporadic for 600 years (c. 2350–1900 cal BC), at the end of which a new cycle began, from c. 1900 to 1400 cal BC. The constructed structures, instead, are spread in five phases. The tradition is inaugurated c. 3800 cal BC and went on for almost three centuries. A second phase, of as much importance as the previous one, is found in the area of study from c. 3250–2900 cal BC. A third one takes up the short but active time span c. 2750–2200 cal BC. The fourth one is developed by the first half of the second millennium, with an epilogue of later punctual reuses. The pattern is thus of relatively short cycles with parentheses of several generations with very few burials. It is easy to observe discrepancies and coincidences in the funeral dynamics between both types of burials. Firstly, the phase of origin of the constructed pantheons is not reflected in the burial caves. Secondly, the first cycle observed in the caves covers the second and third cycles of the constructed structures. Finally, the last phases of both types of pantheons are simultaneous. If it is not a problem of method, the parallelisms cannot be independent, nor their con cur rence due to randomness: they would correspond, therefore, to Fig. 3. KDE for the 14C dating set from the inhumation in megalithic architectures, performed with OxCal v4.4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2017; Reimer et al. 2020). In dark grey the KDE estimated distribution; blue line for the mean value; blue band for the standard deviation (±1σ); light grey for the sum of the probability distributions; black crosses for the medians of the marginal posterior distributions for the events from the KDE. 184 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García Late uses (c. 1450–1250 / 1000–800 cal BC) Rare burials in caves and dolmens The proposal of cycles in the use of collective burials is based on the combination of radio-chronological values, and confirmed by analysing the particular biographies of dolmens with a sufficient number of 14C dates to cover all or part of the time span of their use. Unfortunately, caves cannot be part of this exercise since a limited number of individuals per grave have been dated. Thus, for example, in the dolmen of La Chabola de la Hechicera, each and every one of the above-de- scribed phases of use and hiatus are documented. Radio-chronology concentrates most of the inhumations in the first two phases (Fig. 4), and the material culture – incised-impressed Bell Baker pottery, necklace beads on exotic materials, and flat-retouched arrowheads (Apellániz, Fernández Medrano 1978) – attested the mortuary rites of the dolmen during the third phase. The first megalithic phase is represented in San Martín, and, even if the radio-chronology does not suggest it, the material culture gives a clear indication of the presence of the rest of the phases (Barandiarán, Fernández Medrano 1964). A similar circumstance occurs at Alto de Reinoso, despite the destruction of the upper levels of the tomb (Rojo-Guerra et al. 2015). The radio-chronological biography of the Mandubi Zelaia dolmen runs through three of the proposed phases, to which a late burial can be added (Mujika-Alustiza, Edeso 2011) (Fig. 4). At Sotillo, although there is no radiometric evidence, the grave goods suggest that it was built in earlier phases (Barandiarán et al. 1971), thus completing a biography in accordance with the described phases (Fig. 4). At Collado del Mallo radio-chronology draws three of the cycles – the first of which comes from infratumular deposits (Fig. 4) – the Bronze Age cycle not being present. Its closest neighbours Collado Palomero I and Peña Guerra II follow approximately the same pattern. The first two phases are also present at La Velilla, but neither the chronology nor the materials recovered attest to a later use (Zapatero 1991) (Fig. 4). As a final example, several funerary phases have been described in the dolmen of Arroyal I (Carmona et al. 2014) (Fig. 4). In short, the recognition of phases and hiatuses in the particular biographies of the dolmens vindicate general trends, while they tell particular sto ries. Several studies on the biographies of European megaliths stress this idea (Bayliss, Whittle 2007; Schulting et al. 2012; Sévin-Allouet 2013; Marçais et al. 2016). chronologies, and what has been recovered belongs to more advanced phases. It is also interesting to note that the end of this phase coincides with the presence of the first flat-retouched arrowheads, which replace the earlier projectiles (microliths chipped tools). Should the profusion of these objects in many of the funerary enclosures be read in conjunction with the signs of violence? Second hiatus (c. 2900–2750 cal BC) This was an interlude of 200–300 years in the early stages of the Chalcolithic, often referred to as ‘Pre- Bell Beaker’, and where acts that could be described as punitive were continued, or even increased, from the previous phase. Third phase of activity (c. 2750–2200 cal BC) Related to the ‘Bell Beaker impact’, this phase ma- ni fested in the megaliths but not in caves. It is remark able that this ‘impact’ materializes in the inter national maritime and mixed versions, as well as in the classic decorative patterns and syntax of the Ciempozuelos beaker variety, offering homogeneous features in the collections of the western part of the region, since they do not appear in the pre-Pyrenean dolmens. Elements of personal ornamentation on exotic materials, probably for the display of wealth, also make their appearance, as well as the first ma- ni festations of metal (Alday 1992; Soriano Llopis et al. 2012). We observed once again architectural remodelling of the monuments. Third hiatus (c. 2200–1950 cal BC) This corresponds to the development of regional household Bell Beaker pottery of the second half of the Chalcolithic period. It is characteristic of dwelling locations, but not from the burial ones. Fourth phase of activity (c. 1950–1500 cal BC) This phase comprises the first half of the Bronze Age, as it is reflected in radio-chronological data and the presence of metallic remains. The more com munitarian nature of the grave goods of the first sta ges would be surpassed, given the sumptuary and personal characteristics of these new items. An example of the relationship between prehistoric materiality and social relevance may be Gobaederra cave (Apellániz et al. 1967), which has a set of metallic daggers and punches, perhaps associated with one of the around 100 buried individuals (see below). 185 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia Fig. 4. Probability distribution for the ‘biographies’ of some of the megalithic architectures mentioned in the text, performed with OxCal v4.4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2009), IntCal20 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2020). 