This article was downloaded by: [Davide Delfino]On: 28 August 2015, At: 07:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Time and Mind: The Journal ofArchaeology, Consciousness andCulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtam20

Megalithic Antithesis: Case Study of theFunerary Monument of Colos (Abrantes,Central Portugal)Ana Cruza, Davide Delfinob, Filomena Gasparc & Álvaro Batistac

a Centro de Pré-História/Instituto Politécnico de Tomarb Câmara Municipal de Abrantes-projeto M.I.A.A./Instituto Terrae Memória/Grupo “Quaternário e Pré-História” do Centro deGeociências (CGeo-U.C.)c Câmara Municipal de AbrantesPublished online: 12 Aug 2015.

To cite this article: Ana Cruz, Davide Delfino, Filomena Gaspar & Álvaro Batista (2015) MegalithicAntithesis: Case Study of the Funerary Monument of Colos (Abrantes, Central Portugal),Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture, 8:3, 303-320, DOI:10.1080/1751696X.2015.1066125

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2015.1066125

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

Megalithic Antithesis: Case Studyof the Funerary Monument ofColos (Abrantes, CentralPortugal)

Ana Cruza, Davide Delfinob*, FilomenaGasparc and �Alvaro Batistac

aCentro de Pré-História/Instituto Politécnico de Tomar; bCâmaraMunicipal de Abrantes-projeto M.I.A.A./Instituto Terra e Memória/Grupo“Quaternário e Pré-História” do Centro de Geociências (CGeo-U.C.);cCâmara Municipal de Abrantes

(Received 23 April 2014; accepted 31 March 2015)

In this paper the authors attempt to explain the funerary behaviors of theagro-pastoral societies who lived in Abrantes (Central Portugal) between theNeolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Our aim is to fully understand the Colossite based on archaeographical data and then insert it into a broader, com-prehensive context. What makes this case particularly interesting and note-worthy is its lack of visibility in the landscape, situated next to a natural rockoutcrop, which is in contrast to the megalithic practice of the time. Wewonder if this invisibility and absolute lack of reference to its physical spacehas some social and cultural connection with a particular agro-pastoral com-munity or if, instead, it is anomalous.

Keywords: atypical monument; funerary; cremation; Neolithic; Chalcolithic

The Physiographic FrameworkThe funerary monument of Colos (S.Facundo, Abrantes) is located on the

western fringe of the Iberian Peninsula(Figure 1) in the Portuguese MiddleTagus region, Santarém district.

*Corresponding author. Email: davdelfino@gmail.com

Time & Mind, 2015Vol. 8, No. 3, 303–320, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2015.1066125

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

The Middle Tagus region is noted forits geomorphological diversity and for thepresence of a number of archaeologicalsites which cannot be typologically cate-gorized using the current archaeologicalliterature. The Jurassic limestone of theNabão river basin, the Old Massif of theZêzere river basin and the Quaternaryterraces of the Tagus river basin makethis one of the most geologically uniqueareas in Portugal, and this geomorpholo-gical diversity is reflected, in a ratherinteresting way, by the late prehistoric

population’s behavior to settlement stra-tegies and the architecture of their funer-ary monuments which is significantlydifferent from other well-known mega-lithic monuments. The Colos site is unu-sual because its design and style of burialdeposition does not match the otherburial monuments recognized in theregion – the rural communities of Colosopted for the funerary deposition of cre-mated (non-containerized) bones and asubstantial collection of votive offerings ina well-defined area bounded mostly by a

Figure 1. The Colos site location in Middle Tagus Valley and Iberian Peninsula.Source: CPH-IPT. (Centro de Pré-História - Instituto Politécnico de Tomar).

304 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

stone wall and earth (Figure 2) attachedto a large granite outcrop.

This is an unusual case, but noteworthybecause of the significance that LateNeolithic-Early Chalcolithic populationsgave to prominent rocky outcrops whichstood out markedly in the landscape. ThePedra da Encavalada (Aldeia do Mato)(Cruz 2011; Cruz, Batista, and Graça 2011)

is a good example of this (see later, andFigure 9). In this case, the lithological con-straint leads us to a landscape of granite witha small depression in the water line facingwest, which defined the burial area. Whatcharacterizes both cases (Pedra daEncavalada and the Colos site) is theiratypical natures, which are clearly differentto the standard dolmen design.We have no

Figure 2. Area of bones deposition and votive offerings (outlined in small crosses). The dashedline indicates the containment walling (“murete”), and “granito” the natural outcrop. CityArchaeological Department of the Municipality of Abrantes.Source: Álvaro Batista.

Time & Mind 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

doubt that these people knew of theneighboring megalithic phenomenon ofAldeia do Mato (Jogada and Vale ChãosNecropolises) (Cruz 1997; 2013),therefore this monument expresses apre-determined idea, combined with thesoil features and structures, of using a singleoutcrop to deposit cremated human bonesand votive offerings. In fact, there seems tohave been a decision to conceal the Colossite within the landscape.

We believe there are at least twoaspects to explore in relation to funeraryarchaeology. On the one hand, thepresence of cremations in a period whichis otherwise dominated by inhumation bur-ials and, on the other, the seemingly delib-erate absence of dolmen-type structures,these being replaced instead by a simplecontainment wall abutted to a large rockyoutcrop; the deposited material was thencovered by sediments to protect and hidethe remains.

