Sh e rds,, Sw o rds,, Settlements Sailing and Stelae: The Later Bronze Age of western Iberia Catriona D. Gibson Doctoral Thesis University of Reading April 2000
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Sh e rds,, Sw o rds,, Settlements Sailing
and Stelae: The Later
Bronze Age of
western Iberia
Catriona D. Gibson Doctoral Thesis University of Reading April 2000
Sherds, Swords, Settlements, Sailing and Stelae: The Later Bronze Age of western Iberia
Submittedfor a PhD thesis
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading
Catriona A Gibson
Aptil 2000
CONTENTS
Chapter One: Introduction. The Ghost of a Hiatus: A resolvable enigma 1.1 Background to study 1.2 Original aims of thesis 1.3 Revision of Aims
1.4 The Enigmatic Middle Bronze Age
1.5 Outline of Thesis
1.6 Conclusions: Iberia and Europe
Chapter Two: Timing Death and deposition: Burials, Hoards and Bronze Age
Chronology in western Iberia.
2.1 Introduction to the chronology of western Iberia
2.2 Typology
2.3 History of Iberian chronological schemes:
the importance of the south-east
2.4 Western Iberian chronological schemes 2.5 The south-western Bronze Age
2.6.1 The south-western Bronze Age of the Algarve
2.6.2 Cist interments in the Huelva province 2.6.3 Criticisms of Schubart's scheme 2.6.4 The Radiocarbon sequence for the south-western Bronze Age
2.7 Continuity and re-use of Megalithic burial sites in the Bronze Age
2.8 Collective or multiple burial practices and selective burial
2.9 The Atlantic Bronze Age
2.10 Seeing out the old: Welcoming in the new
Chapter Three: Methodology and Ceramk AnaWs
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Methodology
3.3. Traditional approaches to the western Iberian Bronze Age
3.3.1 Northern Portugal
3.3.2 North-central Portugal
3.3.3 Coastal areas around Setfibal. and Lisbon
3.3.4 South-western Bronze Age
3.4 Ceramic classification 3.5 Change and heterogeneity versus continuity and homogeneity
3.6 Decoration
3.7 Decoration, styles, distribution maps and boundaries
3.8 Function
3.9 Ethnographic studies 3.9.1 The Kalinga of Luzon
3.9.2 The Quinua. of the Andes
3.9.3 The Bushmen of South Africa
3.10 Conclusions
3.11 Analysis of western Iberian Ceramic assemblages 3.11.1 Alto do Castelinho da Serra
3.11.2 Alegrios
3.11.3 Castelejo
3.11.4 Monte do Frade
3.11.5 Moreirinha
3.11.6 Cerradinha 3.11.7 Llanete de los Moros
3.11.8 Coroa do Frade
3.11.9 Outeiro do Circo
3.11.10 Quinta da Padreira
3.11.11 Conimbriga
3.11.12 Santa Luzia
Chapter Four. The Later Bronze Age of western Iberia: A reanalysis of the
settlement and ceramic sequences 4.1 Introduction
4.2 The persistent Beaker problem 4.2.1 Chronology of the Beakers
4.2.2 Bronze Age sites with Beaker ceramics 4.3 The Later Bronze Age of north-west Portugal
4.3.1 "Middle' Bronze Age evidence 4.3.2 The Bai6es-Santa. Luzia tradition 4.3.3 Chronology of the Baides-Santa, Luzia tradition 4.3.4 Geographic distribution of the Bai6es-Santa, Luzia tradition
4.3.5 Settlement types associated with the Bai6es-Santa. Luzia tradition 4.3.6 Conclusions
4.4 The Later Bronze Age of southern Portugal and south-west Spain
4.4.1 Origins of pattern burnished pottery 4.4.2 Definition of pattern burnished pottery 4.4.3 Chronology and distribution of pattern burnished pottery 4.4.4 Other Later Bronze Age ceramic traditions in
central and southern Portugal and the south-west 4.5.1 Evidence for central and southern Portuguese "Middle" Bronze Age settlements 4.5.2 Conclusion
4.6 Recent detailed excavation and survey projects 4.6.1 Nabao Valley
4.6.2 Bronze Age in the tagus estuary 4.6.3 Mondego survey project 4.6.4 The tvora survey project 4.6.4.1 Potential Later Bronze Age settlements 4.6.4.2 Pottery assemblages of the tvora survey 4.7 Central and southern Portuguese Later Bronze Age settlements:
some conclusions 4.7.1 Bridging the gap between the Chalcolithic and Later Bronze Age 4.7.2 Conclusions
4.8 Spanish Extremadura
4.8.1 Problems with the later Bronze Age ceramic sequences of Extremadura
4.9 The Mesetan Bronze Age: The Cogotas I tradition 4.9.1 Reanalysis of the Cogotas I tradition 4.9.2 Ceramic types 4.9.3 Traditional phasing of the Cogotas I tradition 4.9.4 Fcmindez Posse's typological analysis 4.9.5 Problems with the Cogotas I sequence 4.9.6 Settlement evidence for the Later Bronze Age in the Meseta 4.9.7 Reassessment of the ceramic typology: Continuity throughout the Bronze Age?
4.9.8 Refining the later Bronze Age of the Meseta: Radiocarbon chronology 4.9.1 Geographic distribution of the Cogotas I tradition 4.9.2 Expansion of the Cogotas I tradition 4.10 Final conclusions: The later Bronze Age in western Iberia: Myth or Reality?
Chapter Five Plain Sailing? The Atlantic Bronze Age and western Iberia
S. I Introduction
5.2 Geographical considerations 5.3 Atlantic Bronze Age chronology 5.4 The re-establishment of Atlantic contacts with Iberia 5.5 Hoarding and classification 5.6 Objects, contexts and meaning 5.7 Metallurgical analysis of metal deposition 5.8 Regional analysis of metal deposition
5.8.1 Changing contexts of metalwork from the "Middle' to "Late' Bronze Age
5.8.2 Later Bronze Age contextual analysis of deposits
5.8.3 Condition of the metal objects 5.8.4 Interpretations and conclusions of the regional analysis
5.9 Elites and the Atlantic Bronze Age
5.10 Routes through the landscape
II Conclusions
Chapter Six. 'If a Picture paints a thousand worlds'. - The nature of the
south-western stelae 6.1 Introduction 6.2 History of Investigation
6.3.1 Origin and chronology
6.3.2 Problems with origin and chronology
6.4 Function of the south-westem stelae
6.5 The Alentejo stelae
6.6 Geography of the south-west
6.6.1 Overview
6.6.2 Natural terrestrial routes
6.6.3 Fluvial. routes
6.6.4 Economy of the south-west 6.7.1 Landscape and networks of communication 6.7.2 Reanalysis of the stelae in relationship to the landscape
6.7.3 Placing the stelae in context 6.7.4 Geographical location of the stelae
6.7.5 Contextual analysis 6.8.1 Reading the symbolism of the elements
6.8.2 Respective size of the motifs
6.8.3 Warrior imagery
6.9.1 Groups of stelae
6.9.2 Pairing of stelae
6.10 Reinterpretation of stelae function in relation to context
6.10.1 Ujar valley
6.10.2 Ecozones
6.10.3 Mineral resources
6.10.4 Stelae and bronze deposits
6.11 Analysis of stelae depictions, context and regions
6.12 Conclusions
Chapter Seven: The East in the west and the west in the east. - Contact and Interaction between the Mediterranean and the Iberian Peninsula
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Introduction to trade 7.3 Theoretical perspectives of the Phoenician colonisation 7.4.1 Pre-colonial interaction between Iberia and the Meditermaean
7.4.2 Classical sources 7.4.3 Archaeological evidence for pre-colonial interaction
7.4.4 Relations between Sardinia and Iberia during the Later Bronze Age
7.5 Early Phoenician contact 7.6 The First Phoenician settlements 7.7 Indigenous Later Bronze Age developments
7.8 Geographical location of the Phoenician colonies 7.9 Interaction between the Phoenicians and indigenous populations 7.10 The Introducion of wine 7.11 Expansion of Phoenician settlement and influence
7.12 The consumption of wine 7.13 Anthropological analogy 7.14 Conclusions
Chapter Eight. Conclusions
The Later Bronze Age in western Iberia: Myth or Reality?
S. I Introduction: The Bit in the Middle 8.2 Conclusions from the new methodology 8.3 Interpretations of the evidence: new theoretical conisderations 8.4 Final conclusions: Later Bronze Age Iberia and Europe
8.5 Future research and fieldwork in western Iberia
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Chapter One Figure 1.1 No. of articles on Iberia in Antiquity Figure 1.2 No. of articles on Iberia in Bulletin Figure 1.3 No. of articles on Iberia in P. P. S. Figure 1.4 No. of articles on Iberia in Oxford Journal of Archaeology Figure 1.5 No. of articles on Iberia in World Archaeology
Chapter Two Figure 2.1 Schubart's south-westem Bronze Age chronology (after Schubart 197 la: Figure 2 and Schubart 1975) Figure 2.2 Map of the distribution of south-westem cist cemeteries (collated from Schubart 1971a: Figures 4 and 5 and Varela Gomes et aL 1986: Figure 81) Figure 2.3 Ceramics from the necropolois of Ervide, AIjustrel Figure 2.4 Typology of the south-western Bronze Age pottery Figure 2.5 Burials from Vinha da Casdo, Vilamoura. Figure 2.6 Orientation of south-westem cist cemeteries Figure 2.7 Pottery from El Becerrero Figure 2.8 Pottery from El Castafluelo Figure 2.9 Plans of south-westem cist necropoli Figure 2.10 Plan of Atalaia (after Schubart 1965: Figures 37-38) Figure 2.11 Alentejo stelae Figure 2.12 South-westem cist cemeteries with human remains Figure 2.13 South-western cist cemeteries with human remains Figure 2.14 Ceramics from the necropolis of Atalaia, Ourique
Chapter Three Map 3.1 Map of major Bronze Age cultural groups (adapted from Harrison 1994: Figures 2.3 and 2.14) Map 3.2 Traditional Later Bronze Age cultures of Portugal (source: author) Map 3.3 Map of the physical geography of Iberia showing mountain ranges (agfter Harrison 1994: Figure 2.1) Figures 3.1.1 - 3.1.26 Graphs of ceramic analysis of Alto do Castelinha da. Serra Figure 3.2.1-3.2-12 Graphs of ceramic analysis of Alegrios Figure 3.2.13-3.2.24 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Castelejo Figure 3.2.25-3.2-35 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Monte do Frade Figure 3.2.36-3.2.46 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Moreirinha. Figure 3.3.1-3.3.5 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Cerradinha Figure 3.4.1- 3.4-18 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Llanete de los Moros Figure 3.5.1-3.5.13 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Cor6a. do Frade Figure 3.6.1-3.6.4 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Outeiro do Circo Figure 3.7.1-3.7.16 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Quinta da Padreira Figure 3.8.1-3.8.13 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Conimbriga Figure 3.9.1. -3.9.16 Graphs of ceramic analaysis of Santa Luzia. Figure 3.10.1 Alto do Castelinho da Serra, Montemor-o-Novo, - location and plan of site Figure 3.10.2 Alto do Castelinho da Serra, Plan of site and stratigraphic matrix of trench B Figure 3.10.3 Trenches and sections from excavations at Alto do Castelinho da Serra Figure 3.10.4 Alto do Castelinho pottery and plan of trench C Figure 3.10.5 Ceramics and other finds from Castelinho
Figure 3.10.6 Ceramics from Castelinho. Figure 3.10.7 Ceramics from Castelinho Figure 3.10.8 Miscellaneous Late Bronze Age pottery from Castelinho Figure 3.11.1 Alegrios open air and rock shelter site (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures CXXX-1) Figure 3.11.2 Alegrios. Excavation plans (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures CLXXI-II) Figure 3.11.3 Ceramics from rock shelter of Alegrios (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures CXLI-IV) Figure 3.11.4 Ceramics from open area of Alegrios (after Vilaga 1995: Figures CXLVI- CLVII) Figure 3.11.5 Ceramics from open area of Alegrios (after Vilaga 1995: Figures CXLV, CLIII, CLVIII, and CLIX) Figure 3.11.6 Table of ceramic types from Alegrios (adapted from Vilaqa 1995: Figure 8) Figure 3.11.7 Pattern burnished decoration from Alegrios (adapted from Vilaqa 1995: Figure 11) Figure 3.12.1 Castelejo: Location and excavation (after Vilaga 1995: Figures XI and XXX) Figure 3.12.2 Castelejo. Excavation plans and sections (after Vilaga 1995: Figures XXXI-IH) Figure 3.12.3 Ceramics from Castelejo (sondage 2) (after Vilaga 1995: Figures XX-11 and XXVI) Figure 3.12.4 Ceramics from Castelejo (trench 3 and 4) (after Vilaga 1995: Figures L, LI, LV and LVI) Figure 3.12.5 Table of ceramic types from Castelejo (adapted from Vilaga 1995: Figure 23) Figure 3.12.6 Decorative techniques and motifs from Castelejo Figure 3.13.1 Monte do Frade: Location and excavation (after Vilaga 1995: Figures LXIX and LXXII) Figure 3.13.2 Monte do Frade. Plans of excavated areas (after Vilaga 1995: Figures LXX and LXXIX) Figure 3.13.3 Monte do Frade. Plans and section of structural features (after Vilaga 1995: Figures LXXVII, LXXVIII and LXXX) Figure 3.13.4 Ceramics from Monte do Frade (trenches 2 and 3) (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures LXXXIII, LXY-XIV, LXCIV and CXXI) Figure 3.13.5 Ceramics from Monte do Frade (trenches 1,2 and 3) (after Vilaga 1995: Figures LXXXH, LXXXV, XCV and XCVI) Figure 3.13.6 Table of ceramic types from Monte do Frade (adapted from Vilaga 1995: Figure 4) Figure 3.14.1 Moreirinha: Location and excavation (after Vilaga 1995: Figures CCII-CCIII) Figure 3.14.2 Excavation plan and section through main trench (1) at Moreirinha (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures CCV and CCVI) Figure 3.14.3 Ceramics from Moreirinha (phase 1) (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures CCXVI - CCXX) Figure 3.14.4 Ceramics from Moreirinha (phase 2) (after Vilaqa 1995: Figures CCXXXVII- CCXL) Figure 3.14.5 Ceramics from Moreirinha (phase I and 2) (after Vilaga 1995: Figures CCXXII, CCXXIH, CCXLIII, CCXLIV) Figure 3.14.6 Table of ceramic types from Moreirinha (adapted from Vilaga 1995: Figure 36) Figure 3.14.6 Pattern burnished motif types from Moreirinha Figure 3.15 Ceramics from Cerradinha (source: author) Figure 3.16.2 Ceramics from Cor6a do Frade (after Amaud 1979: Figures 10-12 and 15) Figure 3.16.3 Ceran-dcs from Corba do Frade (after Arnaud 1979: Figures 13 and 16) Figure 3.17 Ceramics from Outeiro do Circo (after Parreira 1971-1975: Figures 3-7) Figure 3.18.1 Quinta da Padreira: Location (on 1: 2500 map) and excavation plan
Figure 3.18.2 Sections through trenches K16 and K15 of Quinta da Padreira Figure 3.18.3 Lithics and ceramics from Quinta da Padreira Figure 3.19 Ceramics from Conimbriga (after Correia 1993: Figures 3 and 6) Figure 3.20 Ceramics from Santa Luzia (source: author)
Chapter Four Figure 4.1 Material from Zambujal (after Kunst 1995b: Figure 14 and Plate 13) Figure 4.2 Derived Beaker ceramics from Bronze Age sites (after Harrison et al. 1976: Figure 29 and Molina 1978: Figures 10-14) Figure 4.3 Palmela, Alpiarga and Atalaia style vessels Figure 4.4 Povoada da Sola (after Bettencourt 1991-2: Figures 3-7) Figure 4.5 Bai6es-Santa Luzia pottery decorative motifs Figure 4.6 Bouga do Frade open settlement (after S. O. Jorge 1988: Figure 4) Figure 4.7 Bai6es-Santa Luzia ceramic typology (source: author) Figure 4.8 Pattern burnished pottery from Lapa do Fumo, Sesimbra (after Serrdo 1958: Figure 2) Figure 4.9 Pattern burnished pottery from Portugal (after Schubam 1971 and Spindler et al. 1973-1974) Figure 4.10 Distribution of settlements in western Iberia with pattern burnished pottery and related Later Bronze Age ceramics (source: author) Figure 4.11 Distribution of pattern burnished pottery and related Later Bronze Age ceramics (source: author) Figure 4.12 Mesetan sites with pattern burnished and "a cepillo" pottery (after Blasco et al. 1991: Figures 4 and 7). Figure 4.13 Alto do Caldeira and Cabego da Bruxa (after Kalb and H8ck 1980: Figure II and 1981-2: Figure 5) Figure 4.14 Settlement of Pessegueiro (after Silva and Soares 1981: Figure 5; photo: author) Figure 4.15 Settlement and necropolis of Quiteria (source: author) Figure 4.16 Pottery from Pessegueiro (adapted from Silva and Soares 198 1: Figures 21,22 and 35) Figure 4.17 "A cepillo" pottery from Cadaval (source: author) Figure 4.18 Location of Tagus Later Bronze Age settlement sites (after Cardoso and Carreira 1993: Figure 1) Figure 4.19 Ceramics from Later Bronze Age Tagus sites (after Cardoso and Carreira 1993: Figures 2 and 3) Figure 4.20 Rock shelter of Buraca da Moura de Sdo Rom5o (after Senna-Martinez 1993a: Figure 2 and 3) Figure 4.21 Typology of Mondego Valley survey pottery (adapted from Senna-Martfnez 1995a: Figure 4) Figure 4.22 8vora survey region. Hilltop sites and possible hillforts (source: author) Figure 4.23 tvora survey region. Possible open settlements and hillside sites (source: author) Figure 4.24 tvora survey region. Hilltop and platform settlements (source: author) Figure 4.25 Possible hillforts identified during tvora survey (source: author) Figure 4.26 Possible hillfort of Valada de Almansor in tvora region (source: author) Figure 4.27 Castelo do Giraldo, tvora (after Paqo and Ventura 1961 and tvora survey) Figure 4.28 Hillforts of Alcdcer do Sal, Setilbal, Ratinhos and Monte do Frade Figure 4.29 Later Bronze Age ceramics from Passo Alto (source: author) Figure 4.30 Later Bronze Age ceramics from Casa da Moura and Buraca dos Mouros (adapted from Strauss et al. 1988: Figures 2.1-2.4)
Figure 4.31 Extremaduran Later Bronze Age settlements (after Enrfquez Navascues 1990: Figures 2 and 6) Figure 4.32 Later Bronze Age ceramics from Extremadura (after Enrfquez 1990: Figures 5 and 7). Figure 4.33 Boquique and Cogotas decorated pottery (after Pellicer 1988: Figure 9) Figure 4.34 Boquique decorated pottery (after Pellicer 1988: Figure 8 and Maluquer 1958a: Figure 8) Figure 4.35 Typological framework of Cogotas I grouping (after Femdndez Posse 1986: Figure 1-4) Figure 4.36 Open Cogotas I settlement of Perales del Rfo, Getafe (after Delibes et al. 1978: Figures 1,3 and 4) Figure 4.37 Open Cogotas I settlement of Carrelasvegas (after Carbajo et al. 1992: Figures 2-3) Figure 4.38 Map of distribution of Cogotas I and related Later Bronze Age pottery (source: author) Figure 4.39 Map of distribution of potential "Middle" Bronze Age settlement and burial sites (ca. 1600-120OBC) (source: author)
Chapter Five Figure 5.1 Western Europe: Major cultural influences (after Cunliffe 1993: Figure 2) Figure 5.2 Distribution of raw materials in the Iberian Peninsula (source: author) Figure 5.3 The Rfa de Huelva deposit. Scale 1: 8 (after Giardino 1995: Figures 36 and 37). Figure 5.4 The strategic location of the Ria de Huelva deposit at the junction of the Odiel and Tinto rivers (after Rufz-Gdlvez 1995a : Figure 3) Figure 5.5. Map of the nine regions of the Peninsula with Atlantic affiliated metalwork Figure 5.6 Graph of number of objects in hoard deposits in western Iberia Figure 5.7 Graph of ornament deposits by region Figure 5.8 Distribution of gold and bronze ornament deposits, diadem stelae and raw materials (source: author) Figure 5.9 Distribution of axe deposits (source: author) Figure 5.10 Graph of axe deposits by region and context Figure 5.11 Graph of weapon deposits by region and context Figure 5.12 Distribution of weapon deposits and their contexts (source: author) Figure 5.13 Part of the deposit of ingots and axes from Fonte Velha (after Gomes Ramos 1996: Figure 3) Figure 5.14 Tomb and reconstruction of Roca do Casal do Meio, Sesimbra (after Spindler et al. 1973-74: Figure 2) Figure 5.15 Gold ornaments of Sagrajas-Berzocana type (source: author) Figure 5.16 The "bartered bride" marriage alliance model of RuiZ-Gdlvez (after Rufz- Gdlvez 1992: Figure 3)
Chapter Six Figure 6.1 Typo-chronological scheme of Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro (1977) Figure 6.2 Anthropornorphs and ancoriforme idols from rock art of the Tagus valley (after Herndndez 1994) Figure 6.3 Rock art depicting anthropornorphs and ancoriforme idols (after Sos Vaynat) Figure 6.4 Shield and sword depictions from the south-westem stelae Figure 6.5 The Later Bronze Age south-western stelae (1-25) Figure 6.6 The Later Bronze Age south-westem stelae (26-52) Figure 6.7 The Later Bronze Age south-western stelae (53-92)
Figure 6.11 Geographical location of the south-western stelae Figure 6.12 Distribution of the south-western stelae in relation to pastoral and commercial routes (adapted from Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn 199 1: Figure 3 Figure 6.13 Distribution of south-western stelae and their types (complexity) (source: author) Figure 6.14 Depictions of shields and human figures. Figure 6.15 Geographical grouping of shields (source: author) Figure 6.16 Representations of female diadem stelae (source: author) Figure 6.17 Distribution of diadem stelae in relation to raw materials and omament hoards (source: author) Figure 6.18 Representations of south-westem stelae (source: author)
Chapter Seven Figure 7.1 Mycnean pottery from the Iberian Peninsula Figure 7.2 Tripod incense burners from deposits in Iberia (afte Silva 1986) Figure 7.3 Location of Phoenician and indigenous settlements in southern Iberia (data from Aubet 1993: Figures 29,57 and 60) Figure 7.4 Revised map of location of Phoenician and indigenous sites (source: author) Figure 7.5 Centre and periphery models applied to the Iberian Peninsula (adapted from Rufz- Gdlvez 1995 a: Figures 27-28) Figure 7.6 Deposit of Senhora da Guia, Bai6es with evidence of feasting elements (after Silva 1986: Figure 4) Figure 7.7 Portuguese Early Iron Age settlements with presence of Phoenician amphorae, (adapted from Silva 1993: Figure 1) Figure 7.8 Quantities of imported or imitated Phoenician wares at the main Early Iron Age sites in Portugal (source: author) Figure 7.9 Indigenous wine-manufacturing and wine distributing centres in southern Iberia (after Mascorti et aL 199 1: Figure 2 and Guerrero 1995: Figure 5). Figure 7.10 Distribution of single looped triangular palstaves in the central and western Mediterranean (adapted from Giardino 1995: Figure 99)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 4.1 Data base of Later Bronze Age settlement and ceramic evidence (with supporting radiocarbon dates) Appendix 5.1 Table of hoard deposits and their context Appendix 6.1 Contextual study of the Later Bronze Age stelae
Acknowledgments
There are many people whom have helped me considerably during this doctoral research. Firstly, I am indebted to Professor Robert Chapman for his continued patience and guidance throughout its lengthy creation. I am also grateful to Professor Richard Bradley for helping me to clarify some of my ideas concerning the Later Bronze Age stelae. I would also like to thank Colin Burgess for introducing me to Portuguese archaeology in the first place and stimulating
my interest in the Bronze and Iron Ages of the 8vora region. My practical research in Portugal
would have been considerably more difficult without Dr. Virgilio Correia and Marta Correia,
whose generous hospitality was always gratefully received. I must also acknowledge the directors of the Lisbon National Museum (Dr. Francisco Alves) and 8vora museum, who
permitted access to the assemblages of Cerradinha, Cor6a do Frade, Alto do Castelinho da
Serra and Castelo do Giraldo. Acknowledgements must also go to the late Celso Tavares da
Silva who gave me permission to study the assemblage of Santa Luzia. I am grateful to Dr.
Paulo F61ix who allowed me to analyse his unpublished pottery from Quinta da Padreira, and introduced me to Bronze Age sites in the Tomar and Santar6m regions. Thanks also to Professors Susana and Vitor Jorge, Dr. Philine Kalb, Dr. Michael Kunst and Professor Carlos
Senna-Martfnez for sparing time to discuss their projects with me during my field work in
Spain and Portugal.
There are many other people without whom this thesis would have been considerably more difficult. Thanks to my mum for giving me encouragement when things got rough and for
proof-reading several chapters. Thanks also to Ivone Canavillas for providing me with free
accommodation during my research in Portugal, helping me with arrangements for field study,
and for lending me her car for travel. I am grateful to Lara Alves for checking the spelling of
my Portuguese references and for her encouragement. Other people who have read sections of
my thesis and offered invaluable comments include Dr. Jonathan Last and Nick Naylor.
Thanks to Dave Topping for checking the text for inconsistencies. My greatest appreciation
must go to D. W. W. who gave me support and encouragement during much of the research.
Abstract Sherds, Swords, Settlements, Sailing and Stelae: The Later Bronze Age of western Iberia Catriona D. Gibson
Western Iberia has remained a relatively neglected area of archaeological research, and its
Bronze Age, in particular, is poorly understood. This thesis intended to remedy this situation
by embarking upon a diachronic study of the Bronze Age in Portugal and western Spain.
The problem that lay at the heart of this research was the apparent lack of settlement evidence
for much of the Later Bronze Age (from ca. 1600-1000 cal. BQ. Archaeologists had written
off this period as a time of stagnation and decline, without offering any convincing
explanations for why such a social and cultural devolution had occurred. This research followed the premise that Bronze Age evidence remained elusive only under the wrong
magnification of the archaeological lens.
This thesis began by examining the reasons behind the dearth of Bronze Age evidence in
western Iberia. In the absence of well-defined radiocarbon sequences in this area,
archaeologists have drawn upon typo-chronological frameworks for identifying this period.
These schemes are flawed and out-dated and have been constructed predominantly from burial
and hoard evidence. The investigation began by critiquing and challenging these frameworks
and concluded that they have served only to hinder our recognition of Bronze Age settlement
evidence.
A systematic and methodological analysis of ceramic assemblages from Later Bronze Age
settlement sites in western Iberia was embarked upon in order to provide new typo-
chronological frameworks for this period. Previous assumptions of Bronze Age ceramic developments were removed. In their place, current theoretical considerations, that addressed important issues concerning vessel shape and style, decoration, function and technology, were
outlined and discussed. The analysis drew upon a large data base of over 400 settlements, in
conjunction with the settlement evidence and available radiocarbon dates. The detailed ceramic
analysis undertaken highlighted one over-riding feature, that of continuity in material culture
throughout much of the Bronze Age. The realisation that Chalcolithic Beaker style ceramics
continue in use until the later second millennium cal. BC allowed the identification of many Later Bronze Age settlements, previously allocated to earlier chronologies, where good
supporting evidence and radiocarbon dates were available. The other important observation
made concerned the earlier appearance of many supposedly "Late" Bronze Age (900-700 cal. BC) diagnostic pottery types. Again, with the support of stratigraphic evidence and
radiocarbon chronologies, many settlements that had previously been dated between the ninth
and seventh centuries BC were pushed back considerably in time. This detailed ceramic
analysis has begun to close the gap between the Chalcolithic and Late Bronze Age, and has
allowed a recognition of over 160 settlement sites in western Iberia that potentially date to this
once invisible period. Thus the revised ceramic typo-chronological sequences demonstrated
that the period between 1600 and 1000 cal. BC is not as elusive or enigmatic as traditionally
advocated.
With evidence of a continuously inhabited landscape in western Iberia throughout the Bronze
Age, the rest of this thesis embarked upon removing previous assumptions concerning this
period. These included the belief that western Iberian societies were only brought out of their
decline at the end of the Bronze Age by foreign influences from other parts of Europe and the
Mediterranean. These out-moded diffusionist models were challenged, and new interpretations
were put forward concerning the Atlantic Bronze Age, pre-Phoenician interaction and Phoenician colonisation. Western Iberia can no longer be depicted as a passive and exploited
margin within wider core-periphery systems. The evidence discussed in this thesis has clearly indicated that many regions of Spain and Portugal were actively involved in exchange and interaction with other parts of Europe and the Mediterranean during the Later Bronze Age. By
removing previous erroneous assumptions, we can address the relationships between Iberia and
the rest of Europe in more balanced terms. It is vital to incorporate these new interpretations of
western Iberia into a wider framework, since they will have a significant impact upon
expanding our understanding of the later prehistory in western Europe and the central Mediteffanean as a whole.
Chapter One:
Introduction. The Ghost of a Hiatus. A Resolvable Enigma
1.1 Background to Study
The seeds of this thesis were sown while still an Undergraduate at Edinburgh University.
During the summer of 1990 the author participated in excavating the Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age hilltop settlement of Alto do Castelinho da Serra, near tvora, in central Portugal
(directed by Mr. Colin Burgess of Newcastle University and Dr. Virgflio Correia of the Museum of Conimbriga). While analysing the ceramics from this site, the author was struck by
the dearth of pottery sequences and associated reference collections with which to compare the Castelinho assemblage. After further searching in Portuguese journals, the deficiency became
more apparent, compounded by a lack of published excavations, and a superficial qualitative treatment of settlement ceramics (see Gibson 1992). The few assemblages that had been
published has been studied in isolation, and few links or comparisons had been made with other
related sequences. The available typo-chronological frameworks and regional sequences for
the Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Portugal and other parts of western Iberia were
restricted to flawed schemes based upon burial and hoard evidence, that could not be compared directly with contemporary settlement evidence.
1.2 Original aims of research The original aim of this thesis was to embark upon producing new typo-chronological frameworks for the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in central and southern Portugal,
through employing evidence from stratified settlement excavations and available radiocarbon dates. The methodology was to quantitatively analyse a large number of domestic ceramic assemblages in order to provide an accurate overview of regional sequences. It was hoped that
this research would highlight the variety of the different domestic assemblages, and critique the
uniformity of social and cultural groups that previous schemes had promoted.
1.3 Revision of aims The fieldwork undertaken during the summers of 1995 and 1996 met with difficulties. Firstly,
acquisition of funding to continue excavations at Alto do Castelinho was unsuccessful, and thus
only the ceran-dcs from the 1990-1993 seasons could be analysed as part of the post-excavation
work. Secondly, the author was denied access to several important pottery assemblages that
remain unpublished (despite having been excavated in the 1960s and 1970s). Thirdly, many of
the other assemblages, for which permission to study had been granted, had been thrown away
or lost in museum store-rooms. Fourthly, the untimely death of Celso Tavares da Silva meant
that two important and detailed assemblages (those of Senhora da Guia, Bai6es and Santa
Luzia, Viseu) could not be fully analysed. Finally, the three Bronze Age settlement excavations
in which the author was meant to participate with Portuguese colleagues were all postponed because of funding problems. A revision of the original aims of the thesis was thus necessary.
1.4 The Enigmatic Middle Bronze Age
A literary overview of the Bronze Age in western Iberia raised several concerns. Not one
single book focused upon Bronze Age developments in Portugal, and all general overviews of the prehistory of western Iberia summarised the traditional "Early" and "Middle" Bronze Ages
into a few pages (e. g. see V. 0. Jorge et al. (eds. ) 1990; Silva et al. 1993; Silva and Varela
Gomes 1994). The few published journal articles suggested that the period between 1600 and lOOOBC, in particular, remained archaeologically invisible. Some quotes from recently
published articles demonstrate the apparent "hiatus" in the archaeological record during this
time.
"Arqueol6gicamente partimos de un vacio importante el lo, que concierne al Bronce pleno, en Extremadura. Despues de un poblamiento calcoliticofuerte y aparentements bien consolidado, la Edad del Bronce aparece como un enigma de diflicil soluci6n, algo que, con su propia
problemdtica y mayor documentacton, ocurre tambien en Andalucia occidental" (Enriquez
Navascues 1990a: 67 - re Extremadura and western Andalucta)
[An important archaeological vacuum occurs during the Middle Bronze Age in Extremadura
and western Andalucfa. After an apparently well consolidated Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age
appears as an enigmatic period. This problem is difficult to solve because of the dearth of
available evidence. ]
"0 periodo que decorre globalmente entre 1600a. C et ca. do 1100a. C. - Bronze Medio -i extremamente omisso de informaýdo, no que toca a maioria das regi6es que constituem o
territ6rio Portugules " (V. 0. Jorge 1990: 225)
[The Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1600-110OBC) in most of Portugal is completely lacking in
information. ]
2
"Entre ambos extremos, se abre al Bronce Medio, cujo rasgo mds significativo sea quIzas el
incremento de la obscuridad" (MejUde 1994.199)
[Between both extremes (i. e. the Chalcolithic and the Late Bronze Age), we have the Middle
Bronze Age, whose most significant trait is its increased obscurity. ]
"Cuando a mediados del segundo milenio a. C., tambiin los necr6polis comienzan a
rarificarse, el vacto informativo se hace afin mds dramdtico " (Rutz-Gdlvez 1995f. *134)
[By the middle of the second millennium BC, the cemeteries also become scarce, thus
accentuating the dramatic vacuum of information. ]
Thus the lack of recognition of much of the Bronze Age is still an issue that remains poorly
addressed with respect to western Iberia. The quotes cited above persist in upholding Savory's
(1968: 214) argument for cultural stagnation and retardation during this time. The worrying
reality is that archaeologists continue to accept this situation with resignation, and show little
concern for addressing the potential reasons for such a gap in the archaeological record. The
revised aim of this thesis was to initiate a more coherent diachronic study of the period from
1600 to 700 cal. BC in western Iberia in order to investigate systematically the archaeological
record about this apparent lacuna.
In parts of central and southern Portugal, the absence of Bronze Age evidence has been
explained away as these regions being unfavourable places for settlement. For example
Spindler (1988: 57) stated that "We cannot identify settled cultural groups belonging to the
Bronze Age between the Tagus and Guadiana rivers, because the environment in these areas
was not suitable for permanent occupation". The fact that there was a relatively dense record
of Chalcolithic and Late Bronze Age - Early Iron Age settlement in these areas does not support
such an argument. So the question is whether these areas really do become deserted for a
period of several hundred years.
Many archaeologists, exasperated by the dearth of evidence for the Middle Bronze Age, have
resorted to the belief that this period was a time of monumental economic and environmental
catastrophes that led to major demographic crises. Vazqudz Varela (1995: 294-295) postulated
that an economic collapse in the Middle Bronze Age led to warfare on a grand scale, and a
subsequent hiatus in the archaeological record. However, one might expect that the evidence for warfare - such as fortified sites - would produce more obvious settlement traces in the
archaeological record. Kunst (1995a: 125) has also suggested that a socio-economic crisis
3
occurred during this period. He proposed that the increased production of bronze artefacts
would have required so much wood for smelting that the resultant deforestation precipitated an
environmental crisis. However, palaeo-environmental research undertaken by Stevenson
(1984; 1985a; 1985b), Stevenson and Moore (1988) and Borja and Dfaz; del Olmo, (1994) in
south-west Spain, Rivera (1988) in Andalucfa, and Silva (1988) in central Portugal, has
convincingly demonstrated that extensive environmental degradation did not happen until after
ca. 120013C. Furthermore, bronze metallurgy in western Iberia did not become an expansive
industry until this time (see Chapter Five).
Thus, no archaeologist yet has offered a convincing explanation for why certain regions become depopulated for a period of almost a thousand years in some cases; areas that had been
previously and subsequently highly favourable for settlement. Rufz-Mata (1994: 263) proposed
that "In the Middle Bronze Age, the belief of a population vacuum as a result of an ecological
and environmental disaster results from the absence of evidence, which is itself a product of
insufficient archaeological investigation". This is undoubtedly part of the answer, but this
thesis will argue that it also lies in the way archaeologists have been looking at the evidence.
The premise held by this author is that the settlement and burial evidence for this period is not
lacking, but that it remains elusive only under the wrong magnification of the archaeological lens.
There are many assumptions that have clouded our understanding of the Bronze Age in western Iberia. It has been unfavourably compared with the preceding Copper Age. The Chalcolithic
has too often been perceived as the period that began to pave the road to state formation, with its incipient metallurgy, monumental architecture, long-distance trade, craft specialisation and intensive agriculture. Since this did not apparently occur in the Bronze Age, archaeologists have assumed that devolution must have occurred. The extent to which Chalcolithic social
organisation represented the emergence of the "proto-state" has been exaggerated, and this has
resulted in biased interpretations of the Bronze Age as "stagnated" and culturally "retarded".
Archaeologists also perhaps unconsciously expect changes in the material culture record to
occur simultaneously with the dawning of new eras, and hence they have assumed that the
Bronze Age should be visibly distinct from preceding and subsequent periods. This premise
will be challenged in the first four chapters of this thesis. By adopting a diachronic perspective, it will be possible to trace possible threads of continuity as well as identify elements of change from the Earlier through to Later Bronze Ages.
4
1.5 Outline of thesis This thesis begins by examining the reasons behind the dearth of Bronze Age evidence in
western Iberia. In the absence of well-defined radiocarbon sequences in this area,
archaeologists have based their temporal assignations of the material culture on typo-
chronological frameworks. This is where the investigation must start. Chapter Two will
examine critically the existing chronological schemes for western Iberia. Since the current
schemes have been constructed from the burial and hoard evidence, they bear little relevance to
contemporary settlement evidence and this issue of non-comparability will be addressed. Furthermore, these frameworks are out-dated and have not been adequately revised. Some of
the recently published radiocarbon chronologies demonstrate that these schemes are seriously flawed, and must be challenged.
Chapter Three introduces a systematic methodology to ceramic analysis. In western Iberia, no
such approach has been adopted, and our understanding of ceramic assemblages from domestic
sites rests upon descriptive and qualitative data. Since Bronze Age typo-chronological
frameworks have been constructed predominantly from ceramics, they form the key element of investigation. Previous assumptions of Bronze Age ceramic developments are removed. In
their place, current theoretical considerations, that address important issues concerning vessel
shape and style, decoration, function and technology, are outlined and discussed. The second
part of the chapter applies these theories to a quantitative analysis of twelve Later Bronze Age
ceramic assemblages from western Iberia. Important observations are made and the
surnmarised conclusions demonstrate the need for a complete revision of our understanding of
the Later Bronze Age.
