TOMBS FOR THE DEAD, MONUMENTS TO ETERNITY: THE DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF MEGALITHIC GRAVES BY FIRE IN THE INTERIOR HIGHLANDS OF IBERIA (SORIA PROVINCE, SPAIN)

ojoa_348 253..276

MANUEL A. ROJO-GUERRA, RAFAEL GARRIDO-PENA ANDIÑIGO GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ DE LAGRÁN

TOMBS FOR THE DEAD, MONUMENTS TO ETERNITY: THEDELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF MEGALITHIC GRAVES BYFIRE IN THE INTERIOR HIGHLANDS OF IBERIA (SORIAPROVINCE, SPAIN)

Summary. An interpretation of the features surrounding the complex anddeliberate closure ritual in several collective Middle Neolithic tombs of theAmbrona Valley (Soria) is offered, where fire and quicklime played a major rolein the rituals. The problems involved in the excavation and the understandingof this complex burial evidence are examined. The roles they might have playedin the context of the important social and economic transformations of the localNeolithic groups around the end of the fourth millennium cal BC are alsoanalysed. It is argued that the burial rituals tried to reinforce group solidarityat a time when the community was beginning to fragment, as the economicsystems began to yield a surplus production whose management would havealtered political structures.

definition and chronological framework

With the excavation of the burial monuments of La Peña de La Abuela, and the La SimaBarrows in the Ambrona Valley (Fig. 1), between 1994 and 2002, it has been possible to definea new and complex burial type that we have called the ‘lime-kiln tomb’ (Rojo and Kunst 1999a;1999b; 1999c; Rojo et al. 2002; 2003; 2005c). The monuments were built, used and closed inaccordance with a predetermined plan exhibiting fore-knowledge of the location, features,design and raw materials essential to the final and deliberate closing/destruction of the sites.

The location of these monuments was also carefully chosen to provide extensive viewsover the valley, especially access routes. In the two examples mentioned, the tombs were erectedon a small natural promontory, in prominent locations in the surrounding landscape.

Archaeologically, the tombs are easily recognizable by a distinctive thick quicklimecrust, resulting from the deliberate destruction of a pre-existent tomb (Fig. 2), covering a darklayer (ashes and charred vegetal remains) directly deposited over the burial level, which containsmany burnt human bones and associated grave offerings.

It is our hypothesis that the tomb would originally have been a circular limestone tholos,used diachronically as a collective grave probably over several generations, and that at a certain

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 29(3) 253–275 2010© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA. 253

time and for unknown causes it was closed by burning down and melting the whole chamber,thus sealing the burial level with a quicklime mantle.

In the Peña de La Abuela example, the next step in this act of closure was to transformthe tomb further, by covering the quicklime crust with a stone mound, thus creating a distinctivelandmark. In the La Sima Barrow this sequence could not be documented because another gravewas built over the first ‘lime-kiln’ tomb (Fig. 2).

Figure 1The Ambrona Valley (Soria, Spain) and the sites mentioned in the text.

TOMBS FOR THE DEAD, MONUMENTS TO ETERNITY

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.254

The ‘lime-kiln’ type tomb is not an exclusive phenomenon of the Ambrona Valley. Otherexamples are being documented in the interior of Iberia, such as El Miradero, Villanueva de losCaballeros (Valladolid) (Delibes et al. 1987; Delibes and Etxeberría 2002), el Portillo de losLadrones (Cameros, La Rioja) (López de Calle 2002) and another Ambrona Valley monument,La Tarayuela. This example has strong similarities with the others, but it is not a classic‘lime-kiln’ tomb (Rojo et al. 2005c, chapter 4; García and Morán 2005; Rojo et al. 2006). Also,outside Iberia, there are a number of interesting references to similar examples, as in severalFrench Neolithic collective tombs where evidence for combustion and quicklime has beendocumented although on a smaller scale. Examples include La Hoguette, Fontenay-Le-Marnion

Figure 2Lime crusts of the ‘lime-kiln’ tombs in the Ambrona Valley: 1) La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona), 2) La Sima

Barrow (Miño de Medinaceli).

MANUEL A. ROJO-GUERRA, RAFAEL GARRIDO-PENAAND IÑIGO GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ DE LAGRÁN

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 255

(Caillaud and Lagnel 1972; Chambon 2003, 218–19), La Chaussé-Tirancourt, Somme (Masset2002) or Lacroix-Saint-Ouen (Le Goff et al. 2002, 130).

A chronological framework for this burial type in the Ambrona Valley has been definedthrough 13 radiocarbon dates from wood samples, seven from the La Peña de La Abuela and sixfrom the La Sima Barrow. In the first instance, one of the samples was found in the burial leveland the rest came from several post-holes surrounding the tomb. All the radiocarbon estimatesbelong to the first third of the fourth millennium cal BC. Their statistical combination is4998�14 BP, 3800–3700 cal BC (2sigma, 91.1%). The La Sima Mound samples were collectedin the burial level, and their statistic combination gives a similar date of 5131�13 BP, 3960–3790cal BC (2sigma, 83.6%) (Rojo et al. 2005c).