Physical Setting of the SiteOn a physiographic and geomorphologicallevel it should be noted that the dominantorientation of the relief in the geographicalarea of Colos (S. Facundo) is northwest-southeast. On a hydrographic level, theTagus River, Coalho and Vale das Mósbrooks are the closest watercourses tothis archaeological site, which is located inan area belonging to Upper Miocene andPliocene undifferentiated (Zbyszewski,Carvalhosa, and Gonçalves 1981, 26).

MethodologyIt was after Álvaro Batista confirmed(March 5, 2012) that the site had beenvandalized, that a request for urgentexcavation was submitted. The primaryobjective in this case was as a preventive

intervention to attempt to limit thedamages the site had undergone andalso excavate any artifacts/ecofacts thatmight still remain in situ. The aim of theproject was to minimize the bias intro-duced by vandalism and to attempt tofurther investigate the area alreadylooked at in 2000 (Gaspar and Batista2000).

The methodologies adopted weremodelled on Philip Barker’s (1993)well-known excavation techniques whichinclude digging up by artificial levels of 5cmin thickness, three-dimensionally represent-ing the findings and dry sieving with a 2mmmesh. The grid-square used in 2000 was re-used (Figures 3 and 4).

Archaeological findsThe archaeological finds recovered fromthe site (Figures 5 to 8) include, variously,small ceramic containers, lithic material,decorated slate plaques and crematedhuman bones.

Overall, 30% of the finds consisted ofrawmaterial, which will be analyzed in orderto be sure that this was indeed local and notbrought from elsewhere. This includesquartzites, schists, diorites, quartz andamphibolites. As for ecofacts, these con-sisted of mainly human bones, whichaccounted for only 14% of the total numberof finds. Finally, the artifacts, including lithicsand ceramic fragments made up the remain-ing 56% of the finds.

The majority of the lithics were madefrom quartzite (43%), followed by flint(34%) quartz (21%) and finally amphibolite(2%). Regarding lithic industry at the site,most of the debris (61%) results from knap-ping, mostly quartzite, the rest is comprisedof blades (16%), all of them fragmented andof trapezoidal section, flints (21%) andarrowheads with triangular base (2%).

306 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

Regarding the ceramic materials, betweenthe first investigation (2000) and the second(2012), some fragments have been recov-ered which allowed the reconstruction of30 ceramic forms, but the majority are aty-pical fragments.

Eight types of forms have beenreconstructed using relative chronologyand based on parallels:

● Ovoid-shaped cup datable toMiddle-Late Neolithic;

Figure 4. Removal of the final level of the bone deposition area.Source: CPH. IPT.

Figure 3. Excavated area.Source: CPH-IPT.

Time & Mind 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

● Tronco-conical-shaped vessel data-ble to Middle-Late Neolithic;

● Semi-spherical-shaped cups data-ble to Middle-Late Neolithic;

● Globular bowls datable to Middle-Late Neolithic;

● Cylindrical carinated type 1 vesselsdatable to Chalcolithic;

● Carinated type 1 bowls (Table 1)datable to Chalcolithic;

● Carinated type 2 (or Watchtowertype) bowls (Table 1) datable toEarly Bronze Age;

● Carinated type 3 bowls (Table 1)datable to Early-Full Bronze Age.

The ceramic material carries strong evi-dence concerning its re-use across LatePre-history: after a marked presence ofMiddle-Late Nolithic forms, the re-use is

Figure 5. Votive offerings: schist plaques with decoration.Source: City Archaeological Department of the Municipality of Abrantes. Photo: Davide Delfino.

308 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

materialized in Chalcolithic and BronzeAge forms.

As for pottery vessels productionstep (chaîne opératoire), all togetherthese ceramic fragments have non-plasticelements and can be organized into ninedifferent petrographic groups, probablymost of them of local granitic origin(Group V) (Table 2).

The samples excavated during the2000 investigation revealed humanremains that clearly showed signs of acremation burial and included theremains of four individuals: three adultsand one non-adult. One of the adultswould have been between 35 and 40years old while the other was a youngeradult. Regarding combustion tempera-ture, temperatures above 440ºC and650ºC have been registered (Matos,

2001). The 2012 bone sample was theobject of a very limited study due to thescarcity of excavated material. The sam-ple consisted of bone splinters, making itimpossible to determine the minimumnumber of individuals. Based on coloranalysis, we can establish that the bonefragments were exposed to temperaturesabove 645ºC, although it is worth notingdifferences within the same color (Tomé,2013).

The Megalithic ContextThe more stable Neolithic economy andthe increasing importance of lineagewithin social dynamics led to thedevelopment of megalithic building. Atthat time, we see a collective attitudetowards death that could very well have

Figure 6. Ceramic receptacles.Source: City Archaeological Department of the Municipality of Abrantes. Photo: Davide Delfino.

Time & Mind 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

mirrored the social and cultural relationsin terms of ideology. Collective funeraryprocedures seem to be imbued not onlywith regard to kinship, but also by theevocation of a common ancestor.

The Neolithic megalithic cultureappears to be a non-linear manifold phe-nomenon with a status quo of its own inAbrantes municipality. The ideologicalroots from Epipaleolithic times were still

Figure 7. Lithic implements: flint halberds and arrowheads.Source: City Archaeological Department of the Municipality of Abrantes. Photo: Davide Delfino.

Figure 8. Lithic implements: bladed objects.Source: City Archaeological Department of the Municipality of Abrantes. Photo: Davide Delfino.