Chapter Four applies the conclusions made in the previous chapter more widely. The analysis draws upon a large data base of over 400 settlements, and current ceramic methodologies are
employed in conjunction with the settlement evidence and available radiocarbon dates. The
regions under discussion include north-central, central and southern Portugal, Spanish
Extremadura and the Meseta. The settlement evidence and ceramic assemblages are reassessed,
and the revised ceramic typo-chronological sequences will demonstrate that the period between
1600 and 1000 cal. BC is not as elusive or invisible as traditionally advocated. The
conventional assumptions concerning this period will be removed once and for all.
5
Chapter Five addresses the issue of the Atlantic Bronze Age and offers a fresh approach to the
study of bronze hoards beyond dry typological studies of metalwork. A detailed contextual
analysis of bronze deposits from nine regions in western Iberia highlights the complexity of deposition patterns. Interpretations concerning the reasons behind the consumption of bronze
in specific ways in different regions follow several different lines of argument, focusing upon
various social, economic, political and ideological factors. The patterns of deposition also
emphasise particular routes and networks of communication through the landscape.
This observation is expanded upon in Chapter Six, which undertakes an analysis of the south-
western stelae, and complements the themes discussed in Chapters Four, Five and Seven. The
contextual analysis of these stones highlights the growing importance of movement, interaction
and boundary maintenance within the Later Bronze Age landscape of western Iberia. The
elements depicted on the stelae are examined in detail, and their symbolism is discussed with
respect to the wider concerns of transhumance and pastoralism and bronze production and
exchange.
Both Chapters Five and Seven explore the relationships between western Iberia and other parts
of Europe and the Mediterranean in the Later Bronze Age. Since western Iberia has been
depicted as isolated, insular and regressive during this time, interpretations concerning international interaction with the Atlantic and Orient have naturally presented the view that
Iberia was peripheral or marginal in such networks; a passive receptor rather than an active
contributor. The reassessment of the Bronze Age evidence from Chapters Two to Four permits
a different perspective to be put forward. Recently published evidence allows us to reconsider
the role of Iberia within Atlantic and pre-Phoenician exchange mechanisms in a more positive
way; far removed from the out-moded diffusionist outlooks. The conclusions drawn suggest
that Iberia had an important part to play in extra-peninsular relations and that her position on
the international stage must be reassessed.
1.6 Conclusions: Iberia and Europe
As already stated, the impetus for this thesis was initiated almost ten years ago, when the author
was introduced to Portuguese archaeology. The undergraduate courses on the Prehistory of Europe at the University of Edinburgh tended to stop at the Pyrenees, with the exception of
casual references to the Millaran and Argaric "cultures" of south-east Spain. At the time, few
articles on the prehistory of western Iberia had been published in English. Even general books
surnmarising the Prehistory and Bronze Age of Europe (e. g. Coles and Harding 1979;
6
PAGE
NUMBERING
AS ORIGINAL
Chapter Two:
Timing Death and Deposition: Burials, Hoards and Bronze Age
Chronology in western Iberia.
"Most of the marks that man has left on the face of the earth during his two million year
career as a litter-bugging, meddlesome and occasionally artistic animal, have one aspect in
common: they are things, they are not deeds, ideas or words..... the scope and penetration of
our perception of extinct human orders is directly proportional to the extent and acuity of
ourprimary observations of objects" (Glyn Daniel 1971: 123-129)
2.1 Introduction to the Chronology of the Iberian Peninsula.
The most challenging line of investigation that this thesis addresses is the chronology of the
Bronze Age in western Iberia. This problem lies at the heart of this research, since it is only
through understanding how the chronological frameworks have been created and employed,
that it is possible to appreciate some of the reasons for the apparent lacunae in the Bronze Age
settlement and burial record. This chapter will outline the general frameworks for the Iberian
Bronze Age, before discussing more specifically the history and development of chronological
schemes in western Iberia. It will concentrate upon burials and hoards, since it is from grave
goods and metallurgy that western Iberian temporal schemes were first constructed.
The aims of this chapter are to critically evaluate the validity of existing schemes, and highlight
the problems they create. Some of the difficulties result from over-generalising frameworks,
which fail to strike a balance between regional variability and overall patterns of change. It is
important to reconcile these two perspectives. Another problem with the western Iberian
Bronze Age schemes in particular is that they were first defined on the basis of a restricted
grouping of characteristic grave goods. Sites were subsequently dated on the basis of the
presence or absence of specific pot or metal types, and the degree of interregional variation was
not made clear. Qualitative "tick-off' lists that attempt to demonstrate the apparent degree of
similarity of different sites are of limited use when no reference is made to the percentage of
attributes that need to be similar for sites to be chronologically grouped together.
Another issue addressed in this chapter is the unchanging nature of the chronological
frameworks. Once constructed, these have remained relatively unaltered, and the growing
collection of data from on-going archaeological excavations have been slotted into old schemes,
without recognising the need for revision.
8
Any non-Iberian archaeologist embarking upon Bronze Age research in Spain and Portugal
will be confronted by a confusion of typo-chronological terms which cover this period, many of
which are used synonymously. In order to avoid the problems created by employing the ill-
defined terms of Bronze Medlo (Bronce Medto in Spain), Bronze Pleno, Bronze Tardto, Bronze
Reciente and Bronze Final, Tartessico Antiguo and Primero Edad do Ferro, this research will
refer to three stages - the Earlier Bronze Age (2000-1500 cal. BC), the Later Bronze Age (1500-
700 cal. BC), and the Early Iron Age (700-500 cal. BQ. This side-steps the uncertainties of
terms like Bronce Tardio (which has been applied to both Middle and Late Bronze Age
evidence) and the difficulties in understanding the subtle differences between the Reciente and Final Bronze Age. This approach also relegates the Middle Bronze Age to a phase within the
Later Bronze Age, in line with some of the more recent chronological schemes for Britain (e. g. Megaw and Simpson 1979; Barrett and Bradley (eds. ) 1980a) and Europe (Coles and Harding
1979). Although this might appear a trivial semantic observation, the following chapters will demonstrate that the term has been used misleadingly to define a distinctive cultural period; an identity that the archaeological evidence will not support.
The chronological conventions that will be employed in this and subsequent chapters are set out in the following table.
Historical date Uncalibrated Calibrated radiocarbon Radiocarbon date
date
BC bc cal. BC
2.2 Typology
Defining and dating chronological periods is fundamental to all archaeological ventures. The
procedures involved in constructing chronological frameworks include the identification and
seriation of ceramic, lithic and metal types and their allocation to an evolutionary sequence,
generally from simple to more complex (Grdslund 1987). The chronological classification of
material culture forms the fundamental basis of archaeological enquiry, and a foundation upon
which to set subsequent studies of settlement, burial, economy or social change. Chronologies
based upon typologies alone, however, are liable to be erroneous. Constructing and expanding
upon chronologies should also include contextual (stratigraphic) and technological evidence,
with support from radiocarbon dates. Unfortunately, as this chapter will demonstrate,
stratigraphic and independent dating evidence has rarely been employed with respect to the Bronze Age sequences for western Iberia. It is only at the end of the second and the beginning
9
of the first millennia cal. BC that we have good stratigraphic evidence to define the Later
Bronze Age and its transition to the Early Iron Age, and these sites corne primarily frorn
western Andalucfa [e. g. Huelva (Rufz Mata 1981; FernAndez Jurado 1988-1989); Cerro
Macareno (Pellicer 1983); Mesa de Setefilla (Aubet et at. 1983) and Llanete de los Moros
(Martfn de la Cruz 1987a)]. This dearth ofstratigraphic evidence results from the apparent lack
of settlement evidence for much of the Bronze Age.
Although the -Radiocarbon Revolution" (Renfrew 1973) has had an enormous impact upon
inany EUropean prehistoric sequences, few dates have, as yet, been published for western
Iberia. Chapman ( 1987) has noted that the introduction of radiocarbon dating in lheria has been
uneven both temporarily and spatially, and sorne of tile best sequences come from tile
Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in south-eastern Spain and Mallorca. In fact, less than
eighty dates are presently available for the Portuguese Bronze Age, providing, on average, one
independent date for every 15 years.
The lack of stratigraphic dating and radiocarbon sequences has forced archaeologists to rely
upon typological classification for the chronology of the western Iberian Bronze Age. These
typologles have been based upon restricted facets of the archaeological record. and moreover,
the evidence derives from different spheres (bunal, hoard, settlement) for the various phases as
demonstrated in the table below.
Table 2.1
Material culture employed in western Iberian typological
classifications
Early Bronze Age Burialsand ceramics
(2000- 1500 cal. BC) Settlements x
Metalwork hoards x
Later Bronze Age I Burials and ceramics V
1500-900 cal. BC) Settlements x
Metalwork hoards V
Later Bronze Age 11 Burials and cerarnics x
(900-700 cal. BC) Settlements v/
Metalwork hoards V/
2.3 History of Iberian Chronological schemes: the importance of the south-east
The Siret brothers laid the chronological foundations for Iberia in the 1880s, employing typo-
chronological evidence from their extensive excavations in the province of Almeria in south-
cast Spain. The seven tiered chronological scheme established by Louis Siret (1913) for
Iberian pre and proto-history was coupled with the principle of diffusionism. It also adhered
closely to the Scandinavian Three-Age system of stone, bronze and iron (Montelius 1903), with
slight modifications and the recognition of a Chalcolithic stage, independent from the Bronze
Age. The Neolithic was subdivided into three stages (Early, Middle and Late), the Iron Age into two (Early and Late), while the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age were envisaged as single stages. Transitions from one stage to another were marked by assumed external influences that included an Iberian immigration, a Phoenician colonisation, and Celtic, Hallstatt, and Carthaginian invasions and conquests. As Chapman has remarked (1990: 21) "The central European affinities of the El Argar Bronze Age assemblage, along with other contemporary sites, led to its identification with the Celts". Siret himself stated that he was concerned with proving that the different chronological and cultural stages in the Iberian Peninsula were a result of successive foreign invasions and influences, rather than the product of local developments (1913: 2). Thus, Siret initiated the tradition of thought that everything either diffused from exogenous regions, such as the central Mediterranean or central Europe, or else, came from a small number of nuclear areas (such as south-east Spain with respect to the "pan- Argaric culture" - Castro Martinez 1992), which later disseminated into wider regions.
This tradition of diffusionism remained one of the main arguments for interpreting the Iberian
sequences for a further two generations of archaeologists. Cartailhac (1886) was the first to
summarise the prehistory of Portugal, and his scheme complied with the idea of diffusion of a 4ccivilising current" (ibid: 232) throughout Portuguese prehistory. Iberia lacked an indigenous
perspective, and all developments had to be credited to exogenous influences. The quest for links between Europe and the historically dated Near East was essential at this time since there was no other method of dating European prehistory except through cross dating. Unfortunately, this resulted in a dependence upon the east for all developments and advances. Only in the past twenty years has the diffusionist principle has been criticised, yet its protracted influence in
shaping and constructing Iberian chronological schemes still survives.
The investigations by the Sirets initiated a long history of archaeological research in south-east Spain (e. g. Blance 1964,1971; Gilman 1976; Ruiz Mata 1977; Chapman 1979; 1982; 1990; Mufloz 1982; Lull 1983; Molina 1983; Schubart and Arteaga 1986). In comparison with other parts of Iberia, it has been the south-east that has been most intensively investigated, providing the most clearly defined prehistoric chronologies. Only in the last twenty years have Bronze
11
Age sequences been formed for large parts of inland Iberia (northern and southern Meseta), and
some regions, such as the Peninsular north-west, north central Portugal and Extremadura, still
lack well defined Bronze Age chronologies. This deficiency results from both the lack of solid
archaeological research in these regions and the elusive nature of the archaeology itself.
'rraditionally, the regions of south-east Spain and southern Portugal have been highlighted in
Copper and Bronze Age chronologies (e. g. Leisner and Veiga Ferreira 1963; Blance 1964;
Schubart 1975; Sangmeister and Schubart 1981 -, Chapman 1990). It is only in south-cast Spain,
however, that continuity between Chalcofithic and Bronze Age cultural sequences can be
traced, since burial and settlement evidence for the Millaran and Argaric are found in the same
regions. In southern Portugal, the Bronze Age cist cemeteries have a different distribution to
the main concentration of Chalcolithic settlement and burial evidcnce. Thus, until now, no
continuity has been demonstrated in the cultural sequence between the central Tagus Copper
Age and the south-western Alentejo and Algarve Bronze Age. Furthermore, the south-eastern
Bronze Age evidence is much richer and more diverse than that available for southern Portugal,
and chronologies rest upon data from settlements, burials and hoard deposits. This has resulted in a large number of detailed typo-c hrono logical schemes, the most of important of which are listed in the tables below.
Bosch Gimpera was one of the first archaeologists to provide a detailed chronological sequence
for later Prehistoric Iberia as a whole. His phases relied predominantly upon south-eastern evidenee, although they were applied more widely.
Table 2.2: Bronze Age chronologies (after Bosch Gimpera 1932 and revised 1954)
Bosch Gimpera 1932 Bosch Gimpera 1954
IA - Eneolithic 2500-200OBC 2500-230OBC Eneolithic Almerian culture
IB Los Millares 2000-170OBC 2300-21 OOBC Beginning of Los Millares
11 Formation of El Argar
1700-140OBC 2100-1900 BC Apogee of Los Millares
III Argaric
Bronze Age
1400-120OBC 1900-? 1800BC Trasition to Argaric culture
(Fuente Vermeja)
IV Ria de
Huelva
1200-1 10OBC ? 1800-? 1600BC Argar [A (El Oficio)
? 1600-1400BC Argar IB (apogee of Argaric
culture)
1400-1100/ 1 OOOBC
Argar 11 (Fuente Alamo)
12
Blance (1964; 1971) used Argaric burial evidence to divide the south-eastern Bronze Age
sequence systematically. This model has subsequently been widely adopted and adapted in
Bronze Age settlement and burial studies, and many of its original inaccuracies have been
removed (e. g. Schubart 1971a; 1971b; 1972; 1975; 1976; Ruiz 1977; Molina 1983; Schubart
and Arteaga 1986). Alternative models to Blance's have been put forward in recent years and
these have tended to place more emphasis upon social developments and less upon typological
sequences (e. g. Mufloz 1982; Lull 1983; Mufloz et al. 1993). Radiocarbon dates have had
greater impact upon Argaric sequences than those from any other part of the Iberian Peninsula,
and have considerably extended the duration of Argaric and post-Argaric, demonstrating that
the incipient stages of both began several centuries earlier than traditionally believed (Mathers 1994: 20) (Table 2.4).
Table 2.3: Argaric Chronologies (after Blance 1964; 19 71)
Blance 1964; 1971
Argar A (I 700-150011140013C) Argar B (150011400-120OBC)
Burials: Cist tombs only Burials: Predominantly pithoi or urn burials
Metal: halberds, triangular daggers, awls Metal: flat axes, long narrow daggers
Adornments: archer's wrist-guards, "\/"
perforated buttons, gold
Adornments: bone and faIence beads, silver diadems and silver and bronze bracelets and rings
Ceramics: Middle carinated biconical
vessels (Siret form 6) 1
Ceramics: chalices (Siret form 7)
1
Table 2.4: Aragric Chronologies (after Lull 1983 and Castro Martinez et al. 1996)
Soclo-economic model of Argaric after Lull 1983
Absolute sequence after Castro Martinez et aL 1996
Formative phase (1900/1800-17OObc) - associated with Late Beaker horizon
Argaric Phase Ia (2500-2150 cal. BC)
Peak development phase (1700- 1500114OObc)
Argaric Phase 1b (2150-2050 cal. BC)
Terminal phase (1 500/1400-1300bc) Argaric Phase 11 (2050-1960 cal. BC)
Argaric Phase 111 (1960-1810 cal. BC)
Argaric Phase IV (1810-1700 cal. BC)
Argaric Phase V (1700-1575 cal. BC)
13
Between the 1960s and 1980s, Schfile and Pelficer (1966) SchUle (1969; 1980), and Molina
( 1978) put forward several new sequences for the Later Bronze Age in the south-east of Spain
on the basis of stratigraphic excavations, particularly at the settlements of Cerro del Real, and
Cerro de la Encina, both in Granada. Aimagro Gorbea (1977; 1986) also proposed a
chronology for southern Iberia as a whole, that corresponded closely with Molina's revised
scheme, but was founded upon Atlantic metalwork from hoard deposits. lie has also published
(lie most recent chronological table for Iberia as a whole (Almagro Gorbea 1997 - see Table
2.6). This provides a more detailed chronological sequence from a combined analysis of
available hoard, burial and, to a lesser extent, settlement evidence. Although this sequence is a
considerable improvement on earlier schemes, it still rests rather precariously on relative
chronology.
Table 2.5: Later Bronze Age chronologies for south-east Spain and southern Iberia (after
Molina 1978 and 1986 andAlmagro Gorhea 1986)
Molina 1978 Molina revised 1986 Almagro Gorbea 1986
Period Chronology Period Chronology Cultural Period Chronolog
BC BC influences y BC
Bronze Tardio 1400- Bronze Tardlo or 1350-1200 Bronze 1350-1200
or Argar 1200/1100 Postargarico Tardio
Tardio
Bronze Final 1 1100- Bronze Final del 1200-900 Cogotas I Bronze Final 1200-900
or Antiguo 85OBC Sudeste and (Cogotas and Atlantic Late Atlantic
Bronze Age)
Bronze Final 11 850-75OBC Bronze Proto- 900-740 Urnfield Bronze 900-740
or Pleno Orientalizante Proto-
Orientalizant
e and Urnfield
Culture
Bronze Final 750-65OBC Tart6sico 740-570 Phoenician Tart6sico 740-570
III or Reciente Orientalizante and later Orientalizant
Greek e (First Iron
Age)
IA
Table 2.6: Reeional Bronze Ae chronolozies (burial. hoard and settlement evidence after Alma2ro Gorbea 1997) Chrono- Atlantic west North Meseta South Meseta South-West West Andalucia logy (13c)
- Megaliths VNSP Megaliths Eneolithic Megaliths Meqaliths Maritime Beakers Maritime Beakers Maritime Beakers Maritime Beakers Maritime Beakers
200OBC I Ciempozuelos Ciempozuelos Palmela Carmona Ciempozuelos
1900- Montelavar SilolMontelevar (tongued Domajas (tongued Ferradeira (tongued Montilla (Montelevar) (tongued 170OBC (tongued daggers, Palmela daggers. Palmela points, daggers, Palmela points, daggers, Palmela points, daggers, Palmela points,
points, archer's wristguards) archers wristguards) archer's wristguards, V- archer's wristguards, V- archer's wristguards, V- perforated buttons) perforated buttons) perforated buttons)
1700- Atios (Palmela points, gold Cardeflosa Motillas Ferradeira Chicina 150OBC spirals, archer's wristguards) (Paimela points, archers (Paimela points, archers
wristguards, V-perforated wristguards, V- SWI Atalaia Caldas de Reyes buttons) perforated buttons, gold (Palmela points, archer's
Cogeces spirals) wristguards, V-perforated buttons, gold spirals)
1500- Setefilla XIV 130OBC Setefilla
130OBC Entretumbas- Agras Cogotas I Motilla Atalaia Setefilla
120OBC Campos Cogotas Bronze Final I Bronze Santa Vitoria Llanete de los Moros Bronze Final I-Pruneda Tardlo Bronze del SW 11
1100BG Bronze Final 11 -Rio Sul Bronze Final 11 BFII Bronze del SW III Bronze Final 1-11 Osuna
I Assento
IOOOBC- Bronze Final III- Bronze Final 11-111 BFIII Bronze Final 11 - 90OBC Huelva Bronze Final III-Huelva 900- Bronze Final IV-Bai6es Bronze Final III-Soto Bronze Final III-Pico, Bronze Final 111-Huelva PeAa Negra 1-11 and Ronda 70013C Buitre
_ 700- Bronze Final V -Samiera Celtib6dco Carracosa I Orientalisingfrartessian Orientalisingfrartessian 5008C I
2.4 Westem Iberia
In contrast to the detailed and varied schemes outlined above for south-eastern Spain, the
chronological sequences available for the Bronze Age in western Iberia are both fewer in
number and more coarsely defined. Before the 1940s, there had been so little excavated or published of later Portuguese prehistory that many archaeologists lacked confidence in
proposing chronological sequences for the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (e. g. Ddchelette 1908;
Pago 1941). "In the current state of the science (of archaeoloýy) it would he premature to
attempt any systematic study of the Bronze Age in Portugal" (Vasconcelhos 1906: 179). In the 1920s, an extensive work on the later prehistory of Portugal by Aberg (192 1) delivered a rather pessimistic judgement upon the Bronze Age. He concluded "that there is a very clear delineation hetween the period of the Palmela tomhs (Chalcolithic) and the period of the cist tomhs (Bronze Age). The latter period is the first great retrogression of this civilisation .... the fewfinds of more recent date indicate sparse, possihly temporary settlements after the Palmela
period' (Aberg 1921: 112). Unfortunately, this paper left its scars upon subsequent interpretations of the Bronze Age in Portugal, which, even today, is still dismissed as a time of
stagnation and decline, and one which deserves less attention in comparison to earlier and later
periods.
Thus, the first western Iberian chronologies drew heavily upon the Argaric sequences in their
construction, and this contributed to the standardised character of the Peninsular Bronze Age
and the term "pan-Argaric". Bosch Gimpera (1932: 81-85) included Portugal in his overview
of prehistoric cultures in the Peninsula and explained that the Portuguese Bronze Age was basically a component of the Argaric Bronze Age. He made direct connections between the
cist-burials of Almeria, Murcia and Ja6n with those of the Algarve, Alentejo and other tombs in
northern Portugal, thus considerably expanding the boundaries of this designation. The
majority of Spanish and Portuguese investigators from the 1920s to the 1960s (e. g. Cabr6 1923;
Mendes Correa 1928; Melida 1929; Viana 1944; Bosch Gimpera 1954: 51-95; Ferreira et aL 1954; Veiga Ferreira et aL 1956; Pago and BaqAo 1962; 1964; Pago et aL 1965) continued to
perceive the Portuguese Bronze Age as an off-shoot of the all-embracing Argaric culture. There was not sufficient archaeological evidence at the time to convince archaeologists to view
the western Bronze Age as independent of the south-east. Tarradell had begun to redefine the
geographic limits of the culture of EI Argar as early as the 1940s (1946: 139-141; 1950: 70-82;
1965: 432438), and argued that it had a very limited influence beyond south-east Spain, yet
this fell mainly upon deaf ears in Portugal.
In the 1940s, Martinez Santa Olalla offered a new chronological sequence for the whole Iberian Bronze Age. His scheme relied upon other central and western European sequences.
16
He divided the Middle Bronze Age into two horizons, both of which were defined on the basis
of association with central European (Tumulus - MBAI) and Atlantic European (MBAII) "cultures" respectively (1946). Within the Late Bronze Age, he identified three different 66cultural" or geographical facies: the Atlantic region in the west, the Umfield Culture in the
north-east, and the Tartessian culture in the south-west.
The idea of a Later Bronze Age Atlantic "culture" was developed by Savory (1949; 1968) and MacWhite (195 1), and both continued to link their chronological schemes with those developed
in north-westem France, south-westem Britain and Ireland. They considered that the bronze
tools and weapons from hoards like Ria de Huelva and Rfo Sil bore strong similarities with those from other parts of north-westem Europe. In fact MacWhite went as far as to argue that
they were undoubtedly Irish imports to the Atlantic seaboard of south-western Europe, and
considered the typo-chronological scheme of the Atlantic Bronze Age in western Iberia to be
dependent on the British sequence. Savory also strongly upheld the diffusionistprinciple, and
attributed much of the Earlier Bronze Age material of western Iberia, such as the silver lunulae
and basket earrings from Vilafranca de Verona, as well as the Later Bronze Age Cogotas I
ceramics (excised decoration linked to "kerbschnitt" parallels) to Central European immigrants
(Savory 1968: 211). The chronological schemes advocated for the Atlantic Bronze Age will be
expanded upon more fully later in this chapter, but to summarise, until the 1970s, the Iberian
Atlantic Bronze Age was defined primarily upon the basis of parallels with other parts of
western Europe.
2.5.1 The south-western Bronze Age
The burial evidence in western Iberia has remained the key to defining Bronze Age chronology for over sixty years, since the presence of cist cemeteries forms one of the most representative
and specific categories of evidence. Until recently, this period spanning over a millennium has
been represented mainly through grave finds, owing to the dearth of settlement sites.
Schubart (1965; 1970; 1971; 1974a; 1974b; 1975; 1976a) first presented a systematic treatment
of the south-westem Bronze Age (or "Bronze del Sudoeste") spanning the period from 1500 to
70OBC. The heart of his chronological scheme lay in the sequential ordering of the pottery
grave goods. The territory defined by Schubart as the south-westem Bronze Age corresponded
to central and south Portugal (Schubart 1974a: 356), although Amo (1974; 1975a; 1975b) later
expanded the definition to include western Andalucia. The regions included are the Algarve
(Faro district), the Lower Alentejo (district of Beja and SctOal), the Upper Alentejo (the
southern part of the tvora district) and Huelva (Figure 2.1).
Thus the south-western Bronze Age was envisaged as a unified "culture". Schubart proposed that it was the ubiquity of the metal resources in this region, and their exploitation in the
17
Bronze Age that encouraged this unique and differentiated grouping, and he contrasted this area
with the neighbouring Guadalquivir and Tagus basins, whose cultures he considered "retarded".
It must be noted that the framework produced by Schubart was biased from the very outset, both from the perspective of the evidence that it drew upon, and from the geographical areas
that it incorporated. The concentration of finds in the Algarve and Alentejo are more a result of
the intensive fieldwork in these regions, than an accurate reflection of the archaeological
record. This is no mean criticism of Schubart himself, since he was collating the material
available at the time, and the regions of Alentejo and the Algarve had a long tradition of
archaeological fieldwork, stemming back to the earliest work undertaken by Bishop Cendculo
on his large estates in Beja at the end of the eighteenth century.
Schubart drew upon the isolated publications of cist grave cemeteries by Viana (1944; 1954;
Viana et al. 1949), Bosch Gimpera (1954) and Pago and Viana (1963-1964) (Schubart 1971;
1974: 348). Schubart's own fieldwork in the lower Alentejo continued the excavations begun
by Vasconcelhos at Santa Vit6ria (1906; 1908) and Viana (1944) at Atalaia. The
archaeological evidence from these two cemeteries was used to form the main outline of
Schubart's typo-chronological phasing, based upon the differentiation between the earlier cists like those of Caldas de Monchique, and Atalaia and the later ones of Santa Vit6ria and Monte
do Ulma (Schubart 1974: 350). Schubart suggested a tripartite phasing on the basis of the
chronological evaluation of the grave goods (Figure 2.2 and Table 2.7). The initial phasing of
these cist cemeteries relied upon the pre-established Argaric chronological framework set out by Blance (see Table 2.3). The Ferradeira horizon, dated from 1900/1800 to 1500/140OBC,
was defined by Schubart as being contemporary with that of the Chalcolithic, with individual
inhumations signalling a break with the earlier megalithic tradition of collective burials (1975:
115-133, Figures 11-15, Maps 3-4). The lengthy chronology that Schubart assigned to this
phase was based on the persistence of Chalcolithic aspects of the material culture. Rather than
accepting that these traits showed continuity into the Bronze Age, he ascribed Bronze Age
evidence to a Chalcolithic horizon. The characteristic burial type in the south-west was that of inhumations in stone-lined pits, which were accompanied by a specific range of grave goods
including derived Beakers, Palmela points and V-perforated buttons (Table 2.7). Schubart
explained the considerable longevity of Chalcolithic traditions as the result of conservatism
with the society.
18
Table 2.7: Schubart's south-western Bronze Age 1965; 1970; 1971; 1972b; 1974a; 1975
Main traits Ferradeira horizon South-western Bronze South-western Bronze Age 11
1900/1800- Age I 1100-70OBC
1500/140OBC 1500/1400-11 0013C
Burials Individual burials in Large pit and stone-lined Smaller stone-line cist burials.
stone lined pits cist burials Alentejo relief stelae
Ceramics Continuity of Beakers Hemispherical and Higher body carinations on vessels.
and derived Beaker globular bowls and jars, Flat and omphalos-based jars.
shapes, plain round 'Metallic" pottery, low and Decoration more common than
and hemispherical medium carinated bowls, preceding phase. Designs include
bowls tall cannated jars grooves, striations, impressions and incised bands of motifs. High and
medium carinated bowls and globular jars with narrow necks. Odivelas and Santa Vitoria cups
Metalwork Short daggers, Wide blade riveted Reduced quantities compared with Palmela points halberds (Montejlcar type), preceding stage. Halberds, double
triangular bladed daggers, looped palstaves, occasional hilted
splayed axes, pendulum swords shaped arrowheads
Adornments Silver lunulae and Rarer than in Ferradeira Very rare. Bronze pins and elbow
bracelets, V- horizon. Occasional silver fibulae
perforated buttons, and gold earrings, and
archers wristguards rings I
Schubart saw clear differences between the Ferradeira horizon and that of the first phase of the
south-western Bronze Age (1500/1400-IIOOBC), including the transition from pit to cist
burials. Type fossils used to define Phase I included the metallic style of pottery, created
through intensive burnishing, tronconical and straight sided bowls with rounded bases
(FemAndez Castro 1988: 116; Figure 69) low and medium carinated vessels, and simple low
carinated "Atalaia" cups (Figures 2.3.5 and 2.4.6 and 2.4.7). Other pot types included tall jars
with basal carinations, frequently with small looped handles (Figures 2.4.1 and 4.2; Schubart
1974a: 351; FemAndez Castro 1988: Figures 97-99). All of these pottery types, in particular the
carinated bowls and all-over "metallic" burnished vessels, are now known to continue in
manufacture and use throughout the Later Bronze Age (see Chapter Three).
The central area of the necropolis of Atalaia was considered indicative of the second phase of
the south-western Bronze Age (Schubart 1971: 154-157). The cists were noted as smaller in
size than the previous period. The average dimension of cists from the cemeteries of
Monchique, Pessegueiro and Quiteria were ca. 1.05m, by 0.65m, as compared with ca. 1.55m. by
19
I. Om for the f irst phase. Again, the grave goods from these cists were employed by Schubart as the type fossils that defined the period from 1100-70OBC. He stated that the characteristics of Phase Il were radically distinct from the first phase (1975: 166-168). The ceramics would
appear to have slightly higher body carinations and omphalos bases, and show a wider variety
of decoration than in Phase I (Figures 2.3.2 and 2.4.8). Designs include grooves, vertical
corrugations, and incised circular bands of decoration (Figures 2.3.3 and 2.4.12). The most
common forms are globularjars with narrow necks and groove impressed decoration; with the
furrows sometimes forming floral compositions on the exterior of the vessels (Odivelas vessels
- see Figure 2.4.13). Carinated bowls (known as Santa Vit6ria cups - Figures 2.3.4,2.4.5 and 2.4.10) ascribed to this phase often display star burnished designs on the interior of the vessels; demonstrating links with the exterior pattern burnished pottery tradition of the Later Bronze
Age (Figures 2.3.1 and 2.4.9).
In general the differences between the two phases are less clear cut than Schubart states. Many
of the earlier ceramic forms show only slight variations and subtle developments. The
metalwork shows remarkable continuity, especially with respect to the riveted daggers. The
ceramics demonstrate strong similarities to those of the Atalaia horizon, with hemispherical and
carinated bowls testifying to a longevity of Chalcolithic traditions. Other aspects of material
culture ascribed to this phase included pendulum-shaped arrow heads, spiral rings, and the
Alentejo relief stelae. More recent investigations on the Alentejo stelae tradition have now
given these to a much earlier chronology, beginning ca. 160OBC (e. g. Varela Gomes and Pinho
Monteiro 1977; Varela Gomes 1993; see Chapter Six).
Other necropoli ascribed to phase 11 include the neighbouring cemeteries of Bensafrim, Monte
do Ulma (Viana and Ribeiro, 1956; Viana 1965), Corte de Azenha (Viana 1954), Poio, Vidigal,
Cata (Pago and Nunes 1965), Courcla da Medarra, Monte do Outeiro (Ribeiro 1965), Defesa,
Mombeja and Ervidel. All of these produced examples of Alentejo relief stelae with swords,
halberds and anchor-shaped idols (Arnaud 1992), thus again implying an earlier chronology.
(Figure 2.5.2).
Subsequent analyses of necropoli in the Lower Alentejo followed Schubart's original scheme.
The cemeteries of Reguengos de Monsaraz (Schubart 1975: 265, Plates 42,450-453), Alcicer
do Sal (Schubart 1975: 262, Plates 426-427) and Campifia were considered to display similar
characteristics and hence to be contemporary with the first phase. At Campifia, the gave goods
included Montejfcar type halberds, riveted daggers and archer's wrist guards. The ceramics
portrayed a clear "metallic style" dominated by carinated vessels with distinct forms (Schubart
1973: 155-159, Figures I and 4).
20
The second phase of the Bronze Age "culture" was characterised as more expansive, diffusing
its influence into more northerly parts of central Portugal, an area that had been hitherto
considered peripheral or culturally retarded (Femdndez Castro 1988: 119). Recently, S. O. Jorge
has correlated the burial evidence from the Later Bronze Age pit cemetery of Tapado do
Caldeira, in Bai. 1o, Oporto with the second phase of the south-western Bronze Age (1980b;
1988b; 1990a), despite the 300 kilometres that separate these regions geographically. Schubart
stated that in north central Portugal, as in the Algarve, characteristic Bronze Age cist
cemeteries did not come into use until Phase II, although they frequently contained pottery that
was indicative of Phase 1. These included the extensive funerary complex of Alcaria do
Pocinho, Castro Marim, Vila Real, Vidigal (Fernindez Castro 1988: 120, Figure 100) and Mexilhoeira Grande, Portimao. The grave goods from these cemeteries contained vessels
similar to Atalaia bowls, and included low and middle carinated bowls with everted rims (Schubart 1976: 201-202, Figures 15-17).
This assumption was based on the temporal diffusion of this south-western "culture", the core
of which Schubart conveniently situated in his own study region - at the necropolis of Atalaia.
Thus the chronologies of cemeteries like Almadeninha, Azinhal, Baralha and Campifia in the Algarve are dependent upon and deemed to be slightly later than those of the lower Alenteio
regions. Similarly the south-western influence is seen to spread to the tvora and Beira Alta
regions but not until after 120OBC, as witnessed at the cemeteries of Carvalhal, Alcobaga
(Spindler and Veiga Ferreira 1974: 35-36,145-150), Bobadela, Sobreda and Carapito, all in the Beira region (Spindler 1981b: 175-177, Map 55; Senna-Martinez 1989). Although the grave
goods from these cemeteries showed more similarities with Schubart's phase 1, with low
carinated bowls and jars and Atalaia type cups, they were dated to the second phase, because of the supposedly retarded nature of these regions. Thus none of the cemeteries in these regions
was identified as "Middle" Bronze Age, purely on the assumption that this "culture" did not
show a marked expansion from the lower Alentejo until its climax.
Schubart has not offered any sound archaeological reasoning for why he has identified the lower Alentejo as the area of the birth and apogee of the "south-westem Bronze Age culture". The suspicion is this deduction was based on the fact that the cist cemeteries in this region were
the first to be systematically excavated, and hence mirrored the history of investigation rather
than the true nature of the archaeology itself. If we free these regions from such assumptions
and view the developments in the Bronze Age as local or regional traditions, and not in terms of
a single culture, then it may become possible to fill in some of the lacunae that are prevalent for
this period. The reality may be that cist cemeteries in these supposedly peripheral regions were
also emerging from ca. 180OBC onwards.
21
2.6.2 The Algarve and Huelva "South-western Bronze Age"
An attempt to challenge Schubart's out-datcd model will now be presented using more recently
published burial evidence. The cist cemetery of Vinha do CasAo, in Vilamoura, Algarve, is
presently one of the most fully published and best preserved of all of the south-western Bronze
Age necropoli and a detailed summary of the site's discoveries is relevant here. This
necropolis was partially excavated by Varela Gomes, as part of a rescue project (Varela Gomes
et al. 1986). Seventeen rectangular cist graves were discovered, and the information recorded
provides an important contribution to the Bronze Age burial record of the Algarve.
The dimensions of the cists showed some variation, but on average their lengths and breadths
measured 0.85m by 0-50m, while their depths reached 0.85m. Three cists were over Im in
depth, and these all contained the remains of more than one individual. Most of the cists were
covered by a single cist slab, and were in a good state of preservation. Grave goods were found
in almost all of the cists, and were limited to one, or occasionally two, pots. Vessel types
included biconical jars, hemispherical bowls and carinated bowls. Although Varela Gomes
attempted to compare some of the shapes with Schubart's Santa Vitoria phase 11 of the Bronze
Age, none showed the characteristic grooved and impressed decoration ascribed to this horizon,
and some vessel forms exhibited local traditions.
Unless otherwise stated all graves were rectangular cist boxes covered by a single monolithic
slab, oriented north-south, and contained an inhurnation placed on its left hand side in a foetal
position. Grave I contained a single inhurnation placed on its right hand side, surrounded by a
carinated globular jar, and other pottery fragments (Figure 2.5.1). Grave 2,1.5m north of
grave 1, contained the remains of a young individual, with the head, hands and knees pointing
to north. The grave was furnished with a single globularjar with a hemispherical base.
Grave 3 contained an adult interment with two hemispherical bowls and a small copper blade
(Figure. 2.5.2). Grave 5 contained a young individual with a small cup and low hemispherical
bowl (Figure 2.5.3). Grave 10 contained a single inhumation, with the hands, head and knees
pointing towards the north but with no grave goods. Grave II was oval rather than rectangular
in plan, and contained a single adult inhurnation with a high carinated bowl.
Graves 7,8 and 9 differed from the assumed conventional Bronze Age burial customs, since all
had multiple inhurnations (Figures 2.5.4 and 2.5.5). Grave 7 contained three inhurnations in a
deep cist (1.10m). The second inhurnation was placed in a foetal position on its left hand side,
with the head severed from the body, and with arms and knees pointing towards the north.
