Introduction

1The presence of painted, carved or sculpted decorations in European funerary practice makes megalithic art a basic reference point for analysing the use of burial spaces. Standardising the position of the themes guarantees a widespread knowledge of the location codes and association of images (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1994, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004).

2Recently, the Iberian Peninsula has contributed very important information regarding the assessment of European megalithic art. This information consists of, on the one hand, the radiocarbon dating of organic pigments from the megaliths’ decoration (Carrera Ramírez & Fábregas Valcarce 2002, 2006, Carrera Ramírez 2008). On the other hand, there is the work hypothesis regarding the narrow relationship between open-air engravings and paintings, and the ones inside megaliths (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 2000, 2002, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004).

3In the 80s, the relationship between European and Iberian megalithic art was interpreted as one of dependance (Shee Twohig 1981). The Peninsula and the rest of the European Atlantic would supposedly have received the techniques and themes from megalithic art as a result of the ideological impulse that was generated in Brittany.

4At the end of the last century’s 90s some authors from the Iberian Peninsula pointed out that the Iberian and Breton pre-megalthic expressions were very similar in their chronology, technique and themes (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1992, Calado 1997).The technical and chronological differences between different graphic versions of the European megalithism that were accepted in the 80s have been overcome for the biggest part

5It is convincing to say that European megalithic art is a symbolical ensemble that communicates an ideology that is shared, for a great deal, with the versions seen in singular development. This is similar to what nowadays has been accepted for European Paleolithic art (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 2002). With no intention of formulating any generalisation that might seem banal, we believe that the study of painted, engraved and sculpted symbols on megaliths can confirm interaction. Developing this line of investigation will provide more solid information for the study of the ideology defining the construction and maintenance of Atlantic megaliths.

6Some of these new expressions throughout Europe are: the use of older stones in order to create new funerary spaces, their role in the changing of monuments, the identification of stones and possible antropomorphic figures and the protagonism of angular or circular geometric themes. Alongside with this, other things indicate that studying the decoration of the sepulchres their maintenance, changing and closing can be identified.

7The extension of these signs through the Atlantic region of Europe gives consistency to our theory of an integrated perspective of funerary symbols in Europe. Moreover, it suggests that some working models being developed in the Iberian Peninsula over the last few years could be used as a base for analysis in other European locations. We will highlight case studies in the South of the Iberian Peninsula, where we have been carrying out work intensively during the last few years. In this area the presence of paint on megalithic decorations was not admitted, but there were abundant evidences of open-air painted art.

8The aim of this paper is to consider the level of interaction among megalithic graphics in Europe, using the experiences gained in the Iberian Peninsula.

Outside and inside: Funerary symbols and daily symbols

9The relationship between art inside and outside megaliths started being treated in Europe ever since kerb stones were recognised as public art (Bradley 2002, 2009a, Eogan 1997, O’Sullivan 2009). We have extended this argument to a more understandable position: one that connects the symbols in places with a special topography (natural places) in the region where megalith builders lived, with those of inhabited areas and those inside tombs (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 2000, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004a).

10It is not possible to make a detailed analysis of megalithic art without taking open-air art into account. This means applying the same principles of Burial Archaeology: a comparison between what happens in the funerary sphere and what happens in everyday life is what helps us to understand the choice shown in burial monuments.

11This more integral concept has been only slightly developed in the rest of Europe; the discussion on outdoor carvings as part of the megalith builders’ language still gives rise to doubts on whether they are contemporary. Only a few teams are reconsidering the theory inherited from nineteenth-century historiography (Bradley 2009a, 2009b, D’Anna et al. 2006, Rocha 2010, Le Goffic 2009).

12Graphic programmes on megaliths provide data for the chronological, cultural, technical and symbolic contexts for studying open-air art in the same areas. The possibility of verifying open-air art throughout continental Europe is real in the light of what we know in the Iberian Peninsula. Paintings and carvings in all economic areas of interest marked the territories of megalith builders. This system continued being used throughout recent Prehistory (Bueno Ramírez 2009).