186 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García modern one; each one with its corresponding clearly differentiated grave goods (Barandiarán, Fernández Medrano 1964). The precinct of the lower level of the dolmen occurred in a terminus post quem date of 3643–3518 cal BC. The neighbouring dolmen of El Sotillo reproduces the same situation, although the size of the flagstone was smaller and the separation of the levels was not so clear (Barandiarán, Fernández Medrano 1958). The tumulus of the great pantheon of Aizkomendi was expanded in a second construction operation (Barandiarán 1964). A series of excavations recently undertaken on one of the most impressive dolmens in the Basque Country, San Sebastián Sur, have allowed us to verify that its original chamber was blocked by one of the large flagstones of the corridor, which was adapted as a second adjacent chamber (Fig. 5). These changes made it necessary to reform a large part of the tumulus, on which there are also visible fires for its probable closure. The recent excavation of the megalithic structure of Pariburu has revealed a first and singular construction which, in a second phase, was partially dismantled in order to build a new one based on the previous one (Fig. 6). In Kurtzebide, fieldwork revealed the presence of di tches that must have supported several orthostats that were removed in a dismantling operation (Vegas 1981). Excavations at the dolmens of La Cotorrita and Ciella revealed, as in the case of the other mentioned monuments, the collapse of some flagstones (Narvarte 2005), which can be understood as part of these actions of architectural remodelling. The meticulous excavations in the sepulchre of Arroyal I have determined different phases of use and remodelling, in accordance with the radio-chronologi- cal information available (Carmona et al. 2014). Here too, as in the case of San Sebastián Sur, a flagstone closed off the original chamber, separating it from the access corridor. In the pantheon of Mandubi Zelaia, the burials and grave goods from the first half of the fourth millennium were covered by a flagstone over which evidence Structures When we are in front of a dolmen, we should be aware that the legacy is the result of its construction, cycles of use and abandonment, closures, additions, rites, the vicissitudes of time, the actions of thieves and scavengers and other possible circumstances over which we have no control (Álvarez 2003). This means that each monument had its own ‘non-inno- cent’ history. It is thus not easy for an archaeologist to identify the processes that have taken place in each case; nor even, sometimes, to distinguish what corresponds to human intervention and what to collapse due to the course of time. In the Iberian context, several researchers have documented the possible use of materials from previous structures in the construction of new monuments: flagstones at Azután, Gorriquía, Navalcán, Pedra Escorregadia, Puerto de los Huertos, Reguers de Seró or Soto (Villoch 1998; Gavilán, Vera 2005; López et al. 2009; Linares, García-Sanjuán 2010), and wood at El Barranquete. Such dismantling of pre-existing architecture or the subsequent ‘repair’ of dolmen structures must be read in a social key: it is not a question of shoring up deteriorated monuments, or enlarging them to make place for new burials, as most likely the purposes of such actions were of a different nature, and only the society that carried out these works has the real key to their meaning. We can observe the magnitude of this phenomenon by focusing on one of the regions in our study area: the upper Ebro basin, to which we will add the cases of some dolmens that are nearby. It is easy to increase the evidence, but we believe that the information we are going to relate is sufficient to support an underlying hypothesis: given the coincidence of these ‘arrangements’ in the pantheons with the first phases of use and hiatus reported by the 14C, the actions must be considered as intentional and premeditated, not random at all. At the sepulchre of La Mina, a cist-like enclosure was added to the original space of the chamber to give access to a burial, probably Bell Beaker (Narvarte 2007). In San Martín, the archaeological excavation certified the fall, probably intentional, of the biggest flagstone of the chamber, occupying most of its surface and separating an ancient phase of burials from a more 193 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia of the necropolis or in a second phase of its use. In this sense, both at Pedra Escorregadia and Azután – two of those cases with bone dates of ancient results – it is suspected that flagstones from earlier structures were brought in for the construction of the monuments (Villoch 1998; Gavilán, Vera 2005; López et al. 2009; Linares, García-Sanjuán 2010). A similar idea was put forward by Rui J. N. Boaventura (2011) with regard to the pantheons of Monte do Castelo and São Pedro do Estoril (Portugal). An agitated Neolithic One issue that cannot be avoided in the analysis of social crises in the Early Neolithic to the Metal Ages is the aggressiveness or violence between groups. Interpersonal, intergroup or intragroup violence corresponded to instability situations. Paleoanthropological studies have identified episodes of violence in the referred territory. An exceptional case is that of San Juan Ante Portam Latinam, a burial site with more than 300 individuals, some cases showing arrow impacts, Monteggia fractures and several traumas (Etxeberria, Herrasti 2007). Fourteen kilometres from this rock shelter, the hypogeum of Longar holds more than 100 burials (Rivera 2011), some of which were injured by arrowheads (Etxeberria et al. 2005). Although in both cases the discussion on the simultaneity of these mass funerary episodes – understood as a ‘mass grave/war layer’ – is still under consideration (Fernández-Crespo et al. 2018), the extensive radiocarbon information available allows us to delimit the cycle of use of the ossuaries and, therefore, to ponder the possibility of regional instabilities (Fig. 8). Taking into account the combination of San Juan Ante Portam Latinam dating, we obtained a chronological frame of 3339–3101 cal BC 95.4% (x: 3211 cal BC) (χ2- Test: df=15 T=25.0 (5% 25.0)). We obtained similar results for Longar: 3360–3102 cal BC 95.4% (x: 3217 cal BC) (χ2-Test: df=6 T=3.5 (5% 12.6)). Even if the two cases mentioned above are undoubtedly the most remarkable, others can be added in the region. In the Las Yurdinas II rock shelter (Fernández-Crespo 2017), two arrowhead wounds fit chronologically around 3016–2895 cal BC 95.4% (x: 2952 cal BC) (χ2-Test: X2-Test: df=2 T=2.1 (5% 6.0)). In the dolmen of Aizibita (Beguiristain, Etxeberria 1994), aggression with survival has been documented around 3361–3022 cal BC at 95.4% (x: 3196 cal BC). In the funerary sites of La Peña de Marañón (Fernández-Cre- spo 2017) and Alto de la Huesera (Fernández-Crespo et al. 2018), we have not been able to establish with lapse of the great chambered flagstone, which must have occurred between the second and third of the chronological phases we have described. What was the intention behind the architectural readjustment of the monument? Was it an act of ‘appropriation’ of the previous ideological world in order to give continuity to a new funerary-ideological code? Or was it an act of destruction and, therefore, of rupture with the previous symbolism, since the enclosure housing the new burials is still the same? In short, San Martín can exemplify the development of different social behaviours in the face of death and what it represents in the life of the