Burial taphonomy and megalithic ritual practices in Iberia: the Panoría cemetery

Abstract

Our ability to build precise narratives regarding megalithic funerary rituals largely depends on an accurate understanding of bone assemblage formation. The cemetery of Panoría offers an excellent opportunity for exploring the ritual variability through the study of funerary taphonomy, as four of the nine recently excavated dolmens are remarkably well-preserved. Based on a multi-proxy approach that includes the contextual archaeological features, skeletal preservation and representation indexes, taphonomic processes, and radiocarbon chronology, three main ritual practices can be outlined: (i) primary sequential inhumations followed by the differential in situ decomposition of skeletal remains; (ii) the selective removal of crania and long bones; and (iii) the curation of subadult crania and probably long bones. The use-life of tombs, the intensity of mortuary depositions, and the intentional protection of specific bones appear as key aspects for understanding the variability in bone assemblage formation.

Two examples of anthropic manipulation and postmortem processing of human remains at megalithic sites in inland Iberia: La Cabaña and Los Zumacales (Spanish northern sub‐plateau)

“…Nonetheless, in some tombs, a repeated absence of some anatomical elements has been observed, which raises questions regarding the state of the bodies at the point of deposition in those megalithic structures (Chambon, 2000, 2003; Crubézy, 2021). At present, greater flexibility is considered in the interpretation of the assemblages, encompassing a wide range of funerary actions during hundreds of years of burials in megalithic mortuary spaces (Beckett, 2011; Fernández‐Crespo, 2015; Gonçalves et al, 2016; Leclerc, 1990; Silva et al, 2019, 2021; Smith & Brickley, 2009; Vílchez Suárez et al, 2023).…”

“…Mortuary deposits in dolmens are the result of the accumulation of human remains over relatively extended periods, which results in a chaotic amalgam of bones that is difficult to study and systematize (Delibes de Castro, 1995: 67; Boaventura et al, 2014; Vílchez Suárez et al, 2023). These sites reflect collective funerary practices in megalithic ceremonies that until recently were classified as either primary or secondary deposits, without addressing satisfactorily the complexity of the forms of burial that take place in the tombs.…”

“…These sites reflect collective funerary practices in megalithic ceremonies that until recently were classified as either primary or secondary deposits, without addressing satisfactorily the complexity of the forms of burial that take place in the tombs. However, studies conducted from a taphonomic perspective have demonstrated that these commingled human remains are the result of complex burial practices, and they have stressed the manipulation and reduction of the bodies after their deposition (Andrés, 2003; Crubézy, 2021; Fernández‐Crespo, 2015; Knüsel & Robb, 2016; Robb, 2016; Vílchez Suárez et al, 2023).…”

“…(Delibes de Castro, 1995: 67;Boaventura et al, 2014;Vílchez Suárez et al, 2023). These sites reflect collective funerary practices in megalithic ceremonies that until recently were classified as either primary or secondary deposits, without addressing satisfactorily the complexity of the forms of burial that take place in the tombs.…”

Chronological Study of Collective Burials in the Northern Iberian Plateau: Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates on Human Bones From the Megalithic Complex of La Lora (Burgos, Spain)

“…Megalithic burial practices have traditionally been studied (Vílchez Suárez et al 2023; Santa Cruz del Barrio et al 2023). More recently, there has been an increase in the use of taphonomic analysis, which has been instrumental in the attribution of the co-existence of different types of burial in the same space.…”