13Some remains in Great Britian show evidences of the connection between daily and funerary art. E. Shee (Shee Twohig 1997) found stones with similar carvings to those of the megaliths in some inhabited areas of the Orkneys, especially Skara Brae. Also other data have been added to the inventory (Bradley 2009: 14, Smyth 2010). The most important is the presence of stones with geometric motifs painted in red in Ness of Brodgar (Card et al. 2007). The English sites indeed confirm that the megalithic decorations had references in other spaces of their builders’ lives. The possibility of finding paint on megalithic monuments in Great Britain grows. Bradley first proposed this in his study of incision and paint at the Maes Howe holmen (Bradley et al. 2000).

14In the Iberian Peninsula, we already appreciate the close relationship between inhabited areas and painted and engraved symbols (Bueno Ramírez et al. 1998). Some case studies from the South of the Iberian Peninsula are very significant. The narrow formal and technical relationship between the megalithic art of several Andalucian sepulchres and the schematic paintings from the same area is rather revealing (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2013).

15Tagus Park, an area known for its large amount of open-air engravings, dating back to recent prehistory, is a case study exemplifying our proposal. Work done on its megaliths, including a systematic study of the upright stones, provides the first archaeological context for the famous engravings. Techniques and subjects on tombs are identical to the carvings near the river (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004b). Its graphic connections to painted schematic art made us suspect the presence of rock-shelters in an area supposedly void of this type of manifestations. A predictive model that assumes the possibility of open air painting, the same as with megaliths, has obtained immediate results: 17 shelters with schematic painting (fig. 1) have been found in the area prospected so far (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2008a, 2009a). More than a dozen rock-shelters with painted decoration have been found in the area that was delimited by the Marvao mountains. The same situation is repeated when the rocks around the river in the Spanish area are surveyed: we found open-air engravings, made with the same technique and themes as the ones found on megaliths. The thematical identity, the technical correspondence and the positioning of the painted and engraved open-air graphics forms a symbological ensemble of a wide spectre which concerns all daily and singular areas of these groups.

1. Predictive model of integration of engravings and paintings in the International Tagus

16In fact, funerary art contains themes that form part of the group’s tradition and can be found in all inhabited areas. The presence of decorated tombs should be seen as a positive element when surveying around them in search of open-air symbols. Organisation inside the megaliths (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1994, 1996, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004) correlates to the organisation that has been documented for open-air manifestations (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004, 2008a). Therefore, there is a system of expression that includes standards of sites and choice of subjects and technique, for which there will be more evidence in the future in continental Europe.

Techniques and subject matter

17Basically, engraving was accepted as the standard representative system for decorated megaliths all over continental Europe, and painting as an exceptional case in the northeast of the Iberian Peninsula (Shee Twohig 1981).

18However, this could not be confirmed as European megaliths that had been studied using appropriate methodologies in order to document paint presented specific evidences. Therefore we work with artificial lights of different tones and strengths, which we use to search for remains of paint. Once the paint had been found it was documented by taking photographs, relying on the knowledge of traditional photography. These photographs then proceeded to being worked out using programmes from the Adobe package in order to obtain as precise tracings as possible. We have been carrying out our research in this way since the last century’s late 80s, applying this methodology to the documentation in Paleolithic caves. (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2012). The application of this system has remarkably increased the inventory of Iberian megalithic art and its techniques (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1992, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004b, 2007, 2008a). Some researchers in Europe have only very recently worked started working with similar systems (Hensey & Robin 2011, Raux & Joussaume 2000).

19In the last few years, 3D scanners have been used as a method that makes it easier to carry out the graphical documentation of decorated megaliths, apart from improving tracings. (Cassen et al.2005, Cassen & Robin 2009, Díaz Andreu et al. 2006). In fact, reproductions by 3D scanner notably improve the study of upright stones. Nevertheless, they require work prior to the photographic analysis that completes the stills of clouds of dots. It is essential to include experts in graphic documentation. We have used a 3D scanner in the work carried out at the Menga dolmen in Málaga and the Soto dolmen in Huelva, still which has not been concluded (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2009b, 2013).

20With our methods of documentation, we have shown how widespread painting is in all regions of the peninsula. Therefore, paint can not be limited to a single area of the megalithism in the Iberian Peninsula (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1992). Knowledge of painting on decorated megaliths depends on the methodology used for their documentation, and so a specific research programme is required (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2009b).

