Building forever or just for the time being? A perspective from NW Iberian mounds

Megalithic architectures: intentions and construction, styles and techniques

Architectures mégalithiques :

intentions et mise en œuvre, styles et techniques.

Fourth Meeting of the European Megalithic Studies Group

Auditorium du Musée de Bretagne, Rennes 2012, 10/05 - 12/05

http://emsg-rennes.jimdo.com/

The study of megalithic architectures focused for many years on the funerary space, but it enquiry has subsequently extended to the entirety of the monumental structure and to its placement within its physical, temporal and human setting. In the light of new information acquired over the past 20 years it is perhaps timely to revisit the notion of the architectural project. In analysing the intentions that can be attributed to the Neolithic builders we must consider what evidence is available to be drawn from the construction process, and therefore from the building site. We have also to ask what can learned from the evidence of constructional sequences, and from the additions and modifications through which each generation reappropriated the unique significance of the specific site. These “primitive” architectures may appear to be the outcome of a construction project as rudimentary, and a construction process as opportunistic, as the large slabs that they employed. That is clearly not the case, but to what extent? Each building project was unique, and detailed study can assess the architectural function or the manipulation of each element, and the reuse, secondary reworking and other successive modifications to which they were subjected. Along with the manner in which the materials were used, this reveals a store of knowledge that sometimes differed considerably from one structure to another, even between those of the same period within a single region. Reconstructing the building processes allows a better understanding, first, of the nature of these architectural projects, and second, of the purposes and uses for which they were intended. We also have the opportunity to review evidence for the transport and erection of the materials used in the building work. Ethnographic parallels and experiments have multiplied over the past twenty years, and this is also one of the subjects that have attracted the greatest public interest, although no general review of knowledge in this domain has been undertaken. What are the kinds of evidence and what are the telltale signs that can document the progress and operation of each building site, of each sequence or series of phases, of each construction project and the intentions that lay behind it? To what extent do the restoration works undertaken by our own and by preceding generations take account of these issues? Were these building projects long-term, undertaken by a small group of people during the slack season, or were they co-ordinated and continuous? If the latter, were they accompanied by the provision of shelters intended to accommodate the whole of the work force during the work? Or should we instead envisage periodic assemblies of people who were sometimes deployed for these activities, enhancing the cohesion of the group through a collective undertaking that tied the individual into the group? The organisation of work on the building site indirectly reflects the social organisation of the groups involved just as does the number of people whose bodies were deposited within the funerary spaces, or whose bones were arranged and stored there. Theoretical discussions have explored the full range of possibilities, but the material evidence that might allow more specific insights in individual cases remains relatively rare.

L’étude des architectures mégalithiques s’est longtemps focalisée sur celles des espaces funéraires, pour s’étendre ensuite à l’ensemble de la construction monumentale ou à la façon dont celle-ci s’insère dans son cadre physique, temporel et humain. Il est peut-être temps désormais de revisiter la notion de projet architectural à la lumière des acquis de ces vingt dernières années. Mettre en relief les intentions que l’on prête aux bâtisseurs du Néolithique, c’est aussi en creux pouvoir distinguer ce qui ressort plutôt de la mise en œuvre et donc du chantier de construction. Ce sera aussi distinguer ce qui ressort de séquences distinctes, de projets successifs ou d’ajustements qui permettront à chaque génération de se réapproprier ce qui fait la singularité d’un lieu précisément. Architectures « primitives » dont le projet serait aussi rudimentaire et la mise en œuvre aussi aléatoire, en apparence, que l’aspect des grosses dalles employées ? Certainement pas, mais dans quelle mesure ? Si chaque projet est singulier, l’étude détaillée de la fonction architectonique ou de l’agencement de chaque élément, celle des remplois, reprises en sous-oeuvre et autres transformations successives qu’ils ont subis, comme celle de la façon dont les matériaux ont été employés, nous révèlent une somme de savoir-faire qui diffère parfois très largement d’une construction à une autre, parfois aux mêmes époques et dans la même région. Faire revivre ces chantiers de construction permet de mieux comprendre, en amont, la nature des projets architecturaux, et en aval, les fonctions comme l’usage auxquels ils étaient destinés. Ce pourrait être enfin l’occasion de faire une synthèse sur le transport et le levage des matériaux utilisés au cours du chantier : exemples ethnographiques et expérimentations se sont multipliés depuis une vingtaine d’années sur un sujet qui est aussi de ceux qui interpellent le plus le grand public, sans qu’aucune actualisation globale des connaissances ait été véritablement entreprise dans ce domaine. Quels vestiges, quels stigmates seraient-ils susceptibles de rendre compte de la progression et du déroulement de chaque chantier de construction, de chaque séquence ou phasage, de chaque projet et des intentions qui les sous tendent ? Dans quelle mesure nos propres restaurations ou celles de nos prédécesseurs en rendent-elles compte, véritablement ? Chaque chantier de construction a-t-il été mis en œuvre sur la durée, par un groupe restreint au cours de la morte saison, ou s’est-il déroulé de façon continue et coordonnée ? Dans ce dernier cas, a-t-il donné lieu à l’aménagement de lieux de vie destinés à abriter l’ensemble des ouvriers mobilisés pour l’occasion ? Ou serait-ce plutôt la pratique de regroupements collectifs périodiques qui aurait parfois été mise à profit dans ce sens, assurant la cohésion du groupe dans un effort collectif qui emporte l’adhésion de chacun ? Au même titre que le nombre de personnes dont le corps a été exposé sur le sol des espaces funéraires, ou dont les ossements ont pu être rangés et stockés à cet endroit, l’organisation du travail sur le chantier de construction est un autre reflet indirect du mode d’organisation social des groupes concernés. Au-delà de dissertations théoriques qui explorent toute l’étendu des possibles, les éléments de preuve susceptibles de trancher sur des cas concrets restent encore assez peu nombreux. Organisation : L. Laporte (UMR 6566 - Creaah, HDR Université Rennes1, Chargé de Recherche au CNRS) F. Cousseau (UMR 6566 - Creaah, HDR Université Rennes1, Doctorant) C. Marcigny (UMR 6566 – Creaah, INRAP Grand-Ouest) C. Scarre (Professor and Head of Department of Archaeology, Durham University, United Kingdom) Scientific comitee : P. Bueno Ramirez (Professora catedratica, Universidad de Alcala de Hénares, Spain) G. Cooney (Professor and Head of School of Archaeology, University College of Dublin, Irland) T. Dehn (Heritage Agency of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark)