These dates are similar to those obtained in the Valladolid tomb of El Miradero(Villanueva de los Caballeros), also dating to the beginning of the fourth millennium cal BC.Four wood samples from the timber structure of the monument average 3978–3816 cal BC,(2sigma, 95%) and another from the burial level calibrates to 3788–3649 cal BC (2sigma, 95%)(Delibes and Etxeberría 2002, 44–5).

the ambrona valley sites

La Peña de La Abuela, Ambrona

This site is located on the southern side of the La Mentirosa stream, on a small naturalelevation controlling the valley. It has been extensively studied and published (Rojo and Kunst1999a; 1999b; Rojo et al. 1996; 2002; 2005c). Originally, it would have been a round corbelledtomb constructed from limestone blocks, which was used as a collective grave until it wasdeliberately closed with a ritual involving a sustained and intense burning of sufficienttemperature to melt the structure into a quicklime crust that sealed the burials. This crust was inturn covered with a stone mound and finally crowned by a stela-menhir, according to thetestimonies of local people, but modern ploughing has severely damaged its external appearance.

This collective grave was used diachronically, and bodies introduced and dispersed overthe floor or inside stone cists as well as either on or under large stone slabs (Fig. 3). They wereall primary interments as is clearly demonstrated by the exceptional find of necrophagic faunalremains (beetles and larvae), showing that some of the corpses were still putrefying when thetomb was burnt (Fig. 4). Further evidence for this hypothesis is the identification of chips inmany of the bones, which indicates that they were burnt when they were still ‘fresh’.

The most spectacular finds in La Peña comprise not only the in situ position of parts ofthe bodies and their grave offerings which had been protected by the huge amount of ashes(others more directly exposed to the fire had obviously disappeared), but also the imprints ofvegetal shrouds made from fine willow branches covering some of the bodies which were locatedin the quicklime (Fig. 5). There was also a great variety of vegetal offerings (pine branches, oak,juniper, medick, marsh shear-grass and herbs) accompanying the dead (Fig. 6).

The other offerings are typical of the so-called ‘San Martin–El Miradero facies’ (Delibeset al. 1987, 187), with geometric flint microliths and blades, polished stone axes, thecharacteristic bone spatula-idols and the occasional presence of dentalium type bead necklaces(Fig. 7), as at the neighbouring site of La Tarayuela or in El Miradero, Valladolid (ibid., 184).Furthermore, there is a striking lack of pottery with the exception of rare finds like the smallritual vessels from El Miradero (Delibes et al. 1986; Delibes and Etxeberría 2002, 43). The few




potsherds found in the La Peña de La Abuela ossuary were not part of the grave furniture but,together with tiny flint flakes, formed part of the foundation floor of this tomb. Many of themcould also have come from the La Lámpara Early Neolithic site that was found beneath the tomband in the area surrounding the burial (Rojo and Kunst 1999c).

As often happens with human remains, the grave goods show an irregular distributioninside the grave with a clear concentration in the area of the cists and only a thin scattering in thecentral sector of the tomb, despite this area being full of human bones.

In the La Peña de La Abuela, a minimum number of nine different individuals (butprobably many more) of various ages (but predominantly adult), both male and female, weredeposited. However, their spatial distribution and relationship to the grave goods are not uniform.The clearest distinction is that of gender, because the distribution of bones (mainly skulls andhips) which could be sexed (just 11 individuals) shows that men were located in the area wheregrave offerings concentrate, in preference to women. Such a distinction is not, however,applicable to age, because offerings are associated both with adults and infants, although morefrequently with the former. There are also several infant/juvenile bones in the area where gravegoods and stone structures such as slabs and cists are found (Fig. 3).

During the Bell Beaker Copper Age, 1500 years after the ritual closing of the tomb, aseries of intrusive inhumations were deposited within the stone mound.

The La Sima Barrow, Miño de Medinaceli

The location is very similar to that of the previous site, on a natural elevation at the footof the Paramo highlands but also near a small lagoon. It is a rather complex burial monumentwith three different phases (Rojo et al. 2003, chapter III; 2005c): in the beginning, it was another‘lime-kiln tomb’, very similar to and contemporary with La Peña (Sima I phase). It has beenradiocarbon dated to around 3700–3600 cal BC. A new tomb was then built in the same place,

Figure 3La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona).



Figure 4Necrophagic faunal remains from the La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona): 1) beetles, 2) larvae.




over the quicklime crust, after the closure by burning of the original structure of Sima I. This wasan authentic stone tholos, this time made not only of limestone but also sandstone, which was notclosed by the fire ritual (Sima II). A stone corridor was added in which, 1300 years later(c.2400–2300 cal BC), Bell Beaker inhumations were added, accompanied by extremely richmetallic and ceramic grave goods (Sima III) (Fig. 14). In addition, a slight restructuring of theprevious stone mound surrounding the tomb took place during this phase.

It is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the main features of this ossuary and itsassociated grave goods owing to the restricted nature of the excavated extension of the La Simalime-kiln tomb and also because it was covered by the later stone tholos. Nevertheless, eventhough the ossuary comprised only two bone concentrations, both severely damaged by fire, itwas still possible to identify their close association with grave goods very similar to those fromLa Peña, namely geometric microliths, flint blades and flakes, polished stone axes, bone awls andspatula-idols (Fig. 8).

the reconstruction of the deliberately destroyed burial structures

The most important archaeological feature belonging to this type of tomb is the presenceof a large quicklime mantle sealing the burial layers. In the La Peña de La Abuela it was

Figure 5Imprint in the quicklime of the La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona) of a vegetal shroud made from fine willow

branches covering some of the bodies.



Figure 6Charred remains in the quicklime of vegetal offerings accompanying the dead in the La Peña de La Abuela

Barrow (Ambrona).