310 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

so strong that in certain examples likeColos, the arrival of new symbolicMegalithic innovation served some region-alist purposes as we can see by the artifactsand ashes depositions. It is precisely within

the long course of time (Braudel, 1969)that the Colos site falls, crossing andoverlapping ancient cosmological featuresand new megalithic ideology. We maytherefore consider the existence of amechanism underlying social and religiousevolution in rural communities to be “A setof ritual or ‘magical-religious’ proceduresand funerary practices that are materialisedin the collectivism of spaces reserved forthe dead” (Ventura 1999, 36).

It is now possible to assume thatthe advent of megalithic monumentsdates back to before the dolmen per-iod in Central Alentejo (Scarre et al.2003, 85; Calado 2004, 249) havingbeen introduced in this region aroundthe 6th Millennium BC and havingexpanded to northern and southernterritories. This expansion would haveaccompanied the agro-pastoral move-ment or, rather, the consolidation ofNeolithic culture. Calado supports theidea that menhirs precede dolmens inCentral Alentejo and goes further byclaiming that the increase of rural set-tlements is contemporary with this

Table 1. Typology of carenated forms.

Source: City Archaeological Department of theMunicipality of Abrantes. Davide Delfino.

Figure 9. Pedra da Encavalada. This dolmen is partly an artificial megalithic construction, but alsouses a natural outcrop for its walls.Photo: Nuno Miguel Queiroz.

Time & Mind 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

event. He also suggests, in order tobuild a coherent model, that theNeolithic process would have beenrooted in the Mesolithic communitiesof the Tagus and Sado estuaries, andthat by maintaining a high standard ofmobility, would have assimilated newtechnologies through the contact withalready Neolithically developed com-munities of Andalusia and Valencia(Calado 2004, 250). Calado also con-siders the existence of contacts acrossthe Atlantic seaboard, creating a dualmodel as a substitute of the “wave ofadvance model” (Ammerman andCavalli-Sforza 1984), in which contactseither by land or by sea are considered(Calado 2004, 251). The appearance ofmenhirs preceding full megalithic cul-ture being an autonomous cultural phe-nomenon. Also, C.T. da Silva (1997)claims that the core of the megalithicembryo is to be found in the commu-nities already adopting Neolithic traits,where kinship ties were strengthenedby the production economy.1

As for landscape archaeology, a newspecific spatial organization may beobserved, which may indicate a probablerupture in society and an ideological

turning point as to what these standingstones would have meant for theNeolithic communities. Funerary burialactivity is connected to the grouping ofindividuals, in which several generationsbelonging to the same community gath-ered together in the same place of wor-ship. It is very likely that the socialorganization, despite the same culturalbackground of the recovered items, hasundergone changes during this long per-iod of time which spans the Neolithicand the Chalcolithic, until we reach achange with the Bell-Beaker commu-nities. These changes would howeverhave been progressively reinforced overthe fourth and third millennia, but wouldmaintain the same megalithic leitmotifregarding the funerary rituals.

A Comparative Funerary Viewof ColosIt is worth undertaking a comparativeexercise with the megalithic examples ofthe Middle Tagus region, in an attempt tocontextualize the funerary monument ofColos. This will require referring toanother atypical megalithic monument –Pedra da Encavalada – also located in the

Table 2. Petrographic elements in the pottery.

PetrographicGroup QUARTZ MICAS FELDSPARS CHAMOTTE

MAPHICROCKS

I XX XXII X X XXIII XX XIV XXV X XX XXVI XX X XX XVII XX X XVIII XX XIX X X XX XX

Note: X= present; XX= abundant.

312 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

municipality of Abrantes, but built in anarea adjacent to the river Zêzere. Basedon absolute dating results we considerthe construction of this monument(Cruz 2011; Cruz, Batista, and Graça2011; Cruz 2013) to be prior to theconstruction of short corridor dolmenmonuments. These are exemplified byVale Chãos megalithic necropolis (Cruz,2011; Cruz, Batista, and Graça 2011), byJogada megalithic necropolis (Cruz, 2011;Cruz, Batista, and Graça 2011), Medroamenhir (Gaspar and Batista 2000) andAlqueidão megalithic complex, all ofthem on the left bank of the Zêzere.On the right side of the Zêzere are theVal da Laje and Pedras Negras dolmennecropolises. Megalithic developmentwould thus be consolidated through theconstruction of Pedra da Encavaladadated from the Fifth Millennium BC, fol-lowed by the gradual erection of morecomplex dolmen structures. We can alsocite as an example the contemporaneityof these monuments with others of itskind outside of the Middle Tagus region,such as Chã de Santinhos 1 (Jorge 1985),the Megalithic complex of Abogalheira(Silva and Cunha 1988), Carapito I(Cruz and Vilaça 1994), Casa da Moura(Zilhão 1998), Orca das Castenairas(Leisner and Ribeiro 1966), Outeiro deAnte 3 (Jorge 1980–1981) and Outeirode Gregos 2 (Jorge 1980).