communities: (1) of paradoxical continuity – even though the construction of megaliths represents an unprecedented social challenge – with the amortization of the spatula-idols; (2) of continuity versus rupture, depending on how we interpret the voluntary readjustment of the original architecture by the demolition of one of its flagstones. From a similar perspective, we should discuss whether other characteristic objects of the first two funerary phases also represented a role in the amortization of previous rites/ideologies: is this perhaps the case of the geometric microliths which, absent in contemporary settlements, are reminiscent of materials from the Mesolithic and early Neolithic periods? According to what has been documented in the tomb of San Quílez (Alday et al. 2008), the scarce material that accompanied the buried would have an eminently symbolic character. The pantheon is located next to one of the most intensely exploited siliceous outcrops in regional prehistory (Tarriño 2001) and, nevertheless, the microliths and flint blades that were deposited as offered goods were made in a siliceous variety at least 100 linear kilometres away. It is not a better-quality material than that available at such a short distance away, but it is different from it because of its striking whitish colour, which is frequent in these objects that are so common in ancient dolmens (Cava 1984). In the case of San Quílez the burials are secondary, with a selection of what has been moved to the funerary enclosure. Perhaps this is a new case in which ideological changes require the ancient burials to be redirected towards the new ritual. It is tempting to correlate these hypotheses with the certainty that orthostats from earlier structures were used in the construction of the new ones, with the limits imposed by the chronological certification of these recycled building materials – in other words, whether they took place during the first construction 194 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García able evidence collected in our work reveals a horizon of profound changes that had their correspondence in the funerary record. Taking into account the reservations about the validity of the sum of probabilities procedure (SCDPD or SCDRD) as a demographic proxy – for the Iberian case, with references to the problems of the method: Alfonso Alday and Adriana Soto (2018) – the work of Blanco-González et al. (2018) shows a retraction of prehistoric settlement c. 2200 cal BC, which would not recover until c. 1600 cal BC. We would agree with the probable existence of cycles of demographic expansion and contraction during the recent prehistory of our region, but not in the sense described by these authors. In fact, the exercise of compiling the dating of habitation contexts from the same geographical area and chronological range – once the research bias has been corrected according to the methodology presented in Alday and Soto (2018) – reports a relative stability of regional settlement, with a loss of data c. 1600 cal BC, perhaps more justified by changes in settlement strategies than by demographic deficits (Fig. 8). sufficient reliability the chronology of the episodes, although several of the dates available for the second of these would be congruent with the previous ones. We found indirect evidence of aggressive – skeletal trauma with signs of healing, arrowheads with im pact fracture – at, for example, La Atalayuela or Charracadía (Laborda 2016). Other regional cases can be identified by consulting Ángel Esparza et al. (2008) and Daniel Daví i Salvanyà (2019), noting that these actions are prolonged in time and affect both ‘ordinary people’ and what are assumed to be social elites. We are convinced that a thorough review of anthropological collections would return a larger number of cases. Different approaches The work of Antonio Blanco-González et al. (2018) is noteworthy as among the most interesting approaches to peninsular prehistoric dynamics, although focused on the transition between the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age. In contrast with the static ‘picture’ that they draw for the north of Iberia, the consider- Fig. 8. Above, KDE for natural enclosures; below, KDE for the megalithic architectures. In purple SCDPD for our area of study; in light purple SCDPD corrected for research, taphonomic bias; in orange SCDPD for Ibe ria (Balsera et al. 2015); in green 4.2 ky BP climate change event (Blanco-González et al. 2018); in red population movements (Olalde et al. 2019). Performed with OxCal v4.4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2017; Reimer et al. 2020). 195 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia that separates the two funerary phases proposed for the Neolithic is relevant. We must also draw attention to the sharp retraction of activity observed around 1500 cal BC, in accordance with the definitive loss of interest in the built structures. New genomic revelations relating to Iberia have brought back into focus the probable demic population movements as a factor or catalyst for social crises. The genomic history of Iberia over the last 8000 years, as formulated by Olalde et al. (2019), establishes a replacement of 40% of the population with Iberian ancestry c. 2000 cal BC by a population with Pontic steppe ancestry. Interestingly, this population burst onto the scene c. 2500 cal BC, coinciding with the rise of the third dolmen phase (Fig. 9). The coexistence between autochthonous and allochthonous groups would have extended throughout the third hiatus, suggesting that the replacement – especially of the male population – would have occurred in synchrony with the renewed interest in dolmens. As a counterpoint, it should be noted that the study by Iñigo Olalde et al. minimizes the nature of the process for the area under study in terms of extra-Iberian genetic contribution, in line with what has been observed in other works (Valdiosera et al. 2018). Conclusions The Holocene funerary record of Iberia is extraordinarily rich, although with an unequal geographical and chronological distribution. In the Mesolithic, in shell middens and rock shelters, individual burials were common, which in some cases generated ne cropolises (Bicho et al. 2017; Gibaja et al. 2017; Gonçalves et al. 2014). During the Early Neolithic this custom remained, in conjunction with burials in negative structures in the settlements (Rojo-Guerra et al. 2016). In the fourth millennium we witnessed a major renovation of the funerary systems, through the construction of megalithic structures, to which collective burials inside the caves and rock shelters would be added very shortly afterwards. These were parallel phenomena, but with evident asymmetries in their cycles of use. Thus, accentuating the distances that ideologically and visually separate them: some structures for the memory in landscapes and societies, others for concealment, whose visibility and access are not always evident. Both structures are also instruments of cohesion for groups who, through them, reaffirm their belonging to certain spaces and socio-economic commitments. The wide extension of This chronology would put in to one side those hypotheses that emphasise the abrupt ‘climatic event of 4.2 ky BP’ as the driving force behind the transformations observed in the archaeological record. This event has been linked to the collapse of well-orga- nized societies in Mesopotamia or Egypt, as a consequence of climatic aridity processes (Gibbons 1993; Weiss et al. 1993; Fagan 2007). The influence of this episode is discussed globally, on a Mediterranean scale – emphasizing the local heterogeneity of its effects (Bini et al. 2019; Di Rita, Magri 2019) – and also at Iberia. Lillios et al. (2016) analyse the case in three peninsular areas, observing signs of aridity as well as local anthropic impacts of different signs in the southeast and southwest of the peninsula. However, this would not be evident in the northern half of Portugal, the Cantabrian and the upper Ebro River valley (see Blanco-González et al. 2018; Julià et al. 2001; Roland et al. 2014). We do not have detailed studies for the territory under analysis, but, in any case, varied natural responses are to be expected here too, given that the region includes coastal, inland – between 500 and 1000 metres above sea level – and high-altitude areas. In the upper Ebro River valley in terruptions in tufa edifices have been demonstrated (González-Amuchastegui 2000; González-Amu- chastegui, Serrano 2015), in the Iberian system relatively intense erosional series (Peña-Monné et al. 2011; Peña-Monné 2018), and in the Chalcolithic site of Torrentejo (Araba) a gypsisol resulting from aridity conditions possibly related to the 4.2 ky BP event (Narbarte-Hernández et al. 2019). In any case, the radio-chronological values related to habitats suggest continuity without interruptions, and there are no data to estimate changes in social response or settlement strategies to these events. Whether this should be reflected in the funerary phases is a highly suggestive hypothesis yet to be explored, for which more evidence will have to be gathered. Between the demographic dynamics and the funerary perspective of our work, we do observe coincidences during the episode of contraction or ‘crisis’ c. 3500 cal BC: this circumstance was documented by Verónica Balsera et al. (2015) and Blanco-González et al. (2018), and confirmed by our own data. Balsera and colleagues warn about its significance, and we add that, once the taphonomic bias (light purple line of Figure 8) is corrected, the contraction is more relative than the one implied by the raw data that, not in our case, include habitation and funerary deposits. In any case, the coincidence of this episode with the hiatus 196 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García actions against megaliths – memory and legitimacy deposits over the territory – followed one another, something also observed in other European areas (Masset 2010; Jagu, Masset 2010). It is highly significant that the episodes of violence and the abnormal use of the enclosures (mass graves/war layers) in the region correlate with the climax of this phase, even though they are not exclusive to it. The investment of social work in monumental tombs has been linked to a strong hierarchization in European Late Prehistory, and vice versa (Ruby 1999). As matter of fact, the organization of the human groups that managed to overcome this crisis does not seem to be the same from now on. Collective burial in artificial or natural structures seems to ‘democratize’ the world of the dead, but perhaps not in exact correspondence with the world of the living. In the region under analysis, dietary differences have been documented between individuals resting in dolmens and those resting in rock shelters and caves (Fernández-Crespo, Schulting 2017). If we may be self-criti- cal, we believe that this idea should find more cases and a better foundation. We must dispel the doubt as to whether the differences in diet respond more to particular ways of life – family units that exploited the mountains with their cattle versus those who cultivated fields in the plains, neither of which are exclusive practices – than to social causes. More doubtful is the interpretation of the subsequent hiatus. The structures considered in this article seem to show no funerary activity or architectural reformulations. Have the groups lost interest in them, or, having overcome the crisis, have they ceased to be a vehicle for conflict and become the object of conservation and periodic rituals that leave no evidence in the archaeological record? The answer may lie in how we interpret the third phase of reuse of the tombs. Thus, after a few generations, they are revitalized: the more abundant grave goods, which involve the circulation of exotic materials, are linked to important figures; the result of a social reformulation, and new ceremonies that would include libations and banquets. We can formulate this another way: perhaps social inequalities are being normalized, which does not exclude cohesive activities through the funerary image. At this point, it is easy to fall into the temptation of bringing into the scene allochthonous populations that have been integrating into the local communities for some time. However, the documented cases are not only heterogeneous, as several of them also the megalithic phenomenon is a symptom of a community of interests that, among other things, is also manifested in the dense networks of exchange. A new ‘imagined order’ (Harari 2014) embedded in the material world shared by hundreds of groups in the recent Prehistory of Western Europe. Based on chronology, architecture and grave goods, we argue that during the long period of collective burials, nearly two and a half millennia, the meanings, orientations and cycles of use of funerary monuments mutated: the apparent stability that one believes seen in front of the powerful megalithic architectures changes into a polymorphous reality when observing their details. However, we believe that it is an inaccuracy to identify each of the observed phases of the funeral behaviour (peaks and valleys) as a rupture, in cultural terms, with the preceding tradition. It is true that around 3800 cal BC we witness a profound change in funerary practices with the recourse to the construction of structures. However, does this innovation constitute a break with the preceding tradition? If we look at the material links with the immediate past – spatula-idols and occasionally secondary burials – it seems that this is not the case, at least, as we have seen, during the first phases. The emergence of collective burials is followed by a hiatus of three centuries, in synchrony with a possible demographic retraction – if we interpret the proxies correctly, which new studies will have to evaluate in detail. Does the emergence of collective burials constitute, therefore, the epilogue of a crisis? Are we facing the last effort of some societies to guarantee their permanence? (Criado Boado 1989) Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? (Karr 1849). Whether or not it was a demographic crisis, the evidence shows there was a reduction in social work, at least with regard to funerary investment (Lull, Picazo 1989). Thus, the very active second phase of these sepulchres would be a reflection of communities that were once again in surplus and which, through the construction