Figure 7Selected grave goods from the La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona).



approximately circular resulting from the form of the original structure, and measured c.8 m indiameter (20 m2). In the La Sima Barrow the extent of the quicklime mantle is unknown since itwas lying just beneath the later phase of the tomb (Fig. 2.2), which had been preserved on thegrounds of its archaeological importance. Both quicklime crusts are 40–50 cm thick in thecentral area and about 10–20 cm on the periphery.

We should be careful, however, in estimating the form and dimensions of the quicklimecrusts because the La Peña tomb, which is by far the best known example of this type of grave,

Figure 8Selected grave goods from La Sima I (Miño de Medinaceli).




had been severely damaged by modern ploughing This not only affected the stone mound butalso removed many quicklime blocks, especially on the periphery (Fig. 2.1).

Many questions arise from this: what was the total amount of quicklime in these layers?What are the main features of the pyrotechnological process of quicklime formation? What wasthe form of the original tomb, and how did it result in a thick quicklime crust?

As we have previously pointed out, it is clear that the quicklime found in the excavationsis not the total amount that would have resulted from the combustion of the Neolithic tomb, sincemodern ploughing has destroyed an important part. With this consideration in mind and given theavailable data, we have made a tentative estimation of the original extent of the quicklime crustat around 10 m3 and 22,510 kg. If we consider the atomic weight of limestone, it is possible toestimate that a total amount of 30 tons of limestone rock had been used to build this tomb.

Obviously quicklime is not a natural material but the result of heating limestone(CaCO3) for three or four days, constantly adding fuel, to reach and maintain the so-called‘bright flame’ (800–1000 °C), a process called pyrolisis. When water is added (Ca (OH)2),intense heat is produced (Kingery et al. 1988, 221; Adam 1996, 69). Thus, these Neolithicquicklime mantles were formed by the combustion and later hydration of a limestone burialstructure.

Together with the analysis of the physical chemical processes of the pyrolisis, theethnographic record offers us interesting data to understand this process better through the studyof traditional lime-kilns in Soria and Toledo (Moraleda and Rojas 1987, 312–13). They show thatthe following are essential in the production of quicklime:

1) The construction of a closed limestone structure with successive concentric unmortaredrings, roofed with a corbelled false vault in order to obtain the necessary reductiveatmosphere.

2) The provision of protective screens against wind, as well as small openings or flues to feedthe fire.

3) The use of a combustible material that will produce an intense fire rapidly achieving hightemperatures of between 800–1000 °C.

4) Keeping the fire burning over several days.5) The supply of many workers to build and burn the lime-kiln and to obtain the large amounts

of fuel as well as the limestone blocks.

In short, producing quicklime is a difficult task requiring expert technical knowledge.The physical chemical features of the process and its structural and labour-heavyrequirements, therefore, make it impossible that the considerable quicklime mantles of thePeña de La Abuela layer I (9000 kg) and Unit 12 from the La Sima Barrow were the result ofan accidental fire. An estimate of the form and size of the destroyed tomb could be argued onthe following evidence.

1) Round closed structurea) The ethnographic recordThe study of traditional lime-kilns in Iberia (Moraleda and Rojas 1987) indicates that in

order to obtain quicklime it is necessary to build a circular limestone structure as previouslydescribed. Even diverse works describing traditional drystone architecture in different regions ofSpain show that this sort of structure could be built with drystone walling (González et al. 1995,67; Escribano 1996, 17; Ramón and Ramírez 2001, 23) (Fig. 12).



b) Archaeological evidenceI) In the Peña de La Abuela, on the periphery of the quicklime crust, a ring of 21

post-holes was located, sometimes containing substantial tree-trunks c.20 cm in diameter(Fig. 9). It is tempting to see it as the base of a timber screen, similar to those associated withtraditional lime-kilns, and probably also having the same functions: acting as flues during thecombustion, protecting the fire from the wind, avoiding heat loss, and promoting a reductiveatmosphere to make the pyrolisis process easier. To fulfil these objectives the most functionaldesign of this screen would follow the limestone structure that it was protecting, leaving just theupper part open to allow the smoke to escape and with an ‘entrance’ to allow the fire to be fed.Thus, as the screen was circular, it seems likely that the original structure it was protecting andsurrounding would also be circular. Interestingly, no post-holes were recorded in a 4 m2 area,perhaps suggesting the location of the tomb entrance (Fig. 3).

In the La Sima Barrow from the start, the grave was enclosed by a stone mound, whichacted both as a buttress and as a screen against wind. As with the post-hole perimeter ring in LaPeña de La Abuela, this provided an insight into the missing tomb plan: at the centre of thismound there was a circular space corresponding with the lime-kiln tomb plan that wassubsequently ritually destroyed (Sima I) and which was in turn covered by the second tholos typegrave (Sima II).

II) The features of the burial level at La Peña de La Abuela: it is clear that so intense afire would have affected the lower layers inside the grave. Certainly at this site, once thequicklime crust had been removed, a large round rubefacted soil area of around 5 m in diameterwas discovered, acting as an imprint of the inside of the destroyed tholos (Fig. 10).

The excavation of the La Sima Barrow revealed the existence of a second tomb (SimaII) built on top of the remains of the first (Sima I quicklime crust). It was a round tholosconstructed of stone blocks with all the features that we assume for the Sima I and La Peñade La Abuela tombs: i.e. a circular plan, a similar diameter and similar constructiontechniques. With a diameter of 4.5 m, it was erected using the entire surface availableinside the mound after the destruction of the first tomb, and therefore was of a similar size(Fig. 2.2).