Therefore, we can confidentlyinclude Pedra da Encavalada withinpro-megalithic culture not only becauseof its huge architectural dimensions, butalso for the artifacts collected from theburial pits. However, it should be notedthat these pits, two meters in diameterand arranged around the whole peri-meter of the mound, would havebeen individual pits, which leads us toassume that, in this crucial phase of the

megalithic development in the lowerZêzere region, the collectivization ofdeath, typical of later periods, was notyet present. In what concerns a possibleinterpretative proposal of this monu-ment, as a function of the archaeogra-phical data, we suppose that anindividual burial must have occurred inStructure 1 (single chamber) followedby six pit burials with a stone structurearound the whole perimeter of themound (Structure 2). Absolute datingsuggests that these burials were con-temporaneous and did not last long intime.

Also in the Middle Tagus region, buton its western karstic landscape, acontemporaneous parallel can be estab-lished with Nª. Srª. das Lapas Cave(5.130±140 BP – 4.290–3.672 cal BC2 sigma – B top, and 6.100±70 BP –

5.230–4.847 cal B.C. 2 sigma – B bot-tom) (Oosterbeek 1994), where twoindividual burials pits bounded by lime-stone blocks has been found, and theEarlier Neolithic strata of CaldeirãoCave (Zilhão 1992).

InterpretationColos is an archaeological site that nosimilar or equal example can be foundin the Portuguese archaeological litera-ture, which makes it so far a uniquemonument of its kind.

Even when we label it as “monu-ment” we are not sure if we should callthe place where the artifacts and eco-facts have been collected a monumentor rather simply the natural feature ofthe granitic outcrop. In other words, wecan theorize that this particular rockoutcrop would initially have held a par-ticular meaning for the agro-pastoralcommunities of Colos, who would

Time & Mind 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

“read” the landscape in its context andwould, in a second phase, attach to it aspecific, perhaps numinous, feeling asso-ciated with death (or, if you like, anafterlife). If this is true, intensive pro-specting will be required in an attemptto locate large outcrops that may alsobe places of burials – the apparent sig-nificance of natural outcrops has beennoted in other European examples (e.g.,Shepherd 2013; Devereux andWozencroft 2014). After all, if there isone archaeological site (i.e., Colos) withthese features, we can hypothesize theexistence of other similar sites.Considering the richness of the collec-tion recovered at Colos in 2000, espe-cially the size of the blades and flints(that are up to 25cm long), and, com-paring them with lithic industry else-where in the municipality of Abrantes,it is clear that the Colos collectioncomprises high-value items originatingfrom outside the Tagus valley. Thisimplies the presence of at least oneneighboring settlement whose charac-teristics would be consistent with therichness of the artifacts of those buriedin Colos.2

The walls identified in the areawhere the artifacts were recovered in2000 could easily be considered asstructures surrounding them. Thisvotive deposition of artifacts and eco-facts virtually placed against the rockoutcrop confers on it a symbolic naturewhich cannot be ignored. One must,therefore, consider that the depositionof these grave goods along with theremains of human bones may be aconscious and deliberate action. Theseconsiderations lead us to think on Pedrada Encavalada that was also foundattached to a large outcrop and whichacted as a pivot for the construction of

the closed chamber using otherorthostats.

The second consideration has to dowith the phenomenon of cremation,which in itself is nothing new in theNeolithic and Chalcolithic, as is witnessedfor example by the settlement ofPerdigões in Reguengos de Monsaraz(Valera and Silva 2011, 8), which wouldlater (Late Bronze Age) arise in Abrantes,more precisely in the basin of the Zêzere,as can be seen in the tumuli already exca-vated (Cruz 2011). It is meaningful thatthe cremated remains at Colos andPerdigões are spread throughout the bur-ial area, almost as if they were collectiveburial remains, in contrast to those of theLate Bronze Age tumuli which were col-lected in cinerary urns. Such disposal ofthe physical body through fire can also beregarded as having symbolic connota-tions, although cremation is not so fre-quent in this particular phase of recentprehistory. We are therefore in the pre-sence of a different funerary ritual con-cerning the megalithic ones. The relativedating of pottery is also evidence of itscontinuing use since the Middle Neolithicto the Bronze Age.

Interestingly, a little later (Late BronzeAge), and also within the Abrantes terri-tory, containerized cremation depositsprotected by a lithic armor of largequartz and quartzite clasts is to befound (Cruz 2011). Colos, as well asPerdigões (Valera and Silva 2011), arethe predecessors of this new ideologicalattitude towards death that breaks withthe dolmen burial pattern between thelate Third Millennium BC and the lateSecond Millennium BC in the PortugueseMiddle Tagus region.

Further consideration leads us to thetype of material exhumed, not only in thispresent investigation but, and especially, in

314 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

the research from 2000, such as materialsbelonging to agro-pastoral communities,which in terms of relative chronology canbe considered as contemporaneous withLate Neolithic – Early Chalcolithic. Theexistence of slate plaques, typically native,are a grave goods element well known inWestern Iberian, thus justifying the assign-ing of this site to the dawn of megalithicideology in this region.

The presence of typically megalithicgrave goods (slate plaques and ceramicplain globular forms) along withChalcolithic and Early Bronze Age material(low-carinated forms) reminds of the cul-tural horizons of Ferradeira and Montelavar(Cardoso 2002) that imply an even moreinteresting approach: (1) the continuity offunerary use at Colos from the LateNeolithic to circa the Early Bronze Age;(2) the possible absence of the bell beakerculture south of the Tagus river, consider-ing that it has been suggested that there areareas in Portugal without bell beaker cul-ture such as Beira Baixa (Vilaça 1995,128).