of some new architectures, would give continuity to the preceding tradition, while also burying collectively in the caves. Although we are faced with what appears to be the same practice, the role played by megaliths during a large part of the second phase changes: they are a vehicle for conflict. During what some authors have described as a ‘conflictive demographic increase’, the groups of the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic seemed to adopt more violent behaviours (Guilaine, Zammit 2002), and punitive 197 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Conti nuiti es and disconti nuiti es in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia particularly in those where complex social processes are well documented – such as southern Iberia (Soares, Gomes 2021). From the perspective of the longue durée, it is in the meaning that communities give to the graves where we believe we can find the ruptures. That is, the ruptures have more to do with the significance of megalithism than with the signifier. As Ian Hodder stated (1990): “New usage within an existing context may have implications that lead to more radical change”. In this respect, we find more relevant the changes observed in the patterns of access to the pantheons (more or less restrictive), the beginning and the end of funerary collectivism, some documented intentional destructions or the emergence of the Bell Beaker as ‘iconography of power’. It is true that we are still far from establishing at what moments ruptures occurred in the communities of recent prehistory in the north of Iberia, although we suspect that the answers lie more in the interior of the phases than in the transition between them. Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.50.3. allow for different readings, and thus the danger of excessive generalizations. In this regard, a relevant example is that of the tumulus of El Virgazal (Delibes et al. 2019): it tells the story of an individual with recent allochthonous ancestors, although perhaps he himself was not. He was buried with high-value jewellery and accompanied by, among others buried there, an individual transferred from a previous grave. In this case, are we dealing with an ‘ancestral rite’ in which a new hierarchy legitimizes its position of pre-eminence over the indigenous population? If so, it is clear that during the preceding hiatus the groups must have preserved and passed on their interest in these memory deposits. In other words, there was no “abandonment or rupture of the social and cultural relationship” (Andrés 2005), although there was in its archaeological expression. This situation could well have been reproduced during the interlude that separates the phases corresponding to the different metal ages. In a fourth phase, during the Early Bronze Age, collective burials were reactivated: perhaps this was related to the spread of metallurgy and its relationship with individuals of prestige, as well as the new opportunities that arose and the consequent socio-cultural changes that they brought about (Costa-Caramé, García-Sanjuán 2009). It is also true that, at this point, there is a striking increase in the number of habitation sites reported by their dating, and the process of population replacement occurring at the end of the period may not be completely unrelated to the explanation for this renewed interest. It is evident that behind the interruptions of funerary depositions and later reuse of the graves there must have been major social intentions, although they are not easy to identify. The very fact that the trend is reproduced over such a wide area, regardless of the type of tombs, suggest that we are dealing with a first-order social, economic and/or political dynamic. With the aim of outlining areas for future research, it would be interesting to explore to what extent between the first the second phases, and even more in the third, individual rather than collective burials were becoming the norm. If that were the case, given the relationship of the Bell Beaker and the emergence of metallurgy with the rise of personal leadership, we would be witnessing a phenomenon of appropriation of the previous memories by individuals looking for legitimacy. In this regard, we believe that it would be of interest to replicate our approach in other regions, Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Project “Gaps and dates. Dinámicas culturales en la prehistoria de la Cuenca del Ebro” (Mineco, PID2020-116598GB-I00). The second au thor wishes to express his thanks to the University of the Basque Country for the funding received through its Research Staff Training Program (2020). We also thank the reviewers, whose comments undoubtedly improved this manuscript. 198 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García Andrés M. T., Sesma J., and García M. L. 2002. Una tumba destruida por el fuego: el sepulcro campaniforme de Tres Montes, en las Bárdenas Reales, Navarra. In M. Kunst, M. Á. Rojo-Guerra (eds.), Sobre el significado del fuego en los rituales funerarios del Neolítico. Universidad de Valladolid. Valladolid: 191–218. Apellániz J. M., Fernández Medrano D. 1978. El sepulcro de galería segmentada de la Chabola de la Hechicera (Elvillar, Álava). Excavación y restauración. Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 9: 141–221. Apellániz J. M., Llanos A., and Fariña J. 1967. Cuevas sepulcrales de Arralday, Lechón, Calaveras y Gobaederra (Álava). Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 2: 21–48. Arias P. 2012. Después de Los Azules. Las prácticas funerarias en las sociedades mesolíticas de la región cantábrica. In J. R. Muñiz (ed.), Ad Orientem: del final del Paleolítico en el Norte de España a las primeras civilizaciones del Oriente Próximo: estudios en homenaje a Juan Antonio Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco. Universidad de Oviedo. Servicio de Publicaciones. Oviedo: 253–274. Armendáriz J., Irigaray S. 1994. Resumen de las excavaciones arqueológicas en el hipogeo de Longar. Trabajos de Arqueología de Navarra 11: 270–275. Ayarzagüena, M., Valiente, S., and López Cidad J. F. 2017. La explotación de la sal en la prehistoria en la Península Ibérica. De Re Metallica 28: 25–34. Balsera V., Díaz-del-Río P., Gilman A., Uriarte A., and Vicent J. M. 2015. Approaching the demography of late prehistoric Iberia through summed calibrated date probability distributions (7000–2000 cal BC). Quaternary International 386: 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.022 Barandiarán I., Cava A. 2001. Cazadores-recolectores en el Pirineo Navarro: el sitio de Aizpea entre 8.000 y 6.000 años antes de ahora. Universidad del País Vasco. Vitoria-Gasteiz. Barandiarán J. M. de. 1964. Exploración de Aizkomendi. Desmonte de la parte meridional del túmulo. Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 1: 27–40. Barandiarán J. M. de, Fernández Medrano D. 1958. Excavaciones en Álava. Boletín de la Institución Sancho el Sabio 2: 91–187. 1964. Excavación del dolmen de San Martín (Laguardia). Boletín de la Institución Sancho el Sabio 8: 41–66. Abad S. C. 1996. Un ejemplo de readaptaciones constructivas en un enterramiento tumular: Cotogrande n.o 5. Minius IV: 13–30. Alday A. 1987. Los elementos de adorno personal y artes menores en los monumentos megalíticos del País Vasco meridional. Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 15: 103–353. 1992. La primera industria del oro en el País Vasco y La Rioja. Munibe 44: 43–55. 1998. Kanpanoste Goikoa. El depósito prehistórico de Kanpanoste Goikoa (Vírgala, Alava): memoria de las actuaciones arqueológicas 1992–1993. Diputación Foral de Álava. Vitoria. 2001. Vías de intercambio y promnoción del campaniforme marítimo y mixto sobre el interior peninsular. Cuadernos de Arqueología de la Universidad de Navarra 9: 111–174. Alday A., Gundín E., López de Heredia J., Soto A., and Tarriño A. 2008. El túmulo funerario Neolítico de San Quílez. San Martín Zar-Treviño: un dispositivo y unos ritos originales en el cuarto milenio a.C. Munibe 59: 133–156. Alday A., Soto A. 2018. Poblamiento prehistórico de la península ibérica: dinámica demográfica versus frecuencias del C14. Munibe 69: 75–91. https://doi.org/10.21630/maa.2018.69.04 Álvarez E. 2003. Leyendas, mitos y creencias populares: otras vías de aproximación al fenómeno megalítico. Cuadernos de Arqueolgía de la Universidad de Navarra 11: 91–108. Andrés M. T. 1981. El utillaje de hueso en los sepulcros de epoca dolménica del Ebro Medio. Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 10: 145–176. 1998. Colectivismo Funerario Neo-Eneolítico: Aproximación metodológica sobre datos de la cuenca alta y media del Ebro. Institución Fernando el Católico. Zaragoza. 2000. El espacio funerario dolménico: abandono y clausura. Salduie I: 59–76. 2005. Concepto y análisis del cambio cultural: su percepción en la materia funeraria del Neolítico y Eneolítico. Universidad de Zaragoza. Zaragoza. Andrés M. T., Barandiarán I. 2004. La tumba calcolítica de La Atalayuela, treinta y cinco años después. Salduie 4: 85–124. References 199 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865 2017. Methods for Summarizing Radiocarbon Datasets. Radiocarbon 59(6): 1809–1833. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2017.108 Carmona E., Arnaiz M. A., and Alameda M. 2014. El dolmen de Arroyal I: usos y modificaciones durante el III milenio cal AC. In J. Honrado, M. A. Brezmes, A. Tejeiro, and O. Rodríguez (eds.), Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Valle del Duero: del Neolítico a la Antigüedad tardía: actas de las Segundas Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores del Valle del Duero: León, 25 a 27 de octubre de 2012. Arbotante Patrimonio e Innovación: 41–54. Carvalho A. F., Cardoso J. L. 2015. Insights on the changing dynamics of cemetery use in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of southern Portugal. Radiocarbon dating of lugar do Can- to Cave (Santarém). SPAL -Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología (24): 35–53. https://doi.org/10.12795/spal.2015i24.02 Castany i Llussà J. 2009. Els megàlits neolítics de Solsonià. Departament de Història. Universitat de Lleida. Cava A. 1984. La industria lítica en los dólmenes del País Vas co meridional. Veleia 1(1): 51–156. Costa-Caramé M., García-Sanjuán L. 2009. El papel ideológico de las producciones metálicas en la Edad del Bronce: el caso del suroeste de la península Ibérica (c. 2200–1500 cal ANE). Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada (19): 195–224. https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/74064 Criado Boado F. 1989. Megalitos, espacio, pensamiento. Tra bajos de Prehistoria. 46: 75–98. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.1989.v46.i0.588 Daví i Salvanyà D. 2019. L’hipogeu de la Costa de Can Martorell i la guerra a la prehistòria a través de l’etnologia. Laietania: Estudis d‘historia i d‘arqueología de Mataró i del Maresme 20: 83–93. Delibes G., Guerra Doce E., Zapatero Magdaleno P., and Villalobos García R. 2012. Les spatules-idoles de type San Martín-El Miradero: identité, symbolisme, liturgie et prestige dans les mobiliers des tombes mégalithiques de la Vieille Castille (Espagne). In M. Sohn, J. Vaquer (eds.), Sépultures collectives et mobiliers funéraires de la fin du Néolitique en Europe occidentale. Archives d’écologie préhistorique. Toulouse: 305–331. Delibes G., Guerra E., Velasco F. J., Olalde I., Fitzpatrick A. P., Salazar-García D.C., Campillo J., Moreno M., Basconcil- Barandiarán J. M. de, Fernández Medrano D., and Apellániz J. M. 1971. Excavación del dolmen de El Sotillo (Rioja Alavesa). Boletín de la Institución Sancho el Sabio 8: 135– 146. Barrett J. C. 1988. The living, the dead and the ancestors: Neolithic and Bronze Age mortuary practices. In The Archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends. University of Sheffield. Sheffield: 30–41. Bayliss A., Whittle A. 2007. Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Beguiristain M. A., Etxeberria F. 1994. Lesión craneal seguida de supervivencia en un individuo del dolmen de Aizibita (Cirauqui, Navarra). Cuadernos de Arqueología de la Universidad de Navarra 2: 49–69. Bellido A. 2015. Rituales y símbolos en el sepulcro colectivo de El Miradero (Villanueva de los Caballeros, Valladolid). Espacio, tiempo y forma 8: 59–85. https://doi.org/10.5944/etfi.8.2015.13963 Bernoulli J. 1713. Ars conjectandi, opus posthumum. Accedit Tractatus de seriebus infinitis, et epistola gallicé scripta de ludo pilae reticularis. Thurneysen Brothers. Basel. Bicho N., Cascalheira J., Gonçalves C., Umbelino C., Rivero D. G., and André L. 2017. Resilience, replacement and acculturation in the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition: The case of Muge, central Portugal. Quaternary International 446 (2): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.049 Bini M., Zanchetta G., Perºoiu A., +18 authors, and Brisset E. 2019. The 4.2 ka BP Event in the Mediterranean region: an overview. Climatic of the past 15: 555–577. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-555-2019 Blanco-González A., Lillios K. T. , López-Sáez J. A., and Drake B. L. 2018. Cultural, Demographic and Environmental Dynamics of the Copper and Early Bronze Age in Iberia (3300–1500 BC): Towards an Interregional Multiproxy Comparison at the Time of the 4.2 ky BP Event. Journal of World Prehistory 31(1): 1–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-018-9113-3 Boaventura R. 2011. Chronology of Megalithism in South- Central Portugal. Menga Extra 1: 159–162. Borrell F., Bosch J. 2012. Las minas de variscita de Gavà (Barcelona) y las redes de intercambio en el Neolítico. Rubricatum 5: 315–322. Bowman S. 1990. Radiocarbon dating. Trustees of the British Museum. London. 200 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García Fernández-Crespo T., Ordoño J., Barandiarán I., Andrés M. T., and Schulting R. J. 2018. The Bell Beaker multiple burial pit of La Atalayuela (La Rioja, Spain): stable isotope insights into diet, identity and mortuary practices in Chalcolithic Iberia. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (11)8: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0610-1 Fernández-Crespo T., Schulting R. J.. 2017. Living different lives: Early social differentiation identified through linking mortuary and isotopic variability in Late Neolithic/ Early Chalcolithic north-central Spain. PLOS ONE 12(9): e0177881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177881 Fernández-Crespo T., Schulting R. J., Ordoño J., Duering A., Etxeberria F., Herrasti L., Armendariz Á., Vegas J. I., and Bronk Ramsey C. 2018. New radiocarbon dating and demographic insights into San Juan ante Portam Latinam, a possible Late Neolithic war grave in North-Central Iberia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 166(3): 760– 771. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23465 Fernández-Eraso J. 2008. La secuencia del Neolítico en la Rioja alavesa desde su origen hasta las primeras edades del metal. Veleia 24–25: 669–687. Fernández-Eraso J., Pérez Díaz S., Ruiz Alonso M., +7 authors, and Polo Díaz A. 2017. Rediles y pastores en la Prehistoria reciente de Rioja alavesa. In J. Fernández-Eraso, J. A. Mujika-Alustiza, Á. Arrizabalaga Valbuena, and M. García-Díez (eds.), Miscelánea en homenaje a Lydia Zapata Peña: (1965–2015). Universidad del País Vasco-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Bilbao: 393–426. Fernández-Eraso J., Mujika-Alustiza J. A. 2021. Chronologie et contextes des spatules-idoles dans les Pyrénées occidentales. In M. Besse, F. Giligny (eds.), Neolithic and Bronze Age Studies in Europe. From material culture to territories. Archaeopress. Oxford: 49–60. Francés-Negro M., Iriarte E., Galindo-Pellicena M. A., Gerbault P., Carrancho A., Pérez-Romero A., Arsuaga J. L., Carretero J. M., and Roffet-Salque M. 2021. Neolithic to Bronze Age economy and animal management revealed using analyses lipid residues of pottery vessels and faunal remains at El Portalón de Cueva Mayor (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 131: 105380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105380 Galilea F. 2011. El megalitismo en Álava. Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa 25: 1–108. García-Martínez de Lagrán I., Garrido-Pena R., and Rojo- Guerra M. Á. 2005. El campaniforme en la Península Ibé rica y su contexto europeo. Universidad de Valladolid. Valladolid. García-Sanjuán L., Wheatley D. W., and Eleazar M. 2011. The numerical chronology of the megalithic phenomenon los, J., and Villalobos R. 2019. ¿Un Ulises campaniforme en el túmulo de Tablada del Rudrón (Burgos)? ADN estépico y pendientes de oro de tipo británico en el enterramien- to del fundador. In ¡Un brindis por el príncipe! El vaso Campaniforme en el interior de la Península Ibérica (2500–2000 a. C). Museo Arqueológico Regional. Alcalá de Henares: 339–360. Delibes G., De Paz F. J. 2000. Idolo-espátula sobre radio humano en el ajuar de un sepulcro megalítico de la Meseta. SPAL – Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología 9: 341–350. Di Rita F., Magri D. 2019. The 4.2 ka event in the vegetation record of the central Mediterranean. Climate of the Past 15(1): 237–251. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-237-2019 Esparza A., Velasco F. J., Delibes G., and Cruz Sánchez P. J. 2008. Historia de un golpe en la cabeza: sobre el enterramiento calcolítico del Hoyo 197 de ‘El Soto de Tovilla’ (Tudela de Duero, Valladolid). Boletín del Seminario de Arte y Arqueología LXXIV: 9–48. Estremera M. S. 2003. Primeros agricultores y ganaderos en la meseta norte: el Neolítico de la Cueva de la Vaquera (Torreiglesias, Segovia). Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Valladolid. Etxeberria F., Herrasti L. 2007. Los restos humanos del enterramiento de SJAPL: caracterización de la muestra, tafonomía, paleodemografía y paleopatología. In J. I. Vegas (ed.), San Juan ante Portam Latinam: una inhumación colectiva prehistórica en el valle medio del Ebro. Diputación Foral de Álava. Vitoria:159–282. Etxeberria F., Herrasti L., and Bandrés A. 2005. Muertes violentas determinadas a través de los estudios de paleopatología. Munibe 57(3): 345–357. Fagan B. 2007. El largo verano. De la Era Glacial a nuestros días. Gedisa. Barcelona. Fernández-Crespo T. 2017. New Evidence of Early Chalcolithic Interpersonal Violence in the Middle Ebro Valley (Spain): Two Arrowhead Injuries from the Swallet of Las Yurdinas II. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 27(1): 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2445 Fernández-Crespo T., Czermak A., Lee-Thorp J. A., and Schulting R. J. 2018. Infant and childhood diet at the passage tomb of Alto de la Huesera (north-central Iberia) from bone collagen and sequential dentine isotope composition. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 28(5): 542– 551. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2659 Fernández-Crespo T., De-la-Rúa C. 2015. Demographic evidence of selective burial in megalithic graves of northern Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science. 53: 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.015 201 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Continuities and discontinuities in the funerary record of the northern half of Iberia Karr J-B. A. 1849. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Les Guêpes. Numéro de janvier. Kinnes I. 1975. Monumental function in British Neolithic burial practices. World Archaeology 7(1): 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1975.9979618 Laborda A. 2016. Análisis funcional de las puntas de flecha de los contextos sepulcrales de los monumentos megalíticos de Aizibita, Charracadía y Morea (valle del Salado, Navarra). Trabajos de Arqueología de Navarra 28: 115–156. Lillios K. T., Blanco-González A., Drake B. L., and López- Sáez J. A. 2016. Mid-late Holocene climate, demography, and cultural dynamics in Iberia: A multi-proxy approach. Quaternary Science Reviews 135: 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.01.011 Linares J. A., García-Sanjuán L. 2010. Contribuciones a la cronología absoluta del megalitismo andaluz: nuevas fechas radiocarbónicas de sitios megalíticos del Andévalo oriental (Huelva). Menga 1: 131–157. López J. B., Moya A., Escala O., and Nieto A. 2009. La cista tumulària amb esteles esculpides dels Reguers de Seró (Artesa de Segre, Lleida): una aportació insòlita dins de l’art megalític peninsular i europeu. Tribuna d‘Arqueologia 2008–2009: 87–125. López de Calle C., Ilarraza J. A. 1997. Condenaciones y remodelaciones. Una respuesta a las estratigrafías de los sepulcros de Cameros. In R. de Balbín and P. Bueno (eds.), IIo Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular, Tomo II, Neolítico, Calcolítico y Bronce. Fundación Rei Afonso Henriques. Zamora: 309–321. López de Calle C., Iriarte M. J., and Zapata L. 2001. Análisis paleoambientales en el Dolmen de Collado del Mallo (Trevijano, La Rioja). Viabilidad y trabas de la paleoecología vegetal en estructuras dolménicas. Zubía Monográfico 13: 65–96. Lozano Á., Aranda G. 2017. La temporalidad de las se pulturas megalíticas tipo tholos del sur de la península ibérica. SPAL – Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología (26): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.12795/spal.2017i26.01 Lull V., Picazo M. 1989. Arqueología de la muerte y estructura social. Archivo español de arqueología 62: 5–20. Marçais A.-S., Chambon P., and Salanova L. 2016. Modéliser le rythme des inhumations dans une allée sépulcrale Seine-Oise de la seconde moitié du IV e millénaire av. J.