21Up until now most painted Iberian dolmens have been identified using photographical procedures. This coincides with the most commonly used system to find painted decoration in caves with Paleolithic art. However, some teams from the Iberian Peninsula have included the sampling of pigments in order to analyse artificial applications in megaliths and open-air sites with greater precision. This type of applications is generating innovating interpretations of Iberian post-glacial art. The presence of organic pigments has offered a dating system, unique in European megalithism. The possibilities for analysing paintings go beyond merely documenting the inventory. If the composition of the pigment is organic, samples can be obtained for direct ¹⁴C dating (Carrera Ramírez et al. 2006, Carrera Ramírez & Fábregas Valcarce 2002). This has enabled the first direct dating programme on anthropic work on megalithic upright stones, authenticating the age of Iberian megaliths and providing very interesting data on their sequencing (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2007; fig. 2).

2. Direct and indirect radiocarbon dates of decorated monuments in Iberian Peninsula from Bueno Ramírez et al. 2007 increase of Carrera Ramírez & Fábregas Valcarce 2002

22This made the investigation of the presence of painting on megaliths in Europe a challenge that had to be met by protocols on studying such monuments. We have got older cited evidences that need to be confirmed or dismissed, in the light of the Iberian data (Bradley et al. 2000, Breuil & Macalister 1921, Card et al. 2007).

23In France, black pigments associated with the goddesses of the Marne were found (Villes 1997). Apart from this red pigment has been taken from megaliths (Devignes 1995, 1997) and stelae (Hasler 1998) and remains of colouring were obtained from grave goods (Beyneix 2007).

24Recently, we have had the opportunity to verify painted decoration, accompanying the engraved decoration in chamber H of the Barnenez dolmen (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2012). In order to find it we applied the previously mentioned specific methodology: the use of specialised lights, infrared filters and sampling. Chamber H of the Barnenez dolmen had a phase including older red and black painting. The known engravings and the new red and black painting were placed over this previous phase.

25A detailed analysis of other Breton evidences (Gouezin et al. 2013) proposes the extension of the role of paint in an area defined by its megalithic engravings: Brittany. Therefore we are optimistic regarding the possibility that the inventory of European dolmens with painted decoration will increase as specific projects are developed, as happened in the Iberian Peninsula.

26All this forms the basis for a map including the sites containing megaliths with painted decoration. This map is received with great expectations. Obviously, all of these new items will have to be studied in great detail, as they imply repainting and refurbishing in burial areas, as has happened in the Iberian Peninsula (fig. 3).

3. Locations of Megalithic painting in Europe

27Paint connects continental and Iberian subject matters more precisely. Many of the engravings are interpreted as birds or boats (Cassen 2005), arranged in horizontal or repeated rows. However, when seen with paint they complete groups of uneven and sinuous lines, identical to the most classical Iberian decorations.

28Thus, the most common geometric decorations are the same in all known cases. There are evidently more unusual decorations, which only serve to confirm the rule that a code whose basic elements are known and carried out by various megalithic groups in Europe is known and practised. (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 2002). The code includes a series of standards applying to the position of the graphic discourse, as well as the location of deposits and grave goods (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2008c, 2010a, Robin 2010).

29An increasing amount of information on complex circular motifs is becoming available in the Iberian Peninsula. These circular motifs are a feature of continental megaliths. Another list, not quite as exhaustive as the one shown in the figure, highlights how common they are. The role of the South of the Iberian Peninsula is important as it holds the most traditional image of megalithic art in the Atlantic region. The ¹⁴C dating (4290 ±40 BP) of a fire from a fallen decorated orthostat of the Katillotxu V dolmen in Vizcaya, provides a reference dating for the complex circles in the Neolithic and enables reflection on similar open-air datings (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2009c and d).

30Human figures are the most common subjects in megalithic symbols. Either freestanding in menhirs and statues, or as part of dolmens, they give order to and organise burial areas or, quite possibly take precedence over their use and meanings (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1994, 1996, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004).

31The basic scheme that we proposed a few years ago is still valid for interpreting the position of these figures in their various forms: patent or visible, and latent or invisible (fig. 4). In the former, they appear as statues or painted or engraved in the front of the chamber, at its entrance, or the entrance to the monuments.