Figure 9Post-holes in the La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona).




III) The anthracological analyses have demonstrated that the wood was exposed to over700 °C (Rojo et al. 2005c, Anexo 3), and the degree of charring on some of the human bonesrecovered inside the La Peña barrow suggests that they were exposed to 800 °C (ibid., Anexo 2).The same was recorded from the human remains from Sima I (ibid., Anexo 11). To reach suchtemperatures a closed structure is necessary because, as experimentally shown (Canti andLinford 2000, 389, fig. 4), although an open fire could easily reach those temperatures, it wouldnot have been possible to maintain them over several days, as the pyrolisis requires.

Certain features of the charred wood remains, such as vitrification, confirm thatcombustion took place in a reductive atmosphere, probably with a high degree of humidity, orusing freshly cut wood (Rojo et al. 2005c, Anexo 3).

The study of the human remains affected by fire from La Peña revealed different degreesof damage according to their position inside the grave. Those most affected were located in thenorth-east–south-west axis, which is the area in front of the presumed entrance (Fig. 11). Thiswould have also been the flue. Three skulls which had been exposed to 800 °C were preciselylocated on that line (Rojo et al. 2005c, fig. 13, Anexo 1, figs. 11, 18, 19). In contrast, lessdamaged bones were found beside the walls of the original structure. Even with regard to thoseremains, it was clearly visible that the closest part to the wall had been completely charred as aresult of heat refraction from the stone walls of a closed structure. In contrast, the rest of the bonewas just scorched. This particular point was tested in a controlled archaeological experiment thatwill be explained below (Rojo 1999).

In both the burial levels of La Peña and La Sima abundant and small charred vegetalremains were recovered. The anthracological studies identified mainly the presence of gorse andother widespread arbustive species in the Ambrona Valley, ideal for obtaining the ‘bright flame’.

2) Dimensionsa) Archaeological evidenceIn La Peña the structure delimited by the post-holes gives a maximum diameter of 7 m

(Fig. 3).

Figure 10La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona), once the quicklime crust was removed.



During the firing, especially at the point when the tomb melted into the quicklimemagma, some small displacements of the grave goods and human bones might have occurred,although they were not very important and mostly affected items located on the periphery.Nevertheless, it is clear that both the cists and slabs were found in situ, as they have their footingsin the lower layer. It is also clear that these stone structures were inside the tomb and thereforethat allows us to calculate the minimum diameter of the monument enclosing these structures(5 m) (Fig. 3).

It is also possible to estimate the extent of the original burial level through the size of thesurface affected by fire (rubefacted sediment, Fig. 10), namely a circular space, within thepost-hole perimeter, of 5 m in diameter. This is perhaps closer to the dimensions of the originaltomb.

Finally, the Late Neolithic La Sima tholos provides a good example of the appearancethat this sort of structure might have had (Figs. 2 and 14). With a diameter of 4.5 m, it was builton the site previously occupied by a lime-kiln tomb (Sima I) dating to some two or threecenturies earlier. Moreover, the space on which it was built was also circumscribed by the stonemound of that phase with only a slight modification.

The total height was obviously not preserved, but the height of this type of drystoneconstruction with a corbelled vault is usually approximately the same as its diameter. Thus, theAmbrona Valley lime-kiln tombs (La Peña de La Abuela, Sima I) would have been spectacularconstructions of around 4.5–5 m in diameter and total height, with a circular plan and false vault.This form has very interesting parallels in traditional pastoral constructions found in manyIberian regions. They are built using the same techniques, are around 5 m in diameter, andsometimes even reach between 5 and 8 m in height (Olmos 1995, 81–2; González et al. 1995;Escribano 1996, 16; Ramón and Ramírez 2001, 41) (Fig. 12).

Figure 11Distribution of the human remains affected by fire in the La Peña de La Abuela Barrow (Ambrona).




Although this is the most probable reconstruction of these Neolithic tombs, there arestill many questions that remain unanswered.

I) Why has it not been possible to observe any remains of the wall foundations in thesedestroyed tombs? It seems clear that after several days of burning, the stone structure, weakenedby the pyrolisis, would have collapsed, but the lower part of the walls might still have beenstanding, protected by the huge layer of ash resulting from the firing (Rojo 1999; Canti andLinford 2000, 386–8).

In our hypothesis, once the firing had finished, the quicklime would have been hydratedwith vast amounts of water, producing intense heat which melted the structure into a quicklimemagma. Nevertheless, the remains covered by the deep layer of ash (human bones, grave goods,stone cists and slabs) were partially preserved. Despite this, no sign was found of the lower partof the walls and this phenomenon may be explained by one of the following possibilities:

Figure 12Iberian traditional pastoral drystone hut of the Valladolid province.



a) The foundations were dissolved within the liquid quicklime magma of the melting walls,despite the protection provided by the ash. However, it seems that at least part of the innerside of the lower section of these stone walls should have been preserved, since it wascovered by such a layer of ash that part of the tomb content and internal stone structures werepreserved.

b) The remaining parts of the walls were systematically, deliberately and manually dismantledin order to destroy the tomb, once the conflagration had finished. The blocks may have beenremoved or incorporated into the rest of the fallen stones from the tomb which were thenhydrated in order to transform them into the quicklime that covered the ashes scattered overthe burial level. Or perhaps, in the La Peña example, these blocks were used in theconstruction of the final stone mound closing the remains of the yet-to-be solidifiedquicklime crust. This lack of structural wall remains has also been documented in other sitessuch as El Miradero (Delibes and Etxeberría 2002, 41), or in the La Tarayuela Barrow (Rojoet al. 2005c, chapter 4). In this last example, also in the Ambrona Valley, clear indicationsof fire were found but it was not a true lime-kiln tomb, because the fire was not so intenseas to produce a quicklime crust. Interestingly, also at this site, the lack of any trace of thewalls could not be attributed to the action of the quicklime, so it has to be explained in thecontext of a deliberate manual dismantling of the structure.