The fourth consideration concernsthe absence of megaliths in this region,even though suitable raw material for theconstruction of dolmens and menhirsabounds. This is, in fact, a region in whichgranite is readily available and it seemsstrange that, instead of building a mega-lithic monument, our ancestors have con-sciously and deliberately opted for using anatural outcrop for votive deposition.

Death, Cosmology and ReligionUndoubtedly, Colos reflects a religiousapproach towards death that is differentfrom the typical Megalithic approaches.The case study of the site implies notonly an archaeographical approach, butalso a cosmological and philosophical-religious approach to the possible beliefs

of the community while attempting toarrive at an interpretation based on thearchaeological remains of funerary prac-tices. It seems possible to provide aninterpretation of the social and culturalorganization of the community who bur-ied their dead at Colos. We have tounderstand how cultural manifestationsmaterialize in ritual funerary gesturesrecorded archaeographically.

We know that the ethnographic paral-lels are used with some frequency duringthe study of religions (Renfrew andZubrow 1994; Johnson 1999; Kaliff 2007).However, there is nothing in commonbetween the studied communities withina geographic context and a specific histor-ical period of agro-pastoral communities inthe Portuguese Neolithic, Chalcolithic andEarly Bronze Age periods. In fact, we eventhink that the similarities that may exist mayhave had a diverse meaning.

Although we are fully aware that thistwenty-first-century interpretation of whatColos was about may not correspond tothe reality of many thousands of years ago,we dare to consider this site of depositionattached to the granite outcrop as a sacredplace, a place with a special religious sig-nificance for the group of people engagingin the funerary ritual.

Richard Bradley (2005, 28–36) takesa particular position when advocating thenon-separation between ritual environ-ment and home environment, i.e., hedoes not claim a clear-cut separationbetween the sacred and the profane,but he rather considers that these areconcepts that may help understand therituals practiced in pre-historical societies.Although we agree with Bradley’s claimof not establishing a clear-cut separationbetween the sacred and the profane, weare obliged to consider that in this parti-cular case of Colos there seems to have

Time & Mind 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

been a true separation between the placeof the dead and the place of the living,because no evidence of population orhabitat has been found in the vicinity ofthe site. But perhaps we can justify thistopographical location with the need tosanctify the landscape through ritual.Following this approach, it seems to usthat the funerary deposition in specificlocations took place there because thecommunities already viewed them assacred (Kaliff 2007, 80). We thereforedare to consider that specific outcropsthat stand out in the landscape wouldbe at the same time topographical refer-ences and ritual spaces. Thus this peculiarsituation of the votive deposition atColos (Frisberg 2005; Widholm 2006,55) could be explained. We believe thatagro-pastoral communities would havetopographical references in the landscapewhose meaning would be far beyondmundane aspects. These landscape ele-ments would have a transcendentalimportance as a previous cultural andcosmological reference and also in theseplaces rites, not only funerary but alsovotive, would have been performed,whose details are unknown to us butwhich would have been peculiar to thecosmology of those communities.

From a strictly archaeographicalpoint of view of the Colos site, wecan in summary observe and recordits orientation relative to the Ribeirade Coalhos and Ribeira de Vale dasMós as the nearest water courses andalso relative to the river Tagus, theorientation of the stone structure rela-tive to the outcrop and its topographi-cal location, the roughly circular siteplan, the site size and materials used(blocks of diorite), and the small num-ber of individuals buried (four).

Seen through its material remains,Colos reflects a new vision: a “two-speed” megalithic culture: one the typicallydolmen-style structures as we know it, notonly in Portugal but also elsewhere inEurope, and the other, a silent and discreetform of megalithic activity which mergeswith the landscape itself, of which this siteis an example.

As has been discussed, what we findin Colos is a very simple burial stonestructure compared with the dolmenmega-constructions in solid stone but, incontrast, one that is very rich from thepoint of view of the exhumed collection.Also with regard to the excavated arti-facts, it becomes necessary, on the mat-ter of cosmologies, to question whetherthe depositions are carried out with theintent to gratify the deceased offering thegoods that belonged to him/her or,rather, the depositions were made witha higher purpose, to please the gods(Hedeager 1992; Kaliff 2007, 84,167–170).

In cosmological terms we agree withHertz (1907) when he advocates thatreligious beliefs would come togetherwith social reality and organization. Itseems to us that a juxtaposition of thereligious reality of these agro-pastoralcommunities of Colos and their social,political and economical environmentconstituted a whole which must be inter-preted as such. It is also important tostress the importance of Blau’s (1970)systems theory to format the social orga-nization model and the relationshipsbetween the various social dimensions,of Tainter’s (1978) interpretation of theconsumption of energy in funerary rituals,of Goldstein’s (1976, 1981) interpreta-tion of the spatial structure of cemeteriesand O’Shea’s (1981, 1984) assessment of

316 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

taphonomic processes in archaeologicalcontexts.

In the para-megalithic setting of Colos,together with its atypicality, Binford (1971,7) gives us clues related to the causality andrelative permanence or radical change insocial organization suggesting that theremay be a cultural correlation betweensocial complexity and the extent of thesocial organization reflected in burial prac-tices. We can also add that, within an idea-listic perspective (Durkheim 1938, 97–112), it is very likely that there is a matchbetween the different funerary behaviorsobserved and differences in religiousbeliefs. However, it seems more logical tous, following Binford (1971, 16), that mor-tuary behaviors will be explained on thegrounds of social organization, rather thanreligious beliefs.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Dr GustavoPortocarrero and Ana Graça for the English trans-lation and also Abigail George and Paul Devereuxfor the necessary further English corrections.