-C.: le cas de Bazoches-sur-Vesle «le Bois de Muisemont» (Aisne). Bulletins et Mémoires de La Société d’Anthropologie de in southern Spain: progress and problems. Menga Extra 1: 121–158. Gavilán B., Vera J. C. 2005. Neolítico y Megalitismo Prefunerario en Andalucía. In R. Ontañón, C. García-Moncó, and P. Arias (eds.), III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica. Universidad de Cantabria. Santander: 535–542. Gibaja J. F., Terradas X., Morell B., Allièse F., and Subirà M. E. 2017. El yacimiento prehistórico de El Collado (Oliva, Valencia): una necrópolis de los últimos cazadores de la Península Ibérica. Cabdells 15: 5–24. Gibbons A. 1993. How the Akkadian Empire Was Hung Out to Dry. Science 261(5124): 985–985. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.261.5124.985 Gonçalves C., Cascalheira J., and Bicho N. 2014. Shellmiddens as landmarks: Visibility studies on the Mesolithic of the Muge valley (Central Portugal). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 36: 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.09.011 González-Amuchastegui M. J. 2000. Evolución morfoclimática del País Vasco durante el Cuaternario: estado de la cuestión. Cuaternario y Geomorfolgía 13(3–4): 79–99. González-Amuchastegui M. J., Serrano E. 2015. Tufa buildups, landscape evolution and human impact during the Holocene in the Upper Ebro Basin. Quaternary International 364: 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.06.032 Guilaine J., Zammit J. 2002. El camino de la guerra. Violencia en la prehistoria. Ariel. Barcelona. Harari Y. N. 2014. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Harper. New York. Hodder I. 1990. Textos de cultura material y cambio social: Una discusión teórica y algunos ejemplos arqueológicos. Boletín de Arqueología Americana 21: 25–40. Iriarte M. J., Arrizabalaga Á., Etxeberria F., Herrasti L., and Álvarez E. 2010. Shell midden people in northern Iberia: new data from the mesolithic rock shelter of J3 (Basque Country, Spain). Zephyrus 65: 117–127. Jagu D., Masset C. 2022. Megalithic biographies. From partial closures to total closures and from single sealing to double sealing. BMSAP – Bulletins et Mémoires de La Société d’anthropologie de Paris 34(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/bmsap.9743 Julià R., Riera S., and Burjachs F. 2001. Holocene short events in the Iberia Peninsula based on pollen records. Terra Nostra 2: 42–49. 202 Alfonso Alday-Ruiz, Ander Rodríguez-Lejarza, and Juan Carlos Mejías-García nary Research 85(1): 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2015.11.010 Olalde I., Mallick S., Patterson N., +107 authors, and Reich D. 2019. The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years. Science 363(6432): 1230–1234. doi: 10.1126/science.aav4040 Parcero-Oubiña, C., Criado-Boado F. 2013. Social change, Social resistance. A long-term approach to the processes of transformation of social landscapes in the NW Iberian Peninsula. In M. C. Berrocal, L. García-Sanjuán, and A. Gilman (eds.), The Prehistory of Iberia: Debating Early Social Stratification and the State. Routledge Studies in Archaeology. Routledge. New York, London: 249–266. Peña-Monné J. L. 2018. Geoarqueología aplicada a la reconstrucción paleoambiental: La evolución del holoceno superior en el NE de España. Boletín Geológico y Minero 129(1–2): 285–303. https://doi.org/10.21701/bolgeomin.129.1.011 Peña-Monné J. L., Sopena M. C., Rubio V., Constante A., and González J. R. 2011. Registros geoarqueológicos residuales y reconstrucción de yacimientos en medios semiáridos del NE de España. In V. Turu and A. Constante (eds.), El Cuaternario en España y áreas afines. Avances en 2011. XIII Reunión Nacional del Cuaternario: 257–260. Pérez-Romero A. 2021. La trayectoria cultural durante el Holoceno en el yacimiento de el Portalón de Cueva Mayor, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos. Universidad de Burgos. Burgos. Pérez-Romero A., Iriarte E., Galindo-Pellicena M. Á., +8 authors, and Carretero J.-M. 2017. An unusual Pre-bell beaker copper age cave burial context from El Portalón de Cueva Mayor site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos). Quaternary International. 433: 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.063 Pericot L. 1950. Los sepulcros megalíticos catalanes y la cultura pirenaica. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Prehistoira y Arqueología 4, No. General 31. Instituto de Estudios Pirenaicos. Barcelona. Plata Montero A. 2020. El Valle Salado de Añana (Araba/ Álava). Un ejemplo de buenas prácticas en la recuperación de los paisajes culturales y naturales de la sal. Cuadernos de Investigación Urbanística 128: 14–22. https://doi.org/10.20868/ciur.2020.128.4389 Reimer P. J., Austin W. E. N., Bard E., +38 authors, and Talamo S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62(4): 725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 Paris 28(3–4): 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13219-016-0163-8 Martín P., Rosell J., and Vergès J. M. 2010. La gestión de los recursos faunísticos durante el Neolítico en la Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos): los niveles 19 y 20 de la Cueva del Mirador. Trabajos de Prehistoria 66 (2): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2009.09024 Masset C. 2010. Construction et destruction des monuments mégalithiques. Techniques & Culture 54–55: 453– 469. https://doi.org/10.4000/tc.5014 McLaughlin T. R. 2019. On Applications of Space-Time Modelling with Open-Source 14C Age Calibration. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26 (2): 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9381-3 Molist M. 1996. Tell Halula (Siria): un yacimiento neolítico del Valle medio del Éufrates. Campañas de 1991–1992. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Madrid. Molist M., Clop X. 2010. Los orígenes del megalitismo en Cataluña en el marco de las prácticas funerarias del Neolítico. Munibe 32: 212–224. Mujika-Alustiza J. A. 1998. Idolos-espátulas del País Vasco: fabricación cronología y paralelos. Veleia 15: 121–144. Mujika-Alustiza J. A., Edeso J. M.. 2011. Lehenengo neklazari-abeltzainak Gipuzkoan Neolitotik burdin arora = Los primeros agricultores y ganaderos en Gipuzkoa del Neolítico a la Edad del Hierro. Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa. Donostia-San Sebastián. Narbarte-Hernández J., Iriarte E., Rad C., Carrancho-Alon- so Á., González-Sampériz P., Peña-Chocarro L., and Quirós- Castillo J. A. 2019. On the origin of rural landscapes: Lo oking for physico-chemical fingerprints of historical agricultural practice in the Atlantic Basque Country (N Spain). Science of The Total Environment 681: 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.082 Narvarte N. 2005. Gestión funeraria dolménica en la cuenca alta y media del Ebro: fases de ocupación y clausuras. Instituto de Estudios Riojanos. Logroño. 2007. Revisión del dolmen de La Mina (Molinilla, Álava), aspectos arquitectónicos y nuevos datos materiales. Caesaraugusta. 78: 145–158. Odriozola C. P., Villalobos García R., Burbidge C. I., Boaventura R., Sousa A. C., Rodriguez-Ariza O., Parrilla-Giraldez R., Prudênçio M. I., and Dias M. I. 2016. Distribution and chronological framework for Iberian variscite mining and consumption at Pico Centeno, Encinasola, Spain. Quater-