There were two low carinated cups placed with this burial. The third skeleton was even more
disarticulated, with its cranium and long bones placed in the space between the head and body
22 hh.,
of the first burial, and the rest of the skeleton lying a full I Ocm under its skull. This burial was
associated with a small bronze blade and copper point. Beneath this burial, fragments of bones
from an earlier interment were observed. Both graves 8 and 9 contained the remains of three inhumations. The lower two skeletons from grave 9 were disturbed and disarticulated,
implying that they were deposited successively. The three juvenile skeletons from grave 8 were intertwined suggesting that they may have been contemporary intcrments (Figure 2.5.5).
Graves 7 and 9 are interesting as they are the final resting place for what appears to be three
successive burials. The practice of excarnation of human corpses before inhurnation (owing to
the evident disarticulation of the skeletons) and re-use of the same grave appear to have been
practised, echoing Neolithic traditions, and testifying to the continuity of these into the Bronze
Age. Varela Gomes is uncertain about the length of time over which this cist was used, but
there is a possibility that it was employed for a period of a hundred years or more, which would
affect the precise dating of the grave goods. Since we lack bones from most south-westem Bronze Age cemeteries, we cannot be sure whether this tradition of re-use of earlier cists was
practised at other sites. Three out of the seventeen cists excavated at Vinha do Casio contained
more than one burial, providing a ratio of I in 6, and suggesting that this may have been a
relatively common practice of interment. Interestingly, in support of this idea, one of the few
other cemeteries that produced skeletal evidence is that of Medarra, in Beja (Nuiles Ribeiro
1966-1967). Twenty rectangular cists were excavated and each contained two inhumations. If
grave re-use was also practised at other necropoli then grave goods from one cist may not in
fact be contemporary. If re-use occurred over a hypothetical period of three hundred years or
more, then allocating finds to the same horizon could produce serious chronological errors. This casts further doubt on the accuracy of the south-westem chronology.
Varela Gomes et al. (1986: 86) provisionally dated the necropolis of Vinha do Casao between
1200/1100 and I OOOBC and suggested that this cemetery, estimated to have contained 70 or
more cists, demonstrated continuity over a time-span of two hundred years or more. There are
examples of high carinated bowls and hemispherical bowls that have been considered
characteristic of the second phase of the south-westem Bronze Age. However there is also the
frequent appearance of low carinated bowls with fine polished walls which Varela Gomes
compared with the Atalaia types and hence would be more comfortable in Phase 1. Varela
Gomes, however, concurs with Schubart's idea of stagnation and lack of development in the
Algarve until the Late Bronze Age.
2.6.3 Cist interments in the Huelva province
Amo (1974; 1975a; 1975b) continued the work begun by G6mez Romero, who located a
considerable number of cist necropoli in the Huelva region (1961: 879-948). They include El
23
Castafluelo, El Becerrero, Las Mesas, Beas and La Ruiza (Amo 1974), San Salvador (P6rez
Macias 1987) and La Parrita (P6rez Macias and Frfas 1989). There is further evidence of cist
cemeteries in the low-lying zones of Badajoz (Las Palomas, Usagre, Brovales, Villalgordo and Palacio Quemado) (Gil Mascarell et al. 1986), which have also been associated with the south-
western Bronze Age. Other cist burials situated in the province of CAceres are more difficult to
date, since they have been only sporadically investigated and poorly published (Esteban
Orteaga 1984: 65).
The majority of the groupings in the Huelva region do not exceed twenty cists, although some larger cist cemeteries are known (e. g. El Becerrero and El Castafluelo). The associated grave
goods are generally reduced to ceramic vessels and a few pieces of copper. Initial
investigations drew comparisons with the cist cemeteries of the Alentejo and Algarve published by Schubart. However, although superficially similar, it must be questioned as to what extent the Huelva cists retained an individual cultural identity, and how wise it is to make analogies
with geographically distant entities. Since their chronology still rests on the basis of qualitative
similarities and differences with the southern Portuguese cists, they have been dated mainly between the late fifteenth or early fourteenth and eleventh centuries BC.
Amo (1974) and Rihuete Herrada (1996: 142) have both advocated this shorter temporal span
on the basis of two observations. Firstly, there are no decorated stelae associated with the
burials in this region, and hence they have been considered to be earlier than the second phase
of the south-western Bronze Age. Secondly, there are no tumuli structures documented,
implying that they must be dated slightly later than the interments of Atalaia type. These two
assumptions lack credibility. There are several cist interments in central Portugal that are
associated with decorated stelae (e. g. Herdade de Pomar and Ervidel - see Figure 2.11), and as
stated earlier, their revised chronology is much earlier. Thus Alentejo stelae cannot be used as
a defining characteristic of the second Phase of the south-western Bronze Age. Secondly, it is
only the cemetery of Atalaia that has distinctive tumular structures covering the cist graves, and if we follow Rihuete Herrada's line of argument, then surely all other cist necropoli in western Iberia should be dated later than Atalaia. Thus the dating of the Huelva cists as intermediate in
chronology between Schubart's Atalaia and Santa Vit6ria phases lacks conviction.
Methodical excavations have occurred only at El Becerrero and El Castafluelo. The dimensions
of the cists were fairly regular but vary between 0.80 and 1.30m for the length, and 0.40-0.60m
for the width. At El Castailuelo, one of the cists reached a considerable size of 2.14m in length
and 1.14m in width. If we followed Schubart's scheme, we should assign this cist to the Ferradeira horizon, on account of its size, yet it was identified as belonging to the Later Bronze
Age (Amo 1975: 433).
24
The clear separation of clustered groups within the same necropolis has been interpreted as
corresponding to an organisation based upon family groups (see Amo 1975: 436-437; 1993:
172). Other interpretations concerning their spatial configuration, such as males in one group,
or children in another, remain only speculative, owing to the lack of skeletal material. If the
cists were grouped on the basis of family or arrangements, then it may be possible to see
continuity with the cemetery organisation of previous periods - such as the collective dolmens
and chambered tombs, which have also been considered to be a reflection of clan organisation.
Although the Huelva cists have all been allotted to the Atalaia horizon of the south-westem
Bronze Age (Amo 1973: 440448, Figures 2-9), there is little evidence to support this
conclusion. Most of the interments; are accompanied by grave goods, which mainly take the
form of a single ceramic bowl orjar. At El Becerrero bowls are more frequently included while
at El Castafluelo, it is the jar that is more common (Figures 2.7 and 2.8). Only a few cists
contain anything other than pots and these tend to be limited to stone or bronze tools,
occasional bronze weapons (daggers and arrowheads) and adornments (silver and amber
beads).
The majority of grave goods from El Becerrero consisted of burnished hemispherical bowls,
low and medium carinated bowls with concave profiles, and globular handled jars (Figures
2.7.1-2.7.8). Amo (1974: 449450; 1975b: 109, Figures 143a and b) compared the concave
vessels with south-westem Bronze I types, but Atalaia vessels are simple squat low carinated
bowls, and show no similarities. Other types, including the hemispherical bowls and globular
narrow necked jars (Amo 1975b: Figures 144a, b and 145) have more similarities with the Late
Chalcolithic of the lower Guadalquivir (e. g. the tholoi of Cortijo de Chichina in Sanlucar la
Mayor, and Cerro de la Cabeza in Seville - FernAndez G6mez et al. 1976: 356-359, Figures 6-
12). These types may indicate a considerable longevity of pottery traditions.
The nearby cemetery of El Castafluelo, Aracena, was composed of over fifty cists, arranged in
four clustered groupings. The pottery grave goods from these cists were notably different from
those of El Becerrero and appeared to show a localised ceramic tradition (Figure 2.8.1-2.8.6).
They included open bowls and hemispherical cups, and squat no-necked jars. The medium
sized carinated bowls and plates that are well represented at this cemetery are completely
absent at El Becerrero.
Despite the fact that these two cemeteries are separated from one another by only a distance of
twelve kilometres, their pottery assemblages show quite different characteristics. Other cist
necropoli in the Huelva region include El Carril (3 cists) situated between Aracena and
Castafluelo, El Montiflo (4 cists), two kilometres from Castafluelo, Las Hoyulo (6 cists),
opposite El Montiflo, El Cebollar near Cortezolor, and San Bartolom6 with eighteen tombs.
25
The grave goods published from this last cemetery again showed local characteristics in their
ceramic forms, with a predominance of burnished high carinated cups with handles, and low
hemispherical bowls.
This is important evidence since it demonstrates the predominance of localised pottery
traditions and possibly also chronological variation between cemeteries. Schubart's ceramic
repertoires may not be applicable to wider regions. In effect, the evidence from all of these
cemeteries suggests restricted types that cannot be slotted into all-embracing schemes. Despite
this, Amo has dated these two cemeteries to the same epoch - that of the south-westem Bronze
Age L She has advocated that the south-western "culture" can be traced beyond the Portuguese
frontier and into the Huelva regions. Through adopting this terminology, she is preventing the
individuality of these different regions from being appreciated The only true similarity between the cemeteries from the Huelva and Alentejo regions is the employment of stone lined
cists, and this is not strong enough evidence to consider these two regions comparable.
2.6.4 Criticisms of Schubart's scheme
The classification of the two phases of the south-western Bronze Age was primarily based on
the evidence from one cemetery - that of Atalaia, in Palheiros, Ourique. Schubart used horizontal stratigraphy, and the presence of different types of burials at the site to produce the
typological scheme. He assigned the earliest dates to the simple rock cut pits, which were
peripheral to the central nucleus of the cemetery. The tombs with stone cappings were believed
to be intermediate, while the cist burials with circular stone mounds were dated to the second
phase (Schubart 1965a: 70-76,1975: 12-16; Fernindez Castro 1988: 117). Thus the groups of
tumuli (I to VII in Schubart's 1975 Grave System) were dated relatively from simple to
progressively more complex, with the outermost tombs dated as the earliest (see Figure 2.9)
This typo-chronology was based on a number of assumptions. The idea that the necropolis of Atalaia should develop from the exterior to the centre seems rather strange, since spatial
patterning dictates that evolution generally progresses from centre to periphery. Examination
of the plans of the graves (see Figures 2.9 and 2.10) is more in support of a spread of burials
from centre to margin rather than the other way around. Some of the peripheral circular cists
overlap the central ones, and must therefore be later.
It would appear that Schubart's horizontal stratigraphy from periphery to centre could be
reversed, and hence his relative chronology and typological succession of the objects found in
this cemetery must also be called into question. The graves cut into the bedrock cannot be
inferred as the earliest purely because they are the simplest in form and contain the fewest
number of grave goods. Factors other than chronology may be responsible for the different
patterns of both grave types and grave goods, but these have never been considered. There is a
26
possibility that the groups of tumuli may represent different family or "clan" clusters, where
new burials were continuously added over a long period of time. This suggestion would imply
that Schubart's chronology of tumuli I to VII from earliest to latest might attest to a more
complicated chronological sequencing. Schubart also identified the vessels from these
outermost graves as having the closest analogies with Chalcolithic shapes. The pots that these
tombs contained consisted of hemispherical and globular vessels (see Figure 2.14.1-3), which
are precisely the types which we now know persist well into the Bronze Age in this region (e. g. Kalb and Mck 1981-1982; Parreira and Soares 1980; Kunst 1988; Senna-Martinez 1989: 199;
Vilaga 1993; 1995).
Paradoxically, the type site of Atalaia that Schubart used as the basis of his investigation, is
atypical of cemeteries of the period. At Atalaia, the funerary monuments are defined by
pseudo-circular or oval stone structures, distributed around a large central tumulus which was
placed in the a dominant position in the cemetery. This cemetery contrasts with all the others
ascribed to the "south-western Bronze Age" label in three substantial ways. Firstly, with
respect to the architectural construction, secondly with respect to grave types and thirdly with
respect to size. Three systems of burial were employed (cist, pit and rock-cut), and the
cemetery was of considerably large dimensions with 156 interments from seven out of the
eleven monuments excavated (Schubart 1965a). Other cemeteries tend to form small clusters that do not exceed thirty or so burials. Thus, none of these characteristics are repeated at any of
the other cemeteries in the south-west, where the architecture is always in the form of small
rectangular cists, occasionally with covering tumuli, and no other forms of interment are
employed. However, on the basis of Schubart's model, the tradition of burial in the low
circular tumulus has become considered the accepted characterisation of the Bronze del
Sudoeste (Schubart 1971; 1974; 1975), when clearly it was the exception. Thus we must
question the wisdom of using Atalaia as the type-site for a chronological scheme that covers the
whole of the south west Peninsula and central Portugal, and the potential flaws that such an
endeavour has created.
Without entering into too much detail of pottery types, I wish to demonstrate some of the other inconsistencies in Schubart's scheme that that are more relevant to the central and southern Portuguese material. At the cist cemetery of Alcdcer do Sal, Sdtubal, assigned to the second Bronze Age phase, graves contained both jars and carinated bowls. The squat jars are indicative of Schubart's first phase, but the pronounced carinatcd bowls are similar to the ones Schubart assigned to his second phase. Similarly, at Montinho and Ferreira do Alentejo, both
in Quintos, Beja (Schubart 1975: 406-407, Figures 36-38), several cists produced both Atalaia
cups (Phase 1) and bowls with low carinations and everted rims that Schubart has called
27
Odivelas type bowls (Phase 11). If vessels that are supposedly characteristic of two separate
phases are being found together, this again questions the validity of Schubart's chronological
scheme.
The cists of Farrobo, in Vidiguera, Beja, contained globular vessels with grooved decoration
that were associated with Odivelas forms (Schubart 1975: 256-257: Figure 56, Plate 407).
Most of the cists contained local forms that Schubart admitted he could not fit into his scheme (see Fernindez Castro 1988: Figure 103). There are many other cemeteries that show local
variations of pottery types that cannot be associated with the typical south-western forms. At
Pedra da Ouro, in Alenquer (Spindler 1981b: 179), the ceramics exhibited plastic and incised
decoration, frequently on vessels that showed continuity with Chalcolithic shapes. At Cova da
Moura, Torres Vedras (Spindler 1981b: 180, Figure 128, Plate 583) and Lapa do Suilo,
Bombarral (Schubart 1975: 138), the assemblages included bowls with grooved decoration,
which were dated to Phase H of the Bronze Age. The vessel shapes again corresponded more
closely with the Chalcolithic repertoire from this region (Garrido 1968: 186, Figure 184),
demonstrating again the difficulties in differentiating between the Copper and Bronze Ages on
ceramic typology alone.
Recent excavations at the necropoli of Provenga, Pessegueiro and Quitdria, in Sines (Silva and Soares 1979; 1981) and at Vinha do Casao, in the Algarve (cited earlier - Varela Gomes el al. 1986) have also provided evidence that shows that Schubart's two phases may not be clearly distinguishable and dissociated, since many cists contained combinations of ceramic vessels
that had similarities with both Atalaia and Santa Vit6ria types. Pessegueiro and Quitdria were
associated with contemporary settlements, allowing a comparison of the pottery from domestic
and funerary contexts to be made (see Chapter Four).
Although Schubart's chronological system (1965a; 1970; 1971; 1972b; 1974a; 1975) is almost thirty years old, and lacked radiocarbon dates, it still remains the key reference. His sequence
was constructed by drawing parallels and making implicit connections with the Argaric
schemes that had already been produced for south-eastem Spain (e. g. Siret 1913; Blance 1961;
1964; 1971). Essentially lie proposed that the Argar A and B "cultures" were almost implanted
in the south-west, giving birth to a "cultura hermana" or sister culture (1971: 154). The strong Mediterranean influence which Schubart visualised as playing a decisive part in the creation of
the south-westem Bronze Age, through migration and commercial exploitation of the rich
mineral deposits in these regions, still persists. Even recent authors (e. g. Fernindez Castro
1988; Amo 1993) refer to many south-westem aspects of the material culture as mirroring those
of the south-east and the Argaric culture.
28
The evidence presented here suggests that the term "south-western Bronze Age" cannot
continue to be used in a cultural sense as synonymous with a distinct, homogenous grouping. It
is unlikely that the practice of cist burial in western Iberia signals the emergence of single
cultural entity. Since burial in cists is a widely adopted practice throughout European
prehistory, this characteristic by itself cannot be used to denote a particular cultural grouping. Some of the examples above show that although the cist itself may be a common denominator,
other elements of the burial customs show great variation, and indicate local traditions that have
been otherwise masked. Furthermore, the use of certain types of vessel (in particular Atalaia,
Santa Vitoria and Odivelas bowls) to mark different periods creates inaccuracies, especially
when vessels supposedly denoting the different phases can be found together in the one cist burial.
Thus, three assumptions cloud our chronological and cultural understandings of the burial
record of Bronze Age western Iberia, and their correction is long overdue. The first is the belief that the term "south-western Bronze Age" can be equated with a single united culture,
when in fact the regions accommodated into this grouping show a wealth of regional variation. The second is the notion that the core of this "cultural grouping" was in the Alentejo, and that it
subsequently expanded north-wards and south-wards. The third is that the south-western Bronze Age tradition originated from or was strongly influenced by south-east Spain. As Amo
states 1 "Much of the work, especially in Portugal, has been carried out using the terminology
of "Argaric" cists, as if it is part of the same phenomenon" (1993: 170). The misleading ties
with the Argaric culture must be cut once and for all. These changes to our approach to the
western Iberian Bronze Age burial evidence will have important consequences for the
chronological and cultural sequences in these regions.
2.6.4 The Radiocarbon sequence for the south-western Bronze Age
It is unfortunate that there are very few radiocarbon dates from any of the cist cemeteries that
can aid in defining the sequence of the south-westem Bronze Age. The recent welcome
publication of two dates - from the cemeteries of Pesseguciro, Sines, and Casas-Velhas, Santo
Andr6 (Soares and Silva 1998: 236) - has raised the number to eleven. Yet even the small
sample listed in Table 2.8 indicates flaws in Schubart's chronology.
29
Table 2 8: Radiocarbon datesfor the south-western Bronze Age
Site and area I Traditional Date BP Date range cal.
phasing BC (2 sigma)
Atalaia, Beja, Ourique W Bronze 11 KN-1-200: 4240±50 2917-2879
Atalaia, Beja, Ourique SW Bronze I KN-1-201: 2800±50 1022-904
Atalaia, Beja, Ourique SW Bronze I KN-1-204: 1030±40 AD 976- 1018
(rejected)
Belmeque, Beja, Serpa SW Bronze 11 ICEN-87: 3520±95 2129-1612
Belmeque, Beja, Serpa SW Bronze 11 ICEN-142: 3230±60 1609-1440
Herdade do Pomar, Beja, SW Bronze 11 ICEN-87: 3510±45 1908-1758 AIjustrel
Herdade do Pomar, Beja, SW Bronze 11 ICEN-85: 3330±140 1785-1455 Aljustrel
Mesa de Setefilla, Seville, SW Bronze 1 1-11070: 3520±95 2129-1612 LayerXIV
Mesa de Setefilla, Seville, SW Bronze 1 1-11071: 3470±95 2027-1522 LayerXIII
Pessegueiro, Sines. Burial SW Bronze 11 ICEN-867: 3270±45 1679-1442
no. 16
Casas-Velhas, Santo Andr6. SW Bronze 11 OxA-5531: 3255±55 1670-1410 Burial no. A14 I I I I
All of these dates, with two exceptions (KN-1-204 which was discarded and KN-1-201), have
been calibrated between 2130 and 1440 cal. BC. Thus nine out of ten available dates, seven of
which came from cemeteries that were allocated to the second phase of the south-western Bronze Age, have in fact been calibrated between the Chalcolithic and the early part of Phase I
of the south-western Bronze Age.
The radiocarbon dates for the monument of Atalaia are not consistent with Schubart's
chronology (Almagro, Gorbea 1970: 23; 1976: 311). The first date, from Group 11, tomb G
(KN-1-200: 4240±SOBP) was calibrated ca. 1917 - 1879 cal. BC, and the second, from Group
IV, tomb 7 (KN-1-201: 2800±50BP) between 1022 and 904 cal. BC. The first date is too early
for Schubart's scheme, failing in the Chalcolithic, and the second, coming from a tumular
construction placed in Schubart's first phase, in fact corresponds with the end of his second
phase. Schubart conveniently side-stepped any conflict that these dates presented to his scheme
30
by arguing that they were probably both contaminated (1975), yet they have been accepted by
Soares and Cabral (1984: 179).
The necropolis of Herdade do Pomar, north-east of Ervidel, in Beja, was dated to the second
phase of the Bronze Age on the basis that grave goods from the cists produced a number of Santa Vitoria cups and grooved vessels (Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1977). Two
radiocarbon dates taken from this cemetery were calibrated ca. 1908-1455 cal. BC (ICEN-85,
ICEN-87), but unfortunately, no record of the context of the carbon samples is known.
Furthermore, the recently published site of Belmeque has been dated ca. 2129-1440 cal. BC
(ICEN-87 and 142), and this necropolis has also been ascribed to the Bronze II period, on the basis of the associated finds which included silver objects and grooved decorated vessels of Santa Vit6ria type (Schubart 1975: 257).
Thus the radiocarbon chronology shows little correlation with the typology of the south-western Bronze Age. Although we must remember that the number of absolute dates available is
presently limited, they do raise some cause for concern (Castro Martinez et al. 1996: Graph
111.13.1). Only one date can be associated with the second phase of the south-western Bronze
Age, and the mounting evidence suggests that the cist cemeteries were more indicative of the
Earlier Bronze Age, and perhaps unrepresentative of Later Bronze Age developments. Perhaps
this is one reason as to why we have so little evidence for this period since the current sequence
would not appear to be particularly indicative of it.
The question is whether we should re-assign the first phase of the south-western Bronze Age to
a period that is almost four hundred years earlier, between 2000 and 1550 cal. BC, with the
second phase following on from this, but still poorly defined. Another possible solution is to
realise that the sequence of the south-western Bronze Age is so flawed that it should be
abandoned altogether, and advocate a new chronological sequence based upon the increasing
evidence available from Later Bronze Age settlement excavations in western Iberia. I feel that
more radiocarbon dates from other cist burials in western Iberia will do little to resolve the
complexities and confusion of the south-westem typo-chronology. Since we could wait for a
decade or more for a sufficient quantity of dates to become available, it would be wiser to
release the western Bronze Age from the shackles of Schubart's scheme. The radiocarbon
dates for the south-westem Bronze Age listed above also imply that the Later Bronze Age
burial record is partially missing and incompletely known. However, recent investigations into
megalithic monuments once believed to have been Neolithic and Calcolithic in date, have
begun to provide much needed burial evidence for the Later Bronze Age, indicating
considerable longevity of ancestral funerary traditions.
31
2.7 Continuity and re-use of Megalithic burial sites in the Bronze Age
As stated earlier, the line of separation between the Copper and Bronze Ages was believed to be marked by the end of collective interments in megalithic monuments, and the beginning of
the individual rite of inhurnation in cist graves (V. 0. Jorge 1988; 1995; Parreira 1990: 29-35;
Gilman 1991). However, a re-appraisal of megalithic burial evidence in central Portugal (Kalb
1994: 415-426) and the Beiras (Senna-Martinez 1993b; 1993c; 1994a), has demonstrated that
many show re-use and even later construction.
Fonte de Malga, in Beira Alta, a group of eight earth mounds with a large central megalithic tomb, provides evidence of continuity in use between the Neolithic and Later Bronze Age (Kalb
and Hock 1979: 595-604; Kalb 1994; 1995). This site comprised a large corridor mamoa
grande (Monument I- over 20m in diameter and two metres in height), a slightly smaller
mamoa (Monument 2- 9m in diameter and Im in height), a chambered tomb -and six small
cairns with central cist burials. In this context, the term mamoa refers to a large circular mound
of earth and stones. Monument 2 was excavated by Kalb, and contained the remains of a
secondary tumulus within the pre-existing megalith. The smaller cist burials were excavated by
Georg and Vera Leisner (1965). Vera Leisner noted that these cists contained pottery grave
goods that were consistent with the Bronze Age, but her observations have not been expanded.
Kalb (1994: 417) suggested that the situation at Fonte de Malga may represent two successive
and distinct periods of use, with an abandonment interval in between. Monument 2
demonstrates this, with deposition of inhurnations in the Chalcolithic and Later Bronze Age,
and a hiatus in between. The evidence from the other monuments suggests something more
complicated and a possibility of their continuous use from their first megalithic construction
until the cists of the Late Bronze Age. The largest mamoa (Number 1) was used for the deposition of inhumations continuously from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age (Kalb 1994:
418419).
The fourteen year project undertaken by V. Jorge in the Serra de Aboboreira in northern Portugal (1988: 5-26), produced evidence for a variety of megalithic types, many of which
offered surprisingly late chronologies such as Outeiro de Gregos I (CSIC-771 and 772 dating
ca. 2112-1911 cal. BC and ca. 1729-1608 cal. BQ, Outeiro de Gregos 3 (KN-2766-2768
suggesting two periods of use between 4119 and 3993 cal. BC and 794-624 cal. BC
respectively) and Outeiro de Gregos 5 (CSIC-773 and 659 suggesting two periods of use between 4060 and 3975 cal. BC and 1618 and 1462 cal. BC respectively). The results
suggested the contemporaneity of several different constructions or traditions, as well as the re-
use of several of these burial chambers in the Bronze Age. Thus at Fonte de Malga,
Monuments 2 and 3 may not in fact succeed each other, as Leisner thought, but may be
32
considered contemporary. Both display a long period of use , with the construction of small Late Bronze Age cists in their interiors during their final stages. Kalb (1994: 416) states that
the emergence of the megalithic burial monument tradition in the Neolithic represents only the beginning of a very long and complex evolutionary process. 2
Schubart (1973: 175-179) briefly discussed the existence of pottery which appeared to be
Bronze Age in date, in more than twenty megalithic tombs in the Alentejo region3. Moreover,
in the case of the two tholoi of Colada de Monte Nuevo (Schubart 1973: 11-40), bronze objects
and low-carinated ceramics were found together. More recently, Senna-Martinez has published
articles (198 1; 1984a; 1984b) on the pottery in the megalithic corridor tombs in the Beiras. A
radiocarbon date for Orca da Bobadela was calibrated between 781 and 532 cal. BC (GrN-5629
- Castro Martinez et al. 1996: Appendix VI); thus confirming its use at the end of the Later
Bronze Age and transition to the Early Iron Age.
Senna-Martlnez (1981; 1984b; Senna-Martinez et aL 1984) further indicated a Bronze Age
chronology for thirteen other tombs in this region, on the basis of the pottery assemblages.
Over 600 "characteristically" Bronze Age vessels were identified from these megaliths. The
most common type was the inverted tronconical jar, which formed 39% of the overall
assemblage composition, and this type was equally represented in the Middle Mondego and the
High Vouga/ High Pavia valleys. Other types included low and medium carinated cups, and
high carinated jars. Unfortunately, Senna-Martinez relied strongly on parallels from other
schemes, particularly the south-western Bronze Age, to construct and date his typology. For
example he drew parallels between his sub-type 1.1 (middle carinated bowl) with Schubart's
Phase 11 Odivelas cup (1975: 33-34), and his sub-type 1.2 (low carinated bowl) with Schubart's
Phase I Atalaia cups (Schubart 1971: 155, Figure I and 1975: 3440). Rather than attempting to initiate a new typo-chronology for the Beiras region, he continued to draw far-flung
comparisons with areas like Catalonia for his type 4 (narrow necked jars) (Senna-Martinez
1984: 272), and hence dated them roughly to the "Middle Bronze Age" and the Argaric culture for his type 5 (shell impressed low carinated cups) (Senna-Martinez et al. 1984: 125).
Senna-Martinez's work is important because he succeeded in identifying many ceramic vessels
from these megaliths that had been mis-identified as Chalcolithic or earlier, and he was able to
conclude that many of these monuments showed re-use in the Bronze Age. The pottery
assemblages he amassed could have produced a fresh slant on typological frameworks in north-
central Portugal, but have been rendered misleading by comparing them with far-flung
parallels. However, two things are clear from Senna-Martinez's research. The first is the
emphasis upon continuity in Chalcolithic forms, and the second is the local variation that these
vessels exhibit, but which has not been adequately emphasised. The ceramics point to at least
33
two regional groups - those of the Middle Mondego and High Vouga/ High Pavia areas, with the first showing more in common with southern traditions, and the second with possible influences from northern Portugal.
Thus Schubart and Kalb for the Alto Alentejo, Jorge for northern Portugal and Senna-Martinez
for the Beira Alta have demonstrated the occurrence of late ceramics in megalithic monuments,
and suggested that they represent a continuity or re-use of these monuments in the Bronze Age.
Schubart suggested that the monument of Colado de Monte Nuevo indicated "a use from the
second half of the third millennium BC until fairly late into the second millennium" 4 (Schubart
1973: 52). However, he neglected to incorporate this data into his systematisation of the south- western Bronze Age. Senna-Martinez et aL (1984: 128) stated the materials studied suggest a horizon of use and construction of megalithic monuments in the Bronze Age. Spindler and Veiga Ferreira (1974: 57), when referring to the dolmens of the Alto Alentejo, argue that
"Although the majority of dolmens were constructed in the Neolithic, their use continues 5 throughout the Chalcolithic and endures until the Bronze Age"
A brief overview of other megaliths originally dated to Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, might also provide evidence of continued later burial practices. These include D61men 3 do Carapito (Leisner and Ribeiro 1968), and Anta 2 of Texugo (Dias and Viana 1953). The
former contained fragments of at least six vessels that were identified as "Atalaia" in type while
the latter produced several low carinated bowls associated with two skeletons found in the
upper levels of the dolmen. They were separated from the lower levels of the monument by a "pavement" of stones and appeared to have been introduced later into the tomb through the
corridor. Although Vera Leisner recognised this late material, she did not consider its
relevance within the megalithic association (1956: 150-15 1).
Viana el al. (1961b: 247-254) described a number of ceramics that they considered to be
Bronze Age from the tholos of Monte do Outeiro, in AIjustrel. They included several high
carinated burnished bowls associated with two skeletons from the upper stratum. A thick layer
of sterile soil separated the two horizons demonstrating re-use rather than continuity in use of
this monument. At Vale de Rodrigo 1, a complete low carinated bowl (described as Atalaia
type) was found within the actual chamber. Anta de Gorginos I contained several medium
carinated bowls, found in the upper levels of the corridor (Leisner and Leisner 1951: 308). A
secondary inhumation was recorded in the passage of the tholos of Cueva del Vaquero (Leisner
and Leisner 1943: 197), dated by the ceramics and the copper dagger to "Early/Middle Bronze
Age". Ceramics identified as "Late" Bronze Age were found in the chamber and above the
orthostats of the tholos of Barranco da Nora Velha, in Ourique (Viana 1960a: 184; Schubart
1971: 177).
34
In the Anta Grande do Zambujeiro, in Valverde, Evora, one of the upright stones within the
chamber was separated from the others by two later activity horizons (Kalb 1980-1981: 69;
1994: 423). A hoard of bronze axes lay below this stone. Although the chamber itself was
partly destroyed, this did not impede its continued use. Later inhurnations were introduced
without using the corridor, since access to this had been closed off.
These few examples indicate that it is not easy to trace the history of each monument as each
ones shows a complex pattern of ritual use through time. The accumulation of sterile soil horizons at Monte do Outeiro and Anta 2 of Texudo suggests re-use after a long period of
abandonment. No such soil accumulation exists at Serra das Antas, Gorginos I or between the
different periods at Nora Velha. These both appear as intact constructions, and the highly
mixed soil horizons at these monuments may be indicative of continual secondary depositions.
Consideration for earlier burials was obviously important in subsequent interments, with their
positions being respected, and efforts made to leave them undisturbed. This may be understood
perhaps along the lines of an ancestor cult, with continuing regard for the dead.
The recent project at Vale de Rodrigo, in the tvora region (Kalb 1992: 22) has provided more
convincing evidence of the continuity of megalithic traditions into the Bronze Age, since there
was good stratigraphic control. Here Kalb has been able to trace the complicated history of
each monument.
Within the chamber of Vale de Rodrigo 2, Later Bronze Age pottery, including globular jars,
high carinated all-over burnished bowls and small carinated cups, appeared in the upper levels.
A large quantity of soil and stones was later introduced through some existing opening,
probably as a result of a broken stone upright. This act of intentional filling of the chamber
may have been a undertaken to desecrate the monument, and render it profane. The functional
end of this monument may have been marked through such an operation, perhaps in an effort to
destroy its power over the land.
At Vale de Rodrigo 3, Kalb (1994: 424) found an excavated ditch at the side of the chamber
which contained a broken upright that was approximately half a ton in weight. The chamber itself was filled with stone blocks, and ceramics from this horizon were tentatively dated by
Kalb to the Later Bronze Age. This may again be evidence of an act of violent desecration.
Later Bronze Age pottery was also found around the circumference of the stone megalith,
which may imply that these surrounding stones were added later or else rebuilt or redesigned.
The resistivity survey of this monument showed a series of interesting anomalies, which
suggested that the erection of a number of stone constructions within this monument occurred
at different periods.
35
The evidence discussed above confirms that many of these megaliths either showed continuity in use for longer periods than has been assumed, or else re-used in the Later Bronze Age. Their
longevity suggests that they were focal social points important for continuous ritual use
generation after generation. Unfortunately the precise information that we need to create the
full picture has been clouded by poor excavation, and the many cases where secondary burials
have not been systematically documented.
Early dates for the beginning of the megalithic tradition in Portugal are ascribed to the sixth
millennium cal. BC. Continuity can now be demonstrated over the next three millennia - in
other words for over 100 generations. This immense time span is the equivalent of burial
monuments being constructed in the Late Bronze Age and continuing in use right through to the
present day. Thus these megalith ic monuments with finds of Early, Middle, or, *in the case of Fonte de Malga, constructions of Late Bronze Age, demonstrate the continuity of the megalithic funerary traditions at some sites, and re-use and exploitation after a lengthy dislocation at
others. This evidence must now be taken into consideration in our re-interpretations of these
Later Bronze Age societies.
2.8 Collective or multiple burial practices and selective burial
Another aspect of continuity in ancestral traditions can be witnessed in the practice of multiple burial in the Later Bronze Age. A re-analysis of the Bronze Age cist cemeteries in western Iberia demonstrates that multiple burial is not as rare as conventionally assumed. The reduced dimensions of the majority of the south-western cists has led archaeologists to assume, that, in
the absence of skeletal remains, the burial rite must have that of single interment. The
supposition has been that it would have been impossible to squeeze more than one body into
such a small space. However, archaeologists have neglected to take into account the
considerable depth of these tombs, some measuring over a metre, that would have facilitated
the placing of two or more individuals one on top of the other. The evidence from Vinha do
Casdo, in particular, demonstrates that multiple burial was undertaken in small cists measuring
no more than a metre in length. Evidence for collective burial has been biased by two factors.
The first is the deficiency of skeletal material owing to soil acidity in many parts of western Iberia, and the second is that much of the data comes from old excavations, where details
including the possibility of secondary inhumations, were not considered important.
As mentioned earlier, three of the cists at Vinha do Casdo (Varela Gomes et al 1986) showed
re-use or contemporary multiple burial. At El Moro in Huelva (Amo 1974: 122-123), one of the cists contained at least two crania and possibly fragments of a third. Several disarticulated
skeletons that contained more long bones than could be attributed to a single individual were identified in four of the cist burials at Nora Velha, in Ourique (Schubart 1971: 16 1). Two adult
36
inhumations were placed in both cist 24 of Quiteria (Silva and Soares 1981: 145,162) and cists I to 20 of Medarra, Beja (Nuiles Ribeiro 1966-1967; Schubart 1974b: 73) (Figure 2.15.2). Veiga made a reference to a cist burial at Alcario do Poinho that contained three crania (189 1:
117-118). There are other isolated incidences of successive re-use of cists including Campinha
(Faro) which contained three inhumations in one cist (Varela Gomes et aL 1981: 84) (Figure 2.15.3), and four interments were found in cist 12 of Monte Ulmo, Santa Vitoria (Viana 1965:
53). These appear to have been buried at different times, since the skeletons were disturbed
and the lowest two burials appear to have been pushed out of the way to make room for the
upper ones (Viana 1965: 53-54). Recent phosphate and electric current analysis of two of the
cists from La Traviesa. in Seville (Manuel-Valdds 1995: 329-352) demonstrated that one of these cists originally contained two interments.
The continuation of earlier funerary rites should not be interpreted as a reflection of stagnated
or retarded development as many authors have suggested. Instead such survival could be seen
as part of a deliberate funerary ritual that consciously links the past with the present. The idea
that emphasis upon the individual becomes increasingly important in the Bronze Age, within an
progressively hierarchical society, may be justified in the south-east, where burials are more frequently single in nature and show large variations in poverty or richness with respect to
grave goods (e. g. see Lull and Estdvez 1986 who have "scored" grave goods from south-eastern
cemeteries to assess possible rank differentiation, and Buikstra et al. 1995 who have correlated
variations in grave goods with gradations in social structure at Gatas). The fact that a similar
tradition is not evident in the south-westem cemeteries need not imply that society remained
egalitarian in these areas during the Bronze Age. Burial rites may have deliberately masked
social differences, and distinctions in rank cannot always be ascertained easily from grave
evidence, as Garcia Sanjuan has to some extent statistically demonstrated in the Huelva region (1993: 209-218; 1996; 1999: 346-350). The Late Bronze Age Urnfield graves in north-east Spain and central Europe also indicate undifferentiated and standardised burial rites (e. g. Castro Martinez 1994).
The fact that collective burial continues well into the Bronze Age in the south-west is
interesting. It is also possible that in the cases where the skeletons themselves were not
preserved, but the cists were comparatively rich in grave goods, multiple burials had occurred. One example may be gave 2 of Peral, which contained four cups, two daggers, and a copper
point (Ferradeira and Almeida 1971: 117). This relatively rich association is unusual in
comparison with the "normal" south-westem Bronze Age paucity of grave goods. Since at least
two individuals were placed in this grave, it is possible that similar burials, which lacked bones,
have been misinterpreted as rich "elite" or "chieftain" graves.
37
Other evidence of continuity in ancestral burial traditions can be observed in the cases of
partial, disarticulated or incomplete burial in Bronze Age cists. Partial remains of skeleton,
consisting of the cranium and long bones, were noted in cists 2-5 at Provenga, in Sines (Farinha
et al. 1975: 429), cist 4 from La Papua, in Arroyomolinos de Uon, in Huelva (Amo 1974: 135-
136), and from most of the burials from Caldas de Monchique, El Beceffero, La Parrita, La
Ruiza and Beas, in Huelva (Amo 1975a: 173-176) (Figure 2.12.2). At cist I of Chichina, the
cranium was placed between the legs of the skeleton, and the lower mandible was completely
displaced (Fernindez G6mez el al. 1976: 371). Cist 3 of the same cemetery also had its head
removed and its arms detached from the rest of the torso (ibid : 365). Many of these interments
do not therefore indicate primary burial, but secondary inhurnation after excarnation or decomposition elsewhere. There is also the possibility that these bodies were first cremated,
and selected bones (long bones and crania are the most likely to be chosen as representative of
the individual - J. Last pers. comm. 1999), were later picked off the funerary pyre to be
deposited in the cist.