4. Scheme of the position of megalithic anthropomorphic elements in the Iberian peninsula

32In the latter, the cut of the stones and the engraved and painted geometric shapes of what is probably clothing, point toward their being a set of anthropomorphs. These would be represented by the upright stones that group together, defend and protect the remains of ancestors guarded by the tomb (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1997).

33Other subjects, such as the sun or circular shapes associated with it and some objects such as axes, adzes, bows, daggers and spears, appear on most European megaliths, with no notable differences in type or technique. The recently found Palmela spearheads from the front orthostat of the Katillotxu V dolmen in Vizcaya, is a reminder of carved axes blades in some Irish monuments or Stonehenge because of some of their technique and metallurgical themes.

34Less common are the animals found on some megaliths in the Iberian Peninsula and Brittany. These are mainly quadrupeds, as we find it difficult to believe that some shapes may be axes with handles in the form of cachalotes (Cassen & Vaquero Lastres 2003).

35These are funerary items that, as we have already said, are clearly common to all decorated megaliths in Europe. Even more so if we take into account the presence of paint, whose amount, application and full assessment should be an immediate task for specialist work teams.

Ancestors as a reference point

36Outstanding among the new discoveries provided by recent research in the Iberian Peninsula is the role of reused statues, stelae and menhirs in funerary monuments. The set of data points towards this being repeated much more often than was seen so far (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2007; fig. 5).

5. Up: stelae, statues and menhirs in Iberian megaliths with their references and location. Down: decorated anthropomorphic statuettes of the Iberian Megaliths

37Our level of information has increased through detailed studies of the stones. We have been able to find fragments, pieces decorated at a previous stage and then put into a new construction, as well as decorations made at the same time. Therefore, different solutions have been found. These solutions signal three elements that must be analysed:

• statues, stelae and menhirs were made in different phase, anterior to funerary megalithism;

• the presence of graphics designed and organised for each tomb;

• statues, stelae and menhirs located on or around tumuli which have been instrumental at various times in the use and closure of tombs.

38The described expressions are not part of a particular region’s megalithic construction, as was accepted for the supremacy of those in Brittany. On the contrary, when the information is good, a large part of megaliths include transformations, they are made on older structures, or are reshaped more than once during their use.

39The latest case studies focus on western Andalusia and Extremadura. Over the last few years, megalithic studies in the region have been the focus of research. This coincides with the interest in documenting graphic representations on the monuments.

40We have been able to provide data on repainting at the Palacio III and Montelirio dolmens, which are both located in Seville. The former has black paintings, made of manganese dioxide, and the latter has red paintings made of iron oxides (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2004, 2009e). In Extremadura, the Toniñuelo dolmen had red and black paintings, as well as engravings (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1997). The same applies to the La Barca dolmen, whose reuses are documented by an inscription from the Final Bronze Age.

41At Montelirio, some pieces from the cover of the monument are reused stelae. We know this also happened at the Menga dolmen (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2008b). The remarkable stone covering the chamber was engraved before being placed in its present position. Another reused cover is placed in the corridor of the nearby Viera dolmen, and a fragment of a menhir is housed in the Romeral tumulus. The monumental site of the Antequera dolmens was preceded by great erected stones, which perhaps came from other structures. (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2009b).

42Dolmens 3 and 4 at El Pozuelo are possibly the best case that has recently come to light and the clearest evidence of such actions. The painting found in the footings of some orthostats and stelae in the monuments suggest the possibility of an earlier monument, which has been archaeologically documented. The monuments seen now were built from materials from older dolmens, with reused statue elements. They are currently being subjected to ¹⁴C dating by J.A. Linares’ team in order to find out when these events happened (Linares Catela 2011).

43Something similar may have occurred at the Soto dolmen, also located in Huelva. The famous reused statue gives rise to suspicion that the chronologies we have are of the last monument that was built (Nocete Calvo et al. 2011). Other statues, some of them armed, suggest that the monument altered on more than one occasion. The armed statues would mark one of the phases.

44We can deduce the same from our archaeological excavation at the tomb of Lagunita I in Extremadura. A large chamber was destroyed, only to be rebuilt as a small gallery. Each of its orthostats is decorated and all are different from each other, as though they came from different tombs. The addition of later structures included a cist and an area levelled by stone with burials from the 1^st millennium (Barroso Bermejo et al. 2013).