Notes1. The examples of menhir aesthetic architec-

ture are manifold. Major examples include:the Cromlech of Xerez (Gomes 2000), theCromlech of Almendres (Gomes 2002), theCromlech of Portela de Mogos (Gomes1997), the megalithic enclosure of ValeMaria do Meio (Calado 2000), the megalithicenclosure of Fontainhas (Calado, Rocha, andAlvim 2007) and the settlement of Perdigões(Lago et al. 1998). One can perceive analmost contemporaneity in dolmen megalithsin Northern, Central and Southern Portugal,which is clear evidence of the significantdevelopment that occurred in the FifthMillennium BC. Examples include the sitesof Meninas do Crasto 2 (Jorge 1983),Outeiro de Ante 3 (Jorge et al. 1988–1989),Outeiro de Ante 2 (Gonçalves 1984),Outeiro de Gregos 2 (Jorge 1982), Outeiro

de Gregos 3 (Jorge 1979), Lapa do Fumo(Soares and Cabral 1993). This megalithicpractice consolidated during the FourthMillennium extending to the 3rd Millennium.

2. This also implies the manifestation of a dual“power” by those who were buried withthese artifacts: (1) Ability to trade withregions outside the Tagus Valley (large-sizeflint artifacts) such as Rio Maior located inthe Portuguese Estremadura; (2) Socialpower within their own communities, inorder to have high-quality artifacts in theirown interment (halberds, daggers and thelong flint blades) (Batista 2012, 14–19). Thesymbolism that emerges, and which maydefine the ruling elite itself, is also veryclear: elites of warriors, the majority of theitems being daggers, arrowheads and hal-berds. Another consideration concerns theuse of raw-material for specific objects:some flint weapons such as halberds arenot made to be used (because of themechanical properties of flint) and others,such as daggers mimic types of daggersmade of copper or arsenical copper (witha triangular base or riveted) (Rovira Llorenz,Montero Ruiz, and Rodriguez Consuegra1997, 88, 130, 143, 176; Blas Cortina1999, 48; Delibes de Castro, FernandezManzano and Herrán Martinez, 1997, 75).This suggests that different raw materialswere used by the living (metal) and thedead (flint).

Notes on ContributorsAna Cruz is a specialist in Middle Tagus RecentPrehistory. Graded in History at LisbonUniversity; Master in Archaeology–Landscapeand Management at Minho University; PhD in“Quaternary: Materials and Cultures” Universityof Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro. Director ofCentro de Pré-História do Instituto Politécnicode Tomar. Lecturer in Didactics in Archaeologyand Museography at Tomar’s PolytechnicInstitute. Researcher at the GeosciencesCenter of Coimbra University.

Davide Delfino graded in Heritage in GenoaUniversity and Specialized in Pre andProtohistoric Archaeology in Milan University,is PhD in “Quaternary: Materials and Cultures”for UTAD (Portugal). Specialist in Bronze and

Time & Mind 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

Iron Age and in the study of material culture.Was an advisor in ArchaeologicalSuperintendence of Liguria (Italy) between1999 and 2007, and today is an advisor forarchaeological projects in AbrantesMunicipality, lecturer in Pottery Study at thePolytechnic Institute of Tomar and a researcherin the Land and Memory Institute and in theGeosciences Center of Coimbra University.

Filomena Gaspar graded in Archaeology forCoimbra University. Archaeologist of AbrantesMunicipality and curator of Municipal Museum“Lopo de Almeida” in Abrantes.Álvaro Batistagraded in Territory Management and a BAStudent in Prehistoric Archaeology and Rock Artfor Polytechnic Institute of Tomar. Technical inArchaeology of Abrantes Municipality.

ReferencesAmmerman A., and L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1984. The

Neolithic Transition and the Genetics ofPopulation in Europe. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Barker, P. 1993. Techniques of ArchaeologicalExcavation. London: Batsford.

Batista, A. 2012. “Sinais da importância da pedrana evolução humana na região deAbrantes.” Museu Ibérico de Arqueologia eArte, Antevisão IV, 9–33. Abrantes: CâmaraMunicipal de Abrantes.

Binford, L. R. 1971. “Mortuary Practices: TheirStudy and Their Potential.” Society forAmerican Archaeology, Memoirs 25: 6–29.

Blas Cortina, M. A. 1999. “Asturias y Cantabria.”In Las primeras etapas metalúrgicas en laPeninsula Iberica. Estudios Regionales, editedby G. Delibes de Castro and I. MonteroRuiz, vol. 2, 41–62. Madrid: InstitutoUniversitario Ortega y Gasset.

Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life inPrehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.

Braudel, F. 1969. Écrits Sur L’Histoire. Paris:Flammarion.

Calado, M. 2000. “O Recinto Megalítico de ValeMaria do Meio (Évora, Alentejo).” Actas doIº Colóquio Internacional sobre Megalitismo(Monsaraz, 1996), 167–182. Lisboa:Instituto Português de Arqueologia.

Calado, M. 2004. Menires do Alentejo Central.Accessed August 4, 2008. http://www.crookscpe.org/tesemc/Vol.1.pdf

Calado, M., and L. Rocha. 2007. “Menires eNeolitização: História da Investigação noAlgarve.” Xelb 7, 75–88. Silves: CâmaraMunicipal de Silves/Museu Municipal deArqueologia.

