Most of us, when we hear the word crómlech, associate it with one of several examples within the megalithic world, automatically visualizing Stonehenge as the largest example and we are not wrong. But, without needing to leave the Iberian Peninsula, we have a wide range of megalithic examples that do not envy their English counterparts. On this occasion, we want to make a brief introduction to the topic of Pyrrenean crómlech.
Crómlech, what are they?
Within the megalithic phenomenon, which mainly focuses on Atlantic Europe and Western Mediterranean, there are different types of funerary and non-funerary structures; dolmens, tumuli, tholoi, cists, menhirs, crómlech… Its chronology, in general terms, would cover from the Paleolithic to almost the Iron Age, but with significant differences in construction and territorial distribution. Generally speaking, most crómlechs are dated within the Bronze Age (2500 BC – 1000 BC), with an exception being Pyrenean crómlech which were erected or continued to be used during the Iron Age (Peñalver, 2008: 226).
The term crómlech or circle of stones comes from French cromlech, which is a derivation of Breton kroum (crown) and lech (stone) (Muro, 2017: 8). In Basque it is referred to in different ways; jentilbaratza, mairubaratza or baratza, with the latter being the most commonly used today.
This type of megalithic funerary monument is formed by stones of different types, in blocks or slabs, depending on the material available in the area. The arrangement tends to enclose the interior space where ashes would be deposited and subsequently covered with earth, so they are placed following a circular line, closer or farther from each other, sometimes forming a kind of wall (Peñalver, 2008: 224). The dimensions of these structures, in general terms, tend to be relatively homogeneous, having a diameter of between 3 and 7 meters. Similarly, two types of crómlech can be identified; those that present a flat appearance and those with a tumular aspect caused by the greater concentration of stones and earth within the interior of the enclosure, which tend to have a larger dimension than the flat ones.
Spatial distribution
The term Pyrenean crómlech, as is evident, refers to the geographical space they occupy. It is a megalithic phenomenon that presents a strong territorial unity; along a band of around 250 km in length from east to west and with an approximate width of between 5 and 40 km, there have been up to 558 complexes grouping 1452 crómlech (although the current number may be higher), with very similar characteristics among them (Peñalver, 2005: 307).
An aspect to note is that despite recent research locating crómlechs west of the Leizaran river (Guipúzcoa – Navarra), their number is very low compared to those we can find east of it. Their generalization from this point onwards suggests that it could be the territorial limit of the Vascones, although this theory needs verification.
Generally, they are located at high elevations, which progressively increase towards the east as the altitude of the Pyrenean mountain ranges increases. Their location is in places with wide visibility such as passes, ridges or hills. By and large, most of these crómlech appear isolated, but as mentioned earlier, exceptionally there are recorded groups of more than 6 clusters, reaching up to a total of 26 (Illarrita complex, Okabe), with the latter being an isolated case (Fito et al., 2016: 194).
These structures are located in grazing and transhumance routes that still exist today, where seasonal movements take place to make use of the best pastures.
Funerary ritual
For this chronology (Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age), the funerary ritual is that of cremation. This would be carried out through a funeral pyre, erected with wood available in the vicinity, mainly pine and oak. Thanks to excavations carried out in some of the numerous crómlech mentioned, researchers agree that the fires were built outside the monument since if they had been inside, material remains would have been more abundant.
After the combustion of the same, a selection would be made from the deceased's remains to subsequently introduce them into the funerary monument. In total, eight different ways have been documented for depositing the remains, but generally speaking, in the case of bone remains, these would occupy the central place within the structure, distinguishing them from carbonized plant remains found without bone fragments, which are deposited in various parts of the structure, rarely in central areas (Peñalver, 2005: 300). It is important to note the acidity of the soil, which could have reduced the number of remains that have reached our days.
Regarding grave goods, these are very poor, mainly consisting of lithic industry (pebbles, scrapers, burins, arrowheads etc.) and to a lesser extent by ceramic fragments and metal remains (in bronze and iron).
Conclusions
To conclude, while it is true that throughout this article various data have been presented to help understand this megalithic phenomenon, in reality Pyrenean crómlech pose more questions than answers. One of the most difficult to resolve for this chronology concerns the Atlantic side of Euskal Herria, where there is almost a total absence of necropolises associated with fortified settlements (castros), leaving crómlech as virtually the only funerary evidence, which does not happen on the Mediterranean side. Current research rules out the possibility of crómlech in the vicinity of castros, leaving a gap in the funerary sphere that is very difficult to explain. If we add this to the already mentioned almost total absence of crómlech west of the Leizaran river and their generalization from this point onwards, it could be indicative of a cultural horizon division between different pre-Roman ethnic groups.
Similarly, today we do not know the temporary or permanent habitats that may have been related to these high-altitude funerary spaces, as the climate and access to them make their study very difficult. Lastly, it is worth noting that of the 1452 crómlech identified, only 62 have been excavated, leaving a wide margin for future research.
Bibliography
Fito, J. M. E., Zabaleta, I. G., Galarraga, A. L., Muñoz, E. A., Orue, Í., Zaldua, L. M., & Alustiza, J. A. M. (2016). Contribution to the study of the geographical distribution of stone funerary circles (baratze, crómlech) in Western Pyrenees. Zephyrvs, 77, 193-205.
Muro, A. (2017). Dolmens, Crómlechs and Menhirs. Bilbao: SUA.
Peñalver. X. (2005). The Pyrenean crómlech. Huesca: BOLSKAN.
Peñalver, X. (2008). The Iron Age. The Vascons and their Neighbors. The Last Millennium Before Our Era. Donostia -San Sebastian: Txertoa.
Comments