II) Why are some remains of human bones and grave offerings found outside thetheoretical 5 m diameter tholos? Why is there a dissymmetry between the distance from thepost-hole circle to the tomb’s hypothetical diameter in the western and the eastern sides of thesite? (Fig. 3). Even though we argued that a circular plan will be the most likely explanation ofthe lime-kiln form, given the available archaeological evidence and the ethnographicalreferences, these features could be better explained if the original plan were slightly oval. Adding50 cm to La Peña’s east–west axis would allow most of the elements found outside the 5 mdiameter perimeter to fit inside. At the same time, it would also compensate the existingasymmetry of the eastern and western sides in the distance separating the tomb walls from theorganic screen. Ethnographic studies of traditional pastoral ‘chozos’ (drystone huts) providemany examples of irregular and oval plans (Ramón and Ramírez 2001, 44; González et al. 1995,64).

Nevertheless, despite accepting that the original tomb had an oval plan, there are stillhuman bones and grave goods outside this theoretical perimeter or right on the edge of it. Themost probable explanation, in our opinion, is that they were displaced from their original locationby the combined effects of a series of factors:

a) The La Peña tomb was built on a ritual foundation platform and so the central area washigher than the periphery.

b) During the fire, ash accumulated mainly in the central sector inside the grave because therewas only a single point from which to feed the fire, namely the entrance. This prevented anhomogeneous distribution of the fuel just as is recorded in the traditional lime-kilns and inthe archaeological experiment that will be described below (Fig. 13) (Rojo 1999).

c) The liquid quicklime magma could have displaced a proportion of the bones and grave goods(especially those located on the periphery) owing to the slope created by the foundationplatform and the accumulation of ash in the centre. The peripheral grave goods would havebeen less protected by the ash layer and most affected by the movement of the quicklimemagma flowing out from the centre to the exterior.




However, as is clearly indicated by the low degree of fragmentation of the human bonesrecorded from La Peña (Rojo et al. 2005c, Anexo 1), once the fire (slowly) extinguished, thebones do not appear to have been disturbed. So what seems clear is that there had been nosignificant alteration of the general distribution of the grave contents apart from some minor

Figure 13Archaeological experiment. Burning a replica of the La Peña de la Abuela tomb in Ambrona (Soria, Spain).



movements of bone and grave offerings at the periphery of the tomb, caused by the slowdisplacement of the quicklime magma.

Other less probable explanations might include the deliberate reorganization of theossuary and grave goods when the tomb was closed. This may have resulted in some remains beingbrought outside, or even the disposal of collective ritual offerings outside the grave as has beenproposed for some elements deposited in the El Miradero burial (Delibes and Etxeberría 2002, 44).

Even less probable is the existence of later extramural interments, for the bones thatwere located there belong to several individuals, both adult and infantile, and there were no signsof any burial structures or pits.

Nevertheless, these hypothetical activities had been carried out before the burning of thetomb since they were all covered by the quicklime crust.

In summary, we may say that the ‘lime-kiln’ graves were built to a prescribed plan, withthe final goal of transforming the tomb into a quicklime crust which sealed the burial deposits atwhatever time the group that was using this collective grave decided to do so. Without such adeliberate plan and design, it would have been impossible to produce the huge quantities ofquicklime that were recorded.

Some scholars have argued that there is a contradiction between the destruction/closureplan apparent in these Neolithic collective tombs and all the megalithic monumental graves,which seem to have been intended to be permanent. The solution to this apparent contradictionis that the ritual and construction activities developed around the remains of the tomb after the

Figure 14The La Sima Barrow (Miño de Medinaceli) phases.




firing. A new, non-sepulchral structure was built, using the materials that resulted from thedestruction of the grave once its role as tomb had ended. It was not intended for this new structureto receive new bodies. In the La Peña de La Abuela case, a stone mound was erected on theremains of the destroyed tomb. A new monument, therefore, perhaps commemorating thepresence of ancestors, was built from the materials of the previous grave (bones of the dead,grave goods, physical remains of the structure and the elements used in the combustionceremony). This new monument was clearly visible in the surrounding landscape, with theevident intention being that it should form a permanent point of reference. It is likely that asimilar sequence was intended by the closure ritual at the La Sima Mound, but this monumentwas subsequently destroyed by later phases of activity.

the archaeological experiment: burning a replica tomb

In the summer of 1999 we decided to undertake an archaeological experiment to test ourhypotheses regarding the original form of these tombs and the nature of their closing ceremonies(Rojo 1999). For that purpose we built a replica of the La Peña de La Abuela tomb and fired it.The structure was constructed in 15 days by three people, using local limestone from thesurrounding area. Interestingly, the construction of the organic screen was an even more difficulttask because the area was covered by heather and mud. Four people worked for ten days (eighthours a day) during this process. Given that the people involved in these tasks were not skilled,experienced workers may have built the whole structure and screen in about ten days.Nevertheless, the carrying of the raw building materials (limestone blocks, screen materials) andfuel would have required a considerable amount of communal work lasting several days.