45There are small statues on the exterior façades of the monuments. Some of them are known from excavations at Los Millares. Nowadays, we know that this type of deposit was common throughout the Iberian Peninsula. Data from Galicia (Vilaseco Vázquez 2004, Fábregas Valcarce & Vilaseco Vázquez 2006), Spanish Extremadura (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2008c) and Andalusia (Bueno Ramírez et al. 1999a), have significantly increased a record that will certainly continue to grow (fig. 5).

46The size of these pieces means that they were easy to transport, and so it would have been feasible to use them on more than one occasion. The different types point to their being images of ancestors placed in a visible area at the entrance to the monuments, possibly to identify the family or lineage of the buried. Their relationship with areas of deposits that have sometimes seen long use means that a symbolic, occasionally important role, can be claimed for such places over time (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2008c). Documentation of small stelae outside the tombs in southern France (Hasler 1998) and Ireland (Stout & Stout 2008), suggests that these locations extended to continental Europe.

47Finally, menhirs, stelae and statues have been found at the entrance to some monuments. This is the case of the spectacular menhirs of Alberite I, which form an avenue to access the monument (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2010b).

48They were placed on tumuli to make the tomb visible. This association has a long continuity: the armed statue/megalithic tumulus can be seen in the latest data obtained from the Tagus River area, where armed stelae appear on the tumuli of Chalcolithic monuments. This confirms our theory that images of armed heroes of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age are the work of concepts associated with ancestral worship shown in European megaliths (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2005, 2010c, 2011a and b).

The Iberian Peninsula: models for analysing European megalithic art

49Various studies carried out as of the 1980s in the Iberian field provide references on a protocol for locating themes inside the megaliths, the relationship of this order with a scheme of use of the spaces and their connection with everyday symbols. These are three factors that enrich analyses applied to European megaliths.

50A basic system of the organisation of themes precedes the presence of visible anthropomorphs: stelae, statues, menhirs and painted and engraved human figures, placing them at the entrance to the monuments, entrances to chambers or at their front part. The geometric decorations organised vertically or horizontally are similar in shape in all cases in Europe. The finding of paintings on continental megaliths contributes to this, making them the same as Iberian representations. Moreover, they suggest a significant exchange of ideas that makes the Iberian Peninsula and its sculpted figures an unavoidable reference point for understanding megalithic funerary symbols in Europe.

51The discussion on technical precedents such as engravings on the continent as an expression of Atlantic art, painting in the Iberian Peninsula as a reflection of influxes from the Mediterranean, must now be re-thought. The amount of paintings in Europe will be proved once the teams of specialists continue with the work that we started in Brittany.

52The required analyses will also be useful in order to establish possible “recipes”, as shown with Palaeolithic art. Finding fat agglutinants in Iberian megalithic paintings (Carrera Ramírez 2006: 98) would enable them to be found in similar paintings in the rest of Europe. If the identification of organic pigments is added to this, the possibilities of dating European megalithic art increase astonishingly.

53We have completed information by analysing the contents of pots, mills and palettes used in the work sequence for paintings (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2008c). This has enabled us to detect pigments of various origins. This is the case with red pigment, where we have differentiated ochres with fat agglutinants on the supports on the one hand and cinnabar, especially selected to colour human remains and some of the grave goods, on the other hand. Analyses carried out in other Iberian contexts prove the ancient use of cinnabar and its trajectory in Recent Prehistory (Hunt Ortiz & Hurtado Perez 2010, Hunt Ortiz et al. 2011, Briceño 2011, Domingo Sanz et al. 2012).

54This method of analysing objects belonging to work sequences for paintings in monuments has an interesting history, as cinnabar was found in decorations of monuments in all studies on high-class goods. The presence of the colorant in some parts of Andalusia (Alberite and Montelirio dolmens) and Extremadura (Trincones dolmen), where the material is not found naturally, proves interaction aimed at obtaining colorants that played a role in ancestral worshipping rites.