This suggests that certain bones may have been chosen to represent the whole of the body, and
that it was not always considered necessary to bury the deceased in his or her entirety. Again
this suggests rites of continuity in burial practices. We know that in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, megalithic burials were not as malodorous as once believed, owing to the flesh of
the dead frequently having been picked clean prior to interring the corpse. The disarticulation
of bones, and the frequent use of certain areas of the burial chamber for deposition of certain bones (e. g. skulls in one area, tibias in another) supports such an explanation. Furthermore,
research on causewayed enclosures particularly in Britain (e. g. Hambledon Hill and Whitesheet
Hill) suggests that bodies were cxcarnated on platforms (Darvill 1987; Mercer 1988; Whittle
1988). Tlius the selective burial of parts of the human body in several of the cist cemeteries
may well support the idea that some aspects of earlier Neolithic and Chalcolithic funerary
traditions continued to be practised well into the Bronze Age.
2.11 The Atlantic Bronze Age
Although the south-westem scheme based upon burial has been the main chronological framework employed by archaeologists for Bronze Age western Iberia, the Atlantic Bronze
Age metallurgical sequence, based upon hoards, has also been used for the Later. Bronze, and a brief introduction to this scheme follows.
The concept of the Atlantic Bronze Age, a koine of complex metallurgical interaction and
exchange formed by the British Isles, the Gironde, Brittany and the north, north west and
western parts of the Iberian Peninsula, was first identified in Iberia by Martinez Santa Olalla
(1938-1941). Until the 1980s, the Iberian Atlantic Bronze Age was primarily understood from
38
a series of typo-chronological diagrams and tables. Martinez Santa Olalla (1938-1941)
distinguished three Bronze Age phases and believed that the eastern influences forming a "Mediterranean" Bronze Age were substituted after ca. 120OBC by connections with central Europe and Great Britain and Ireland. Thus Martinez Santa Olalla followed a diffusionist
perspective and identified the different periods as a result of external factors affecting the Peninsula. His scheme is offered below.
Table 2.9: Martinez Santa 01alla's Atlantic Bronze Age scheme (1938-1941) Period Chronology Characteristics Mediterranean Bronze Age 2000-120OBC Poorly defined Atlantic Bronze Age I (Bronze 1200-90OBC Double looped heeled axes,
short daggers and swords with central nerves
Atlantic Bronze Age 11 (Bronze 900-650BC Winged axes, sickles, razors, IV) spearheads, Carp's Tongue
swords and daggers
MacWhite (1951) expanded upon Martfnez Santa Olalla's classification scheme, but argued that the original Atlantic Bronze Age designation did not encompass the whole of Iberia, but
was restricted to coastal regions. He rightly considered that the Iberian Bronze Age offered a large degree of cultural diversity; too much variety to be included under a single common term. MacWhite identified three Atlantic Bronze Age phases, and argued that each period had a
slightly different geographical distribution, and displayed influences from distinct external
regions. The scheme is summarised below. For him, the Atlantic Bronze Age was a
phenomenon which was linked exclusively to maritime routes and exchanges of metal, and
which completely excluded migration or colonisation as a factor of change.
Table 2.10: Mac White's Atlantic Bronze Age scheme (1951) Period Chronology Characteristics Proto-Atlantic Bronze Age 1700-120OBC Links with Argaric culture of (Bronze 11) SE Spain. Strong French
and central European influences.
Atlantic Bronze Age I 1200-80OBC Restricted to north-west (Bronze 111) Iberia, with principal
influences being French
Atlantic Bronze Age 11 800-40OBC Covering the whole of the (Bronze IV) western Iberian sea-board,
and displaying
predominantly Irish
influences.
39
Savory (1949; 1951; 1968) adopted a similar geographic area to MacWhite in his definition of the Atlantic Bronze Age. However, although he focused predominantly upon metal types,
duration and distribution, he also noted the cultural diversity that was apparent with respect to
ceramic and settlement types and burial traditions of the different Atlantic zones. He identified
two main Atlantic regions in the Peninsula. The first one, in the north-west, was seen to result from influences from France and Cantabria (Savory 1968: 223-224). The second one, in the
south-west was believed to have originated from a mixture of simultaneous Atlantic and Mediterranean influences (ibid: 232). Savory, however, was astute to identify a number of indigenous innovations and specific Iberian metal types in the Peninsula, and argued that local
Iberian production was also a component of the Atlantic Bronze Age.
Table 2.11: Savory's Atlantic Bronze Age scheme (1968) Period Chronology Characteristics
Atlantic Bronze Age I 1000-70OBC Restricted to northern Iberia, the North-west and
central Portugal. Influences mainly from western
France and Britain. Socketed spearheads,
flanged axes, flange hilted swords, double looped
palstaves and riveted daggers.
Atlantic Bronze Age 11 (Carp's 700-50OBC Covering large part of Iberian Peninsula no longer
Tongue phase) restricted to coastal regions. Carp's Tongue
swords and daggers, flesh-hooks, "Irish"
cauldrons, articulated spits, Porto de M6s
daggers.
Almagro Gorbea (1977; 1986) also defended the idea of a "cultural circle of Atlantic origin" at the end of the Iberian Bronze Age (1977: 344). He distinguished five distinct Atlantic areas
within the Peninsula, and argued that they all demonstrated strong metallurgical relations with the rest of Atlantic Europe, including sporadic contact with Scandinavia. The regions identified from north to south were : 1) Asturias and Cantabria; 2) the north-west and North
Meseta; 3) the region between the Douro and Tagus, associated with South Meseta and Spanish
Extremadura; 4) southern Portugal and the south-west; 5) Huelva and the Lower Guadalquivir
(argued to receive both Atlantic and Mediterranean influences). He also distinguished five
chronological phases within the Atlantic Bronze Age, the latest of which was restricted only to
the north-west region. Finally, he noted technological changes within his phases; his first three
associated with binary alloys, and phases IV and V with tertiary ones, very low in tin.
40
Table 2.12: Almagro Gorbea's Atlantic Bronze Age scheme (1977 and 1986)
Period Chronology Characteristics
Bronze Final 1 1250- Ballintober type swords, single looped 1150/110OBC heeled axes, spearheads.
Bronze Final 11 1150/1100-90OBC Pistilliforme swords, helmets, winged sickles, Porto de M6s daggers,
spearheads, double looped heeled
axes and gold work of Sagrajas- Berzocana type.
Bronze Final 111 900-850BC Corresponds to the Ria de Huelva horizon, Carp's Tongue swords, articulated spits, winged axes, chisels and cauldrons.
Bronze Final IV 850-750/70OBC Integrated with the V6nat horizon, and
enduring into the Iron Age in Andalucia. Bronze Final V 750170OBC-? Antenna hilted daggers and swords
made in iron, double looped heeled
axes.
The early works of Kalb (1980a; 1980b), Ruiz-GAlvez (1984; 1986) and Coffyn (1985) were
also predominantly based upon typo-chronological analyses of the metalwork, although Kalb
incorporated ceramics and the spatial distribution of mineral deposits into her analyses. She
focused only upon Portugal in her discussions of the Atlantic Bronze Age and divided the
country into four Atlantic regions that she believed to be economically and culturally distinct.
These were the North (Penha), Beiras (Bai6es-Santa Luzia), central (Portuguese Extremadura - Alpiarga) and southem (Lapa do Fumo and south-westem Bronze Age 11 and 111). The first two
regions were associated with tin deposits while the southem region was affiliated with rich copper veins.
Ruiz-GAlvez (1984) did not perceive the Iberian Atlantic Bronze as a number of spatially or
economically distinct regions, but rather incorporated the whole of the northern and western
parts of the Peninsula into an "Atlantic culture" or "Atlantic world". She therefore argued for a general uniformity of metallurgy throughout these regions, and advocated that the abundance of
mineral deposits and hoards associated with these coastal areas lay at the basis of their
homogenous affiliation. In 1987, she revised her original views, and substituted the term Atlantic culture for "cultures connected by Atlantic commerce, with a common basis in
metallurgy" (ibid: 253). Again, on the basis of the metalwork typology, she divided the
Atlantic Bronze Age into three main phases.
41
Table 2.13: Ruiz-G61vezs Atlantic Bronze Age scheme (1984 and 1987) Period Chronology Characteristics
Bronze Final 1 1200- Single looped heeled axes, spearheads I OOOBC with Penha-Rosn6en type blades, gold
open bracelets with circular sections. Bronze Final 11 1000-90OBC Heeled axes with appendices, Pistilliforme
swords (Ballintober type), tongued daggers, spearheads with ogival blades,
razors and smooth bracelets with rhomboid sections.
Bronze Final Ilia 900-80OBC Ria de Huelva horizon. Characterised
essentially by Carp's Tongue swords. Bronze Final Illb 800-70OBC Introduction of V6nat type swords, flat
heeled axes, winged axes, horse harnesses, articulated spits, cauldrons, Rocanes and Castropol type sickles, elbow fibulae, incised decorated gold bracelets (Bai6es-V6nat style).
Bronze Final IlIc 700-65OBC Associated only with the Final Atlantic Bronze Age workshops of the north-west.
Coffyn (1985) characterised the Atlantic Bronze Age as the coastal regions of Atlantic Europe
which were united through several common bonds - including a richness in mineral resources
and a predominantly maritime vocation. In fact he defended that the frequency and intensity of the commercial relations amongst these regions encouraged an overall standardisation of
metallurgical production, and hence he advocated for an "oikoumene atldntica" (1985: 274).
Although Coffyn has proposed that the Atlantic Bronze Age could be recognised in western Iberia as early as ca. 200OBC (ibid: 9), he realised that it is poorly understood until ca. 120013C.
Table 2.14: Coffyn's Atlantic Bronze Age scheme (1985) Period Chronology Characteristics Bronze Medlo 1800-120OBC Archaic and stagnated production which
was attributed to the scarcity of extra-
peninsular contacts (Coffyn 1985: 27)
Bronze Final I 1200-105OBC Rosn6en type swords, long winged
spearheads, and heeled axes with or without loops.
Bronze Final 11 1050-90OBC Only Pistilliforme swords (scarcity of evidence for Coffyn)
Bronze Final III 900-70OBC Carp's Tongue swords, flat and bifacial heeled axes, sickles, chisels and Porto de M6s daggers.
42
The 1990s have seen a number of up-dated schemes for the Atlantic Bronze Age, which have
used the available radiocarbon chronologies to revise the phases. Coffyn and Sion (1993)
analysed new evidence and offered a simplified Atlantic Bronze Age sequence, that was divided into only two phases: Bronze Final I (1100-950 cal. BC) and Bronze Final 11 (950-750
cal. BC). Ruiz-GAlvez (1995a) adapted this periodisation, using the calibrated dates from
G6mez de Soto (1991: 371) for Atlantic Europe and from the Ria de Huelva deposit. (compare
Tables 2.15 and 2.16).
Table 2.15: Ruiz-GdIvezs revisedAllantic Bronze Age scheme (1995)
Period Chronology Characteristics Bronze Final 1 1250/1200-1100 cal. Rosn6en swords, short winged
BC single looped axes, small flame-
shaped spearheads. Bronze Final 11 1100-940 cal. BC Pistilliforme swords, single and
double looped heeled axes,
elbow fibulae, long lozenge
shaped spearheads. Bronze Final 111 940-750 cal. BC Huelva swords (note move away
from term Carp's Tongue), solid hilted daggers, elbow fibulae.
and elongated leaf-shaped
spearheads.
Table 2.16: Gdmez de Solos schemefor Atlantic Europe (1991: 3 71) Atlantic Horizon Divis Chronology Chronological Dates (calibrated)
(Hatt's system) division ROsnoen/Penard End of Bronze Final Reinecke's end of 1250-1200 cal. BC Bronze Final I and beginning of Bronze D and Atlantic I Bronze Final 11 beginning of
Hallstatt Al Saint Brieuc-des- Bronze Final lib-Illa Hallstatt A2-BI 1200-1100 cal. BC Iffs/ Longuevillel Wilburton Bronze Final Atlantic 11 Carp's Tongue/ Bronze Final Illb Hallstatt B2 (or B3 940-750 cal. BC Plainseau/ Ewart of Moller-Karpe's Park/Huelva system) Bronze Final Atlantic 11-111
These tables demonstrate that the evidence used to the Atlantic Bronze Age chronological
schemes have mainly concentrated upon bronze weapons, tools and ornaments from hoards and isolated finds. The limitations of such frameworks are only too obvious in that few of the
hoards can be absolutely dated and most are unrelated to burial or settlement evidence. Few
43
authors, with the exception of Coff-yn (1985) and Ruiz-Gilvez (1991), have attempted to
reconcile the Atlantic metallurgical schemes with other typological frameworks.
The concept of the Atlantic Bronze Age as providing useful typo-chronological sequences for
western Iberia has remained uncriticised for too long. There are numerous problems with the
diverse and often conflicting schemes presented above, often stemming from different
archaeologists refusing to agree with one another upon the definition and span of typological
stages. Some of the inconsistencies with the various schemes will be discussed below.
The first phase of the Atlantic Bronze Age (Bronze Final Atlantique 1; hereafter BFI) in Iberia
is dated by Coffyn (1979; 1985) to around 120013C. This period is characterised by the first
appearance of large heeled axes, socketed lances and swords with parallel edges (leaf shaped).
Atlantic Bronze Age 11 (Bronze Final 4tlantique II; hereafter BFII) has been dated from ca. 1050 - 90013C, and is defined as the phase of the pistilliforme weapons. There are few actual
pistilliforme swords in Portugal, although a concentration is known from the tvora region. Only a few radiocarbon dates exist for an association of pistilliforme swords and spearheads in
western Iberia, but two of them relate to settlement contexts. The wooden hilt of a pistilliforme
sword from the hillfort of Santa Catarina in Guimarges, was dated to between 1080 and 920 cal.
BC, while the shaft from a lozenge pointed lance from Monte da Penha, also in GuimarAes, was
calibrated between 1210 and 970 cal. BC (GrN-5568: Gon7AIez et al 1987: 387; Kalb 1980:
43). A wooden hilt from another pistilliforme sword from the Sdn Esteban de Rio Sil deposit,
in Lugo offered a similar date range between 1214 and 954 cal. BC (CSIC-215: Almagro
Gorbea 1977: 522; Alonso et al. 1978: 165). The two latter dates suggest that this horizon
might date slightly earlier than its original designation would allow, between 1200 and 900 cal. BC.
Atlantic Bronze Age III (Bronze Final 411antique III; hereafter BFIII) or the Huelva group has
been geographically determined through the regions of western Andalucia, the Algarve,
Alentejo and Portuguese Extremadura and dated roughly between 940 and 70013C. It is defined
by three main hoards - those of Rfa de Huelva, Cabezo de Araya in CAceres and Safara in the
Lower Alentejo, and its most characteristic metal type is the Carp's Tongue sword.
The dates for the Rfa de Huelva deposit, obtained from the conserved wood from six lance
shafts, are concentrated between ca. I 100 and 85 8 cal. BC (CSIC-202 - CSIC-207) (Alonso et
aL 1978; Ruiz-Gilvez 1995a). These dates have pushed back the conventional chronology of
the deposit, and hence, by association, also of the horizon that it represents. Originally placed
within Bronze Final Alldntico III of Ruiz-Gdlvez's chronology (1984), and Coffyn's (1985)
Carp's Tongue horizon, the relative sequence of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age from an
44
evolution from pistilliforme to Carp's Tongue does not now appear as clear as these
archaeologists have supposed. The chronological delineation between these two phases has
been considerably reduced, with a possibility of some overlap (compare dates of Huelva with
those for Bronze Final Atldntico II above), and this may have important implications for the
scheme, which has been used to date many other deposits in the Iberian Peninsula.
However, the date for Cerro de la Miel (Monachil, Granada) poses a greater problem to the
chronology of the Huelva horizon. The recent find of a Carp's Tongue sword and a Huelva
type or elbow-shaped fibula was radiocarbon dated between 1470 and 1060 cal. BC with a
median date of 1314 cal. BC (UGRA - 143: GonzAlez et aL 1986: 1201; Carrasco et al. 1987),
which may imply that the Huelva (BFAIII) phase might date even earlier than initially thought. The dates from the nearby settlement of Cerro de ]a Moro (Moraleda de Zafoyana, Granada)
support the possibility that the diagnostic metal types of BFAIII might actually be
contemporary with or even earlier than those of BFAIL Several fragments of elbow-shaped fibulae and one fragment of a Carp's Tongue sword came from occupation horizons dated
between 1390 and 998 cal. BC (UGRA-218 and 263: Carrasco et al. 1987: 88 and 223). Thus
the dates for the Huelva horizon, between ca. 13 00 and 115 0 cal. BC suggest a good degree of
overlap between BFAII and BFAIII. Since the radiocarbon dates obtained for BFAIII so far are
consistently earlier than those for BFAII, it may be necessary to review the chronology of these
two phases.
Such conclusions are provisional since they are drawn from a small number of independent
dates and it must also be noted that those are available for the settlement contexts are earlier than those for the hoard deposits. This points towards the possibility that by the time these
hoards entered into the archaeological record, the bronzes they contained had already been in
circulation for 200 years or more.
The archaeologists who constructed these schemes has assumed that the various metal objects from the hoards were deposited at the same time. The recent re-appraisal of the kia de Huelva
deposit (Ruiz-Gilvez 1995a) has provided the most thorough scientific investigation of any
Later Bronze Age metal deposit in the Peninsula, and has convincingly concluded that the metal
tools and weapons that were once attributed to a single event - that of a sunken cargo - must
now be thought of as the result of deliberate ritual offerings that occurred over a period of 150
years or more (see Chapter Five). This realisation must act as a warning to archaeologists who
were once so sure that Atlantic Bronze Age typologies could be easily constructed from
supposed single-period hoards.
To understand how we can use these deposits as chronological tools, it is first necessary to
appreciate that hoarding may have been undertaken for a number of reasons. In the Iberian
45
Peninsula in particular, there has been little theoretical discussion concerning the function or
significance of hoard deposition until recently (e. g. Ruiz-Gilvez 1995a; Jorge (ed. ) 1998) and
earlier publications (e. g. Almagro Gorbea 1977; Coffyn 1981; 1983; 1985), categorised hoards
in the same way. As many British authors have stated (Rowlands 1976; Burgess and Coombs
1979b; Needham and Burgess 1980: 463; Barrett and Bradley 1980; Needham 1989; Bradley
1990 amongst others), the reasons for hoard deposition are not always straightforward. "The
misconceptions about hoard deposition may have distorted our understanding of the chronology
and development of Bronze Age metalworking" (Taylor 1993: 6). It is important to take into
account not only the hoard content, but also the possible reasons for deposition (security, scrap,
votive offering or accidental loss), and its social significance. If we do not interpret them
within the contexts in which they were deposited then the chronological parameters cited for
these hoards could be untenable.
Much of the chronological confusion associated with the hoard deposits in western Iberia may
result because the metalwork from one find may not represent the simple freezing of a dynamic
assemblage, but may be a succession of deposits of objects of variable age. Pieces of
metallurgy taken as typo-chronological indicators may have been perceived as precious prestige
PbJects or heirlooms (owing to their rare and exotic nature) that continued in use over several
centuries before finally being interred. Unfortunately, few metal objects have come from Later
Bronze Age settlement or funerary contexts, and this makes it difficult to correlate hoards with domestic and burial chronologies. As a consequence, the Atlantic Bronze Age has been
considered an archaeological entity subdivided into phases, whose chronology rests upon dubious arguments (Ruiz-Gilvez 1984b; Coffyn 1985).
It would seem that archaeologists are overly concerned with refining the Later Bronze Age by
dividing it into short chronological stages, but we must accept that this is not always possible due to the lack of evidence. The belief that the Huelva horizon is a late development is clearly inaccurate, and we should now consider removing or at least revising the division between
BFAII and BFAIII, since it leads to chronological errors. This does not suggest that we should
retreat to a more roughly defined chronological framework. Rather, it recommends that we
should not accept a priori the particular metal types and their associated settlement, burial or hoard contexts, should be identified as belonging to particular chronological periods, without due consideration of their associated evidence. When this is not available, then we must
acknowledge than we cannot be certain about their chronological designations.
Although the metalwork that can be associated with radiocarbon dates is not yet sufficiently
numerous to replace the conventional schemes of the Atlantic chronology, and we require more
46
absolute dates in order to confirm these different horizons, it is important to be aware of the
numerous inconsistencies in the traditional chronology.
2.12 Seeing out the Old: Welcorninb in the New
This Chapter has considered many of the problems of the existing chronological frameworks
and has suggested that we must begin to reinterpret the chronological evidence from alternative
points of view. Available radiocarbon dates suggest that the traditional chronological frameworks for western Iberia have enhanced the invisibility of the apparent hiatus between
1800 and 1200 cal. BC. Thus, their revision may aid in solving the problem of such lacunae.
The absolute dates have considerably lengthened the duration of the previously compressed
cultural phases.
The Later Bronze Age through to the Iron Age spans more than a millennium. Throughout this
time, it is possible to perceive some changes in the material culture, and these (such as certain
modifications in burial rites and the introduction of new metallurgical traditions) have been
emphasised in the development of the existing chronological schemes. On the other hand, a
striking continuity, particularly with respect to enduring ceramic styles, chipped stone traditions
and ancestral funerary customs ýan be discerned, and this will discussed in more detail in the
following two Chapters. The continuity of traditions has gone largely unrecognised and this
has undoubtedly contributed to the impression of a "chronological hiatus". This is hardly
surprising, since the construction of chronological frameworks and temporal stages is based
upon recognising changes within the archaeological record.
It is now time to highlight, rather than ignore, the continuity in material culture during the
Bronze Age. Archaeologists have begun to appreciate the continuity of the Beaker ceramic
tradition into the Later Bronze Age (e. g. Senna-Martinez 1994b; 1995b; Kunst 1988: 84;
Fabian Garcia 1993: 167), and Fabian Garcia states (1993: 168-9) that it is difficult to
differentiate the periods from Chalcolithic until the Middle Bronze Age without radiocarbon dates. As a result, it must be asked whether the labelling of Early, Middle and Later Bronze
Ages to distinguish what in many respects is a tradition of continuity becomes irrelevant.
The Later Bronze Age burial practices in the south-west show a strong continuity with earlier
traditions with respect to grave types, goods and rituals. The persistence of Chalcolithic
traditions appears to be more common than previously supposed. Schubart's type fossils are
based on shapes, particularly carinated cups and bowls, that show continuity for over a
millennium. The evidence presented in this chapter shows that burial practices and grave goods
may not be sensitive chronological indicators, and hence the typologies constructed from them,
in the absence of radiocarbon dates, fail to provide accurate temporal resolution. Furthermore,
47
it is right to question the viability of using burial material for constructing chronological frameworks. As the evidence in this Chapter has demonstrated, the nature of funerary contexts implies a complex interweaving of ritual and tradition that is not necessarily conducive to
typological analysis. The fact that the funerary arena is one where longevity of traditions and a
preservation of ancestral types predominates has not been adequately considered. Furthermore,
there is a great variety of funerary practices in the Iberian Peninsula in the Later Bronze Age,
including cists, tumuli, megalithic structures and pit burials, many of which do not fit
Schubart's original scheme. The pottery assemblages from the cemeteries show local
variations, and most show few similarities with Schubart's typology. This heterogeneity needs
to be accommodated into our understanding of the Later Bronze Age.
This chapter has outlined the main chronological frameworks that presently exist for the
western Iberian Bronze Age and considered the burial and metallurgical evidence that has been
used to form the sequences. The conclusions that can be drawn from the arguments raised from
a re-analysis of grave good and hoard data indicate that the present frameworks are inadequate.
Many of these failings are a result of qualitative analysis and assumption.
The assumptions implicit in Schubart's Bronze Age scheme have been exposed. The south-
western Bronze Age can no longer be equated with a single cultural grouping whose focus was in the Lower AlenteJo, and which expanded both north-wards and south-wards in later periods. The available radiocarbon dates suggest that some of the cist cemeteries situated beyond this
original "cultural" centre, such as Pessegueiro (Soares and Silva 1998) and Setefilla (Aubet
1980), were earlier in date than the site of Atalaia. The radiocarbon chronology also implies
that the south-western. Bronze Age cist cemeteries were predominantly early (between 2000 and 1500 cal. BQ and not later in date. In fact, it is not inconceivable that the results of the independent dates indicate that use of the term south-westem Bronze Age phase 11 should be
abandoned. The problems that have been uncovered for this scheme are partly a result of the
narrow typological approach that was adopted in its creation. It cannot be stressed enough that
the overall repertoire of complete pots available to Schubart was reduced to less than four
hundred vessels. This is an insubstantial number for constructing a sequence spanning over
eight hundred years (basically one vessel represents every two years under consideration).
A similar conclusion may be drawn for the Atlantic Bronze Age, since this sequence has also
relied predominantly upon typology, and frequently the metal objects employed as type fossils
have come from isolated finds without associated contexts. Again the unquestioned acceptance
of inference has discredited this scheme. All of the current Atlantic Bronze Age frameworks
have assumed that the deposition of metal objects in a single hoards was simultaneous, and that
the reasons for such deposition were simple and straightforward. Again, it has been the recent
48
publication of radiocarbon dates that has called the phasing of the Atlantic Bronze Age
chronology into serious doubt and highlighted some serious problems with respect to the
sequence of the metal types.
In essence, the reliability of the burial and metallurgical schemes for western Iberia has been
accepted for too long. The following chapters will depart from these sequences and introduce
alternative frameworks based upon syntheses and quantified analyses from settlement ceramics. Chapters Three and Four will use the increased evidence now available from recently excavated
settlements, whose typo-chronologies have been corroborated by radiocarbon dates, to introduce more refined and accurate chronological sequences. The concept of the south-
western Bronze Age culture will be replaced with new pottery sequences, that identify the
regional variations within the broader cultural groupings. A concluding quote from James
Mellaart (1979: 35) seems appropriate "Conventional chronologies have served us long enough
and not too well as an interim tool. Most tools need re-sharpening over the years, andfinally
replacement ".
1 66 Son muchos los trabajos, especialmente portugueses, en los que se venido utilzando la terminologia de "cistas argiricas" como si de un mismo fen6meno que se tratarse" 2 "A utilizagao dos d6lmens, na sua maioria construidos no Neolitico, continua durante todo o Calcolitico e perdura atd & Idade do Bronze 3 These funerary monuments are listed as follows:. Sao, in the Concelho of Castelo de Vide (2 Atalaia cups), Alcogulo 2, Cabego dos Milhares (3 Bronze Age bowls). Alcogulo 3, Milhar do Cabqo (I bowl). Arneirao, Alter do ChAo (2 bowls, 3 cups). Texugo, Elvas (I bowl). Penaclara, Elvas (I bowl). Undetermined anta (2 Bronze Age vessels). Anta Grande de Ordem 1, Avis (3 bowls). Capela de SAo Dionfsio de Pavia, Pavia, Mora (2 bowls). Forca Velha, Mora (2 bowls). Vale de El Rei, Pavia (I bowl). Anta Grande da Casa Branca 3, Mora (3 bowls). Cabqo do Considreiro, Mora (I bowl). Anta Grande de EntreAguas 1, Mora (2 bowls). Casas do Canal, Estremoz (I bowl). Cebolinho, Reguengos (I bowl). Se. Margarida 1, Regeungos (I bowl). Gorginos 1, Reguengos (I bowl). Vale de Rodrigo 1, tvora (I bowl). Couto dos Enchares, Crato (2 bowls). 4, pode deduzir-se uma utilizaqao desde a segunga metade do tcrceiro mildnio atd bastante tarde dentro do segundo mildnio " 5A utilizagao dos d6lmens, na sua maioria construldos no Neolitico, continua durante todo o Calcolitico e perdura atd A Idade do Bronze
49
Chapter Three:
Methodology and Ceramic Analysis
3.1 Introduction The last chapter demonstrated the inadequacies and problems in present western Iberian Bronze
Age chronological frameworks. It highlighted the fact that their continued use may be
hindering our recognition of this period, since they are incompatible with Bronze Age
settlement evidence, and there are many inconsistencies in the burial evidence. This chapter
and Chapter Four will embark upon a re-analysis of the evidence from settlement contexts,
rather than burials and hoards. The aims of this chapter are to introduce a new methodology for
analysing ceramic assemblages in western Iberia, and then to implement this strategy in the
study and interpretation of twelve Later Bronze Age pottery assemblages. This analysis will
allow a clarification of the pottery assemblages from settlement sites that can be used to define
the Later Bronze Age. As Chapter One demonstrated, the traditional "Middle Bronze Age" (c.
1600-1100/1000 cal. BC) still remains an enigmatic period with few diagnostic features. Since
it has been the ceramics upon which the majority of typo-chronological frameworks are based,
a re-analysis of the pottery traditions throughout this ill-defined period might help to throw
light upon its current "invisibility". The situation in Portugal in particular is in need of
reappraisal, since until the mid 1980s, only two settlements - those of Quiterfa and Pessegueiro
in Sines (Silva and Soares 1981) - were known to straddle this elusive phase.
The first question that the ceramic research will address is whether the invisibility assumed for
this period, and the decline with which it has been associated (e. g. Savory 1968: 214-215;
Castro Martfnez 1992: 14,22-23; V. 0. Jorge 1990: 225-229; 1996: 193-202) is real or rather
whether it has been created by traditional archaeological approaches relating to the material
culture (as Chapter Two suggests). Another aim of this chapter is to question the legitimacy of
the "cultures" defined by present ceramic distributions.
The problems which initiated this research included the lack of methodology in the approach to
ceramic analysis in western Iberia. The identification of regional ceramic traditions and "cultural groups" has not been undertaken systematically. Most ceramic analyses still remain at
the embryonic selective and qualitative stage (e. g. Parreira 1971-1975; 1983; Parreira and Soares 1980; Kalb 1978; 1979a; 1979b; Arnaud 1979; Femdndez Castro 1988; Cardoso and Carreira 1993). Most of these studies concentrated upon only the most diagnostic sherds, in
particular, decorated rims (e. g. Arnaud 1979: 73). Frequently, the majority of the assemblage, including the coarse wares and undiagnostic body sherds, was simply ignored. At one of the
50
sites considered in this study, Alto do Castelinho da Serra in Monternor-o-Novo, undiagnostic
sherds constitute 87.5% of all those analysed, and contribute a great deal to the understanding
ot'developments within the sequence beyond that of simply shape and decoration.
The few exceptions to this qualitative approach include the recent publications of Senna-
Martfnez (1989; 1993c, 1993d; 1995a) and Vilaýa (1995), yet these reports still lack wider
interpretation and evaluation. This current research intends to add this extra dimension throuah
a more rigorous and detailed examination of settlement ceramic assemblages. Eleven of these
sites are from Portugal, and one from south-west Spain. The sites were chosen partially
because of accessibility to the data, but also because several of them provided detailed
stratigraphic evidence, complemented by radiocarbon dates, that could be used to accurately
date and chart aspects of continuity and change throughout the sequences. It must be admitted
that some of the assemblages for which study permission was originally granted were partly biased from the outset by the fact that some material had been thrown away or could not be
located. As a result some (Castelo do Giraldo, Alcker do Sal, Cerradinha, Bouýa do Frade and
Senhora da Guia) could not be analysed while others (Cor6a do Frade, Outeiro do CH-co and
Santa Luzia) could only be partly studied.
3.2 Methodology
The approach adopted allowed a full consideration of the ceramic assemblages under analysis
and hoped to provide information concerning not only typologies and cultural groups, but also into the neglected spheres of exchange dynarnics, function, context, technology and
manufacturing processes, decoration and symbolism. With this in mind, it large number of
ccramic vanables, listed below, were studied.
Firing technology (exterior, interior and core colour, quality of firing including presence
, ýmoke clouding, presence ofdark core).
3. Vessel type (Opel] to Closed ratios, sherd thicknes's, rim or base shape, overall vessel . N'
rim and base diameter).
-1. Decoration (surface finish, presencc, type, position and extent of decoration, correlation
decoration and vessel type., motiftype).
The assemblages from the sites analysed can de divided into groups concerning site type, region
and chronology. Three of the sites dernonstrated continuity between the Late Bronze and Early
Iron Ages, and a fourth (Cerradinha) may also have been occupied during this transitional
period. The other eight had all Initially been dated to the Late Bronze Age by their
nive.,, tigittors, although four of these (Alegrios, Castelejo, Moreirinha and Monte do Frade all in
ýý I
tile Beira Interior) might also have been occupied earlier than this, during the traditional
"Middle Bronze Age", as indicated by their calibrated radiocarbon dates. Five of' these sites
were hilltop settlements, four were hiliforts, two were open settlements and one was a rock-
slicker and open site. Three of these sites were from central Portugal (Alente. io and Lishon
regions), five from north-central Portugal, one frorn south Portugal, two from north Portugal
and one from C6rdoha in south-west Spain. These sites are all listed below.
1. Alto do Castelinho da Serra, hilltop settlement Montemor-o-Novo, Upper Alente. 1o,
Central Portugal
2. Alegrios, rock shelter mid open settlement. lclanha-a-Nova, Beira, north-central Portugill
3. Castelejo. hilltop settlement, Sortellm. Sabugal, north-central Portugal
4. Monte do Frade, hilltop settlement, f3cmilacor, Castelo Branco. north-cctitral Portugal
5. Moreirinha, hilltop settlement, Monsanta, Castelo Branco. north-centf-A Pollug, 11
6. Cerradinha, open settlement, Samit Anch-6, S6tubztl, centrzil PortugA
7. Hanete de los Nloros, hillfort, Montoro, GL[adalqLlivir, C6rdoha. , outh-%vest Sp-mn
8. Cor6a do Frade, hillfort, Evora. Upper Alente. io, central Portug, 11
9. Outeiro do Circo. hillfort, Lower Alente. jo, south-central Poriugýll
10. Quinta da Padreira. open settlement. Abrantes, north-centrA Portugal
1 1. Conimbriga, hill settlement, Condelmi-ii-Nova, Colinbra, north Portugal
12. Santa Luzia, hillfort, Viseu, north Portugal
Before it full discussion of the results ofthe ceramic investigation is undertaken, it is necessary
to sunimarise the traditional and current perspectives concerning the Later Bronze Age cerarnic
typo-chronologies and cultural groups in western Iberia, and the deficiency in systematic
ceranlic analysis and interpretation.
3.3 Traditional approaches to the western Iberian Bronze Age
Until the 1950s (lie Iberian Bronze Age was perceived as a single and united culture and (lie all
pervasive Argaric influence was believed to have persisted in Spain and Portugal from (lie
begminnig of the second millennium until well after 1500 cal. BC. The phase between the
middle of the second and the beginning of the first millennium was hazily defined and coherent
culture groups were not recognised until the transition frorn the Late Bronze Age to the Early
Iron Age through the Urnfield and Celtic "migrations". By the 1980s, the backlash against the
notion of Bronze Age homogeneity had resulted in the division of the Iberian Later Bronze Age
into a number of disparate and separate parts (cultures or traditions). These included the north-
west (Penha, Bai6es-Santa Luzia, and Castro) central west (Alpiarga and Lapa do Fumo), the
south-west (Ferradeira, Atalaia and Santa Vit6ria), the Meseta (Ciempozuelos, Cogotas I),
Extremadura (Boquique), western Andalucfa (Carambolo), La Mancha (Motillas), and Valencfa
(Valencian Bronze Age ) cultural groups. Ile increasing focus upon division moulded these
regions into discrete units of study, but these "compartments" have rarely been questioned as to
their archaeological integrity or validity (see Maps 3.1.1 and 3.1.2)
The geographical overview reflects the existence of significant contrasts in the character of the
material available for study and the way it has been evaluated in the past. In Portugal in
particular, archaeological interest has tended to cluster around areas where a good history of
research has already been developed, as with the lower Alentejo (Chapter Two), coupled with
proximity to archaeological institutions. Hence research has predominantly been carried out in
the north (near Oporto) and the central Lisbon area.. It is time to review this situation and determine whether these patterns do in reality reflect distinct archaeological units or "cultural"
entities.
Many of the definitions of western Iberian groups and "cultures" rest upon the relatively
simplistic equation of specific ceramics with "social groups" that are directly projected on to
the landscape (see Martfnez Santa Olalla 1938-1941; 1946; Sefffto 1958a; 1958b; 1964; 1970;
Schubart 1971; 1975; Kalb 1979a; Coffyn 1985). These groupings have been based upon
evidence from burial sites or poorly excavated hill top and hillfort settlements. Many other
sites have been ignored, and thus these cultures have been reconstructed from a partial data set.
As discussed in Chapter Two, the western Iberian Bronze Age cultural sequences defined from
Bronze Age ceramics have predominantly come from the burials. Although the last twenty
years have witnessed a steady increase in evidence from settlements, their chronologies and
cultural affiliations have continued to be determined from comparisons with burial data. It is
important to appreciate the explicit distinctions between "life" and "death" assemblages, and
the ceramic sequences that can be constructed from them. In general, pottery from burial
contexts tends to be better preserved than from domestic horizons, and frequently allows for
reconstruction of entire vessels. This factor may have inadvertently encouraged archaeologists to focus more upon funerary ceramics at the expense of domestic assemblages.
However, in doing so, many have neglected to respect the important differences between these two arenas, including the biased selection of grave good assemblages, in which only finer or
53
64prestige" vessels may have been chosen (e. g. S. O. Jorge 1990; V. 0. Jorge 1990; Kalb and Hbck 1980; 1983; Parreira 1983; 1998). Burial ceramics are also likely to have been less
functional and more "ideological" or "ritual" in nature. Hence, it is nalve to expect burial pots
to be representative of domestic assemblages and transfer one to the other directly.
A summarised. overview of some of the current Later Bronze Age cultural groupings in western Iberia highlights the traditions of research in these regions, and how they vary from area to
area. The geographical overview is important since it reflects the existence of significant
contrasts not only in the nature and character of the material under study, but also in the way it
has been evaluated. One must first be aware of these biases and assumptions in the history of investigation before embarking upon further research.