It was a smaller replica than the original tomb, 2.8 m in internal diameter and 4.2 m inexternal diameter with walls 70 cm thick at the base (it was considerably thinner in the upper partof the structure so as to support the drystone corbelled roof). In order to prevent the buildingcollapsing, the height was the same as the diameter (2.80 m). About 28–30 tons of limestoneblocks were used. The final result was an authentic drystone tholos with a small entrance,oriented to the south-east. Once the replica was finished it was surrounded by a wooden screencomprising posts 3.5 m long and covered by heather and mud, as was found in the La Peña deLa Abuela excavation, which would protect the combustion from the wind.

Three types of bones were placed inside this replica to test the effect that the fire wouldhave on them. They consisted of dry human bones (long bones, skull pieces and a mandible withteeth), and dry and fresh fauna (sheep and calf). Although they all remained inside the samechamber for the same amount of time and were exposed to the same conditions, they clearlyshow different effects resulting from their respective positions with regard to the fire andtemperatures. Bones directly deposited in the floor were burnt to a different degree depending onwhich side had been exposed to the fire. Although during the firing temperatures of 800 °C werereached, the ashes in the floor acted as a thermal insulator, and for that reason some bones wereexposed to no more than 300 °C and were therefore only scorched and not charred. By contrast,those bones deposited over the flames were completely destroyed. The proximity of the bones tothe tomb walls considerably increased their degree of calcination as a result of the refractioneffect (Rojo et al. 2005c, Anexo 2).

During the firing it was necessary to restock with a considerable amount of quicklighting dry fuel as has been widely recorded in the local traditional ‘lime-kilns’. However,taking the necessary quantity (20 tons) from the surrounding area would have been an



environmental disaster so we decided to substitute vine prunings from another village in theBurgos province for the local vegetation.

After 35 hours of experimental firing, only the top of the structure had been transformedinto quicklime (CaO), whereas in the rest of the replica, only a thin layer was sufficientlydehydrated to form quicklime. It is important to note that the thickness of the replica walls(70 cm) would have required a much more prolonged fire (perhaps two more days and nights) tomelt the whole structure. In the traditional lime-kilns of the Soria province (Sierra Carcaña)extremely large amounts of fuel were used, the gathering of which required a week’s work, andtwo people were needed to work in turn to keep the fire alive. To obtain 2000–3000 kg ofquicklime, a minimum of ten hours of continuous and intense fire was required. This clearlyshows that the large quantity of quicklime found in La Peña (4 m3) or El Miradero (10 m3) isimpossible to produce accidentally and obviously reflects a deliberate and complex behaviour.

tombs for the dead, monuments to eternity

The funerary ritual of the lime-kiln tombs is similar to that observed in many of thecollective tombs (megaliths, caves, etc.) of Iberian and European prehistory. Both the use of thesame space for successive deposits through time and the diversity of secondary rituals consistingof body disarticulation seem to have the goal of transforming individual identity into groupidentity, placing the emphasis not on each person or individual body but on the community,binding together the living and the dead (Thomas 1991, 119–20, 185; Tilley 1996, 334; Rojoet al. 2005b).

In our particular case the complex closure ritual of the quicklime adds distinctivesymbolic details, because it mixed together the human remains, the grave goods deposited withthem and the physical structure of the tomb itself into a formless mass, as a symbolicrepresentation of the group in the mythological territory of the ancestors. Even the strikinglywhite colour of the quicklime mass corresponded to the colour of the bones, and thus also thatof the ancestors (Rojo et al. 2005a).

This emphasis on collective identity was perhaps related to the incipient emergence ofsocial tensions as a consequence of the profound economic transformations taking place in theLate Neolithic. A possible archaeological indicator of this process in the burial record of theAmbrona Valley was the appearance of structures individualizing the dead inside the graves,especially the stone cists, as documented in La Peña and La Sima. These were made,significantly, from reddish sandstone in contrast to the white limestone of the rest of the tomb,and since sandstone was obviously not involved in the quicklime process, it may havedistinguished the bones of the people buried inside them. Finally, the fire rituals also includedeven the cist burials in the quicklime mass, perhaps suggesting that those tendencies towards theindividual were in their infancy but were nevertheless finally subsumed into the group identity(Rojo et al. 2005a; 2005b).

These social tensions probably emerged as the Neolithic communal ritual structureprogressively dissolved, and may also be indicated by the inclusion of these groups in peninsularexchange systems where prestige goods of a high symbolic value circulated. For example, manyof the dentalium type necklace beads found in La Peña de La Abuela were clearly ofMediterranean origin (ibid., Anexos 7 and 13).

Social tensions seem to have increased during the Late Neolithic in the Ambrona Valleyas can be deduced from the analysis of the La Sima Barrow phase II. Here again the sandstone




cists are present, segregating the bodies of certain individuals or families. Prestige goods ofdistant origin are also associated with these social sectors, as for example the considerablecollection of variscite necklace beads found amongst the grave offerings in this collective tomb.Interestingly, this second grave, which was built on the remains (quicklime crust) of the first, wasneither burned nor otherwise destroyed. The ritual of fire and the lime-kiln tombs had alreadydisappeared, and the phenomenon of the homogeneous mass of human bones and grave remains,perhaps claimed as a symbol of the united community, was no longer practised. It seems thatcertain families or individuals, with aspirations to control surplus produce in order to reinforcetheir social positions, were beginning to succeed (Rojo et al. 2005a; 2005b; 2005c).