Cardoso, J. L. 2002. Pré-História de Portugal.Lisboa: Verbo.

Cruz, A. 1997. Vale do Nabão. Do Neolítico àIdade do Bronze, in Arkeos, 3. Tomar: CentroEuropeu de Investigação da Pré-História doAlto Ribatejo.

Cruz, A. 2011. A Pré-História Recente do vale dobaixo Zêzere, in Arkeos, 30. Tomar: CentroEuropeu de Investigação da Pré-História doAlto Ribatejo.

Cruz, A. 2013. “The Settlements of Fontes andPedra da Encavalada – Key Sites for theNeolithization of North Ribatejo(Portugal).” In Iº Congresso de Arqueologiado Alto Ribatejo – Homenagem a José daSilva Gome, edited by A. Cruz, A. Graça, L.Oosterbeek and P. Rosina Arkeoss, 34. 79–93. Tomar: CEIPHAR.

Cruz, A., A. Batista, and A. Graça. 2011. “RecentPrehistory and Protohistory in Abrantes andConstância council (Portuguese MiddleTagus) – The Research Preliminary State.” InFrom the Origins: The Prehistory of the InnerTagus Region, edited by P. Bueno Ramirez, E.Cerrillo Cuenca, A. Gonzalez Cordero, 93–109. BAR International Series 2219. Oxford:Archaeopress.

Cruz, D. J., and R. Vilaça. 1994. “Dólmen I doCarapito (Aguiar da Beira, Guarda): NovasDatações de Carbono 14.” Actas doSeminário O Megalitismo no Centro dePortugal (Mangualde, Novembro de 1992),63–68. Viseu: Centro de Estudos Pré-Históricos da Beira Alta.

Delibes de Castro, G., J. Fernández Manzano, andJ. I. Herrán Martinez. 1999. “SubmesetaNorte.” In Las primeras etapas metalúrgicasen la Peninsula Iberica. Estudios Regionales,edited by G. Delibes de Castro and I.Montero Ruiz, vol. 2, 64–94. Madrid:Istituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.

Devereux, P., and J. Wozencroft. 2014. “StoneAge Eyes and Ears: A Visual and AcousticPilot Study of Carn Menyn and Environs,Preseli, Wales.” Time & Mind 7 (1): 47–70.

Durkheim, E. (1912) 1915. The ElementaryForms of the Religious Life. London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin.

318 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

Frisberg, K. H. 2005. “Where are the Dead? EmptyGraves from Early Iron Age Uppland.” InDealing with the Dead. ArchaeologicalPerspectives on Prehistoric Scandinavian BurialRitual, edited by T. Artelius and F. Svanberg,143–158. Riksantikvarieambetet arkeologiskaundersokningar skrifter, 65, Stockholm: TheSwedish National Heritage Board – TheMuseum of National Antiquities in Sweden.

Gaspar, F., and A. Batista. 2000. “RelatórioTécnico de Arqueologia.” Fieldwork reportsent to Instituto Portugês de Arqueologia,Lisbon.

Goldstein, L. G. 1981. “One-DimensionalArchaeology and Multi-Dimensional People:Spatial Organization and Mortuary Analysis.”In The Archaeology of Death, edited by R.Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, 53–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gomes, M. V. 1997. “Cromeleque da Portela doMogos. Um Monumento Sócio – religiosoMegalítico.” In Paisagens Arqueológicas aOeste de Évora, edited by P. Sarantopolous,35–40. Évora: Câmara Municipal de Évora.

Gomes, M. V., 2000. “Cromeleque do Xerez. Aordenação do caos.” In Das Pedras do Xerezàs Novas Terras da Luz, edited by A. C. Silva,17–190. Beja: EDIA.

Gomes, M. V. 2002. Cromeleque dos Almendres.Um Monumento Sócio-Religioso Neolítico.Lisboa: Faculdade de Ciências Sociais eHumanas da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.

Gonçalves, A. 1984. “Escavação da Mamoa 2 deOuteiro de Ante – Serra da Aboboreira –

Baião.” Arqueologia 9: 22–44.Hertz, R. 1907. “Contribution a une 6tude sur la

representation collective de la mort.” AnnéeSociologique 10: 48–137.

Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: AnIntroduction. Oxford & Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jorge, V. O. 1979. “O Megalitismo do Norte dePortugal. Actas da 1ª Mesa Redonda sobreo neolítico e o Calcolítico em Portugal(Porto, Abril de 1978).” Trabalhos doGrupo de Estudos Arqueológicos do Porto 3:83–102.

Jorge, V. O. 1980. “Mamoa 2 de Outeiro deGregos: Serra da Aboboreira, Baião.”Revista de Guimarães 90: 190–209.

Jorge, V. O. 1980–1981. “Escavação da Mamoa1 de Outeiro de Ante. Serra da Aboboreira,Baião.” Setúbal Arqueológica 6–7.

Jorge, V. O. 1982. “Mamoa 2 de Outeiro deGregos.” Informação Arqueológica 2: 62–63.

Jorge, V. O. 1983. “Escavação das Mamoas 2 e 4de Meninas do Crasto, Serra daAboboreira.” Arqueologia 7: 30–39.