3.3.1 Northern Portugal - between the Minho and the Douro (regions of Braga, Vila Real, and Porto) (see Map 3.2)
The diagnostic pottery types for this region are known as the Penha tradition. Most of the sites
associated with these ceramics are located near the coast, but include inland hilltop and open
settlements. The ceramics are decorated with incised motifs, which are generally placed on the
exterior surfaces of V shaped or straight sided bowls, beakers and wide rimmed jars (vasilho
com bordo bem alargardo - Spindler 1988: 58). Decoration includes zig-zag, hatched line and triangular motifs which demonstrate close parallels with earlier Beaker traditions. They were initially ascribed to the Chalcolithic on this basis (Savory 1951: 332; 1968: 206-207). It is only in the last fifteen years or so that this tradition has been recognised as showing continuity into
the Later Bronze Age (Calo and Sierra 1983: 55 and Figures 4 and 6; Rufz-Gdlvez 1984: 4601).
Thus the chronology for this ceramic tradition is still undergoing a process of revision, and
some authors argue that it is indicative only of the Late Bronze Age (I 100-70OBC), on the basis
of similarities with other pottery traditions of this period - e. g. Bai6es-Santa Luzia and even Cogotas I (Coffyn 1985: 327; Kalb 1979a; 1980a: 33-34; 1980b: 120; Silva 1986: 118). Few
radiocarbon dates exist to define this pottery tradition with more clarity, but the horizons
containing Penha pottery at the open settlement of Lapaves were dated between 1980 and 1560
cal. BC (Pefia Santos 1992: 375-376).
3.3.2 North-central Portugal - between the Mondego and Douro
The recently excavated settlements in the Bai6es region of Nossa Senhora da Guia, Santa Luzia (Kalb 1978: 112-138; 1979b: 581-590), and Castro de Sdo Romdo (Senna-Martfnez et al. 1986), have characterised a group of ceramics which are hand made, with burnished surfaces and geometric incised or occasionally burnished decoration. It was predominantly the
54
distinctive pottery decoration, therefore, that was used to characterise the Bai6es Santa Luzia
"culture", whose dispersion was taken to cover the whole of Beira Alta, centring around Viseu.
The repertoire consists of open forms, with medium and high carinations, and straight sided,
globular and strap-handled jars. The pottery shapes themselves have parallels with types in
western Andalucia, and other parts of central and southern Portugal. The geometric decorative
motifs also resemble those known from pattern burnished ware, and the fact that some of the
Bai6es -Santa Luzia vessels were actually decorated through burnishing highlights this
similarity, and challenges whether the grouping really should be considered as a distinct
culture. The Bai6es-Santa Luzia group also demonstrates similarities with the incised Cogotas
I tradition of the Meseta, and has been recognised by Kalb (1978: 122; 1979b: 584) and Silva
(1986: 120-121) as indicative of the penetration of transhumant groups from the Meseta to the
west of the Peninsula, where the abundance of metais and the fertility of the soils encouraged
permanent settlement. This speculation has been put forward only because of the lack of
recognised settlement evidence prior to the Late Bronze Age, leading to the conclusion that re-
population during this period had to come from migration. Kalb proposed that the Bai6es-Santa
Luzia tradition began in the eighth century BC, but the recently published radiocarbon dates
from Castro de Sdo Romdo (Senna-Martfnez et aL 1986) and Coto da Pena (Martins 1987) have
demonstrated that the tradition actually begins much earlier, before 1150 cal. BC, and endures
until roughly 800 cal. BC.
3.3.3 Coastal areas around Lisbon and Set6bal
Pattern burnished pottery or cerdmica a reticula bruhida was first recognised in the cave site of Lapa do Fumo in Setdbal (SerrAo 1958; 1959), and later discoveries of this tradition in other
rock shelter sites in the Lisbon area in the 1960s resulted in the definition of the Late Bronze
Age "Lapa do Fumo culture". Investigations in central and southern Portugal and Spanish
Extremadura of cist burials, caves and hillforts also produced this ceramic type and Almagro
Gorbea (1977: 126-135) was one of the first exponents to argue that the tradition expanded
much further than initially perceived. Despite the realisation that the pattern burnished motifs demonstrate a wide variety of decoration and vessel shapes, and have come from many different site types and over a large geographical region, several authors (e. g. Spindler et al. 1973-1974; Tejera Gaspar 1980; Kalb and 116ck 1981; 1982; L6pez Roa 1977; 1978; Ferndndez
Castro 1988) still advocate that pattern burnished pottery may be equated with the "Lapa do
Furno culture" and hence also with a single and unified cultural tradition.
The chronology for this tradition has been under considerable debate since its first recognition,
partly because of the deficiency in absolute dates, but has generally been situated between the
55
eleventh and late eighth centuries BC. Recently published radiocarbon dates from three
settlements in north-central Portugal (Alegrios, Monte do Frade and Moreirinha - Vilaqa 1995)
demonstrate that this tradition may date much earlier than originally assumed, from the
thirteenth century cal. BC onwards.
A second ceramic "culture", also defined as Late Bronze Age, was first identified in the Tagus
estuary region at the necropolis of Alpiarqa (Marques and Andrade 1974; Kalb and 116ck 1980;
1988a; Kalb 1995). The ceramics from these graves were generally squat straight sided or
tronconical bowls with smooth or all-over burnish finished, but lacking decoration. Later,
hillforts were also included as part of the Late Bronze Age Alpiarga culture (e. g. Cabeqo da
Bruxa and Alto do Castelo (Kalb and H6ck 1981-1982; 1983; 1985). This cultural grouping
has never been adequately defined, and its chronology has been equally vague, with Marques
and Andrade offering a very late chronology (eighth to fifth centuries BQ while Kalb and H6ck
have preferred an earlier chronology from the thirteenth to eighth centuries BC.
3.3.4 South-western Bronze Age
The south-western Bronze Age (Ferradeira, Atalaia and Santa Vit6ria "cultures") has been
defined in the previous chapter and does not require further expansion here. The "cultures"
have been identified predominantly from the cist cemeteries that Schubart excavated in Beja
and Lower Alentejo. This sequence still requires comparison with the recently published
settlement evidence in this region.
This summary outlines some of the distinctive characteristics of the Later Bronze Age ceramic
material culture of western Iberia that have been used to construct cultural groups, and the fact
that decoration has played the dominant role is such definitions. No ceramic traditions, with
the exception of the Atalaia "culture", yet exist for the period from 1600/1500 to 1050 cal. BC.
3.4 Ceramic Classification
Ceramics and lithics, as classes of archaeological remains, are the best preserved residues of the
human past. Pottery has the ability to take on an almost endless variety of appearances and
each variable may be a rich source of cultural information. Pottery classification is relevant for
it makes the data easier to interpret, but it is also important to be aware of how and why such
categories have been created. Since the process tends to involve using specific types that can be singled out to characterise discrete geographical and chronological groups, it creates boundaries between the different groups. Where the boundaries lie depend upon what dimensions and variables are used in such constructions, and obviously will vary depending
upon how narrow or wide an archaeologist makes a category definition. Thus categories should
56
not be considered completely distinct and separate, but subject to a degree of overlap and
extension.
Ceramics have been employed as one of the most appropriate artefact categories for
classification schemes, and much pottery research has concentrated upon the construction of
regional syntheses and chronologies. This is simply because ceramics generally exhibit great diversity with respect to the four main variables of form, decoration, fabric and manufacture (Rice 1987: 250). In general it has been the first two components that have been concentrated
upon and together define pottery "styles". This is because the variables of surface treatment
and shape are those considered to be the most time sensitive (Rice 1984: 48-49).
The definition of style has been subject to much clarification in recent decades (see Conkey
1989; Conkey and Hastorf (eds. ) 1990), but in this context implies the recognition of
characteristic vessel shapes and sizes, techniques of decoration and distinct motifs, that have
been employed to construct particular artefact assemblages, regional and chronological developments, and in essence "cultures". However, conclusions based on style alone tend to be
misleading, and provide only a partial picture. We need to give more consideration to the
possibility that we are not selecting the right or only traits for cultural recognition, as well as
whether the variation of pottery forms from one area to another need be an indicator of cultural differentiation.
Several factors influence the different ways in which ceramic assemblages have been studied
and interpreted. The nature and condition of the pottery obviously can limit the extent of the
analysis. Settlement sites tend to produce small fragmentary sherds from which complete
vessels can rarely be reconstructed, while ceramic grave goods are often complete and allow an
appreciation of vessel shapes, volumes and entire decorative schemes. The context of the
pottery is also relevant and can add an extra dimension to the ceramic analysis. It is
unfortunate that several of the assemblages analysed (particularly Cor6a do Frade, Cerradinha
and Outeiro, do Circo, all in central Portugal) came from small key-hole excavations and surface
surveys. This limited the extent of the relationships that could be ascertained between the
pottery and its context and stratigraphy. A third factor concerns the research agenda of the
pottery specialist and the theoretical and methodological approach adopted.
These initial remarks are obvious, but they need to be voiced because they have not been
satisfactorily tackled before in western Iberian ceramic research. Pottery from any period in
pre- and proto-history was unlikely to have been fashioned according to our present day
archaeological concerns. Typology would not have been a primary consideration in the minds of the potters who made ceramic vessels. Yet we do tend to draw contrasts between "Late
57
Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery", if only, because as
archaeologists, we have been conditioned to do so. Such a procedure creates artificial
constructs, and ignores some of the more fundamental issues that ceramic research could
consider, such as function. "What ceramics have done for man and what archaeologists have
done with ceramics are two very separate things" (Fejos 1962: 96-97). This quote highlights
the fact that ceramics functioned directly and primarily as containers or carriers of food and drink, and only indirectly, and, hence possibly more elusively, reflect chronological or cultural
groupings.
To conclude, then, although the process of pottery classification is a pre-requisite of all Neolithic and post-Neolithic archaeological investigation (Rice 1987: 48-50), the simple
qualitative description of ceramic types is not sufficient for a site's ceramic analysis and for the
purposes of outlining a site's chronology and relations with other sites. Classification
inevitably involves dividing aspects of material culture into various categories, but attempts to
piece these elements together again are often lacking. As mentioned above, the rare examples
of quantified Bronze Age ceramic analysis in western Iberia have lost value through their isolation, and lack wider interpretation. As an analogy it is akin to attempting to find the
reasons why a car has broken down by disassembling it completely but then leaving it in that
state, thus fragmenting and isolating the problem but failing to solve it. The raison d7tre of these reports should not be simply a detailed but detached classification of pottery shapes,
styles, fabrics and decoration of a particular settlement site with associated figures and graphs. It is what the patterns detected within the graphs mean that should be considered of greatest importance.
In studying the ceran-dc classificatory sequences of western Iberia, it is surprising how resilient
to change they have remained, particularly when considering the wealth of new data that has
not been used to expand and update them. Examples that will be discussed in Chapter Four
include the Lapa do Fumo, Alpiarga and Cogotas I traditions, which were defined in the 1950s
and yet their original chronological and "cultural" assignations have received little critical re-
appraisal. These conservative schemes are more an impediment than an aid to archaeological
research. They are a hindrance because they have confined and biased our interpretations of the Bronze Age societies in these regions - groups who are referred to from a few poorly
understood but supposedly diagnostic pottery type fossils. It is time to expand our objectives, keeping in step with archaeological developments in other parts of Europe. As Brew stated in
the 1940s "We need more rather than fewer classifications, different classifications, always new classifications, in order to meet new needs" (1946: 65).
58
The current distribution of Bronze Age ceramic "cultural groups" identified in western Iberia,
appears on maps as isolated and unrelated clusters, a situation aggravated by the lack of
recognition or knowledge of Bronze Age burial and settlement evidence in adjacent regions (e. g. Schubart 1971: Figure 6; Harrison 1994: Figure 2.3 and 2.14) (See Maps 3.1 and 3.2).
Furthermore, the knowledge of the traditional "Middle" and "Late" Bronze cultural groups does
not coincide geographically in certain areas (e. g. central and southern Portugal, and Spanish
Extremadura). As a result, these groups often exist as discrete chronological and spatial
entities, with no obvious continuity (compare Map 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). The validity of this
disjointed approach needs to be challenged, in the light of the increased documentation
available. It is only through attempting to bridge the "apparent" spatial and chronological gaps
that we can begin to make some sense of an otherwise dislocated jigsaw puzzle. Diachronic
perspectives have rarely been pursued in western Iberia, but may help to tease out possible temporal and geographical connections in the current fragmented system.
3.5 Change and heterogeneity versus continuity and homogeneity
Plotting artefacts in time and space is a methodology with which all archaeologists are familiar,
and yet we lack established models for explaining why some artefact types appear to remain
constant in time and space, while others seem to change more dramatically. In past research, the sharp appearance and disappearance of certain material types was explained through terms like migration, invasion, acculturation and trade. Types that have a short duration in
archaeological terms have generally been those that upon which archaeologists have focused.
This is because such types are assumed to lend themselves to the implementation of more
precise typological and hence chronological resolution (Lisboa 1987a: 25-26). Examples in
western Iberia include the distinctive decorated pottery traditions of Bai6es-Santa Luzia (Kalb
1979b; Senna-Martfnez 1989) and Lapa do Furno (SerrAo 1958a; 1958b), both originally believed to have had a short use-span of two hundred years. Since pottery studies have
concentrated upon identifying change, it has been assumed as normal and typical rather than
exceptional. It has also been considered to be one of the most important factors in
understanding the development of past societies. Change is exciting and can offer clues toward
explaining how past societies adapted and how they can be distinguished and grouped. Bradley
cautions us however that "there is always a complicated relationship between change and tradition" (1997b: 73).
Artefacts that appear to be more predictable and show relatively little transformation over time
and space have been neglected in most studies of this type, yet perhaps it is these artefacts that
can lend themselves to accurate typological sequences, since their trajectory of development
may be traced more smoothly. The more ephemeral artefacts have the consequence of
59
enhancing divisions and breaks in archaeological sequences, hence creating lacunae. We have
fewer theories for understanding continuity, subtle differentiation, or the lack of material
culture modification over large temporal and geographical spans. Continuities hamper the
refinement of chrono-cultural resolutions, and perpetuity in ceramic traditions over hundreds of
years have been interpreted as evidence for stagnation, retardation or involution.
3.6 Decoration
Decoration is one of the determining features of Later Bronze Age pottery sequences in western Iberia. The summary of the chronological and regional groups that presently exist demonstrates
that most have been defined primarily on the basis of different types and techniques of pottery decoration. Penha, Boquique, Ciempozuelos, Cogotas I and Bai6es-Santa Luzia "cultures"
have been established on the basis of geometric incised and excised decoration, while Lapa da
Fumo, Alpiarga and western Andalucfan groupings have been identified primarily on the basis
of types of pattern burnished decoration. This over-emphasis upon decorative style may hide
other fundamental unities or differences in forms and shapes between pottery assemblages. Other important ceramic properties, including manufacturing technology, have taken second
place to decoration, and even vessel shape is not always considered important. In fact the shape
typologies that have been constructed tend to emphasise only elements, and not the overall form
of ceramic vessels, with attention paid to rim shape and elaboration, and position and type of
carination. The Alpiarga bowl forms have been recognised as having sharp carinations situated
on the upper vessel bodies (Marques and Andrade 1974: 131-133; Kalb and Hbck 1983), while
Bai6es-Santa Luzia cups tend to have more rounded carinations situated centrally on the vessel body (Silva 1986; Senna-Martfnez 1989: 128-129). These by themselves, do not lend
themselves to accurate typological reconstruction, and rim or carination shape may be more a
result of an individual potter's preference, or a functional requirement, rather than an attribute
that may correspond with temporal or regional developments. Chronology, cultural affiliation
and regional complexity may not in fact be accurately elucidated from minor modifications in
decoration types. By concentrating on these sorts of changes, we may be missing more important adaptations that are reflected through developments in vessel morphology,
manufacture and ceramic technology.
Furthermore, these Iberian pottery sequences have been created though a tendency to look for
only local or neighbouring parallels, while pottery similarities in other regions, or even other
periods have generally been ignored. This can be demonstrated through the continued differentiation of the Penha, Bai6es-Santa Luzia and Cogotas I cultural groupings, yet all these
traditions exhibit similarities with one another with respect to vessel shapes, site types and
pottery decoration. This is very much a two dimensional treatment of the pottery.
60
Since the majority of Bronze Age western Iberian ceramic groups have been identified on the basis of aesthetic or cosmetic differences, rather than variations in vessel type configurations,
there is an underlying assumption that decoration must be very significant. But we should not
assume a priori that pots were all decorated for the same reasons, or even for meaningful
reasons (e. g. David et aL 1988).
Ethnographic research (e. g. Cole and Chaikin 1990) has demonstrated that pottery decoration
often plays an important role in feasting ceremonies, such as potlach. Here, highly visible
pottery is a central feature in such displays and enhances the prestige of feasting events by
being colourful or striking in appearance. Other ethnoarchaeologists have also highlighted the importance of prestige gained through the ritual dramatic smashing of highly decorative and hence valuable pots during communal feasts (e. g. Blitz 1993; Barley 1994; Gebauer 1995;
Hayden 1995: 257-265; Marshall 1997). In this context, production costs are relevant, the more
elaborate the decoration, the higher the prestige gained. One might expect prestige ceramics to feature frequently within contexts of inter-group competition, where groups could openly
advertise their success and wealth or in liminal rites, like marriage and burials (Shennan 1986:
135). Thus visually important ceramics may have been used on certain occasions where they
could be utilised as vehicles for displaying and reaffirming exchange and social relations and
advertise the wealth and perhaps coherence of groups. This may explain why pottery sequences
constructed from burial contexts such as Schubart's south-western Bronze Age scheme,
emphasise vessel decoration, while those available for contemporary domestic arenas tend to
remain predominantly plain and undecorated.
It is unlikely that the decorated vessels of Later Bronze Age Iberia were all involved in public displays or inter-group competition, although some may have had affiliations with ceremonial
arenas. Decoration may also have had practical considerations. Often plastic, grooved or
corrugated and finger impressed decoration is restricted to large storage vessels or water jars
and these may have facilitated grip and easier handling of large pots. MacSween (1992: 270- 271) has demonstrated a correlation between decoration and function in Neolithic storage
vessels from Orkney. As the ceramic analysis indicates below, the relationship between
decoration and vessel types from many of the site assemblages (e. g. Castelinho, Alegrios, Santa
Luzia and Moreirinha) shows a strong link between plastic and impressed motifs and storage jars.
Another factor that we need to consider is whether pottery is formally decorated and strictly codified. Homogeneity of decoration and its disciplined application may indicate a common purpose shared by such uniformity, and perhaps standardised. design could be equated with a
61
signalling system that sent out particular messages on its pottery carriers (e. g. Hodder 1982b;
Sterner 1989). Standardisation and homogeneity may not only relate to the decoration
technique employed, but also to the designs used and even the position and arrangement of the
motifs upon the vessel surface.
A more analytical approach to decoration has been undertaken in many ethnographic studies
(e. g. Arnold 1985,1991; Hodder 1982b; Lathrap 1983; Plog 1978; 1980; 1983; 1990; Roe
1980) whereby decorative zones and motif placement on vessels have been studied in detail to
elicit how the design structure of pottery might relate to the social structure of particular
societies and how far the pottery styles may reflect "ideal" or "real" behaviour. Elements,
motifs and different areas of decoration of a pot have been compared and contrasted to produce
the overall design or full grammatical structure of the vessel. Archaeologists have been
attempting to unlock the meanings of pottery decoration and read the "grammar" and symbols
that the motifs represent for over thirty years (e. g. Barley 1994; Braithwaite 1982; Hardin 1977;
1984; Hodder 1982a; 1982b; Hoopes and Barnett 1995: 5-10; Miller and Tilley 1984; Miller
1985; Plog 1980,1983; Shennan 1989; Wiessner 1984; 1990; Wobst 1977; Yentsch 1991).
Some of these authors have convincingly argued that the decoration is often symbolically coded
to construct particular forms of social identity, and Hodder has emphasised the importance of
specific patterns of decoration as a metaphor for deliberate inclusion and exclusion of individuals and groups. Unfortunately such a detailed analysis is practically impossible in this
research, since the vast majority of the ceramic evidence is restricted to small sherds that rarely
offer any indication of the extent and area of vessel decoration, and even less of the overall
pottery designs that were produced. One area of pottery decoration that has been neglected but
can be pursued however, is the percentage of decorated as opposed to undecorated pottery
within assemblages, and what types of pottery were decorated, and whether these types show
modifications through time.
3.7 Decoration, styles, distribution maps and boundaries
The pottery styles that have been equated with Later Bronze Age social and cultural groups
show different spatial extensions when plotted on distribution maps. Some of the pottery styles demonstrate only local distributions (e. g. Atalaia and Alpiarqa), while others show regional
expansions (e. g. Bai6es-Santa Luzia, pattern-burnished and "a cepillo"). Beakers,
Ciempozuelos, Boquique and Cogotas I pottery traditions demonstrate inter-regional
configurations (see Chapter Four: Figures 4.11 and 4.38). Thus the idea that styles can be
easily equated with social territories or "cultural groups" is complicated by the overlapping of different pottery traditions in the same region. There has been little theoretical discussion
concerning the implications of this complex situation, or the reasons for some pottery styles
62
exhibiting a limited distribution, while others indicate a widespread dispersal. The possible
processes lying behind these patterns will be discussed in the conclusions of the pottery
analysis and in Chapter Four. They may indicate that some types of pottery were routinely
exchanged and copied over long distances, and that the almost blanket uniformity of some
styles was perhaps symbolically significant. Ethnic distinctions need not have been legitimised
through the medium of pottery styles, but, conversely, uniformity in pottery styles over large
areas may well mask significant underlying cultural variation.
The ceramic analysis undertaken in this chapter adopts the approach that distinct pottery styles
should not automatically be correlated with different cultural groupings. Pottery may have
been a poor vehicle for displaying information concerning ethnic affiliation, compared for
example, to flags, head-dresses, style and colour of dress or body ornamentation (e. g. Longacre
1995: 279). In general, however, these elements are rarely preserved in the archaeological
record. Sackett (1982; 1985: 155) has argued that stylistic information concerning ethnic identity would only be invested within aspects of the material culture that were labour-intensive
to manufacture, yet also had a long-use life, hence providing maximum investment and highest
visibility. Pottery in general is made quickly and tends to be broken easily, and hence does not
conform to Sackett's rule governing ethnic identity. It is time to reconsider the reasons for
pottery decoration other than signalling group membership. The idea of pots still being seen as
the conservative and passive bearers of ethnic groups or "cultures" is no longer tenable,
particularly in light of the fact that individual settlements sites have frequently produced a
variety of different pottery styles. The more complex reality hints that some types of decoration may have formed part of ideological systems that operated above the level of socio-
political organisation.
The maps that have been used to depict the distributions of ceramic styles may also be
misleading in their attempts at accurate portrayals of cultural groupings. The information used
to construct distribution maps is both specific and qualitative, and concentrates upon selecting
particular diagnostic types. From all of the maps presently available for later Bronze Age
western Iberia ceramic groupings, none have distinguished between sites that produced one
sherd of a particular ceramic type and others that may have produced many hundreds of
examples. Thus, the patterns they produce are also non-quantitative and unlikely to provide
accurate or meaningful representations of past socio-cultural groupings. We need to develop
and refine these cartographic methods through quantified ceramic analysis. It is only through
this method that we can begin to explain why certain regularities and patterns occur, and the
reasons for overlapping stylistic distributions, other than possible "cultural" contact or
exchange. This will also help to clarify the problems that unqualified analysis raises, such as
63
the percentage of diagnostic attributes that need to be similar between two or more sites to
allow them to be incorporated into the same or similar chrono-cultural grouping. Or to put it
another way, how many external pattern burnished high carinated bowls make a Lapa do Furno
culture site or how many post-fired geometric incised tronconical jars are required in order to
identify a Bai6es-Santa-Luzia one? At present there is no methodological approach that offers
a guideline to this query, and whether a comparison can be based upon I sherd, 10 sherds, 5%
or 50%.
Only a quantitative analysis will ascertain whether the cultural boundaries that are at present
only vaguely defined on the ceramic distribution maps in any way reflect the archaeological
reality. The boundaries of these ceramic groupings are presently assumed to correlate closely
with spatial and temporal distances. The premise that the closer in chronology or in location
that one assemblage is to another, then the higher the likelihood that it can be incorporated into
the same, or at least similar cultural grouping is a premise that has not yet been investigated
closely in western Iberia. Hodder's (1982a) ethno-archaeological research on the Baringo in
Kenya is one modem-day example that demonstrates that there need be no direct correlation between social interaction and distance.
The consequences of different communities participating in trade and exchange may begin to blur frontiers and boundaries or even encourage an integration of some communities into larger
networks (e. g. DeAtley and Findlow 1984: 3). Boundaries may bave been closed on some levels but open on others, and models like Green and Perlman's (1985) definition of boundaries
as porous and permeable, may allow us to create more accurate constructs of Bronze Age social
groups. Interpretations concerning the Atlantic Bronze Age in western Iberia (e. g Coffyn 1985;
Rufz-Gdlvez 1986; 1987; 1991) seem to imply that boundaries were open for the exchange and
adoption of Atlantic bronze metallurgy but remained closed for the transferance of pottery. The
premise that lies at the basis of the argument is that only more valuable or prestigious goods
would be able to percolate through boundaries.
In general, coarse ware pottery is generally thought by archaeologists as relatively bulky, low
value and breakable and hence and inappropriate medium for exchange (e. g. Rands and Bishop
1980; Riley 1984: 57-61). The division between fine and domestic wares tended to rest upon the premise that utilitarian vessels would always be found where they was manufactured (e. g. Hill 1970; Longacre 1970). Although pottery movement might be a result of gift exchange or trade of desirable fine ware vessels, pots also acted as containers for the movement of other
goods (such as oil, perfume, grain, wine etc. ). Hence not all pots need have been transported for their aesthetic qualities. Early thin-section work by Shepard on coarse ware pottery in the
64
Rio Grande (1965) demonstrated that it travelled over 400kms from its origin. More recent investigations by Catling et aL (1961) on Minoan and Mycenean pottery, and Peacock (1971;
1984) and Gibson and Woods (1990: 162-179) on the Neolithic Gabbroic and Hembury wares
of Cornwall have also confirmed that "utilitarian" or coarse ware pots were being exchanged
over extensive areas. None of these examples relates to western Iberia, but are important in
highlighting how wrong we may be in assuming that all pottery that was not fine or prestige
ware, remained where it was made. Although pottery characterisation analysis of coarser
pottery types remains at an embryonic stage in western Iberia, the results so far are of some
concern to our traditional interpretations. Cabral et aL (1983) characterised Early Iron Age
pottery in north-central Portugal, and suggested that the majority was made at a central location
and then distributed over distances of up to 100km. Little (1985) analysed the Late Bronze Age
pottery from several hillforts in northern Portugal, and concluded from a preliminary investigation that some of the coarse wares were being exchanged over distances of around 50-
60kms. These studies have scratched the surface of the possibilities and complexities of
patterns and networks that we may be overlooking, and contradict the yardstick that low-value
bulk items always have a sharp and localised fall-off rate (e. g. Renfrew 1975).
Another important factor that has rarely been considered in the creation of cultural groupings is
the nature of the physical terrain that may have promoted or hampered contact between
neighbouring regions (see Map 3.3). We cannot simply correlate geographical proximity with increased cultural similarity, for the physical geography of the Iberian Peninsula has created both barriers and facilitators to human movement and cultural interaction. Much of the Later
Bronze Age settlement is concentrated around the Atlantic coastline of Iberia or near the
estuaries of large rivers and their tributaries. In defining cultural groups, archaeologists have
tended to ignore the feasibility of the long distance contact and communication that the Atlantic
ocean and the Douro, Tagus, Sado, Guadalquivir and Guadiana rivers may have promoted. Furthen-nore, links between the present day "Portuguese" and "Spanish" cultural entities have
been largely severed, partly as a result of the language barriers and differences in
archaeological tradition between the two countries. Some of the evidence that will be presented in this chapter and Chapter Four concerning northern and central Portugal and Spanish
Extremadura and the Meseta demonstrates many similarities between these different regions. This realisation is hardly surprising, since the chains of mountains in northern Portugal and Galicia on one hand, and central western Spain on the other, may have served to promote
movement in an east-west direction. Rufz-GAlvez and Gdlan (1991), Gdlan (1993) and Sanches (1996: 220-230; 1999) have drawn attention to the importance of historical pastoral routes that traverse the Meseta and Portugal (see Chapter Six). In fact north-south movement
65
between the northern and southern Meseta is more restricted by mountains than contact between the northern Meseta and north-central Portugal. To conclude then, we need to take
account of the physical landscape when we project our cultural groupings on to it, for it
undoubtedly had a hand in moulding and influencing them.
This leads on to the little considered discrepancy in the definition of ceramic "cultures" of Later Bronze Age Iberia. On one hand archaeologists have portrayed cultural groups with fairly defined and rigid boundaries, while on the other, several advocate that many of the Later
Bronze Age social groups of western Iberia were transhumant pastoralists (e. g. Ciempozuelos,
Cogotas I and south-western Bronze groups - Femdndez Posse 1986; Rufz-Gdlvez 1991; 1992a;
Fabido 1992; pace V. O. Jorge 1990; S. O. Jorge 1996: 197-198). Although the belief that none
of the settlements during this period was permanent will be reassessed in this chapter, there is
evidence to support the idea that some of the communities may well have been semi-sedentary,
occupying rock shelters and short-lived open settlements. If we take seasonal movements into
consideration, some of which may have been over long distances, we need also to acknowledge
that territorial and cultural frontiers may be envisaged in a more fluid way. It is unlikely that
static cultural boundaries as depicted through ceramic groupings, provide an accurate reflection
of the Later Bronze Age settlement.
3.8 Function
An understanding of vessel function is a relevant, yet still overlooked aspect of pottery analysis in western Iberia. Too few archaeologists have questioned why pots are shaped the way they
are, and that pots are not simply tools for the archaeologists, but were functional tools for past
societies. They acted as storage, cooking, carrying, pouring, and serving containers. We
cannot assume a priori that chronological and "cultural" aspects of pottery were intended to be
represented through pottery "styles", but we can be more certain that the functional qualities
were. Unfortunately, this field of study still remains one of the most neglected in ceramic
research (e. g. see Matson 1965; 1984; Rye 1981; Hodder 1982a; 1982b; Rice 1984; 1987 etc. ).
If we classify pots in accordance with their functions, we might have a better chance of gaining
more valid interpretations from our pot sequences. Pots made for cooking, storing, serving and transporting food and drink have particular characteristics to make them as efficient as possible for particular functions. Round bottomed pots provide more successful cooking vessels, through reducing thermal stress, while carinated or elaborately profiled vessels reduce resistance. Wide orifices allow a more efficient manipulation of vessel contents, and hence
were more likely to have functioned as food preparation or serving vessels. It is unlikely that
we will ever know the exact roles filled by particular pots but we can establish the most likely
66
ranges of use, and incorporate these into our general classification schemes. Cooking pots,
serving vessels and storage jars are likely to have been grouped or thought about in similar
ways in the minds of prehistoric people, and through adopting this approach, we may unlock
other relevant meanings from our pot categories. Thus, functional differentiation may allow a
more precise classification of categories and can emphasise general similarities at the expense
of minor modifications.
An analysis of clay fabrics and surface form may also allow us to infer functional attributes of different pot types. The kind of pots produced by a potter will influence the sort of clay and
temper selected, since cooking pots and storage vessels require different clay types if they are
to be made and perform successfully. The chemical composition of the clay fabrics of cooking
pottery needs to be thermally resistant and less susceptible to cracking under constant heat
(Manson 1995) and calcitic, grog and basaltic tempers are best at reducing thermal stress, while
quartz increases it. Exterior sooting of a vessel might also suggest an involvement in cooking
processes (Hally 1980). On the other hand, vessels used to hold liquids may have specific
surface treatments to reduce porosity.
Pots for transporting are likely to have been made from light materials, including organic chaff
temper, that also increases their resistence to mechanical strain and breakage during movement (Shepard 1965; 1968; Rice 1990; Manson 1995). Ethnographic research has shown a strong
correlation between organic tempering and greater mobility (Manson 1995: 73). Sampson
(1988: 40-42) and Barley (1994: 44-45) have also correlated chaff tempered pottery with semi-
sedentary lifestyles, and with pastoral and hunter-gatherer groups in parts of Asia and Africa
respectively. They both argue that it was the organic temper that allowed the successful
transportation of fragile possessions from camp to camp, and these groups would probably have
been aceramic had the chaff not conferred such advantages.
The technique of pottery burnishing has often been argued to be a cosmetic or decorative
feature, and this is certainly true of the pattern burnished decoration of Later Bronze Age south-
western Iberia. Vitelli (1995: 59) asserts that burnishing a vessel is the most time-consuming
stage of producing a pot. Both modem experimentation and ethnographic analogies will
confin-n this claim (Vitelli 1984; 1989). Thus we must take into consideration why so much
effort may have been exerted in such a labour intensive technique. All-over burnishing can also be an effective surface treatment for cooking pots in reducing heat loss and in liquid carrying or
storing vessels to lessen the porosity of the vessel walls. All of the Later Bronze Age
assemblages studied in this research contained a large number of all-over burnished vessels.
67
The evidence may infer that these vessels carried out particular functions as cooking or storage
3.9 Ethnographic studies
It is here that a consideration of recent ctimooraphic rcscarcii is rclc%afit. It Is thl" I'IcId III
particular that has done much to promote a movement beyond the rather reductionist thinkmL,
of artefacts as simply obýjects, and into the realms of considering ancient societies as a who1c.
Ethnographic studies have shifted the focus frorn the analysis of pottery in a dry
111milicl, h) the 11111)(11-1ý111cc of, rckilioll"hip" hctweell ccinillics 111(1 socio-c[IIIIIIA
rc"cmch on mid hom)(Im-N 111millcliall"v 11ILMIL111" (I)c difTcrew \\ýIN" thal
(Yroup boundaries may be recognised. Research into this field of ceramic ethnoarchaeology has
grown considerably in the last twenty years, mainly concentrating upon parts of the world
where modern industrial techniques of pottery manufacture have had little, if any, impact (e. g.
Kramer 1979; Peacock 1982, D. Arnold 1985; Rice 1987; Kolb 1988; Suiopli 1()()I: Low-'aciv
1992; Longýicrc and Stark 1991 ý 1). Arnold 199 1 -. 1993i Dicilcr and I lerhich 199S).
it It is of cour"C le'-'Itimatc to 'Ipply Caution III dII-CCtl\ 11"Ing CtlIIIoL'I-: Il)lIIC daul and pro CCtiIIL' *
upon our interpretations of past societies (see Hodder 1982a; 1982b). Some authors have e\cn
taken it negative stance, arguing that ethnoarchaeology is of limited use in archaeologiciil
interpretation because of irreconcilable differences between past and present societies (c., ý
Rice 1987: 466-468). Many others disagree with such it perspective, stating that it is not thc
othnoarchaeological data itself, but rather theories or observations derived from it, that inty
offer new routes in interpretating behaviour of past societies (e. g Sabloff et al. 1987; Kilhoii
1990; 11. Arnold 1991ý 1993). It does not seem unreasonable to suggest thýd cci-Lim a(Liptkc
processes may be shared by both past and present modes ol'pottery productim.
Some of (lie questions that ethiloarchaeology may help to awwer ill Illc -, 11II(IN ()I' ; "Wiciii
ceramics are as follows (See P. Arnold 1993: 2-3 with addition,, ).
(I). The different ways ceramics and pottery production illay be rekited it) behaviOff.
(2). Ways ot'delecting , oclal organisation in ceramic cle, "ign.
(3). Ways of tracing the use-lives ofanciem pottery.
(4). How patterns of discard and site-formation affect interproations of ancient pottery,
selliblagcs.
0 'S, bbb. -
3.9.1 The Kalinga of Luzon
Longacre's (1982; 1985) and Graves' ethnoarchaeological research on the Kalinga of northern Luzon (1994: 13-49) was specifically concerned with demonstrating the relationships between
group boundaries (of both social and material types) and ceramic design variability. The
Kalinga are an agricultural society and their primary unit of production is the household. These
tend to be amalgamated into larger settlements that, on average, reach approximately 150
houses or 600 individuals. Kalinga households are hierarchically organised (Graves 1994: 15)
along the lines of a "Big Man" society. These are then incorporated into larger regional groups that comprise between two and ten settlements.
Between 1976 and 1982, Longacre studied the pottery from the Kalinga regions of Dangtalan
and Dalupa-Ableg (Longacre 1981; 1985). In total, over a thousand complete vessels were
recorded according to the following attributes : 1) potter, 2) owner, 3) use category, 4) size and
shape, 5) date of manufacture, 6) motif analysis and position of decoration on vessel body.
Kalinga pottery decoration comprises both incised and impressed bands of motifs that are made
with bamboo or wooden styluses. Many types of design analyses were undertaken to chart the
relationship between ceramic design variation and regional affiliation of Kalinga potters in the
two regions of Dangtalan and Dalupa-Ableg. Graves (1994: 19-20) reasoned that if pottery
variation was being symbolically employed to distinguish different social group affiliations,
one would expect greater ceramic variability between rather than within regions. The ideal
situation, obviously, would be one where discrete differences existed between pots made in
separate regions, directly reflecting the marked community boundaries.
The statistical tests undertaken by Graves (1994) measured the design diversity, difference, and homogeneity within the overall ceramic assemblages. He analysed the form and orientation of
the design unit, the limits of design coverage on pots and the extent of homogeneity in regional
assemblages. Graves' analysis demonstrated that pottery decoration produced in two adjacent
regions of the Kalinga of the Dangtalan and Dalupa showed inter-regional differentiation and intra-regional homogeneity. Thus the regional distinctiveness of pottery design and decoration
appears to overlap with social and cultural boundaries and this may be attributed to three main factors. Firstly, all of the potters were women who were bom and remained in the region where they later manufactured pottery, thus creating and maintaining specific learning frameworks.
Secondly, regional identity is held by the communities to be highly important, and women are
encouraged to promote this cultural affiliation and conformation through their pottery. Thirdly, it appears that the women potters were aware of the pot designs in other regions, and
69
deliberately avoided any duplicates or even similarities in design with them, thus maintaining
their own distinct systems.
Despite these differences between designs and methods used in motif creation between the two
regions, a more general level of pottery analysis detected some elements of homogeneity.
These included similarities in the design location on the exterior vessel surface, and its
arrangement (horizontal and vertical) in decorative bands.