A similar process of incipient social ranking can be documented in another well-studiedregion of the interior of Iberia: the La Lora region (Burgos). Here there is a clear tendencytowards an increasing complexity in construction in the chronological sequence of megalithicmonuments (Delibes and Rojo 2002).

During the Copper Age (Bell Beaker phase) the process seems clearly to evolve, whenboth monuments (La Peña and La Sima) were reused in a completely different way from theirformer use in the Neolithic. At the La Peña Barrow several intrusive Beaker inhumations, laterdestroyed by modern agricultural activity, were introduced into the stone mound. In La Sima thecorridor area, at the entrance of the tholos chamber, was slightly remodelled to receive assortedBeaker inhumations accompanied by extremely rich and abundant grave goods. These bothsymbolically and physically blocked the entrance to the tomb, but avoided its interior despite thefact that it was still accessible at this time.

The fire rituals that stressed group unity by trying to eliminate, or at least hide, theindividualizing and dissolutive tendencies of socioeconomic dynamics, driven by an increasingproduction of surplus, are no longer present in this changed social and symbolic world (Garrido-Pena 1997; 2000) where the evocation of ancestors is now used as just another resource in theideological manipulation by certain individuals seeking to legitimate and reinforce their socialposition with the sanction of the past.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Dr Alex Gibson for his valuable comments on the original manuscript, andhis kind help in improving the English.

(MAR-G) Departamento de PrehistoriaFacultad de Filosofía y Letras

Plaza del Campus Universitario, S/N47011 VALLADOLID

SPAINE-mail: [email protected]

(RG-P) Instituto ArcadiaFundación General de la Universidad de Valladolid

SPAIN

(I-GM) Fundación del Patrimonio Histórico de Castilla y LeónSPAIN



references

adam, j.p. 1996: La construcción romana. Materiales y técnicas (Leon, Editorial de los Oficios).caillaud, r. and lagnel, e. 1972: Le cairn et le crématoire néolithiques de La Hoguette a Fontenay-Le-

Marmion (Calvados). Gallia Préhistoire 15(1), 137–85.canti, m.g. and linford, n. 2000: The effects of fire on archaeological soils and sediments: temperature

and colour relationships. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 385–95.chambon, p. 2003: Les morts dans les sépultures collectives néolithiques en France. Du cadaver aux

restes ultimes (Paris, CNRS).delibes, g., alonso, m. and galvÁn, r. 1986: El Miradero: un enterramiento colectivo tardoneolítico de

Villanueva de los Caballeros (Valladolid). Estudios en Homenaje al Dr. Antonio Beltrán Martínez(Zaragoza), 227–36.

delibes, g., alonso, m. and rojo, m. 1987: Los sepulcros colectivos del Duero Medio y Las Loras y suconexión con el foco dolménico riojano. In El Megalitismo de la Península Ibérica (Madrid,Ministerio de Cultura), 181–97.

delibes, g. and etxeberría, f. 2002: Fuego y cal en el sepulcro colectivo de ‘El Miradero’ (Valladolid):¿accidente, ritual o burocracia de la muerte. In Rojo-Guerra, M.A. and Kunst, M. (eds.), Sobre elSignificado del Fuego en los Rituales Funerarios del Neolítico (Valladolid, Studia Archaeologica 91),39–58.

delibes, g. and rojo, m. 2002: Reflexiones sobre el trasfondo cultural del polimorfismo megalítico en laLora burgalesa. Archivo Español de Arqueología 75 (185–6), 21–35.

escribano velasco, c. 1996: Arquitectura pastoril en la Churrería I: Aprovechamiento tradicional y tiposconstructivos. El Filandar 8, 14–19.

garcía martínez de lagrán, i. and morán dauchez, g. 2005: Pirita en contextos funerarios neolíticos.Reflexiones a partir del hallazgo de La Tarayuela, Ambrona, Soria, España. In Arias, P., Ontañón, R.and García-Moncó, C., III Congreso del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica, Santander, 2003(Santander, Monografías del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1),691–6.

garrido-pena, r. 1997: Bell beakers in the southern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula: socioeconomiccontext and new data. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(2), 187–209.

garrido-pena, r. 2000: El Campaniforme en la Meseta Central de la Península Ibérica (c. 2500–2000A.C.) (Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 892).

gonzález, c., rubio, i. and valiente, s. 1995: Arquitectura popular de la Comunidad de Madrid.(Algunas construcciones auxiliares de los términos municipales de Valdilecha, Campo Real, Villar delOlmo, Olmeda de las Fuentes, Corpa y Nuevo Baztán). Etnografía Española 9, 51–97.

kingery, m.d., vandiver, p.b. and prickett, m. 1988: The beginnings of pyrotechnology. Part II:Production and use of lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal ofField Archaeology 15(1), 219–44.

le goff, i., billand, g. and guillot, h. 2002: Histoire d’une sépulture collective néolithiqueincendiée à La Croix-Saint-Ouen, (France). In Rojo Guerra, M.A. and Kunst, M. (eds.), Sobre elSignificado del Fuego en los Rituales Funerarios del Neolítico (Valladolid, Studia Archaeologica 91),127–46.

