Abstract
AbstractThe geoarchaeological study focuses on the lithological characterization and provenance determination of the rocks of the El Pozuelo dolmens. The difficulty of identifying volcanic rocks in the intensely altered and deformed environment of the Iberian Pyrite Belt has required the implementation of a research methodology combining the archaeological and geological analysis of the megaliths and the area surrounding the Los Llanetes group. A total of 29 thin sections and 14 geochemical analyses (ICP-AES, ICP-MS and REE) have been carried out on samples from the dolmens and potential source areas, focusing on the chemical elements considered immobile during alteration processes. The petrological analyses confirm the identification of different andesite lithotypes and enable us to correlate the rocks used in the construction of the megaliths with source areas and quarries located within a 50–350 m radius. Several patterns are observed in the selection of the rocks, based on the material, visual and symbolic properties of the different lithologies. Foliated andesite is the most common stone used in the monuments, due to its excellent physical properties and technological suitability for extraction and transformation into megalithic supports. Other types of andesite (sheared, massive and amphibole-phyric), white quartz, ferruginous agglomerate and gabbro were also used for different architectural purposes. The results confirm the importance of locally available suitable rocks in determining site location, raw material procurement and monument construction during the Late Neolithic.
Funder
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Archeology,Anthropology,Archeology
Reference124 articles.
1. Aranda Jiménez G, Lozano JA, Pérez Valera F (2018) The megalithic necropolis of Panoria, Granada, Spain: geoarchaeological characterization and provenance studies. Geoarchaeol Int J 33:260–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21643
2. Ard V, Mens E, Poncet D, Cousseau F, Defaix J, Mathé V, Pillot L (2016) Life and death of Angoumoisin-type dolmens in west-central France. Architecture and evidence of the reuse of megalithic orthostats. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 113(4):737–764. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2016.14686
3. Bakker JA (2009) Hunnebedden and Hünengräber: the construction of megalithic tombs west tombs of River Elbe. In: Scarre C (ed) Megalithic quarrying. Source, extracting and manipulating the stones. BAR International Series 1923. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 27–34
4. Bevins RE, Ixer RA, Webb PC, Watson JS (2012) Provenancing the rhyolitic and dacitic components of the Stonehenge landscape bluestone lithology: new petrographical and geochemical evidence. J Archaeol Sci 39(4):1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.11.020
5. Bevins RE, Pearce NJG, Ixer RA (2021) Revisiting the provenance of the Stonehenge bluestones: refining the provenance of the Group 2 non-spotted dolerites using rare earth element geochemistry. J Archaeol Sci Rep 38:103083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103083
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献