The Kalinga ethnoarchaeological data is important because of its excellent documentation, and its ability to demonstrate explicitly the connections between ceramic decoration, human
behaviour and organisational strategies. Obviously these levels of articulation can only be
inferred for archaeological materials, but the Kalinga case demonstrated that types of decoration, orientation of motifs and percentage of vessels decorated vary markedly between
regions, and less so between different settlements within the same region. The ethnographic
research also ascertained that regional identity was held to be vital in the communities, and that
the manipulation of pottery designs was an important component of expressing and distinguishing such affiliation. We can only infer that pottery decoration may have held a
similar value in Later Bronze Age western Iberian societies, but equally it may have retained a different significance
3.9.2 The Quinua of the Andes
Philip Arnold's work on the Quinua pottery in the Ayacucho valley in the south-central Andes,
adopted an ecological approach. He defined the manufacture of pottery on the basis of its
relationship with the environment, technology, society and its ideology. Arnold argues (1993:
9-11) that in an ideal situation a pottery producing community should manufacture and use a
specific set of local raw materials in defined ways that should be distinct from other
communities. Vessel shapes, decoration and manufacture in one community should be subtly different from those produced in other communities (e. g. see P. Arnold 1978b; 1978c), but
these may result from accidental as much as deliberate variations.
At one level we appear to see consistency and uniformity in design motifs and patterns used by
the Quinua potters. The pottery of the Quinua region is unusual in that it is more highly
decorated than material from surrounding areas. Pottery manufacture is linked with ecology,
since it can only be undertaken during the dry season, when there are a sufficient number of
consecutive sunny days to dry the vessels into their leather hard state. No potters can thus be
full-time specialists.
Arnold states (1993: 116) that shape repertoires and pottery assemblages will be related to
ecological or environmental surroundings, as well as social concerns. Maize beer forms an
70
important part of the Quinua economy since it is frequently used by agricultural land-owners as
an incentive to recruit labour, and forms a significant component of social and ritual drinking
ceremonies. The variety and number of ceramic vessels specifically related to this product
emphasises its importance, and these include vessels for production (globular jars), storage
(large storage jars), transport (large handled jars) and drinking (cups and double mixing pots).
These vessels all had very small mouth diameters to promote miminal spillage.
Thus the Quinua pottery demonstrates that ceramics actively participate in many different
activities and that their shape, physical composition, representation within the assemblage and
decoration can hint at patterns that include relationships with the ecology, environment, dietary
choices, patterns of transport and social and symbolic systems.
The Quinua potters used three distinct schemes of painting pottery - white on red, black and red
on white, and black on buff (P. Arnold 1993: 100). The type of motifs and the colour of the
painted decoration is strictly connected with particular vessel shapes and therefore also
symbolised specific functions and their social and economic associations. For example, black
on white decoration is always composed of geometric motifs, and is restricted to small globular
jars for maize beer. Furthermore Quinua pottery shows notable differences with respect to clay
paste and fabric. The Quinua potters use two paste types to make their pottery. The first is
untempered and used for the manufacture of undecorated pottery, while the second tempered
type is reserved for decorated pottery. Quinua potters have a repertoire of about forty different
vessel shapes, which fall into the three general categories of utilitarian, prestige and ceremonial
purposes.
Arnold compared the pottery designs of the Quinua potters with other communities in the
valley to assess whether certain styles were specific to particular social units. The potters from.
the nearby region of Santa Ana manufactured their pots in exactly the same way as the Quinua
potters but those from the community of Ticllas remained undecorated and distinct from the
pottery made in Quinua. Pots made by the community of Parnpay were mainly decorated
through plastic techniques. The pottery made in the Huayhuas region formed a completely
different repertoire to that of the Quinua types, with a prevalence of pitchers, basins and basket-
shaped pots, while decoration was restricted to slips and incision. From the several
cornmunities analysed (Quinua, Santa Ana, Ticllas and Pampay), only the cooking vessels were
superficially similar. Although designs and decoration may be unique in the Quinua region, the
situation is more ambiguous when one compares the undecorated vessels from the different pot-
making communities. "The shape correlates of each producing community for these vessels are difficult, if not impossible, to identify" (P. Arnold 1993: 183).
71
Arnold thus had success in demonstrating that decorated pottery shapes and motifs between the
Quinua and other regions were markedly different and these differences may reflect distinctions
in ecological, economical, social and even ideological environments. However, he was less
successful in his study of the undecorated vessels in the various assemblages and could not
reach any significant conclusions about whether the different communities shared similar
traditions or were divergent. His study highlights the many complex factors that may affect
ceramic production. The environment is important since it imposed certain conditions upon pot
making, and meant that it could be undertaken only on a part-time seasonal basis as part of a household industry. It also demonstrated how certain features of the ceramic assemblage (in
this case drinking vessels and containers for holding and mixing liquids) emphasise important
socio-cultural functions within a particular pot-making community (in this context the
ceremonial or communal drinking of maize beer). Finally, it indicated that although the
decorated pottery of a region may be unique, with respect to both motif combinations and
decorative techniques, undecorated pottery may exhibit more widespread uniformity. This
analysis clearly highlights the problems that archaeologists might encounter when faced with
similar ceramic assemblages, and how they would attempt to draw regional pottery groups from
such a complicated pattern involving both ceramic similarities and differences.
3.9.3 Bushmen pottery of South Africa
Sampson's (1988) ethnographic study of Bushmen pottery in the Seacow (Zeekoe) valley in the
Orange River basin in the central South African plateau is a good example of demonstrating
how far we can stretch our assumptions that styles (in this case decorated pottery) and social
units correspond closely. His predominant aim was to question whether distinct pottery styles
accurately reflected socio-territorial or ethnic boundary definition, or whether some boundaries
were more permeable or bluffed than others, allowing a variety of styles to move across and between them.
His research concentrated on a large surface survey and sherd collection procedure. The sherds
collected belonged to three main periods of occupation (Wilton, Khoi or herder and Smithfield), and the sherds were further sorted according to the categories of decorated,
diagnostic and undecorated. The main decoration types were stab and drag, cord impressed,
quill and comb stamp, produced using a wide range of tools, including bone points, reeds and
porcupine quills.
The surface survey pottery analysis detected four stylistic units that superficially appeared to be
associated with quite distinct boundaries (Sampson 1988: 171). However, a more detailed
investigation suggested that there was evidence of extensive overlap of some styles in the
72
central region of the study area. Interestingly, this area coincides with a large number of major
river channels.
Sampson's results showed that cord impressed pottery was restricted to the north-west of his
study region, while quill decoration was confined to the north-east. Small spatulate decoration
was more widely spread across the central and northern regions of study, while large spatulate
decoration was mainly limited to the south. Combed decoration had a wide distribution across
the whole of the northern region. Thus he was able to recognise three relatively discrete social
territories from pottery styles, but was unable to accurately identify his northern and central
territories where overlap of decoration styles blurred distinct boundaries.
A compilation and comparison of results obtained from a wide range of ethnographic surveys
may provide a few pointers to archaeologists for recognising how boundaries may be detected
in the archaeological record. From Sampson's research on the bushmen , it is possible to note
that not all boundaries are the same or as easy to identify. In this case distinct boundaries of
different pot-using groups were affected by natural geographical features that either enhanced
them (mountains) or blurred them (river channels). The analysis highlights the importance of
taking the physical environment into consideration when projecting past pot-using groups on to
distribution maps, and the need to appreciate the importance of porosity and communication
when defining socio-cultural territories from pottery distributions.
3.10 Conclusions
The summary of current ceramic theory and methodology illustrates that analysing domestic
ceramic assemblages is never straightforward. Previous research on Later Bronze Age
domestic assemblages of western Iberian have rarely taken any of the factors listed discussed
above into consideration. In particular, the ethnographic case studies have clearly indicated
that shapes, styles and decoration may vary from site to site or region to region for a number of
reasons. Such variation need not always result from ethnic or "cultural" distinctions, but
factors such as exchange, interaction and function must be taken into consideration.
3.11 Analysis of western Iberian Ceramic Assemblages: Quantification
The theoretical and methodological considerations discussed above will now be adopted in a
attempt to study and interpret the quantified analyses of the twelve Later Bronze Age and Early
Iron Age settlement ceramic assemblages more objectively. Particular concern will be paid to
the technological and functional aspects of the pottery and the significance of pottery decoration. Although some of these sites were selected because of accessibility to the data,
several of them also provided detailed stratigraphic evidence, complemented by radiocarbon
73
dates, that could be employed to trace aspects of continuity and change throughout the ceramic
sequences.
3.11.1 Alto do Castelinho da Serra (Figures 3.1.1-3.1.26 and Figures 3.10.1-3.10.7)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Lapa do Furno culture) The settlement of Alto do Castelinho da Serra, Montemor-o-Novo, tvora, central Portugal, was discovered in 1984 by Dr. Vfrgilio Correia, and excavated after a detailed site survey, between
1990 and 1993 (Gibson et al. 1998). It is a small hilltop settlement, roughly trapezoidal in
shape (100 by 60m) and occupies the upper north-western edge of a prominent ridge, 385m,
a. s. l. (Figure 3.10.1.1) This ridge forms part of a series of high hills rising to the east of Montemor-o-Novo in the Alto Alentejo, and dominates the fertile plain of Almonsor to the
south. The settlement is fortified by a bivallate rampart with two possible entrances - one to the
south-east and the second homed intum. entrance to the north-west (Figures 3.1.10.1.2 and 3.10.2.1). Three trenches were opened - one through the centre of the settlement (Trench B)
and two (A and Q through the western inner rampart. Trench C provided evidence for at least
three re-buildings of the rubble and earth-work, the earliest of which may date to the Early Iron
Age (Gibson et al. 1998: 199). Unfortunately, time restraints dictated that it was not possible
to confirm whether the site was also fortified during the Later Bronze Age, and thus we must
refrain from calling this settlement a Late Bronze Age hillfort at present. Apart from the re- building of the ramparts, trench C also produced evidence of part of a rectangular stone foundation building (5.2 by 1.2m) of Iron Age date (Figure 3.10.4.2).
Trench B was excavated in 1990 and 1993 and was fully excavated to bedrock, with a
stratigraphic depth of 1.10m. Five main occupation horizons were identified from the
stratigraphic sequence, with those of (201)-(228) and (600)-(601) relating to two phases of Roman activity (Figure 3.1.29). A Later Iron Age horizon was represented by contexts (204),
(229), (230) and (701). Earlier Iron Age material was noted in contexts (231), (233), (235),
(624)-(640) and (702)-(704), while Transitional Late Bronze Age-Iron Age ceramics came from
(639), (642) and (705). A pure Later Bronze Age horizon was denoted by contexts (218),
(238)-(249) and (708)-(711). Structural evidence was identified only in the Roman and Early
Iron Age horizons, and in the latter, consisted of a linear wall structure, a possible circular post- hole built structure with mud-brick foundations and a large midden deposit (Figures 3.10.2.2
and 3.10.3.1-2).
Fabric analysis (Figures 3.1.1,3.1.2,3.1.5 and 3.1.21)
The analysis of fabrics led to some interesting conclusions (see Figure 3.1.1). Although certain fabrics were specific to either wheel or hand made pots, as would be expected, others were not. The fine grey ware or "cerdmica cinzentafina" fabrics (Fabrics 5,8 and 26) were restricted to
74
wheel thrown vessels as was the orange sandy ware (Fabric 25). In general Fabric 2 (an orange
micaceous medium fine fabric), and Fabrics 3,7 and 12 (fine calcite and mica fabrics) were
more frequently used for wheel thrown pots, although there were several exceptions to this rule.
Seven other fabrics (Fabrics 1,14,22,23,24,28 and 29) were only found in the earlier
contexts [(639) - (645) and (705)-(711)] (see Figures 1.1 and 1.5). These fabrics were always
used for the manufacture of hand made pottery and might be described as "Transitional Later
Bronze Age to Early Iron Age". They tended to be fired buff to medium brown in colour and
contained organic, calcite and large quartz inclusions. Pattern burnished decoration was found
in seven fabrics, but predominantly Fabric 27 (44.4%) and 1 (24.4%) (Figure 3.1.21). Thus, the
fact that nearly 70% of all pattern burnished sherds were restricted to two fabric types might
imply a deliberate selection of specific clay pastes for their manufacture, and possible craft
specialisation of this pottery tyIie.
The fabric analysis demonstrates that the introduction of the wheel does not appear to have had
a significant impact upon the procurement or processing of clay. Furthermore, since some clay
fabrics are manufactured both by hand and wheel, it appears that the potters using these
different techniques were sometimes using the same clay sources and tempering ingredients
(Figure 3.1.5). To conclude then, specific fabrics were not always reserved for specific
manufacturing processes, and changes in fabric types are not particularly sensitive to
chronology.
It might be assumed that inclusions added to the clay pastes should be sensitive to any
technological developments, since changes in firing or manufacture might also promote
modifications in fabrics and temper types. In general there is less temper in wheel made vessels
than in hand made ones in the Castelinho assemblage. This difference may simply reflect the
fact that the successful use of the wheel requires less abrasive finer clay pastes (see Figure
3.1.2). Wheel made vessels are predominantly tempered with fine sand and mica while hand
made pottery is more frequently made with quartz and calcite tempered clay pastes. The
amount of temper added to wheel made vessels lies mainly between 9% and 12%, while hand
made vessels tend to have inclusions that range between 15% and 22%. Thus in general, finer
and better levigated clay pastes tend to be found in wheel made vessels.
Vessel wall thickness (Figure 3.1.3 and 3.1.11)
The graphs (see Figure 3.1.3 and 3.1.11) demonstrate that hand made vessels tend to have
slightly thicker walls than wheel made pots. Wheel made vessels range from 3 to 13MM in wall
thickness, with over 80% falling within the limits of 5 to lOrnm, while hand made vessels show
a wider range from 4 to 18mm, with over 70% between 7 and 12mm. These results appear to
75
confirm the fact that finer walled vessels can be made on the fast wheel, but some surprisingly fine vessels were also made by hand. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the manufacturing process is the only factor that affects the wall thickness, since function (e. g. storage or serving) will
obviously play an important part.
Introduction offast wheel technology (Figure 3.1.4)
One important transition that the analysis of the Castelinho assemblage could assess was the
introduction and speed of uptake of the wheel in pottery manufacture (Figure 3.1.4). The
earliest wheel made pottery appears in context (705) (2 examples) and the contemporary
context of (639) (6 examples). Together these examples account for 9.8% of the pottery from
these layers. Four of these sherds appear to be imports, since the clay is non-local. In the
layers immediately above - (704), (637) and (640) - wheel made vessels (mainly made in
common and probably local fabrics) rise sharply to 38.5%. It is impossible to calculate the
length of time that elapsed between these two horizons, but the presence of pattern burnished
and "a cepillo" pottery in the upper layer suggests that they were not significantly different in
date. Thus it would appear that the fast wheel was adopted suddenly, rapidly and successfully
into the ceramic making traditions of the Castelinho potters. After this initial rapid change, the
percentage of wheel made pottery appears to even out and never becomes the preferred method
of manufacture. In the upper Early Iron Age levels [(703), (634), (615) and (630)] wheel made
pottery constitutes 68% of the assemblage, and surprisingly this decreases to only 37.8% in the
layers above [(702), (701), (624), (235) and (23 1)]. In the uppermost contexts (229) and above,
wheel made vessels make up 46.4% of the assemblage. Thus it would appear that initially,
soon after introduction, the wheel becomes popular, but this later gives way back to more
traditional methods of hand potting. This is interesting since it contradicts the expected
outcome. Once a more efficient method of pottery manufacture had been introduced from the
Phoenician colonies, one might expect a rapid and complete changeover to this technique.
Since traditional techniques of pottery manufacture remain important, then perhaps other factors are at work. One conclusion that might be drawn from this evidence is that pottery
manufacture at Castelinho remained organised on both a household and specialist level. If it
had become more of a specialist skill after the introduction of the wheel, one might expect
wheel made pottery to dominate the assemblage. The large variety of pottery shapes and fabrics, along with the endurance of hand made types, suggests that although specialisation was in evidence, particularly with respect to the manufacture of the pattern burnished and imitation
fine grey wares, this was still very much in its embryonic stages.
76
Rim Diameters (Figure 3.1.6)
An interesting pattern emerged from the rims that were large enough to obtain diameters (See
Figure 3.1.6). Rim diameters ranged between 60 and 380mm, with the majority (63%) falling
between 100 and 260mm. Although no complete vessels were found, and few vessels were able
to be partially reconstructed, it appears that the assemblage at Castelinho was composed mainly
of small and medium sized vessels. There are three clusters of rim diameters, the most frequent
lying between 220-260mm, and with two other groups between 120-160mm and 290-320mm.
These cluster patterns may well be related to functional types, with small, medium and large
being indicative of serving, cooking and storage vessel types respectively.
Vessel types
Open to Closed vessel ratios (Figure 3.1.7,3.1.10 and 3.1.13)
Closed vessel types appear to dominate throughout the sequence at Castelinho, almost by the
ratio of 2: 1 (Figure 3.1.13). In the earliest horizons, open vessels increase slightly in their
representation, and change the ratio of closed to open to 3: 2. Thus we can see subtle differences in the typological or functional composition between the Early Iron Age and Late
Bronze Age at Castelinho, where jars and jugs later become more prevalent at the expense of bowls and cups. The proposed residue analysis and expansion of the palaeobotanical research from this site may confirm whether this was related to changes in the economy or diet of the
population.
All rims that could be reconstructed were allocated according to shape types (Figure 3.1.7).
Eighteen open and fourteen closed vessel shapes were identified. The most common open
vessel was the V-shaped bowl (B12 - 17% of all open forms) with either straight or slightly
everted rims . The second most frequent shape (B11 - 16.5%) was a high sharply carinated bowl with everted tapering lip, and this was followed by a middle carinated bowl (137-11%)
with straight or everted lip. Other common bowl types included high rounded carinated or
globular bowls and carinated cups. The predominant closed vessel was the flat or everted
rimmed bag shapedjar (J5-32%), with holemouth Q10-19%) and globular (J12-10%)jars being
the second and third most frequent types. Other closed vessels included short necked and pot bellied carinated jars.
In charting the vessel types throughout the assemblage, it is notable that continuity in certain
vessel types is evident from the earliest right through to the latest horizons. Rather than sudden
changes initiated by the introduction of the wheel or with the increasing Phoenician influence,
there appears instead to be gradual and subtle developments, with only some exceptions (Figure
3.1.7). Certain shapes - like the fine grey ware carinated. cup and the short necked everted
rimmed jar - first appear in Early Iron Age contexts [i. e. (704), (637), (640)] and only in wheel
77
made forms (Figure 3.10.6.1 and 3.10.7.1). Other vessels - like the globular plain rimmed jar,
the high rounded carinated cup and hemispherical bowl - are restricted to the earliest contexts
without wheel made pottery (Figure 3.10.5.2). In general, however, the majority of vessel types
continue unchanged with only slight rim or body modifications throughout the sequence. This
can be noted with respect to bag shaped, globular and holemouth jars, and the V-shaped,
rounded and high carinated everted rimmed bowls. This is interesting since it indicates that
simple typological classification of vessel shapes on its own is not enough to be able to
distinguish clearly between vessel types that are indicative of different chronological phases.
Neither is technology by itself sufficient, since the sequence at Castelinho clearly indicates that
the hand made pottery tradition never completely dies out, even in Later Iron Age contexts. We
need to use other tools in our pottery analysis in order to produce more detailed and accurate
pottery sequences.
Surface Finish and decoration (Figures 3.1.8,11.9,11.10,33.15 and 3.1.17)
Certain types of vessels tend to be more frequently decorated than others, with bowls more
commonly decorated than jars (Figure 3.1.10). In the whole assemblage, 68% of open vessels
had some kind of surface finish or decoration compared with only 39% of closed vessels.
Smoothing was the most common surface treatment in all contexts, and the number of vessels
lacking surface finish altogether remained constant from earliest to latest levels (Figure 3.1.15).
The difference in surface finish between open and closed vessels may well be related to
functional considerations. Storage and cooking pots are more likely to be closed, coarse in
fabric, and lack surface finishes, although water jars may have been burnished to decrease
porosity. Open vessels, on the other hand, are more likely to have been for serving and
preparing food, and were probably on more communal display, hence decoration or good
surface finishes may have been more important. Certainly pattern burnished decoration
suggests that aesthetics were pertinent in pottery manufacture, since some ' of the very
complicated designs witnessed at Castelinho must have demanded both skill and considerable
time requirements.
Decoration and Vessel type (Figure 3.1.8 and 3.1.17)
There was no obvious relationship between decoration and vessel types, although some general
patterns could be observed. Slip and all-over burnishing was restricted to open forms, with two
exceptions (short-necked jar and pithos). Exterior pattern burnished decoration was also more
commonly applied to bowl forms, particularly medium carinated and hemispherical bowls, but
five globular and three bag-shaped jars were also decorated with this technique. Exterior and interior and interior only pattern burnished decoration and Carambolo decoration was restricted
to open vessel shapes, as was incised decoration, while "a cepillo" decoration was limited to jar
78
forms (Figure 3.1.17). Impressed decoration was only found on two jar types - handled jugs
and bag-shaped jars - and plastic decoration was rare and limited to the long-necked pot-bellied jar.
Decoration is con-imonly used as a sensitive chronological indicator of pottery assemblages, but
again there are important lessons to be learnt from Castelinho. Five main types of decoration
can be recognised in the pottery sequence (see Figure 3.1.9). These are impressed, incised,
plastic, "a cepillo" and pattern burnished decoration. Pattern burnished and "a cepillo" are
restricted to the earlier contexts, although this includes layers that have been assigned to both
Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age phases (Figure 3.10.5.2). These two decorative types are
only executed upon hand made vessels. Interestingly, the pattern burnished decorative motifs
occur not only on the exterior, but also on the interior vessel walls. This finding contradicts the
current view that internal pattern burnished decoration is restricted to south-western Spain, and
that a division can be made with respect to regional groups on this basis (e. g. L6pez Roa 1978;
Ferndndez Castro 1988; Femdndez Juardo 1988-1989). The interior burnished decoration is
more subtly executed than that on the exterior, and can only be recognised in good light
conditions. With the exception of two bag shaped jars, pattern burnished decoration on both
exterior and interior vessel walls is reserved for open hemispherical and high carinated bowls.
These types of vessels are more likely to have been on communal display; functioning in
feasting or banqueting contexts. Hence, it may be significant that all-over pattern burnished
decoration was predominantly restricted to open serving vessels, implying a link between
decoration, function and prestige.
Certain types of decoration or surface finish, including slip, polish and burnish, are well
represented in most contexts, from the earliest through to the latest layers. On the other hand,
impressed, plastic and rilled decoration is restricted to the later Iron Age levels, and always found under the rims or along the necks of large storage jars. The fact that no impressed
decorated pottery has been encountered in the Transitional or Late Bronze Age levels at Castelinho contrasts with other sites in the region such as Cor6a do Frade (Arnaud 1979) or Outeiro do Circo (Parreira 1975), where this was a decorative feature. This may be evidence for regional variation or local preference. Incised and "stab and drag" decoration, usually
restricted to the rim area, however, is common in the Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
levels at Castelinho, and this invites parallels with some of the pottery from sites in the Mondego basin and Beira Alta regions. Similar decorative motifs can be noted at the sites of Monte do Frade, Alegrios and Moreirinha (Vilaga 1995: Figures XCI, XCV1H, XL1 and CCXXI-CCXXHI), and from Cabego do Sdo Romdo (Senna-Martfnez 1995: Figure 14),
amongst others.
79
Clay Levigation and Firing technology (Figures 3.1.14,3.1.16 and 3.1.23)
The quality of clay levigation remained fairly constant throughout the sequence, although a
larger percentage of poorly levigated clay pastes are known from the Later Bronze Age and
Early Iron Age contexts (Figure 3.1.16). Thus, we can see a very gradual increase in the quality
of clay processing from the earliest to Late Iron Age and Roman horizons.
Changes in the firing conditions of the pottery can also be noted in the Castelinho sequence
(Figure 3.1.14). Poor quality vessels fired in uncontrolled conditions are particularly frequent
in the Later Bronze Age and some of the Early Iron Age horizons. The high percentage of
smoke clouded vessels in some of these contexts - reaching up to 26.5% in context (634) - may
indicate the use of open bonfires rather than more controlled kilns. In general the Later Bronze
Age pottery may be contrasted with that of the Iron Age and Roman periods through the change
from reduced and neutral to oxidised firing conditions over time. The majority of Iron Age
pottery (67%) was fired in oxidised conditions, and this preference changes markedly in the
early horizons. In fact there is a quite sharp change to neutral and reduced fired pottery in these
early layers. It is difficult to say whether new firing technology was introduced along with the
wheel, but it is possible that reduction was a better method of achieving the maximum effect of
pattern burnished pottery. Neutral and dark colours - such as buffs, browns and greys - allow
the clearer differentiation of matt and highly burnished vessel areas, and as pattern burnished
pottery declined in popularity, so perhaps did this method of firing. The analysis of the overall
assemblage (Figure 3.1.23) demonstrates that 70.5% (731 sherds) were well fired, although
most had some evidence of the "dark-core" effect in their vessel sections, implying short and
incomplete firings.
Pattern-burnished pottery study (Figures 3.1.18-3.1.21)
The vessel types that exhibited pattern-burnished decoration have already been mentioned
above, as have the fabric types. Pattern burnished vessels ranged between 160 and 31 Omm, but
concentrated between 210 and 260mm, suggesting that medium sized vessels were most
commonly decorated with pattern-burnished designs (Figure 3.1.18). Decoration was most
commonly applied to the exterior surface only (59.6%), but it is significant that in 39.2% of the
examples it was applied to both exterior and interior vessel surfaces, while in a further 4.3% it
was situated on interior surfaces only.
Summary
The analysis of the pottery assemblage from Trenches B and C was undertaken in order to elicit
as much information about the ceramic developments and traditions as possible. Attention was
paid not only to vessel shape and decoration, but also to specifics of fabric, changes in
manufacture and firing technology, vessel finish and clay levigation. One of the predominant
80
conclusions that could be drawn from studying the whole assemblage from the Roman and Late
Iron Age horizons through to the Transitional Late Bronze Age levels was the overwhelming
sense of continuity that could be witnessed with respect to pot making traditions. Despite the
technological introduction of the fast wheel in the Early Iron Age horizons, few significant
changes to the traditional pottery techniques were noted. Gradual developments rather than
sharp changes are highlighted in the Castelinho sequence, and this emphasises the difficulties
apparent in our attempts to produce precise typo-chronological ceramic frameworks.
The analysis of the pottery sequence at Castelinho has provided some important results that
may allow a re-appraisal of the traditional Later Bronze and Early Iron Age typo-chronological
frameworks in central Portugal. Emphasis lies upon continuity in traditions, even during
important transitions, and many of the changes noted were gradual and would not have been
recognised if only vessel shape, decoration and fabric type had been studied. This site would have been traditionally allocated to the "Lapo do Furno culture grouping" but the reality of such
a distinctive culture must be questioned, especially when pattern burnished pottery, upon which
this identification is based, only constituted 50 sherds out of over 2000 analysed. Furthermore
the analysis of the relationship between fabrics, vessel types, and decoration was able to
identify two possible specialist wares only - pattern burnished and ceramica cinzenta. This
highlights the possibility that the majority of vessels were manufactured on a "domestic",
perhaps intra-site, scale, and may reflect very localised pot-making traditions. If this is the case
then it questions the feasibility of creating larger cultural groupings from local pottery
production processes that may result in highly individual and incomparable assemblages.
The pottery developments witnessed at Castelinho have several important implications. Firstly,
the introduction of wheel made pottery and the increasing Phoenician influence in the Early
Iron Age did not have a momentous impact upon the pottery techniques at Castelinho, and local
traditions continued. Secondly, the traditional distinction between Later Bronze Age and Early
Iron Age may need to be re-evaluated. Some gradual developments may be noted, but certain
type fossils that are generally believed to be chronologically distinctive are not so clear cut. Although pattern burnished pottery does decrease in the Early Iron Age levels at Castelinho, it
does not completely disappear, and is found in contexts in association with wheel made vessels (e. g. (702) and (703)). This situation suggests that the pattern burnished tradition may be
indicative of both Later Bronze Age, Transitional and Early Iron Age phases. If this is the case, then we need to re-assess the chronology of other settlements that have been dated to the Later
Bronze Age through the presence of the distinctive pattern burnished pottery. These sites,
which include Cerradinha (Tavares da Silva and Soares 1978), Outeiro do Circo (Parreira 1975), Castelo do Giraldo (Paqo 1961), and Cor6a do Frade (Arnaud 1979) appear to represent
81
purely Later Bronze Age occupation. If pattern burnished pottery might also be indicative of
the Early Iron Age, then perhaps the sudden abandonment of many hilltop sites at the end of the
Later Bronze Age, and the hiatus that ensues, might be more apparent than real. This discovery
certainly offers promising re-evaluations for the future.
3.11.2 Alegrios (Figures 3.2.1-3.2.12 and Figures 3.11.1-3.11.7)
(No Later Bronze Age culture grouping as yet identifled for this region)
The settlement of Alegrios, Idanha-a-Nova, Beira Interior, was accidentallY discovered in 1985,
and interpreted as a possible prehistoric rock-shelter site. It is located on a hill 598m a. s. l. to
the south of the central Cordilheira mountains, in the eastern part of the region of Castelo
Branco. Prospections between 1986 and 1990 revealed evidence of Later Bronze Age
occupation situated on two small platform structures that extended east from the rock-shelter.
Three trenches were opened at this site - one within the cave (980) and two through the
centres of the two open air platforms (500 and 400) (Figure 3.11.1). Several structural
features were identified, and these included five possible circular post-hole structures (ca. 5m
in diameter with three on one platform and two on the other), four storage or midden pits, and five fire installations in the rock shelter and a further four in the open area. Large amounts of
stone rubble and several post-holes were uncovered in the rock-shelter, and may be the remains
of at least one stone-walled rectangular structure (Figure 3.2.47) (Figure 3.11.2.2).
Vilaga, although recognising three different horizons in both the rock shelter and open
platforms, argued that the settlement represented a single phase of occupation dating to the end
of the Bronze Age (1995: 168-169). The radiocarbon dates retrieved from the different
horizons, however, attest to a long sequence of occupation throughout the Bronze Age, and may
provide evidence to reinterpret the site as one that was intermittently occupied from ca. 2000-
700 cal. BC. A maximum depth of 90cm of deposits was excavated in the rock-shelter area,
while the open platforms revealed between 60 and I 10cm of stratigraphy. The stratigraphy was
numbered as follows. Horizons 1.1,1.2 and 1.3 represent horizons from the rock shelter
excavations, while 9.1,9.2 and 9.3 refer to the three horizons from the open platform trenches,
from latest to earliest levels respectively. All the radiocarbon dates were taken from charcoal,
either from the hearths or post-holes, and they provided the date ranges below. They may
support the idea that Alegrios was occupied over a long period of time, although not necessarily
on a permanent basis.
82
Rock-shelter
( 1.3) earliest horizon: GrN- 16840- 1105t35BC 1405-1206 (2 signia) cal. BC
( 1.2) middle horizon: UGRA-305: 1700t8OBC 2280-1781 ý2 ýignia) cal. BC
(1.2) ICEN-606: 3220t6O BP: 1270±60 BC=1609-1340 (2 sigina) cal. BC
( 1.1) latest horizon: UGRA-306: 530t9OBC = 820-390 (2 signia) cal. BC
Open platform area
(9.3) carlicst horizon: ICFN-663: 5-100±45BI)= 3250±-45B(' (not calibrated because said to he
contaminated).
(9.2): middle horizon: ICEN- 166: 1430±45BC ý 1885-1565 (1 sigma) cal. BC
Fabric analysis (Figures 3.2.1-3.2.3)
The fabric analysis of Alegrios was only undertaken macroscopically and the results suggested
that the clay pastes were relatively homogenous throughout all horizons, with quartz tempered C-
fabrics predominating. Over 90'/( of vessels were tempered with quartz in all horizons with the
exception of the lowest level of the open air trench, where micaceous tempered flibrics reached
48% and quartz tempered pastes decreased to 52% (Figure 3.2.1).
Comparison ofthe temper or inclusion size of vessel fabrics between the open and rock shelter
areas of Alegrios produced an interesting pattern. In the rock shelter area, coarse ware vessels
predominated, \vIth over 50% of all pastes having large inclusions. In the open area, however,
medium sized inclusions were more frequent (mean of' over 55t'/e), and coarse tempered clay
pastes ranged from 30-49%. No statistically significant pattern in changes from coarse to fine
wares from the earliest to latest levels could be detected, although it does appear that medium
and fine tempered vessels become slightly more common in the later levels (Figures 3.2.2 and
3.2.3).
Rim Diameters (Figures 3.2.4 and 3.2.5)
The run diameters that could he reconstructed ranged from 80 to 470nini, with the majority
falling between 120 and 260rnni. It would appear that niost of the vessels were small and
inechurn sized, and the graphs showed no obvious clusters, except for small peaks between 140
and 170nim, 180-200nim, 220-240mm and at 300min. These clusters might relate to different
functional categories, and possibly to small serving, medium cooking and large storage vessels.
Surface treatment (Figure 3.2.7)
Surface treatment tended to be limited to a basic smoothing of vessel walis (9017( in all contexts
except for the lowest levels of' the rock shelter area where this was reduced to 76%).
Burnishing and polishing were the next most common surface treatments (ca. 9%), although all-
over burnished vessels were better represented in the open area of the site, while polished
vessels were restricted to the rock shelter area. About 34% of the vessels from the earlier
levels of the rock shelter area received no surface treatment, and these were confined to coarse
jar forms. "A cepillo" finish was only found in the two earlier horizons of the rock shelter and
increased suddenly from 0.5% to 9% between the earlier and later horizons of the open area.
Decoration (Figures 3.2.6,3.2.8 and 3.2.10)
Figure 3.2.6 clearly demonstrates that pottery decoration was rare throughout the assemblage of
Alegrios, and the ratio of undecorated to decorated vessels - 19: 1 - remains constant throughout
the sequence and from the different areas excavated. However, the types of decoration show
some important changes (Figure 3.2.8). Incised decoration is the most common type
throughout the whole sequence and in both areas excavated and ranges between 40 and 60% of
the total. Plastic decoration is more prevalent in the open area trench, and ranges from 41% to
12% to 19% from the earliest to latest horizons respectively, and only appears in the earliest
horizon of the rock shelter (6%) (Figure 3.11.3.3 and 3.11.5.3). Pattern burnished decoration is
present in all of the levels from both areas and ranges from 4-44%, and is slightly more
frequent from the rock-shelter area (Figure 3.11.3.2 and 1.5.1-2). Impressed and Boquique
decoration are also represented in all of the levels, with the exception of the lowest horizon of
the open air trench, and range between 3% and 17% with a mean of 7.4% for impressed and
1.3% for Boquique (Figure 3.11.4.3.4 and 7). Finally, post fired Bai6es decoration shows an
interesting pattern. It is present only in the latest horizons of both areas, suggesting that it may
be chronologically sensitive and forms between 2% and I I% of all decoration types in these
levels (Figure 3.11.3.1.1 and 3.11.4.1.3).
The decorative techniques were compared with positioning on the vessel surface, where the
evidence was available (Figure 3.2.10). Impressed and Bai6es decorative motifs were always
confined to the rim area of the vessel, while plastic decoration was restricted to the vessel body.
Incised decoration was more frequently applied to the rim area, but one example was found
below the carination of a bowl. Boquique decoration was more commonly restricted to the
vessel body, but pattern burnished decoration was applied equally to both vessel rims and all
over the external surface of the vessel body.
The relationship of decoration to vessel type showed specific arrangements (Figures 3.2.11,
3.11.5.1.1 and 3.11.5.2.1-4). Pattern burnished decoration was restricted to high carinated
bowls (Figure 3.11.7), while Bai6es decoration was only found on tronconical vessels.
Impressed, incised and plastic decoration were found predominantly on large pithoi or everted
84
rimmed pot-bellied jars (Figures 3.11.3.4.1 and 3.11.5.3), although two examples of incised
decoration were also noted on carinated bowls, and one hemispherical bowl was decorated with impressed motifs.
Vessel types (Figures 3.2.9 and 3.2.12)
Closed vessels outnumber open vessels in all horizons except the lowest level of the rock
shelter, where open vessels constitute 56% of the assemblage (Figure 3.2.12). In all other
levels, jars and closed globular and pot-bellied pots form between 60% and 74% of vessel
compositions, emphasising storage and cooking functions over serving and food preparation.
This representation however may be affected by differential breakage of different vessel types,
since experimental and ethnoarchaeological research has demonstrated that cooking vessels
tend to have a much shorter use-life than serving and storage vessels (e. g. Welboum 1984). A
breakdown of reconstructible vessel types (Figure 3.2.9 and Figure 3.11.6) demonstrates that
everted rimmed pot-bellied jars dominates the overall assemblage in all contexts, ranging
between 17% and 65% except 9.2, where this vessel does not appear at all (Figure 3.11.5.1).
Instead, carinated globular jars dominate this horizon forming 67% of all forms, and these are
only recognised in one other horizon - 1.2 - where they form only 4.2% of the vessel types
(Figures 3.11.3.4.4,3.11.5.2.34 and 3.11.4.2.6). The representation of different vessel types in
the horizons may indicate functional and chronological distinctions, although it would appear
that certain vessel types are not chronologically sensitive. The other common vessel type is the
high carinated bowl which appears in all horizons in roughly equal percentages, although it is
better represented in the rock shelter area than the open area (mean of 47% as opposed to 24%)
(Figure 3.11.6, type 1). Hemispherical bowls are more common in the upper horizons of both
areas and form roughly I I% of vessels from these levels, while tronconical vessels are present
only in the open area (ca. 6.5%) (Figure 3.11.3.3.6). Other vessel types are more poorly
represented and these include V-shaped bowls (only known from the lowest horizons of both
areas) (Figure 3.11.6, types 3 and 11), short-necked globular jars (only from upper horizon of
rock shelter) (Figure 3.11.6, type 10), flagons, small carinated cups and bag-shaped jars.
Summary
The quantitative analysis of the assemblage demonstrated that some vessel shapes, fabrics and decoration may be temporally sensitive. Hemispherical bowls and Bai6es-Santa Luzia
decoration appear to be late developments in the Alegrios sequence (after ca. 1300 cal. BQ.
However, the contrast between the coarse wares and pattern burnished decorated bowls in the
rock shelter and finer wares and plastic decorated tronconical jars in the open site suggests that factors other than chronology may also be responsible for these modifications. There is a
85
possibility of functional differentiation between the two areas. Unfortunately, the limited
number of uncontaminated radiocarbon dates for the sequence means that it is difficult to be
precise about ceramic modifications over time, but it must be noted that decoration, although
rare in all levels, shows little variation from earliest to latest levels, with the exception of the
incised Bai6es style.