lópez de calle, c. 2002: Huesos quemados, hogares y sepulcros incendiados. El fuego en los sepulcrosmonumentales de Cameros. In Rojo-Guerra, M.A. and Kunst, M. (eds.), Sobre el Significado delFuego en los Rituales Funerarios del Neolítico (Valladolid, Studia Archaeologica 91), 233–52.

masset, c. 2002: Ce qu’on sait, ou croit savoir, du rôle du feu dans les sépultures collectives néolithiques.In Rojo-Guerra, M.A. and Kunst, M. (eds.), Sobre el Significado del Fuego en los Rituales Funerariosdel Neolítico (Valladolid, Studia Archaeologica 91), 9–20.

moraleda, a. and rojas, j.m. 1987: Introducción al estudio de los hornos de cal (caleras) en la provinciade Toledo. In Actas III Jornadas de Etnología de Castilla-La Mancha, Guadalajara 1985 (CiudadReal), 311–22.

olmos herguedas, e. 1995: Ganadería ovina y arquitectura popular en los límites de la antigua comunidadde Villa y Tierra de Cuellar. Chozos y corralizas en Cogeces del Monte. Revista de Folklore 177,75–85.




ramón, j.a. and ramírez, j. 2001: Bombos, cucos, cubillos y chozos. Construcciones rurales albaceteñas(Albacete, Diputación de Albacete).

rojo-guerra, m.a. 1999: Proyecto de arqueología experimental. Construcción e incendio de una tumbamonumental neolítica a partir de los datos obtenidos en la excavación de La Peña de la Abuela. Boletínde Arqueología Experimental 3, 5–11.

rojo-guerra, m.a. and kunst, m. 1999a: La Peña de la Abuela. Un enterramiento monumental neolíticosellado por la acción del fuego. Revista de Arqueología 220, 12–19.

rojo-guerra, m.a. and kunst, m. 1999b: El Valle de Ambrona: un ejemplo de la primera colonizaciónNeolítica de las tierras del Interior Peninsular. In II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica.Valencia, 7–9 Abril, 1999 (Valencia, Saguntum, Extra 2), 259–70.

rojo-guerra, m.a. and kunst, m. 1999c: La Lámpara y la Peña de la Abuela. Propuesta secuencial delNeolítico Interior en el ámbito funerario. In II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica. Valencia,7–9 Abril, 1999 (Valencia, Saguntum, Extra 2), 503–12.

rojo, m.a., negredo, m.j. and sanz, a. 1996: El túmulo de la Peña de la Abuela y el poblamiento neolíticode su entorno (Ambrona, Soria). RICUS (Geografía e Historia) XIII(2), 7–38.

rojo-guerra, m.a., kunst, m. and palomino-lázaro, a.l. 2002: El fuego como procedimiento declausura en tres tumbas monumentales de la Submeseta Norte. In Rojo-Guerra, M.A. and Kunst, M.(eds.), Sobre el Significado del Fuego en los Rituales Funerarios del Neolítico (Valladolid, StudiaArchaeologica 91), 21–38.

rojo-guerra, m., morán dauchez, g. and kunst, m. 2003: Un défi à l’éternité: Genèse et réutilisationsdu Tumulus de La Sima (Miño de Medinaceli, Soria, Espagne). In Sens dessus dessous. La rechercheen Préhistoire. Recueil d’études offert à Jean Leclerc et Claude Masset (Amiens, RevueArchéologique de Picardie No. Spécial 21), 173–84.

rojo-guerra, m.a., garcía-martínez de lagrán, i., garrido-pena, r., morán dauchez, g. and kunst,m. 2005a: El color como instrumento simbólico en el megalitismo del Valle de Ambrona, Soria,España. In Arias, P., Ontañón, R. and García-Moncó, C. (eds.), III Congreso del Neolítico en laPenínsula Ibérica, Santander, 2003 (Santander, Monografías del Instituto Internacional deInvestigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria 1), 681–90.

rojo-guerra, m.a., garrido-pena, r., morán dauchez, g. and kunst, m. 2005b: Del enterramientocolectivo a la tumba individual: el sepulcro monumental de La Sima en Miño de Medinaceli, Soria,España. BSAA arqueología. Áreas de Prehistoria y Arqueología LXXI, 11–42.

rojo-guerra, m.a., kunst, m., garrido-pena, r., garcía-martínez de lagrán, i. and morándauchez, g. 2005c: Un desafío a la eternidad. Tumbas monumentales del Valle de Ambrona(Valladolid, Memorias-Arqueología en Castilla y León 14, Junta de Castilla y León).

rojo-guerra, m.a., morán dauchez, g., garcía-martínez de lagrán, i. and garrido-pena, r. 2006:La Tarayuela, Ambrona (Soria): un nuevo sepulcro colectivo neolítico de finales del V milenio cal BC.In Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Faro, 14 a 19 Septembro de 2004). Simbolismo,Arte e Espaços Sagrados na Pré-história da Península Ibérica (Faro, Universidade do Algarve,Promontoria Monográfica 05), 135–42.

thomas, j. 1991: Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge).tilley, c. 1996: An Ethnography of the Neolithic. Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia

(Cambridge).



Documents

TOMBS FOR THE DEAD, MONUMENTS TO ETERNITY: THE DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF MEGALITHIC GRAVES BY FIRE IN THE INTERIOR HIGHLANDS OF IBERIA (SORIA PROVINCE, SPAIN)