Jorge, V. O. 1985. “Les Tumulus de Chã deSantinhos (ensemble megalithiques deSerra da Aboboreira, Nord du Portugal).”Arqueologia 12: 96–128.

Jorge, V. O., S. Jorge, I. Figueiral, G. Delibrias, M.Fontugne, P. Cabral, and M. Soares. 1988–1989. “Novos Elementos sobre oMegalitismo da Serra da Aboboreira (Baião).”Portugália, Nova Série, 9–10:101–109.

Kaliff, A. 2007. Fire, Water, Heaven and Earth:Ritual Practice and Cosmology in AncientScandinavia: An Indo-European Perspective.Stockholm: Riksantikvarieambetet &Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Lago, M., C. Duarte, A. Valera, J. Albergaria, F.Almeida, and A. F. Carvalho. 1998.“Povoado dos Perdigões (Reguengos deMonsaraz: dados preliminares dos trabalhosarqueológicos realizados em 1997).” RevistaPortuguesa de Arqueologia 1 (1): 45–152.

Leisner, V., and L. Ribeiro. 1966. “A Escavaçãodo Dólmen – Orca de Castenairas, Fráguas– Vila Nova de Paiva.” Actas do IVº ColóquioPortuense de Arqueologia. Lucerna, inCadernos de Arqueologia do Centro deEstudos Humanísticos 5: 376–382.

Matos, V. 2001. “Relatório Técnico deAntropologia.” Fieldwork report sent toInstituto Portugês de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

O’Shea, J. 1981. “Social Configurations and theArchaeological Study of Mortuary Practices:A Case Study.” In The Archaeology of Death,edited by R. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and I.Randsborg, 39–52. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

O’Shea, J. 1984. Mortuary Variability: AnArchaeological Investigation. New York:Academic Press.

Oosterbeek, L. 1994. “Echoes from the East:The Western network. North Ribatejo(Portugal): An Insight To Unequal EndCombined Development, 7,000–2,000BC.” PhD diss., University College London.

Renfrew, C., and E. B. W. Zubrow, eds. 1994.The Ancient Mind: Elements of CognitiveArchaeology. Cambridge & New York:Cambridge University Press.

Time & Mind 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5

Rovira Llorenz, S., I. Montero Ruiz, and S.Consuegra Rodriguez. 1997. Las primerasetapas metalurgicas en la Peninsula Iberica,Vol. I. Madrid: Instituto UniversitarioOrtega y Gasset.

Scarre, C., P. Arias, G. Burenhult, M. Fano, L.Oosterbeek, R. Schulting, A. Sheridan, and A.Whittle. 2003. “Megalithic Chronologies.” InStones andBones. Formal disposal of the dead inAtlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithicinterface 6000-3000 BC, edited by GBurenhult, 65–112. Oxford: Archaeo press.

Shepherd, D. 2013. “Propped Stones: TheModifications of Natural Features and theConstruction of Place.” Time & Mind 6 (3):263–286.

Silva, E. J., and A. M. Cunha. 1988. “O NúcleoMegalítico da Abogalheira.” Arqueologia 17:40–44.

Silva, C. T. 1997. “O Neolítico Antigo e a Origemdo Megalitismo no Sul de Portugal.” In ONeolítico Atlântico e as Orixes do Megalitismo,edited by Rodriguez Casal, 575–585. Santiagode Compostela: Universidade de Santiago deCompostela.

Soares, A. M., and J. Cabral. 1993. “CronologiaAbsoluta para o Calcolítico da Estremadurae do Sul de Portugal.” Actas do Iº Congressode Arqueologia Peninsular, in Trabalhos deAntropologia e Arqueologia, 33 (3–4), 217–235. Porto: SPAE.

Tainter, J. A. 1978. “Mortuary Practices and theStudy of Prehistoric Social Systems.”Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory 1: 105–141.

Tomé, T. 2013. “Monumento Funerário deColos (São Facundo, Abrantes).” Technicalanthropological report sent to InstitutoPortugês de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

Valera, A., and A. Silva. 2011. “Datações deRadiocarbono para os Perdigões (1):Contextos com Restos Humanos nosSectores I & Q.” Apontamentos deArqueologia e Património 7: 7–14.

Ventura, J. 1999. “Monumentalidade e visibili-dade nos sepulcros megalíticos da plata-forma do Mondego.” Trabalhos deArqueologia da EAM 5: 35–49.

Vilaça, R. 1995. “A Idade do Bronze na Beira Baixa.”In A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos depoder, edited by S. Oliveira Jorge, 127–130.Exposition catalogue in National Museum ofArchaeology, Lisbon: IPM-MNA.

Widholm, D. 2006. Sacred Sites: Burial Customsin South Scandinavian Bronze and Iron AgeReport series 95; Lund: Department ofArchaeology and Ancient History,University of Lund.

Zbyszewski, G., A. Carvalhosa, and F. Gonçalves.1981. Carta Geológica de Portugal na escala1: 50.000. Notícia Explicativa da Folha 28-C(Gavião). Lisboa: Direcção Geral deGeologia e Minas, Serviços Geológicos dePortugal.

Zilhão, J. C. 1992. “Gruta do Caldeirão. ONeolíticoAntigo.” Trabalhos de Arqueologia 6.

Zilhão, J. C. 1998. “A Passagem do Mesolíticoao Neolítico na Costa do Alentejo.”Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 1 (1):27–44.

320 A. Cruz et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dav

ide

Del

fino

] at

07:

11 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5