55The samples from chamber H at Barnenez show irrefutable proof for the presence of paint in the rest of the Peninsula (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2012). We have collected data from paintings in other monuments on the continent, but Brittany was the stronghold of engraved Megalithic art. We now know that it was the lack of specific documentation, which suggests the spread of painting in Europe eliminating traditional frontiers between the Atlantic and Mediterranean based on technical parameters (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2009).

56The work models applied to the Iberian Peninsula are a basic reference point for their application to the rest of Europe. The connection between painted and carved subjects, widely documented in the Iberian Peninsula, will be true for European monuments, as we have demonstrated at Barnenez. Similarly, the presence of themes classified as “Atlantic” in the continental assemblage is breaking another one of the classical barriers that are applied to the analysis of megalithic art.

57The close formal and technical relationship between funerary and everyday symbols that has been confirmed in the Iberian Peninsula (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 2006b) seems to be repeated in nearby areas, such as the south of France. We think it highly likely that it will be documented in other places too. In fact, there is open-air art on the British Isles that presents a convincing relationship to funerary sites, although it is open to question (Bradley 2009, Bueno Ramírez et al. 2009a). Prospections aimed at locating open-air art around decorated monuments are yielding positive results.

58One of the most outstanding aspects is the chronolohy. Studies carried out in the Iberian Peninsula have opened a new path, since direct dating of paintings provides reference points of undoubted value in the overall discussion of megalithic art in Europe. The latest trends in dating megaliths have set up approaches that wish to define times prior to tumuli and long use of monuments (Bayliss et al. 2007a: 4, 2007b). These are all issues to which megalithic art has much to contribute.

59The oldest datings of megalithic paintings obtained from Galician and Portuguese monuments (Carrera Ramírez 2008, Carrera Ramírez & Fábregas Valcarce 2002, Cruz 1995) correlate to those obtained from some menhirs in the open air (Oliveira 1997) placing the oldest standing stones in the second half of the 6^th millennium and 5^th millennium cal BC (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2007: 636).

60The reuse of some of these ancient stelae in newly built monuments provides a time-line in the complex life of the megaliths. This must be analysed from several points of view, a study of the decoration being one of the most informative.

61Repainted objects in the Iberian Peninsula provide data of great interest. The oldest decorations had more recent stages when they were repainted, with the benefit that events can be dated directly. A crucial stage of repaintings and new decorations in the first half of the 4^th millennium cal BC is very visible. The dates mentioned have demonstrated that, although the original datings are old, repainting continued during the 4^th, 3^rd and even the 2^nd millennium cal BC (Carrera Ramírezs & Fábregas Valcarce 2002, 2006). This authenticates long sequences of use that have been verified recently in Iberian megaliths (García Sanjuán 2008) and in Europe (O’Sullivan 2005).

62The relationship between internal areas of the monuments and the anthropomorphic figures seems tenable (Bueno Ramírez & de Balbín Behrmann 1994, 2002). The deepest area, the entrance to the chamber and the entrance to the monument are defined as threshold sites where the most important burials took place, there were the most visible anthropomorphic references and, on more than one occasion, reused pieces. Their position is irrevocably bound to the existence of sunlight in the tombs, so that the predominant east/south-east orientation acts to highlight all of the described sectors (Bueno Ramírez et al. 1999b, 2008b: 49, Sanches 2006).

63This organisation sheds light on a rule that is similarly repeated in most European megaliths and which can be seen in the open-air monuments like Stonehenge (Pollar & Ruggles 2001).

64The raw material used for the stones helps to reflect light, creating chiaroscuros that make the inner areas into theatrical spaces. Backgrounds with light and shadows for stories of the world of ancestors. These took place in architectural spaces that set the scene for the passage from life to death.

65The symbology used for European megalithic monuments will barely be analysed if no protocols are established for the research, ensuring the study of possible painted, engraved and sculpted decorations that are commonly found. The latest data, obtained by applying models used in the Iberian Peninsula, awaken great expectations for a new interpretation of megalithic art in Europe as a whole. Complex painted, engraved and sculpted graphic programmes constituted an essential part of funerary rites.

66All the factors analysed in this context help to emphasise that their analysis can provide significant information on dating, on the systems of interaction, the capacity of exchange, of the organisation or burial areas, their reworking and, of course, the ideology that pervaded the construction, maintenance and use of these monuments.