3.11.3 Castelejo (Figures 3.2.13 to 3.2.2.23 and 3.12.1-3.12.6)
(No Later Bronze Age culture grouping as yet identified for this region) The Later Bronze Age settlement of Castelejo, Sortelha, in Sabugal, was found by Vilaga in 1987. It is situated on a high hilltop (855m a. s. 1) that forms part of the Guarda-Sabugal
mountain range, and dominates the surrounding plains. The only accessible route to this hill
platform settlement is from the south-east, and the site is located in a naturally defensive
position. Evidence for prehistoric n-dning activity of tin and copper veins was discovered only
a few hundred metres south-east and north-west of the hill settlement respectively (Vilaqa
1995: 91-92 and Figure VIH) (Figure 3.12.1).
The 1987 excavations at this settlement were initially limited to two small sondages (one l6mý
and one l0mý) that cut through the two small circular platforms that were identified (one 25 by
24m and the other 20 by 15m) (Figure 3.12.1). In 1988, the trench through the larger platform
was extended to 76m', with the aim of verifying the internal organisation of the settlement
(Vilaqa 1993a, 1995: 92-96) (Figure 3.12.1.2). Unfortunately no structural evidence was
uncovered in either of the trenches (Figure 3.12.2.1), but Vilaga identified three separate
occupation horizons in the 65cm of stratigraphy excavated, with "Y being the earliest and "I"
the latest (Vilaga 1995: Figures XIII-XV) (Figure 3.12.2.2). Unfortunately the radiocarbon dates taken from the three separate horizons (ICEN-474, ICEN-475 and ICEN-605) were discarded as a result of contamination, since they ranged between 8430 and 6180 BP. A total
of 1360 sherds of pottery were retrieved during the three seasons of excavations at this site, but
the majority consisted of small undiagnostic sherds.
Fabric Analysis (Figures 3. Z]3-3.2.14)
The fabric analysis of Castelejo demonstrated that clay pastes were homogenous and similar to
those of Alegrios, with quartz tempered pastes predominating by ca. 95% and mica pastes only
showing a slight increase from 4-7% in phase 2 (Figure 3.2.13). Medium and coarse wares
predominated in all phases, although medium coarse fabrics varied from 49-30-40% from
phases 3-1 (earliest to latest), while coarse fabrics ranged from 47-69-52% in the sequence. Fine ware fabrics show a slight increase from 4% to 8% from the earliest to latest levels (Figure 3.2.14).
86
Rim and Base Diameters (Figures 3.2.15 and 3.2.16)
The measurements of reconstructible rim diameters from Castelejo showed that they ranged from 65 to 360mm, with the majority clustering between 80 and 120mm. These diameters
suggest that most vessels were small or medium sized vessels, and no large mouthed vessels
were noted. Base diameters ranged from 45 to 170mm, and the main cluster lay between 90
and 140mm. Some quite large based vessels were noted forming a small concentration between
120 and 150mm. The rim and base diameter measurements are in keeping with the idea of a
predominantly closed vessel assemblage.
Surface Treatment (Figure 3.2.20)
The majority of vessels in all of the phases at Castelejo received only a slight smoothing on
their external surfaces. In phase 2, this surface treatment decreased from 91% to 72%, while a
lack of surface finish increased from 0% to 22%. All over burnishing was rare in all phases,
but decreased from 7% to 1% between the earlier and later levels, while polished surfaces
increased conversely in number from phases 3 to I from 0% to 17%. In phases I and 3, "a
cepillo" only constituted 4% of all vessel finishes, but this dramatically rose to 19% in phase 2.
Vessel Decoration (Figures 3.2.19,3.2.21 and 3.2.23)
Vessel decoration was poorly represented in all phases, never accounting for more than 9% of
all sherds analysed, but showed a slight increase of 4% in phase 2, only to decrease again in
phase I (Figure 3.2.21). Incised decoration was the most common type of decoration in all
phases and this rose from 50% to 85% between phases 3 and I (Figures 3.2.23 and 3.12.3.4.1-
2). Conversely, plastic decoration decreased from earlier to later phases from 25% to 5%, and
exterior and interior pattern burnished decoration was only evident in phase 3 (Figure
3.12.3.1.2) where it constituted 25%. The changing frequencies in decoration may indicate
chronological sensitivity, with plastic decoration being earlier than incision, but might also
relate to contextual or functional differences. Exterior pattern burnished decoration only was
only found in phases 2 and 1, reaching 18% and 11% respectively. Incised and pattern burnished decoration was found on rims, necks and bodies of vessels, while plastic decoration
was restricted to the rims and bodies (Figures 3.2.19 and 3.12.6).
Vessel types (Figure 3.2-22)
Few vessel shapes could be accurately reconstructed and thus it is difficult to offer a detailed
typo-chronological overview of vessel shapes. Four main vessel types were noted - high
carinated bowls (most common in phase 1) (Figure 3.12.5, type 1); bag-shaped jars (only noted in very low numbers in phase 3) (Figure 3.12.5, type 2); hemispherical bowls (occurring fairly
uniformly in all phases) (Figure 3.12.5, type 3) and short necked globular and everted rimmed jars (with 36 examples noted in phase 3) (Figure 3.12.5, type 11). At Castelejo, closed vessels
87 k6-
were better re pre sented in the earl I est horizon (a rat Io of 4: 1) and this changed to I: I in phase
2, and 2: 1 in favour of open vessels in phase 1.
Summary
Thc analysis demonstrated that fabrics and surface finish may be more chronologically
sensitive than ýhape or decoration. Fine fabrics increased from earliest to latest levels, as did
polished and "a cepillo" surface finishes. Vessel decoration was rare, but plastic decoration
would appear to be an earlier technique, while pattern burnish i-notit's were later developments.
It would be misleading to read too much out of the transition frorn a predoill i flail ce of. jars to
bowl types between later and earlier levels on the basis of the saiiall number of' reconstructible
forms. but it may imply changes in diet or food preparation.
3.11.4 Monte do Frade (Figures 3.2.24-3.2.34 and 3.13.1-3.13.6)
(No Later Bronze Age culture grouping as yet identified for this region)
The large settlement of Monte do Frade (800 by 540m), Penrnacor, in Castelo Branco, was
excavated by Vilaýa between 1990 and 1991 (Vilaqa 1995: 125-128). It is situated on the
highest hilltop (576m a. s. 1) of the Penmacor range, ad . lacent to the river Ponsul and the silver
mines of Pinheiro (Figure 3.13.1.1). The hilltop settlement is strategically placed for natural defence and commanding views over Malcata, Penniacor and Gata. An area of' 1321,12 Was
opened through four separate trenches, and these revealed between 80 and 125cm of
stratigraphy that were divided into four horizons ( 1.1=1atest, 1.4=carliest) (Figures 3.13.1.2 and 3.13.2). Occupation deposits lay directly on top ofa rocky outcrop, and few structural features
were identified during the two seasons of excavation. Large arnounts Of rough stone rubble
were retrieved which may relate to remains of coarse stone walls, and four fire-installations
were excavated (Figure 3.13.3.1 ). Two possible Circular post-hole structures were recognised
(Figure 3.13.3.2), but their remains are ephemeral. Vilaýa ( 1995: 125) concluded that the
stratigraphy from this elliptical site represented two separate phases of' settlement that were
separated by over 1500 years. Only tile later phases are studied here, and the absolute scrics of' dates for these horizons suggest at least three occupation levels between 1250 and 800 cal. BC.
We cannot confirm whether this site Was Continuously or intermittently occupied (Figure
3.13.3.3). The radiocarbon dates for the successive horizons are as follows:
Horizon 1.4 ICEN-969: 950t5OBC 1263-932 (2 signia) cal. BC.
I forizon 1.3: 1CF, N-971: 900t45 BC 1127-900 (2 sigma) cal. BC.
I lorlzon 1.3: GrN- 19660: 855±15BC = 995-904 (2 signia) cal. BC.
I lorl/on 1.2: ICEN-970: 830± 1 OOBC = 1251-792 (2 , igma) cal. BC.
I lorizon 1.2: ICEN-967: 1560±50BC = 1946-1685 (2 signia) cal. BC.
The last date suggests that an Earlier Bronze Age horizon was also in evidence at this site, and
since the date comes from a post-hole, it may represent a residual structure from an earlier
horizon that was undetected, owing to Later Bronze Age occupation disturbance.
Fabric Analysis (Figures 3.2.24-3.2.26)
The fabric analysis of Monte do Frade suggested that the clay composition was more
heterogeneous than Alegrios or Castelejo (Figure 3.2.24). Although quartz tempered fabrics
predominated (between 80% and 100%), micaceous, sand and quartz-sand tempered fabrics
were also noted. These clay pastes constituted between 6% and 20% in the middle two
horizons (horizons 1.2 and 1.3) and were poorly represented in the earliest and latest horizons.
Again medium coarse and coarse wares dominated, and fine wares ranged only between 4%
and 18% (the highest number being noted in phase 1.3 and this may relate to the sand-tempered
fabrics present). Figure 3.2.26 indicates that medium coarse wares decrea ' sed from latest to
earliest horizons (67 to 40%), while coarse wares increased during this time (from 26 to 52%).
Rim Diameters (Figures 3.2.25 and 3.2.28)
The measurements of reconstructible rim diameters from Monte do Frade ranged between 60
and 460mm, with the majority falling between 120 and 300mm. No obvious patterns could be
detected, but it would appear that small, medium and large mouthed vessels are equally
represented in this assemblage. The plotting of rim diameters by contexts shows that larger rim diameters were equally common in all phases, while smaller rim diameters (perhaps relating to
small jars or cups) were restricted to the two later phases (Figure 3.2.28).
Surface Treatment (Figure 3.2.30)
Again, the most common surface treatment on vessels from Monte do Frade was simply
smoothing, and this increased gradually by 9% from the latest to earliest horizons (from 71% to
80%). In contrast, all-over polishing decreased during these levels from I I% to I%. All-over
burnishing was more common in phases 1.1 and 1.4, but never exceeded 10%, while "a cepillo"
surface finish increased from 4% to 15% between phases 1.4 and 1.2, before sharply declining
to 4% again in phase 1.1.
Vessel Decoration (Figures 3.2.2 7,3.2.29 and 3.2.32)
Vessel decoration was also rare throughout the phases of Monte do Frade, but increased
slightly from 2 to 6% between phases 1.4 and 1.2, before falling to only 1% in phase 1.1
(Figure 3.2.27). Incised and pattern burnished decoration were the most common types
(Figures 3.13.4.1.8 and 3.13.4.2.3), but only impressed decoration was represented in all of the
phases (Figure 3.2.29) (Figure 3.13.4.4.2). Incised and pattern burnished decoration did not
89
appear in the latest phase, while plastic decoration was most common in this horizon. With the
exception of plastic motifs, which were only positioned on the necks of large jars, the other decorative techniques showed no definite relationship between vessel area and type of decoration (Figure 3.2.32), although incised patterns were predominantly restricted to the rim
area of vessels.
Vessel type (Figures 3.2.31,3.2.33a and b)
A larger number of vessels could be reconstructed from Monte do Frade and may provide a
more accurate reflection of typo-chronological patterns between the latest and earliest horizons.
The two most common vessel shapes were the medium or high carinated bowl (Figure 3.13.6,
type I)and the everted rimmed bag-shaped jar (Figure 3.13.6, type 2) (Figure 3.2.32). Both
types were well represented in phases 1.1 to 1.3 (ranging from 30 to 82 examples), but no bag-
shaped jars were noted in phase 1.4, while carinated bowls decreased to only 15 known vessels.
This reduction may be related to the smaller number of diagnostic pot sherds that came from
this horizon. Other vessel types that were noted included the small carinated cup with looped
handles (present in the two earliest phases) (Figure 3.13.6, types 3 and 4); the small short-
necked globular jar (ranging from 2 to 12 examples from earliest to latest phases) (Figure
3.13.6, type 13); the necked pot-bellied jar (present only in phase 1.2) (Figure 3.13.6, type 10);
the ovoid bowl (3 and 4 examples from phases 1.2 and 1.3 respectively); the hemispherical and
tronconical bowls (phase 1.3 only) (Figure 3.13.6, types 4 and 5) and the cheese strainer (only 3
examples from phase 1.2). With the two most common vessel types removed, it is easier to see
the representation of other vessels in the assemblage (Figure 3.2.33a). Only four other vessel
shapes have five or more examples noted - pot-bellied jars, carinated cups, ovoid bowls and
globular jars - and these unfortunately do not allow a detailed assessment of the overall
typology. It would appear therefore that the overall assemblage is fairly homogenous, with bag-shaped jars and medium and high carinated bowls being by far the most common types.
Vessel type and Decoration (Figure 3.2.34)
A comparison of vessel and decoration types shows some interesting patterns (Figure 3.2.34).
Practically all of the pot-bellied jars were decorated, and this was only with plastic motifs. Impressed decoration was restricted to globular jars and small ovoid bowls and cups, while incised decoration was found only on bag-shaped jars and hemispherical bowls. Pattern
burnished decoration was applied to carinated bowls, pot-bellied and bag-shaped jars, and
plastic decoration was restricted to closed jar forms. This fact may indicate that plastic motifs
served functional rather than aesthetic purposed, providing better grip for the handling of large
slippy water or cooking vessels (Figures 3.13.4 and 3.13.5).
90
Summary
The shape repertoire of Monte do Frade was fairly homogenous in all levels, with bag shaped jars and carinated bowls dominating the assemblage. Decoration was rare and fluctuated from
phase to phase, showing little correlation with chronology. Interestingly, plastic decoration
increased in the later levels, while pattern burnished decreased during this time; contrasting
with the decorative tradition of Castelejo, where the reverse was true. This may act as a
warning to archaeologists who emphasise pottery decoration as a sensitive and accurate
chronological tool. The radiocarbon dates indicate that Monte do Frade and Castelejo were
roughly contemporary settlements, and Monte do Frade is situated l0krn to the south of Castelejo. Thus perhaps decoration is more indicative of functional variation than chronology
or regional affiliation. This is an important observation in our reassessment of pottery
sequences and "cultural" groups.
3.11.5 Moreirinha (Figures 3.2.36-3.2.46 and 3.14.1-3.14.7)
(No Later Bronze Age culture grouping as yet idcntified for this region) The large hill settlement of Moreirinha, Monsanto, in Castelo Branco was excavated between
1989 and 1992 by Vilaga. It is located on the upper terrace of a hill, 679m a. s. 1, that is
naturally well defended and dominates the surrouding plains of Malcata, and the Ponsul and Erjes rivers. A survey revealed that the site was roughly 2000 by 800m in size (Figure
3.14.1.1). Seven small one by one metre sondages were excavated across the entire length of the settlement, and one large trench (I 80rn2) was placed roughly in the centre of the settlement (Figure 3.14.1.2). The trench revealed between 20 and 56cm of stratigraphy (Figures 3.14.2.2)
and Vilaga (1995: 213-216) identified four different soil horizons (1.4 being the earliest and 1.1
the latest), although she attributed all occupation to a single phase in the Later Bronze Age
(ibid: 216). The trench provided evidence of several structural features including a roughly faced rubble wall in horizon 1.2 oriented NNE-SSW across the trench that was at least 21m long and 5m wide (Figure 3.14.2.1): ' Beneath this wall, at the base of horizon 1.2 and top of horizon 1.3 five circular structures with stone foundations and mud-brick superstructures (ca. 4-
6m in diameter with one 9m in diameter) were detected. Each had clay beaten floors and
central fire installations. These structures and the general occupation layers with which they
were associated were rich in artefacts, and 24 saddle quems, 29 flint and quartz blades, 82 bronze objects (including bracelets, buttons, fibulae and belt buckles), and 4674 sherds of
pottery were found during the excavations. Unfortunately, most of the pottery consisted of
small undiagnostic sherds.
91
Fhe radiocarbon dates suggest that the settlement may have been occupied earlicr and longer
than originally thought. These dates were all taken from carbon from hearths or post-holes and
are as follows:
.4 (earliest horzion): ICEN-836: 3420±50 BC (uncalibrated - thought to be containinated) ZI
. 3: (middle lower horizon): ICEN-834: 990±45 BC = 1266-998 (2 sigina) cal. BC.
1.3: GrN- 19659: 835±15 BC = 977-857 (2 sigina) cal. BC.
1,2: (middle upper horizon): ICEN-835: 960±45BC = 1257-931 (2 signia) cal. BC.
1.2: OxA-4085: 830±70BC' = 1117-805 (2 signia) cal. BC
Fahric A nalysis (Figures 3.2.36-3.2.38)
The majority (89-100%) of the fabric pastes frorn Moreirmha were tempered with quartz, again
supporting the idea that clay pastes were relatively hornogenous throughout the assemblage
(Figure 3.2.36). In the upper two phases, however, there is an introduction of organic and
inicaceous tempered clay pastes (forming roughly 4 and 6-7'/'(, of the fabric compositions
respectively). Temper size remained relatively constant throughout the assemblage. and I
inedium and large sized inclusions dominated the clay pastes (Figure 3.2.37). Coarse wares
predominated in the earlier horizons (67-70%), and these decreased to around 40'/c in the later
horizons while mediurn coarse wares increased from ca. 27% to 50% (Figure 3.2.38). Fine
,, vares showed a slight increase from the earlier to later horizons (from ca. 3-8-10%).
Rim Diameters (Figsures 3.2.39 atid 3.2.40)
The reconstructible run diameters showed a range between 80 and 440mm, with the majority
falling hetween 130 and 320rinn. Two cluster patters Could he detected - the first between 130
and 160mm and the second between 240-320nim, and may correspond with small and large
sized vessels. Charting the rim diameters by phase (Figure 3.2.40) demonstrates that large
mouthed vessels are equally represented in all phases, while small mouthed vessels are almost
completely restricted to the two later phases ( 1.1 and 1.2). The change in vessel rim diameters
over time may relate to functional variations and use of pot types,
Suýface treatment (Figure 3.2.41)
A simple mnoothing I's, again the predominant surl'ace I'inisli of' all vessel types throughout the
sequence at Moren-Inha, and accounts for around 62-79c/, (- of* all exterior wall treatment. All-
over burnishing appears to decline from earlier to later horizons (from 121/c to 4%) while
polishing, absent from the earliest horizon, varies froin 13% to 9, /(, between phases 1.3 and 1.1.
'rhe use of "a cepillo" finish is negligible and only occurs in the later phases (4-5cl( ), and the lack ol'any surface finish is more common in the earlier two phases (8-12c/c).
khý k, )
Vessel Decoration (Figures 3. Z42,3. Z44,3. Z45 and 3. Z46)
There is a complete absence of vessel decoration in the earliest horizon, and this increases to
only 10% in phase 1.3. Thereafter, vessel decoration declines to 8% and then 5% of the
assemblage in phases 1.2 and 1.1 (Figure 3.2.42). The variety of decorative techniques
increases from the earlier to later horizons (Figure 3.2.44), with two types in phase 1.3 and five
different techniques being employed in phase 1.1 (Figures 3.14.3.2.3 and 3.14.3.4.1).
Impressed decoration is more common in the earlier phases, showing a marked decrease of over
40% between phases 1.3 and 1.1 (Figure 3.14.5.1-3). Incised and plastic motifs on the other hand, are confined to vessels in the later two horizons, accounting for between 28% and 40%
and 4% and 5% respectively of the decoration in 1.2 and I. I. External pattern burnishing is the
most frequent form of decoration in all of the phases, and shows little variation throughout the
sequence, ranging from 45% to 55% of the decorative repertoire (Figures 3.14.3.1,3.14.2 and
4,3.14.5.4 and 3.14.7).
Incised decoration is mainly confined to the rim area of the vessels (35 examples), although 2
sherds had body incised motifs (Figure 3.2.46). Plastic and impressed decoration was confined
to the rim and neck area of the vessels, while painted decoration was applied to both rim and
body areas of bowls. Pattern burnished decoration was applied to all parts of the vessel,
although no examples of basal pattern burnish was identified. Where vessel reconstruction was
possible, it appeared that decoration was confined to four main vessel types (Figure 3.2.45).
Impressed and plastic decoration was applied only to bag shaped everted rimmed jars, while
painted decoration was exclusive to medium carinated small fine ware bowls. Incised and
pattern burnished decoration corresponded with both closed and open vessel types, although
incised decoration occurred more frequently on bag-shaped jars than carinated bowls (58 as
opposed to 10 examples), while pattern burnished motifs were predominantly associated with
medium and high carinated and rounded bowls (71 as opposed to only 36 examples of bag-
shaped jars) (Figures 3.14.3-5).
Vessel type (Figure 3.2.43)
Although eleven vessel shapes were identified, only two (medium/ high carinated bowls and bag shaped jars) were present in any significant number (Figure 3.14.6, types 1,2,9 and 11).
They were concentrated in the upper two horizons where they constituted over 93% of the
respective assemblages, and jars were more frequent than carinated bowls (199 to 167 examples in total). The only other vessels that were present in any number included the simple round bowl (increased from 2 to 9 examples from the lower to upper levels) (Figure 3.14.6, type 3B
and Q; the hemispherical bowl (only noted in phase 1.2) (Figure 3.14.6, type 3A); the V-
93
shaped bowl (confined to phase 1.1); and the geminado or double bowl (Figure 3.14.6, type 7)
and the pot-bellied jar (restricted to phase 1.2) (Figure 3.14.6, types 4 and 9).
Summary
The overall typological assemblage of Moreirinha, like that of Monte do Frade, is fairly
homogenous, with bag-shaped jars and medium and high carinated bowls being the most
common types in all phases. Thus vessel shape does not appear to be chronologically sensitive
at this site, despite the potential 400 year occupation span indicated by the radiocarbon dates.
Fabrics show greater variation throughout the sequence, with finer wares increasing in the later
horizons. The use of organic tempered vessels in the upper levels may indicate new functional
requirements of the pots, including increased mobility and durability of certain types of
ceramics (see Sampson 1988; Barley 1994; Chapter Three Section 8). There is a possibility
that this might be linked to a change in the nature of settlement of this site towards a less
sedentary occupation. The decorative traditions of Moreirinha contrast with those of Alegrios,
Monte do Frade and Castelejo. Pattern burnished vessels are present throughout the sequence
and show little variation in representation. Incised and plastic decoration is restricted to the
later phases, while impressed decoration is only present in the earlier levels. This again
emphasises the complex nature of pottery decoration, which does not correlate with temporal or
regional factors.
3.11.6 Cerradinha (Figures 3.3.1 to 3.3.5 and 3.15.1)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Lapa do Furno culture) The open settlement of Cerradinha is situated on low-lying undulating land in the Lag6a de
Sant6 Andre, in Sdtubal. The site was identified as single phase, with occupation dating to the
end of the Later Bronze Age (900-70OBC), on the basis of the pottery types retrieved (Silva and Soares 1979). The excavations failed to produce any structural evidence, although a possible
metalworking quarter was identified in one of the trenches opened. Only a small area of the
site was excavated, but we must now question the possibility that settlement at this small hill
site showed occupation during both the Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, because of the identification of several pieces of iron slag found in crucible fragments in the possible 66metalworking" area.
Fabric Groups (Figure 3.3-1)
Four main fabric groups were identified, and three of these were well levigated and could be
classified as fine or medium fine wares. Only fabric 4 was a poorly levigated coarse ware and
contained abundant large quartz and grog inclusions. Fabric I (quartz medium fine ware) formed the major fabric group of the assemblage (50%), while fabrics 2 (quartz-mica medium
94
fine ware) and 4 constituted 24% and 21.9% of the assemblage respectively. Fabric 3, the fine
ware (mica-feldspar) was relatively uncommon, forming only 4.2% of the overall assemblage.
Vessel types (Figure 3.3.2 and 3.3.3)
Eight vessel types were identified from the diagnostic sherds, although only four were present in any significant number. The most common vessel type was the medium or high carinated bowl (23.2%) (Figure 3.15.1-6), followed by the bag-shaped jar (2 1.1 %) (Figure 3.15.1.8-11),
the simple round bowl (17.9%) and the globular jar (13.7%). The other four vessel types, all jar forms, constitute the other 24.1%. The vessel types show many similarities with the other Later Bronze Age assemblages analysed.
There were some correlations between vessel types and fabric groups. Both jar and bowl forms
were manufacture from fabric 1, although only small carinated cups were found in the fine ware fabric 3. Bag-shaped and holemouth jars were frequently made in the coarse ware fabric 4
(55% and 48% respectively), and no open forms were found in this fabric. This suggests that
there may have been some conscious selection of temper and clay pastes depending upon the
vessel function. Closed vessels dominated the assemblage by a ratio of 3: 2 to open shapes
(Figure 3.3.3).
Surface Finish and Decoration (Figures 3.3.4 and 3.3.5)
The abraded nature of many of the sherds made it increasingly difficult to determine the
external surface treatment of the Cerradinha assemblage. Thirty-two percent of the assemblage
was eroded, and a further 8% had no obvious surface finish. The remaining vessels were either
smoothed (16%), slipped and polished (30%) or pattern burnished (9%). Thus at Cerradinha, it
is apparent that only one type of pottery decoration was employed, contrasting with all of the
other ceramic assemblages in this analysis. Some of the external pattern burnished motifs were
very complex (see Figure 3.15.1.16 and 19), and this decoration was restricted to the carinated bowls (44%) and bag-shaped jars (55%). There was no relationship between surface finish and fabric type, but pattern burnish decorated vessels were predominantly restricted to fabric I
(Figure 3.3.5).
3.11.7 Llanete de los Moros (Figures 3.4.1 to 3.4.18)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Cogotas I culture)
The site of Llanete de los Moros or Montoro, is situated on a strategic hilltop (233m a. s. 1) that
dominates an important meander of the river Guadalquivir, and controls the only access route to
Montoro and the interior lands of the upper Guadalquivir. The site was identified as an important and large Bronze Age hillfort with a single univallate rampart (Tejera Gaspar 1977),
and was excavated by Martfn de la Cruz between the late 1970s and early 1980s (Martfn de la
95 kkk.,
Cruz 1978-1979; 1987a; 1987b; 1989; Martfn de la Cruz and Perlines 1993). The site is
important because its stratigraphy indicates a long sequence of occupation from ca. 1400-600
cal. BC. The pottery analysis is supported by a series of radiocarbon dates that have been
provided for the upper horizons. The horizons I-VIII run from earlier to later, but the pottery
was analysed only as far as the Earlier Iron Age horizons or. Orientalising period (horizon V
dated to ca. 62513Q. An outline of the stratigrapy and relative chronology is given below (after
Martfn de la Cruz 1987a: 29-30 with modifications). Relative Horizon Cultural Structural evidence C14 dates (cal. BC)
chronology classification (BC)
1500-1400 IA "Bronze Medio" Small apsidal and circular CSIC-794: 1070*60
huts directy on virgin soil 1393-1217 cal. BC (1 x2.5m) 0.4m depth of soil.
1400-1300 IB "Bronze Medfo" Stone rubble, general CSIC-621: 950*50
occupation horizon and 1212-1015 cal. BC
tomb under possible oval post-hole structure with 2
skeletons 1300-1200 11 Bronze Tardfo General occupation horizon CS IC-795: 1110*60
associated with large 1413-1273 cal. BC
amounts of rubble 1200-1100 Hiatus Break In Thin sterile soil layer
occupation 1100-1000 IIIA Bronze Final I Circular plan stone built UGRA-190: 980*110
structure (2.5m diameter). 1413-1273 cal. BC Occupation horizon 1.10m deep
1000-900 11113 Bronze Final I Identification of several UGRA-159: 1030*130 destroyed circular plan 1410-1020 cal. BC
stone built structures (ca 1.5 to 2m diameter). Associated with large
amounts of rubble and general contexts of occupation ca. 0.40m deep.
900-8001750 IVA Bronze Final 11 One quadrangular adobe and stone built structure recognised
800/750-625 IVB Bronze Final 11 No structural evidence Identified - general occupationlevel
625-575 V Early Iron Age Rectangular and Orientallsing quadrangular buildings
made of adobe (ca. 4x5m); evidence of on-site metal.
96
working
575-450 VWX lber(co Antiguo str Vl-UGRA-1 87: 960*120 = 1320-950 cal. 13C; str Vill-UGRA-1 83: 11330*90 = 1454-1254
cal. BC and UGRA-11 60: 1050*100 = 1410-1090
cal. BC
The radiocarbon dates conflict quite markedly with the relative sequence offered, particularly
for the later horizons. Also the large range that the I sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates have
make it difficult to be precise about the actual time-span of the horizons, especially when some
have ranges as large as 400 years.
Fabric types (Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2)
The fabric analysis was not undertaken in any detail but rather divided the clay wares into very
fine, fine, medium and coarse. From horizons I to IVA, coarse wares predominated, forming
ca. 35-55% of the respective assemblages (Figure 3.4.1). A marked change occurs in horizon
IVB, where coarse wares decline completely, and this shift in fabric types may be linked to the
introduction of the fast wheel (Figure 3.4.17). This sudden decrease is linked with the equally
sudden increase of very fine wares in the later horizons. Fine and medium fine wares are
generally evenly represented in most of the horizons constituting between 25 and 43% of the fabric groups.
Firing conditions (Figure 3.4.3)
The majority of ceramics were fired in neutral conditions (50.4%), and oxidised and reduced
firing made up the other 25.6% and 24% of the overall assemblage respectively. Firing
conditions appeared to be well controlled, with no evidence of smoke clouding or incomplete
firing in any of the horizons.
Rim Diameters (Figure 3.4.4 and 3.4.13)
The measurements of reconstructible rim diameters from Llanete de los Moros ranged between
70 and 410mm, with the majority falling between 140 and 240mm. Three possible clusters
could be detected between 120 and 210mm, 240 and 290mm and a small group between 320
and 360mm, which may accord with small, medium and large mouthed vessels (Figure 4.4).
Small sized vessels are the most numerous in this assemblage, and there are no very large sized
vessels that might correlate with large serving platters or wide-mouthed water storage vessels. The plotting of rim diameters by contexts (Figure 3.4.13) shows that smaller rimmed vessels
were more common in the earlier contexts, while larger mouthed vessels were better
97
represented in later layers. Unfortunately information pertaining to vessel types and rim
diameters is not available for all of the later phases.
Surface Finish (Figures 3.4.5,3.4.6 and 3.4.7)
Most vessels had some kind of surface finish (96.9% of the overall assemblage), and the most
common techniques were either a simple smoothing (27.6%) or polishing (51.1%) (Figure
3.4.5). Decoration increases from the earlier to later horizons from roughly 14 to 27% (Figure
3.4.6), and polishing shows a marked increase between horizons IIIA and IVA before declining
completely in horizon VA.
Decoration (Figures 3.4.8,3.4.9,3.4.10,3.4.11 and 3.4.12)
Although eight different decorative techniques have been noted in the assemblage of Llanete de
los Moros, three types are most common - impressed , monochrome geometric red paint and
exterior pattern burnish (Figure 3.4.8). Incrusted and "marnelon" (knobbed) decorative
techniques are less frequent and cordon, and excised and incised motifs are poorly represented
(Figure 3.4.8). Impression is particularly common in the earlier horizons, forming between 24
and 100% of all decoration, and it appears to decrease in number in later horizons (after IVA),
showing sensitivity to temporal factors (Figures 3.4.9 and 3.4.10). Pattern burnish is present in
most of the horizons, but is absent from the earliest levels, and decreases after horizon IVA,
perhaps also demonstrating a relationship with chronology. Six types of decoration - incision,
excision, cordon, incrustation, grooved and "mamelon" - only appear between horizons IIIA
and IVA, with grooved and excision being restricted to only two horizons - IIIA and JHB.
These decorative techniques would appear to be even more chronologically sensitive, although
we must appreciate that factors other than chronology, might also have affected this pattern.
Painted decoration shows no relationship with the stratigraphy and appears in most of the
horizons from earliest to later levels.
There is no obvious pattern between type of decoration and its positioning on the vessel surface
(Figure 3.4.11). The graph plotting vessel type and decoration also shows no obvious
relationship between the two (Figure 3.4.12). Both open and closed vessels are decorated with
impressed, painted and pattern burnished motifs. Incised decoration is restricted to carinated
and hemispherical bowls, and globular and everted rimmed jars, while grooved decoration is
known only on globular jars. Metal incrusted decoration is found only on high carinated bowls
and bag-shaped jars, while cordon decoration is confined to everted rimmed carinated bowls.
Excised decoration is found on two vessel types - high carinated bowls and tronconical jars.
Impressed decoration is found on most vessel types, and V-shaped, round and low carinated
bowls and short-necked jars are exclusively decorated through this technique.
98
Vessel type (Figures 3.4.14,3.4.15 and 3.4.16)
Twenty-five different vessel types were identified in the whole assemblage, but only eleven
were present in any significant number. The most common vessel type is the globular jar
(14.9% of the overall assemblage), and the high carinated bowl (10.3%) and tronconical jar
(10.1%) are the second and third most frequent shapes. Other common vessel shapes include
the bag-shaped jar (7.7%), the everted rim straight sided jar (7.2%), the round bowl (6.9%), the
V-shaped bowl (6.7%), the flat-based jar (6.7%), the medium carinated bowl (5.1%) and the
straight-sided bowl (4.9%). Other vessel shapes represent no more than 4% of the assemblage
(Figure 3.4.16). Unfortunately, information was not available for vessel shapes for all of the
contexts, and the large number of pottery sherds from horizon IHA has bias6d any possible
pattern of vessel shape change through the sequence. Bag-shaped jars and straight-sided bowls
are more common in the later horizons, while V-shaped, high and medium carinated bowls and
globularjars are only common in horizon IIIA (Figure 3.4.14 and 3.4.15).
Pottery Manufacture (Figures 3.4.17 and 3.4.18)
The majority of the sherds analysed (91.9%) from the entire assemblage was hand-made
(Figure 3.4.18). However, wheel made sherds appear in horizon IIIB (identified as Mycenean
imports -Martfn de la Cruz 1987,1991). However after horizon IVB it would appear that wheel
technology is adopted on a large scale, and by horizon VI (not graphically illustrated), wheel-
made pottery dominated the assemblage by a ratio of 2: 1. Thus it would appear that the wheel
is rapidly and successfully adopted around 725 cal. BC.
Summary
Vessel shapes do not show considerable variation throughout the sequence, although simple
shaped vessels (bag shaped jars and round bowls) are more common in earlier levels, while
complex shapes (globular jars and sharply carinated bowls) increase in the later horizons.
Decoration increases by almost 15% between earlier and later horizons, and impressed
decoration appears to be an earlier tradition at this site, while pattern burnishing is a later
development. Thus there is evidence of gradual changes in pot shapes and decoration through
time, but this could only be teased out through a quantitative analysis. The introduction of the
wheel shows a different pattern of uptake to that of Alto do Castelinho. The apparent rapidity
with which this change occurs at Llanete de Jos Moros may be related to closer geographical
proximity between this site and the Phoenician colonies; hence allowing a more successful
transference of this new technology.
99
3.11.8 Cor6a do Frade (Figures 3.5.1-3.5.13 and 3.16.1-3)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Lapa do Fumo culture)
The large fortified settlement of Cor6a do Frade lies 11.5 kin west-south-west of the city of
ltvora. Situated 325m a. s. l., it is one of the largest hillforts excavated in central southern
Portugal, measuring 192.5 by 107m (or 20 5440). It was excavated by Pago in the late 1950s
(Paqo and Ventura 1961) and by Amaud between 1971 and 1972 (Arnaud 1979).
Unfortunately, the excavations have still not been fully published. Amaud's trenches through
the ramparts allowed him to conclude that the site was fortified in the Later Bronze Age.
However, the plans of the site (Figure 3.16.1.1) demonstrate that two ramparts were built, with
an inner pear-shaped enclosure. The tvora project re-surveyed this site (see Burgess et al.
1999) and concluded that the inner pear-shaped enclosure was a later addition to the
fortification (Figure 3.16.1.2). Since Arnaud dug trenches through this inner line of defence
only (Figure 3.16.1-1), there is a possibility that he retrieved only the latest levels of
occupation. The associated metal finds included bronze rings and fragments of daggers, bronze
barbed arrowheads, a broken bronze spit and two double spiral fibulae. Although Arnaud used
these finds to date the site between the ninth and eighth centuries BC (1979: 103-104), this is a
late chronology for such bronze pieces (see Coffyn and Sion 1993). In fact Cor6a do Frade
may well attest to much earlier occupation, although only further investigation would confirm
such a hypothesis.
The concentration upon the defensive structures of the hillfort meant that no investigation has
yet been undertaken in the interior of the settlement, and we still know little of the internal
organisation, other than evidence from the recent survey (Burgess 1987; Gibson 1992) which
has identified several circular hut platforins associated with over twenty saddle quems (Figure
3.16.1.2). Structural evidence is limited to several possible fire installations excavated to the
interior of the second internal rampart, and a circular stone foundation structure (estimated to
be ca. 25 by 20m in diameter) that was irdsinterpreted by Amaud as a "large building" (1979:
59), when it is more likely to be a bastion structure, owing to its association with the outer
rampart (Figure 3.16.1.1). The contexts from Cor6a do Frade were divided into three horizons -
upper (Horizon A), middle (Horizon B) and lower (Horizon C).
Fabric Analysis (Figures 3.5.1 and 3.5.2)
Medium coarse ware fabrics dominated the assemblage, and fine wares were more common
than coarse wares in all of the horizons (Figure 3.5.1). The ratio of medium: fine: coarse
remained constant in all of the levels. Four fabric types were noted in the assemblage (Figure
3.5.2). In horizon A, all four were represented in fairly even numbers, with the exception of
micaceous tempered fabrics (only 5%). Quartz tempered fabrics dominated in horizon 1B, and
100
feldspar tempered fabrics showed a decrease. In horizon C, only one fabric type, that of quartz,
was identified. Thus the horizons do show variation in clay types and inclusions.
Firing Technology (Figures 3.5.3 and 3.5.4)
The variation in firing throughout the horizons may demonstrate the lack of controlled firing
conditions. The majority of sherds in all of the horizons were either incompletely oxidised,
completely oxidised or reduced (Figure 3.5.3). The majority of sherds in the assemblage had a dark coloured core (Figure 3.5.4), suggesting that the firing process was quick and did not
allow all of the organic material in the clay paste to bum out. This evidence suggests that most
of the pottery from Cor6a do Frade was fired in open bonfires, although the completely
oxidised vessels may have been fired in more controlled kiln conditions.
Sherd thickness (Figure 3.5.5)
Vessel bodies ranged from 3mm, to 16mm in thickness, although the majority measured between 5 and 10mm. No obvious pattern could be detected from the graph plotting sherd
thickness against context, although it would appear that the thickest vessel bodies were
restricted to the upper horizon.