Program Thursday 10/05 8h30 – Introduction Chris Scarre, 9h - Mégalithes au centre de la Péninsule Ibérique Primitiva Bueno Ramirez, 9h30 - Building forever or just for the time being? A perspective from NW Iberian mounds Ramón Fábregas Valcarce, 10h – Megalithic architectures of the dolmenic groups of the oriental andévalo (Huelva, spain). Typology, constructive systems and technical traditions. Jose Antonio Linares Catela, 10h30 - Coffee Break 11h00 – Menga: Biography of an outstanding megalithic monument Leonardo Garcia Sanjuan, José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez, 11h30 - Megalithic Monuments of Northern and Central Portugal. A broad discussion concerning their construction and decoration programs María de Jesús Sanches, Domingos de Jesus da Cruz, 12h00 – Megalithic hollows: rock-cut tombs between the Tagus and the Guadiana Leonor Rocha, Pedro Alvim, 12h30 – Lunch time 14h00 – Structural functions and architectural projects within the elongated monuments of Western France. Luc Laporte, 14h30 – Traces d'exploitation du schiste de quelques cairns néolithiques du Massif armoricain. Eric Gaumé, 15h00 – Poster cession 15h30 - Coffee Break 16h00 – Megalithic building archaeology in the north-western part of France. Florian Cousseau, 16h30 – La file de pierres dressées de Groah Dehn à Hoëdic (Morbihan) : un exemple d’architecture évolutive au 5e-4e millénaire av. J.-C. Jean-Marc Large, Emmanuel Mens, 17h00 – Accident or design? Chambers, cairns and funerary practices in the Neolithic chambered tombs of western Europe Chris Scarre, 17h30/18h00 – A northern point of view: synthesis and debate Chairman - Gabriel Cooney, Torben Dehn,

Friday 11/05 9h00 – Economic Impact of the Megalithic Constructions: the Oceanic Case Nicolas Cauwe, 9h30 - Beyond the individual monument: New Results from the Priority Program "Early Monumentality and Social Differentiation" Martin Hinz, 10h00 - A monumental task: building the Neolithic megaliths of Britain and Ireland. Vicki Cummings, Colin Richards 10h30 - Coffee Break 11h00 – Making megalithic monuments: the role of small things Gabriel Cooney, 11h30 – Building Boom to Bust: A proposed sequence of construction for the Knowth passage tomb cemetery Kerri Cleary, 12h00 - Going through the motions: using phenomenology and 3-D modelling techniques to explore the reality of construction at Knowth , Co. Meath Eimear Meegan, 12h30 – Lunch time 14h00 - 25 years among Neolithic builders Torben Dehn, 14h30 – The clustering of megalithic monuments around the causewayed enclosures at Sarup on Funen, Denmark. Niels H. Andersen, 15h00 – Dolmens without mounds in Denmark Jørgen Westphal, 15h30 - Coffee Break 16h00 - In the Eye of the Beholder Palle Eriksen, 16h30 - Lønt: Two types of megaliths and one oddball Anne Birgitte Gebauer, 17h00 – A southern point of view: synthesis and debate Chairman - Primitiva Bueno Ramirez, Luc Laporte, 17h30/ 18h00 – Conclusion of the meeting Saturday 12/05 Excursion

9H30 - BUILDING FOREVER OR JUST FOR THE TIME BEING? A PERSPECTIVE FROM NW IBERIAN MOUNDS Ramón Fábregas Valcarce & X.I. Vilaseco Vázquez The existence of a Building Project is difficult to ascertain in our study area, though in certain cases we have a hint of such. On a larger scale we observe similarities in the architectonic design and the constructive sequences that suggest the builders were following a certain set of rules, particularly in the case of the passage graves. At a constructive level the range of variation detected is enormous and it is probably linked to shifts in ritual and the purpose of the mounds. Yet we could propose three distinct life-stories for these monuments: - A fairly static one, characterizing tombs resulting from a single constructive episode, without further alterations. - Another, more dynamic, affecting certain monuments that start as a single-chamber mound, then undergoing an aggrandizing process that finishes in the raising of a passage-grave. - A deconstructive pattern, experienced by a number of mounds where stone chambers are total or partially dismantled, to be substituted by simpler structures such as pits and stelae.

With respect to those patterns two questions may be posed, none of which has a straight answer: whether a chronological factor is at play and the eventual changes in the funerary ritual attached to those shifts in design.