Rim and Base diameters (Figures 3.5.7 to 3.5.9)
The rim diameters from Cor6a. do Frade measured between 40 and 520mm, with the majority falling between 130 and 400mm (Figure 3.5.7). There is a particularly large concentration (10
examples) of rims with a diameter of 310mm, perhaps relating to a specific form and even
volumetric vessel measure. The largest rim diameters suggest the presence of some very large
mouthed vessels, and since no platters are known from this assemblage, they may relate to large
water storage jars or cooking pots. Few base diameters are known for this assemblage, but they
range between 160 and 250mm. (Figure 3.5.8). These are very large base diameters that would be congruent with an assemblage dominated by large storage and cooking pots. There appears
to be a lack of small based serving vessels in this assemblage. The largest rim diameters appear
to be restricted to horizons A and B, while the smaller ones predominate in horizon C (Figure
3.5.9).
Vessel types (Figures 3.5.6. and 3. S. 10)
Closed vessels dominated the assemblage throughout all of the horizons by a ratio of 5: 4
(Figure 3.5.6), inferring that jars and jugs formed a slightly larger part of the overall vessel
component than bowls. Eighteen different vessel forms were identified, but twelve of these
were not well represented (Figure 3.5.10). The most common vessel type in horizons A and B
was the V-shaped bowl, but its presence sharply decreased in horizon C (Figure 3.16.3.1).
Other vessel types present in all horizons included the bag-shaped jar (Figure 3.16.2.1-2), the
101
pot-bellied jar, the straight-necked jar (Figure 3.16.2.1.12-13,19-21) and the simple round
bowl. The ceramic information presently available is not sufficient to make conclusions
concerning changing percentages of different vessel types. It would however appear that no
obvious changes in vessel typology can be noted throughout the sequence, with the possible
exception of the sudden decline in the V-shaped bowl in the earliest horizon. Hemispherical
bowls and ompholos based jars are only present in horizons B and C.
Surface finish and decoration (Figures 3.5.11 to 3.5.13)
The majority of vessels from Cor6a do Frade (98.7%) received some sort of surface treatment
(Figure 3.5.12). This was most frequently either all-over burnish or all-over polish, suggesting
a labour intensive vessel finish. Vessel slips were relatively uncommon, and only present in
horizons A and B. Only 12% of the overall assemblage was decorated and this increased in
frequency between horizons A and C (10.2% to 17.1%). Four main types of decoration were identified - exterior pattern burnish, "a cepillo", stab-and-drag and Carambolo (red painted
geometric motifs on incised and white paint infilled background). Because many of the sherds
were large rims and bodies, it was possible to reconstruct some of the overall patterns
composed by the pattern burnished motifs, and hence this form of decoration was divided into
four sub-groups (Figure 3.5.13) (Figure 3.16.2.3-4). Stab-and drag decoration (Figure 3.16.2.1-
3), again poorly represented, was limited to the later two horizons. Pattern burnished
decoration was found in all of the horizons, but appeared to increase in number and complexity
between horizons C and B, before declining again to only one example in horizon A, that was
executed simply with horizontal burnished lines. It would be unwise to read too much into the
changes in decoration during the sequence, because of the small sample of decorated sherds
available.
Summary
The analysis of the assemblage of Cor6a do Frade suggests that pottery manufacture was not a
specialist industry, since most vessels were fired in uncontrolled conditions, and were generally
poorly made. There were no obvious changes in vessel shapes or pottery decoration throughout
the levels, although fabric changes may be a more sensitive chronological indicator. The single Carambolo decorated sherd in horizon B (Figure 3.16.2.3.6), suggests that it was not a common decorative technique and may have been a southern import to the site.
3.11.9 Outeiro, do Circo (Figures 3.6.1-3.6.6.4 and Figure 3.17)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Lapa do Fumo culture) Excavations at Outeiro do Circo, Beringel, in Beja, were limited to small surface scrapings directed by Parreira in the late 1970s (Parreira 1983). The settlement was identified as a hillfort, situated on a prominent hill (254m a. s. 1) that offers commanding views over the fertile
61 102
plateau of Barros de Beja. The site was defended by one complete stone rampart (4-5m thick),
with a second auxiliary rampart in the south-eastem part of the site. Although excavations were
minimal, and the stratigraphy of the occupation sequence was not fully excavated, since bedrock was not reached, several structural features were identified. These included evidence for several circular huts with stone foundations and adobe superstructures, associated with
central fire installations. Parreira concluded that Outeiro do Circo was a single-phase Late
Bronze Age fortified settlement dated between 900 and 70OBC.
Fabrics
Information concerning pottery fabrics and firing was not available for the assemblage of Outeiro do Circo. All of the sherds analysed were handmade and generally incompletely fired,
owing to the predominance (over 80%) of dark coloured vessel cores.
Vessel types (Figure 3.6.1)
The published drawings allowed sixteen different vessel types to be identified, and closed forms were more common, forming 62% of the assemblage. Only four shapes, however, were
represented by ten or more vessels. These were the high carinated bowl (Figure 3.17.44-53)
and globular jar (Figure 3.17.30-32), and the simple round bowl and bag-shaped jar (Figure
3.17.39-41,61-65).
Rim Diameter (Figure 3.6.2)
Rim diameters ranged between 120 and 310mm, with the majority clustering between 180 and 280mm, indicating that this assemblage was composed of only small and medium sized
mouthed vessels. No large cooking or storage vessels were identified. No obvious clusters
were identified and it would appear that the pottery rim sizes showed only a small range of
variation.
Vessel Finish and Decoration (Figure 3.6.3 and 3.6.4)
Only 4% of the vessels studied were decorated, and the predominant surface finish was that of
smoothing (44%), while 29% received no surface treatment at all (Figure 3.6.3). Only 22% of
the vessels were either all-over polished or all-over burnished, contrasting with the
representation of these surface treatments at the nearby, and supposedly contemporary,
settlement of Cor6a do Frade. Three types of decoration were identified, but it must be noted
that the small assemblage available for analysis is unlikely to provide a coherent overview. Incised decoration was found on two vessel types -a hemispherical bowl and a holemouth jar
(Figure 3.17.17-23), while pattern burnish was placed on V-shaped bowls (Figure 3.17.8-12)
and a straight sided bowl was painted (Figure 3.17.15).
103
Summary
The re-analysis of the pottery assemblage from the hill settlement of Outeiro do Circo, Beja
made several important observations that had been missed originally (Parreira 1971-1975: 31-
36; 1983). The continuity with Earlier Bronze Age traditions may be indicated by the medium
carinated and straight sided bowls and the globular and tronconical jars. This may support the
idea that the settlement is not only "Late" Bronze Age (900-70OBC) in date. Outeiro do Circo
may have been occupied at the beginning of the second millennium BC, and continued in use
until the beginning of the first millennium, when it was more intensively settled. It must be
noted that Parreira originally dated the site to the Later Bronze Age on the basis of five sherds
of pattern burnished pottery.
3.11.10 Quinta da Padreira (Figures 3.7.1 to 3.7.16 and 3.18.1-3.18.3)
(No Later Bronze Age culture grouping as yet identified for this region)
The excavation of Quinta da Padreira were undertaken by Mix between 1994 and 1995. The
site was identified by Fdlix in 1992 as a small open settlement situated a couple of kilometres
west of Abrantes, in central Portugal. Only a small prospection has been undertaken at this site
so far, but it was identified as a Later Bronze Age open agricultural site by its director (Fdlix
pers. comm. ) (Figure 3.18.1). One trench was opened, that was divided into six one by one by
one metre trenches (J and K 17-19), but ceramics were detected only in areas J18, K16, K17
and K18 (see Figure 3.18.1.2). Tle stratigraphic sections are illustrated in Figure 3.18.2, but
presently the excavation has not revealed the full depth of archaeological deposits. The earlier
contexts are represented by the later numbers (U5, U6), while S/C refers to sin contexto or from
the ploughsoil. The lack of detailed stratigraphy excavated so far suggests that all of the
contexts excavated may belong to a single occupation horizon, and no obvious temporal depth
is represented. Few archaeological features have been recognised, but there is a possible rubble
wall running NW-SE across the trench, and a possible return in the south-western comer.
Fabric Groups (Figures 3.7.1 and 3.7.2)
Seven fabric groups were identified in the assemblage, but only three were common. These
were a quartz-calcite medium coarse ware, a quartz coarse ware and quartz-organic coarse
ware. Quartz was the dominant inclusion, and calcite, organics, mica and sand were less
prevalent (Figure 3.7.1 and 3.7.2). Very few fine wares were identified, and poorly levigated
medium coarse and coarse wares, which were heavily tempered, dominated (Figure 3.7.5). The
small number of ceramics from all of the contexts with the exception of K17. UI, makes it
impossible to determine whether any changes in pottery fabrics occurred through the sequence,
and in any case, the shallow stratigraphy revealed so far probably represents a single
occupation horizon.
104 hh,
Wall thickness (Figure 3.7.6)
Vessel walls showed a large range in thickness, from 5mm to 20mm, and this large variation
may correspond with different functions. The majority were between 8mm and II mm thick,
and this may relate to the fact that the vessels were coarsely tempered and poorly hand made.
The heavy tempering of clay fabrics is demonstrated in Figure 3.7.12, which shows that
inclusions constituted between 10% and 31% of the clay matrix, with most falling between
12% and 22%. Thin walled vessels were very much in the minority in this assemblage, and it
would appear that fine table and serving wares were not a significant component.
Firing technology (Figures 3.7.7,3.7.8 and 3.7.13)
Only 38.5% of the vessels were completely fired in well-controlled conditions (Figure 3.7.7).
Almost 15% of the sherds exhibited some smoke-clouding indicative of open firing conditions.
The majority of vessels were fired in semi-oxidised conditions (41.5%) (Figure 3.7.8). Since
over 77% of the sherds exhibited a "dark-core" effect in their vessel sections, it is possible to
conclude that firing was quick and rarely complete.
Rim Diameters (Figure 3.7.14)
Few rim diameters were large enough to be measured, and the few available ranged between
170 and 380mm, corresponding with small and medium mouthed vessels.
Vessel Types (Figure 3.7.3,3.7.4,3.7.15 and 3.7.16)
Many of the sherds from the assemblage were too small to be recognised as to shape type, or
even as to whether they represented open or closed vessel forms. From the sherds that could be
identified, 42.5% were from jars, while only 28.7% came from bowls or platters (Figure 7.3).
Like many other of the assemblages analysed, Quinta da Padreira appears to be dominated by
closed cooking or storage forms. From the few diagnostic sherds, ten different vessel shapes
were identified (Figures 3.7.15 and 3.7.16). The assemblage was dominated by four jar forms -
globular, holemouth, bag-shaped and carinated - and two bowl forms - high carinated and
simple round (Figure 3.18-3).
Surface Finish and decoration (Figures 3.7.10 and 3.7.11)
The majority of sherds received some form of surface treatment, and smoothing was the most frequent (57.3%), while slip and all-over polish formed 14.1% and 9.5% of the sherd finish
respectively (Figure 3.7.10). Only 4.5% of all sherds analysed were decorated, and all-over burnishing was included within this number. Only three other types were noted - pattern burnish, Bai6es incised and impressed.
105
Summary
The assemblage of Quinta da Padreira was dominated by closed vessel forms, and suggested a homogenous domestic ceramic repertoire, represented by storage and cooking vessels. It is
interesting that all-over burnishing did not form a significant component within the assemblage,
contrasting markedly with most of the other Later Bronze Age assemblages analysed (e. g. Cor6a do Frade and Outeiro, do Circo), and suggesting local pot-making traditions. The
presence of two fragments with Bai6es-Santa Luzia incised motifs is relevant, as is the small
number of pattern burnished vessels. Their presence extends the known distribution of these
two traditions and may suggest contact and communication with the north and south of Quinta
respectively. The presence of organics in many of the clay fabrics might also, like Moreirinha,
be linked with increased mobility and durability of these vessels. Only further excavations will
reveal whether the stratigraphy and structures from this small open settlement were indicative
of semi-sedentary or permanent occupation.
3.11.11 Conimbriga (Figures 3.8.1 to 3.8.13 and Figure 3.19)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Penha culture) The sherds analysed from Conimbriga, Condeixa-a-Nova, in Coimbra, came from a collection
that had been built up over numerous years of excavation at this predominantly Roman site. Excavations from the early 1900s onwards (see Correira. 1993), had revealed evidence of an
earlier Late-Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement beneath the Roman ruins. Unfortunately the majority of the material from these earlier layers lacked stratigraphic
contexts, but a preliminary analysis of them was undertaken in order to ascertain any
similarities with the Later Bronze and Early Iron Age assemblages from central and southern Portugal.
Fabric Analysis (Figure 3.8.1)
Although a number of different fabric groups were identified, medium fine wares dominated, as did sparsely tempered micaceous and sand-mica clay pastes (50% - Figure 3.8.1 and Figure
3.8.5). These corresponded mainly with the Early Iron Age wheel made forms - in particular
the distinctive ceramica cinzenta or fine grey wares. Other more coarsely tempered hand-made
fabrics were also present in the assemblage, including quartz and calcareous tempered fabric
groups (31.6%), river grit poorly levigated wares (8%) and coarse sand wares (4%). Medium
fine wares formed 64.7% of the overall assemblage, fine wares 22.7% and coarse wares 12.7%
(Figure 3.8.5). It would appear that the Early Iron Age material from this site showed a
correlation of specific wares and vessel types (fine grey ware carinated bowls and cups and
orange sandy everted rimmed globular jars), demonstrating a change in ceramic manufacture
towards more specialist production (Figure 3.19.2). It has not been possible to identify a
106
definite relationship between fabric and vessel type in any of the other Later Bronze Age
assemblages analysed, with the possible exception of the pattern burnished carinated bowls and
jars, which tend to be manufactured from calcite tempered pastes.
Sherd thickness and vessel manufacture (Figure 3.8.2 and 3.8.4)
Most vessels were fine walled, ranging between 4mm and 12mm (Figure 3.8.2). The majority
were between 5mm and 7mm. in thickness, contrasting with the other Later Bronze Age
assemblages, and correlating with the increased presence of wheel made manufacture at this
site (Figure 3.8.4). The lack of stratigraphic information limits our ability to discern the rate at
which the fast-wheel was adopted in the Early Iron Age horizons at Conimbriga, but wheel-
made ceramics were more prolific than hand-made vessels (54% to 46%).
Firing technology (Figures 3.8.6,3.8.7 and 3.8.8)
The majority of vessel fabrics were fired in a reducing atmosphere (46.3%), while oxidised and
neutral fired vessels formed 26.1% and 19.5% of the assemblage (Figure 3.8.7). Some showed
oxidised and reduction processes, perhaps as a result either of a complicated deliberate firing
procedure or else as a result of an uncontrolled firing where oxygen was accidentally allowed
into the oven/kiln or open bonfire. The fact that only 8% of the vessels exhibited smoke
clouding on their vessel walls, and 62% were well fired (Figure 3.8.8) suggests that it was the
former process that produced a deliberate effect of double-coloured vessels (red on exterior and
dark grey-black on interior). However, a large number of ceramics demonstrated a dark-core
effect in their sections (Figure 3.8.6), implying that firing at Conimbriga, even in the Early Iron
Age, was still a short and incomplete process.
Rim Diameters (Figure 3.8.9)
The rim diameters from Conimbriga measured between 70 and 420mm, with the majority
ranging from 120-290mm. Small and medium mouthed vessels dominated the assemblage, and
few large mouthed storage or cooking pots or platters are represented.
Vessel types (Figures 3.8.3 and 3.8.10)
Closed vessels dominated the assemblage and constituted 66.4% of all of the sherds analysed
(Figure 3.8.3). This pattern concurs with those from the other Later Bronze Age assemblages
analysed, and implies a possible continuity in the importance and function of jar and jug types
over bowls and platters. Twenty-five different vessel morphologies were identified (nine bowl
forms, fourteen jar forms and two platter types), but few were present in any number (Figure
3.8.10). The most common vessel shape by far was the bag-shaped jar, and straight-necked and
no-necked jars were also relatively frequent. Only the high sharply carinated bowl was a
prevalent open form (Figure 3.19.1.1-4). The large variety of vessel shapes, particularly jar
107
forms, may relate to the large number of functions for which they were employed. There is a
greater range of vessel forms at Conimbriga than at any other of the assemblages analysed, and
this may be evidence for an increased specialisation in vessel function, rather than one vessel
type being employed for a range of uses (Figure 3.19).
Vesselfinish and decoration (Figures 3.8.12 and 3.8.13)
Most vessels had some form of surface finish, and the majority were smoothed, polished,
slipped or all-over burnished (Figure 3.8.12). A large variety of decorative techniques were
employed, including incised, impressed, painted, pattern burnished, rilled, plastic or a
combination of these. Pattern burnish was restricted to three vessel types - carinated bowl, bag-
shaped jars and everted rimmed pot-bellied jars. Plastic and mamelon decoration was restricted
to closed vessels and to everted rimmed, holemouth, no-necked and straight-necked jars.
Incised decoration was found on carinated bowls, sbort-necked jars and jugs. Impressed
decoration was also found on both open and closed vessels - carinated bowls, pot-bellied jars
and bag-shaped jars. Painted decoration was restricted to short-necked jars, and consisted of
geometric bichrome motifs. Incised and impressed decoration combined was found only on
closed vessel types. There is no obvious correlation between vessel type and decorative
technique employed, but it would appear that closed vessels were decorated more frequently
than bowls. The large variety of decorative techniques also contrasts with other assemblages
analysed, when, in general, only three or four different types were employed.
Summary
The assemblage of Conimbriga demonstrates the emergence of specialised ceramic production
in the Early Iron Age. In this respect it contrasts markedly with all the other assemblages
analysed (with the exception of the upper levels from Castelinho and Llanete de los Moros),
which are more in keeping with local non-specialised pot making industries. The different
organisation of pottery manufacture in the Early Iron Age can be recognised from the greater
range of vessel forms, the large variety of decorative techniques and the close correlation
between specific vessel types and fabrics, implying the introduction of actual "wares".
3.11.12 Santa Luzia (Figures 3.9.1 to 3.9.16 and Figure 3.20)
(Traditional ceramic grouping - Bai6es-Santa Luzia. culture)
The hillfort of Santa Luzia, in Viseu, was excavated in the 1980s by Kalb and Celso Tavares da
Silva (Silva et al. 1982-1983; 1984; 1985; Senna-Martfnez 1991; 1993c). The small hillfort
(190 by 190m) was fortified by a single rampart, and was placed in a strategic position on a
dominating hill that overlooks the Mondego river. Unfortunately, the excavations of this
settlement remain poorly published and limited to a few pages in Informagao Arqueologica.
Several oval and round stone structures were identified, but their dimensions or their contexts
108
are not known. Likewise, although four radiocarbon dates were obtained from this site, there is
no information about the contexts from which they were taken (Senna-Martfnez 1991 ). Silva
had concluded that Santa Luzia was a single phase hillfort, occupied between 900 and 80013C.
The radiocarbon dates, listed below, suggest otherwise and may Indicate uninterrupted
occupation from ca 1300-850 cal. BC.
ICEN-486: 1010±6013C = 1311-1084 (2 sigi-na) cal. BC.
ICEN-487: 860± 100 = 1120-850 (2s', gina) cal. BC
ICEN-485: 970±180 = 1363-862 (2, sigrna) cal. BC
ICE-N-489: 1010±50 = 1300-1095 (2signia) cal. BC
An ()vcrvicw ofthe stratigraphy frorn this site provided with the ceramics in 1995, allowed the
contexts to be divided into thirteen horizons, with I representing the latest uppermost latest
level and 13 the earliest one. All of the sherds throughout the assemblage were handmade.
h'ahric Attalysis (Figure 3.9.1,3.9.2 and 3.9.3)
Elleven different fabric groups were identified, although only four were present in any number.
These were the quartz-calcite, liniestone-grog, calcite and mica-sand tempered groups, tile
former two being coarse and medium coarse wares, while the latter two were fine wares (Figure
3.9.1 ). Plotting the fabric groups by horizon provided no obvious patterns, mainly because of
the small number of sherds available from most. It would appear that Fabric 6 is most common
in the latest levels, while Fabric I is more commonly found in the earlier horizons. Fabrics 2,8
and 9 appeared only in the middle and earlier levels, Fabric 3 was restricted to tile later levels,
and Fabrics II and 12 were confined to the earliest ones (Figure 3.9.2). In general fabric pastes
were sparsely tempered, and inclusions formed between 7cl( and 16%, of the clay matrixes
(Figure 3.9.3).
Firing technology (Figure 3.9.4 and 3.9.14)
A large number (45.7%) of sherds from the assemblage of Santa Luzia were fired through an
oxidised process, and only 34.9% were fired in an anoxidised atmosphere. The small number
ofsnioke clouded vessels suggests that tile firing technology was well controlled and may have
been closed kiln firing, rather than open bonfires. The rna, lority of sherds analysed (87.81/c),
however, de mon st rated the "dark-core" effect, indicating that most vessels were subJect to short
rapid firings, that would be more congruent with open bonfires (Figure 3.9.14).
Vessel wall thickness (Figure 3.9.5)
Vessel walls ranged from 4mm to l4rnm in thickness with the majority falling between 5111111
and 7rnrn. Vessels were thus mainly quite fine walled and showed little obvious variation in
their body widths, contrasting with many of the other assemblages analysed, particularly Quinta
101)
da Padreira and Castelinho. This evidence suggests that the vessels were in general well made,
and that the potters were able to successfully construct fine walled bowls and jars by hand,
perhaps pointing towards a slightly more sophisticated or specialist ceramic manufacturing
industry than is evident at most of the other Later Bronze Age sites studied.
Decoration (Figures 3.9.6,3.9-7,3.9.8,3.9.9 and 3.9.10)
Over 83% of the sherds analysed exhibited some form of labour intensive surface finish or
decoration (Figure 3.9.6). Although this figure contrasts markedly with most of the other
assemblages analysed, where high surface finish or decoration rarely exceeded 6%, it must be
noted that the Santa Luzia assemblage studied was not a complete one. Many of the
undiagnostic and abraded sherds had been removed and the investigator was unable to retrieve
this part of the assemblage owing to the sudden death of Celso Tavares da Silva in 1996. The
information was thus collated from a partial data set and the idea that the Santa Luzia
assemblage was predominantly decorated may be biased. The available published information
concerning the Santa Luzia ceramics (Silva 1984; 1985; 1986; Senna-Martfnez 1991), does,
however, suggest that this assemblage was rich in decorative traditions, and although no actual
figures are quoted, Senna-Martinez argues that over half of the pottery retrieved during the
excavations was decorated (Figure 3.20.6-19). If this is true, the ceramics from Santa Luzia
demonstrate that decoration was a more important consideration than in any of the other
assemblages analysed, and was employed in different ways that may have included more
elaborate concern for symbolic expression or communication.
The analysis of decoration on undiagnostic vessel types shows that all-over burnish and
variations of the Bai6es-Santa Luzia post firing incised patterns formed the dominant types of
decoration (Figure 3.9.7). External pattern burnish decoration was noted in the assemblage,
albeit in a small number, but this demonstrates that this tradition was not limited to central and
south-western parts of Iberia. Frequently, combinations of techniques were employed, the most
common being all-over burnished or polished and incised motifs.
There is some evidence of correlation between fabric types and decoration, since all-over burnishing is restricted to fabrics 1,3 and 6, burnished and incised combined decoration to
fabric 6, "a cepillo" to fabric 3, plastic to fabric 8 and impressed decoration to fabrics 2.4 and
8 (Figure 3.9.8). Incised, rilled and polished decoration are found on a greater range of wares
or fabric types. Fabric 7 was the only one which lacked any examples of decoration.
With the respect to the undiagnostic sherds which could be identified as parts of open or closed
vessel forms, there was no obvious connection between jars and bowl and particular decoration
types (Figure 3.9.9). Impressed and stamped decoration were restricted to closed vessel types,
110 hkb.
-
while "a cepillo" and plastic were identified only on open forms. All other techniques were
found on both bowls and jars, although incised decoration was more commonly undertaken on
closed vessels forms, and more closed than open vessels lacked decoration (a ratio of 23 to 9).
Diagnostic vessels and Decoration (Figure 3.9.15 and 3.9.16)
Decoration was predominantly placed on the exterior surface of the vessel bodies, although all-
over burnishing and polishing was found on both surfaces, and may have been functionally
employed to reduce vessel porosity (Figure 3.9.15). Incised and plastic decoration was
restricted to exterior vessel surfaces. Incised decoration was placed on many different vessel
types, but predominantly on necked jars, and less frequently on bag-shaped, carinated and
holemouth jars, and rarely on tronconical jars and V-shaped bowls (Figure. 3.9.16). Pattern-
burnished decoration was restricted to the high carinated bowl, while marnelons were found
only on necked jars. Impressed decoration was also confined to one closed vessel type - the
globular jar. Thus there would appear to be some correlation between vessel and decoration
type, although the data set examined is too small to draw any definite conclusions.
Diagnostic vessels
Closed to open vessel ratios (Figure 3.9.11)
Closed vessels dominated in all contexts by a ratio of almost 3: 1, with the exception of horizons
2 and 4. Thus it would appear that jars, jugs and cooking pots formed the most important
components of the pottery assemblage from the earliest (horizon 13) to the latest (horizon 1)
levels (Figure 3-20). In this respect, the Santa Luzia assemblage is similar with the other Later
Bronze Age assemblages analysed, where closed vessels form the principal types.
Rim and Base Diameters (Figures 3.9.12 and 3.9.13)
Rim diameters ranged between 85 and 470mm, with the majority failing between 160 and
300mm (Figure 3.9-12). The graph demonstrates that a few very small mouthed and large
mouthed vessels were represented in the assemblage, perhaps relating to small carinated cups
and large cooking or storage vessels. Two clusters can be identified between 160-200mm and
220-280mm, and may correlate with small and medium mouthed vessels. Only a few base
diameters were available for measurement, and they extended between 35 and 220mm, equating
with both small and very large based vessels. Most fell between 85 and 120mm.
Vessel types (Figure 3.9.17)
Thirteen different vessel types could be identified, but unfortunately there were not enough
reconstructible sherds from each horizon to allow any inferences about possible changes in
vessel shapes from earliest to latest levels. Closed vessels were already noted from the
undiagnostic sherds to dominate the assemblage and this was confirmed by the diagnostic
III
classification, since short-necked jars formed 32% of the reconstructible rim sherds, while bag-
shaped jars constituted a further 15 %. The high carinated bowl was the only open form present
in any number (10.6%), while long-necked and globular jars formed a further 17% of the types
identified. The other eight vessel types (three open and five closed forms) formed only a small
component of the assemblage.
Summary
It would appear that the ceramic industry of Santa Luzia was more sophisticated or specialised
than any of the other Later Bronze Age site assemblages analysed. Vessels were well made,
finely tempered and fired in relatively controlled conditions. The analysis also demonstrated a
relationship between vessel and fabric type and vessel decoration, implying that specific types
were being manufactured in specific ways, rather than the more random pot-making processes
recognised at several of the other settlements studied (e. g. Monte do Frade, Cerradinha and
Outeiro do Circo).
The most significant difference with any of the other assemblages, however, is that the majority
of vessels were decorated. Even if we take the selection bias into consideration, decoration
formed a highly significant component of the Santa Luzia pot-making traditions. The reasons
behind this accentuation on decoration will be more fully discussed in Chapters Four and Eight,
but it would appear that an effort was made to mark out the pots from this site as symbolically
distinct. Pottery decoration from Santa Luzia had a different meaning to decoration in other
regions. In particular the Bai6es Santa-Luzia motifs were employed so widely on ceramic
vessels that it is clear they formed an important and valued element of the socio-ideology of the
Santa Luzia pottery tradition, as well as of other settlements in this region. An idea that will be
explored in the following chapter is the correlation between increased decoration and the more
permanent nature of settlements in parts of north-central Portugal.
3.12 Conclusions
The quantified ceramic analysis of these assemblages has highlighted the potential of such
studies and exposed a number of complex patterns concerning not only vessel shapes and
decoration, but also pottery technology, function and manufacture and their relationships with
aspects of the economy and social organisation. One conclusion that can be drawn is that
ceramic decoration did not form a significant component of these assemblages with the
exception of Santa Luzia in northern Portugal. Therefore, it is n-dsleading to categorise pottery
and cultural groups on the basis of decoration alone, since this focuses upon a small and
specific category of the overall ceramic data. The question of why pots were decorated still
remains difficult to answer, although it would appear that symbolic and perhaps ideological
concerns were more relevant in the Later Bronze Age of northern Portugal than in the central
112
and southern regions, and this may be provisionally correlated with the more permanent nature
of settlement complexes.
The analysis also demonstrated that the traditional type-fossils used as chronological and
cultural indicators can be misleading and erroneous. Pattern burnished pottery would now
appear to have a much longer chronology than traditionally believed, spanning the centuries
from 1300-600 cal. BC. The recognition of pattern burnished sherds at all of the sites in the
Beira Interior, Quinta do Padreira in Abrantes and Santa Luzia in Viseu demonstrates that this
type had a much wider geographical distribution than traditionally advocated, and questions the
validity of this diagnostic element being used to define a specific cultural grouping. The same
may be said for Bai6es-Santa Luzia incised decoration, which was noted at the central
Portuguese settlements of Alegrios, Quinta da Padreira and Castelinho.
The two tables (Table 3.1 and 3.2 ) below summarise shape and decoration percentages for the
nine largest assemblages investigated, and demonstrate significant differences between sites
within the same region. Table 3.1 groups together the north-central Portuguese settlements,
while Table 3.2 summarises the ceramic morphologies from central Portugal, and compares this
with the north Portuguese settlement of Santa Luzia. The comparisons are striking. Although
the settlements of Alegrios, Moreirinha and Monte do Frade are situated within a few
kilometres of one another, and dated to the same period, a quantified assessment of their
ceramics exhibits few similarities between their assemblages, with respect to both decoration
and shape frequencies. It is unlikely that such differences would have been noted through a
qualitative approach, since superficially the assemblages might appear comparable.
113
Table 3.1: Ceramic shapes and decoration in north-central Portugal
Characteristic decoration
and shape type
Alegrios; Moreirinha Monte do
Frade
Castele. io Quinta da
Padreira
Percentage decoration of
overall assemhlage
5 617( 5'ý( 5 4.5/,
Incised 45(/( 221-/( 45 7 0'/t
Plastic 24 '/(, 5% 8Y( 10% -
Pattern burnished 18% 4917( 3517( 20% 40%
Impressed 7.4/(, 23% 1 No - 20%
lloquitlue 2(11o - - -
Incised llai6es 3.6(/( - 40%
Painted - 2.5 IX, - - -
Vessel type
High carinated bowl 28 38 c1c 36 0/'(, 1 Nu
Medimin carinated N)wl - 13% 12% -
V-shaped howl Ac - -
Hemispherical howl 2 ýu I% 20/(, 18 (/c
Round howl - - 1017(
Globular howl -
Straight sided
Round necked howl - 217c
Bag-shaped jar 0.5 42% - 4 1 3X)
Globularjar 10% - 3%, 61% 17%
Tronconical jar 2 cl( - -
[Jolemoutlijar - 1
Carinated everted rim jar - - I O(Yv
l"ithos 45 11r, 3 F, lk
u:, e, ted rimmedjar Short-necked jar I '7e
l'ot-bellied jar 5%
hkhý 1 1-1
Table 3.2: Ceramic shapes and decoration in central Portitgal.
Uharacteristic decoration
and shape type
Cerradinha Castelinho Cor6a do
Frade
Outeiro do
Circo
Santa
Luzia
Percentage decoration of'
overall assemblage
I O'k 617( 12'Y( 4/(
Incised 6 (4 221/( 5017( 61;, '
Plastic - 4% - - 3 'T
Pattern burnished 100% 65% 67(/( 25 1 Nc
Impressed - 61/r - 10%
Stab and drag 4 (X 7(/(
Incised llaiiks 3% - 66r/(
Carambolo 4% 41/( -
Stamped 8% 2
Painted - - -
Vessel type
High carinated howl 23 10% 717t 15 IX, II
Medium carinated bowl - 4(ýý - - 2%
V-shaped howl 10% 30(7( - 41,7(
Hemispherical howl 1 3'7,, 4 rle -
Straight sided bowl - I 5%
Round howl 1 817c 3(7(, 311c 1017C 2; /v
Globular howl - 2% - -
Ilag-shaped jar 21% 19% 24% 10% 1517r
Globularjur 14% 7% 10 C7, 16 (/'e, ()17(
Tronconicaljar 9% 1% 6 (7t, 7, 'ý 2%
flithos A(ý 411ýr
Everted rimmedjar 4 (Yr I rl(l 4 (Yt,
I folemouth jar 6% 5%
Carinatedjar -
5(/( - 4 %,
-. ý' hortnecked jar 5% 4% 7% . 12(7,,
Straight sidedjar 2% 417c
Long neckedjar - - 95,
Pol-bellied jar 4%
-_7
7 ý7(
The ceramic analyses have successFully recognised many complexities within the difTerent
w, semhlages, but when anialgainated some of' the chief' dcvelopments note(] would have heen
missed had examination been restricted to shape and decoration alone. With the exception of Conimbriga and Santa Luzia, the inaJority of sherds from the other assernblagCS Suggested that
they were produced locally, possibly on a rion-speciallst "house hold" or -domestic" level,
although tile pattern burnished wares may hint at incipient craft specialisation. The fabric and
hh, IIý
technological aspects of the study support such a hypothesis, as does the fact that all of the
assemblages were dominated by functional and "utilitarian" vessels, including cooking pots and
storage jars. It is unlikely that such predominantly utilitarian assemblages that were locally
manufactured can clearly indicate cultural groupings or be relevant to wider regional ceramic developments. The fabric analysis also suggested that changes in fabrics were more temporally
sensitive indicators than alterations in vessel shape, and that there may have been some
deliberate selection of temper and clay pastes in accordance with vessel technology and function.
Although a contextual analysis was limited, due to the lack of detailed stratigraphy and
architectural features recognised at most of these sites, the contrasting assemblages from the
rock shelter and contemporary open settlement of Alegrios is significant. The coarser fabrics
and predominance of pattern burnished vessels within the rock shelter contexts are clearly
distinguished from the fine wares with plastic decoration in the open area, and suggest that
factors other than chronology may be responsible for such differences. The variation in
ceramic types implies that these two settlement areas functioned differently.
The relationship between vessel types and decoration was not always obvious but some forms
of decoration were restricted to particular vessel types. However, the rules governing the
decoration of different vessel categories were not the same at all the settlements. For example,
at Moreirinha, Castelinho and Monte do Frade, both globular and bag-shaped jars and carinated
bowl forms received pattern burnished decoration, but at Alegrios, Santa Luzia and Outeiro do
Circo this technique was confined to high carinated bowls. Similarly, impressed and incised
decoration were noted only on pithoi and globular jars at Moreirinha and Alegrios, but was
present on straight sided bowls and pot-bellied jars at Monte do Frade. From all the
assemblages studied, it can be noted that pattern burnished decoration is predominantly found
on open vessels - cups and bowls. It may be proposed that this inter-regional decorative
tradition was related to communal eating or feasting and hence associated with contexts of display, prestige and competition (Gebauer 1995; Hayden 1995).
The conclusions that can be drawn from all of these patterns suggest that the vast majority of
ceran-fics from all of these sites were locally manufactured, probably by non-specialists or only
part-time specialists, and that most of the ceramics fall into purely functional or utilitarian
categories. The stratified assemblages (e. g. from Castelinho, Moreirinha, Monte do Frade and Llanete de los Moros) also demonstrated considerable continuity with respect to vessel shapes,
and to a lesser degree, vessel decoration over extensive time frames, and this calls into question
the reliability of these aspects of pottery as typo-chronological indicators.
116
The evidence also demonstrates that the assemblages from each of these sites were unique and
that it is difficult to incorporate any of them into wider regional or cultural groupings.
Although some parallels between sites could be noted with respect to vessel shapes and specific
decorative features, the quantified analysis highlights the problems that emerge when we
employ qualitative "tick-of' lists of a reduced number of characteristics to demonstrate the
degree of similarity between different site assemblages.
The increased availability of radiocarbon dates for many western Iberian Later Bronze Age
settlements in the last decade or so has provided the opportunity to date these ceramic
assemblages more accurately. The typo-chronological assignations that still smack strongly of
a Childean culture-historical approach have been adhered to for too long. It is time to strike a
balance. Obviously no site should be studied or understood in isolation and it would be wrong
to argue that each site should have a unique and individual socio-cultural history. On the other
hand, we have over-amalgamated Later Bronze Age sites to the extent that we have lost sight of
more local or regional developments. Since we can date many of these pottery assemblages
independently, it is possible to move away from simply relying upon broad relatively
homogenous cultural groupings, and embrace the variety and heterogeneity that such terms
have hitherto masked.
117
Chapter Foun
The Later Bronze Age of Western Iberia: a re-analysis of the Settlement
and Ceramic Sequences
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will expand upon the methodological considerations and observations made in the
previous chapter. Although the pottery assemblages analysed in Chapter Three were
predominantly characteristic of the later part of the Later Bronze Age (i. e. after 1300 cal. BC),
some of the main conclusions drawn from the quantified analyses are relevant here.
Assemblages from the earlier part of the Later Bronze Age in Portugal were not available for
study for two reasons. Only five settlement sites characteristic of the "Middle" Bronze Age had
been recognised when practical analysis was being carried out in Portugal (1995 and 1996) and
access was denied to all of these.
The last chapter demonstrated that archaeologists must take many more complex factors into
consideration when reassessing current chronological sequences and "cultural" groupings
constructed from domestic pottery assemblages. Later Bronze Age ceramics show much
continuity with earlier traditions with respect to shape, decoration, manufacture and function.
With the exception of north-central Portugal, decoration formed a small, though not necessarily insignificant, component of the overall assemblages. This chapter will now explore the
realisation that Later Bronze Age ceramic traditions are not particularly distinctive or diagnostic when compared with earlier and later traditions, and are predominantly undecorated. Such characteristics may well have encouraged their opacity and lack of recognition in the
archaeological record. The evidence used to reassess this period comes from more recent investigations, where, in general, supporting stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates are
available to confirm these observations.
4.2 The persistent Beaker problem
Since the underlying current of this thesis is an attempt to dispel the lacunae that presently exist for the Later Bronze Age in western Iberia, an understanding of the Earlier Bronze Age cultural
sequences is necessary. One of the central issues lies in the nature of the Beaker cultural
complex and chronology.
"Bronze awls do not a culture make, nor incised sherds a Beaker" (Topp 1987: 269).
"All of these pots, of various styles, demonstrate the cultural continuum from the Neolithic to
the full Bronze Age. These pots could be the work of different groups in the community,
118
different phases of the same community, or different communities allfrequenting the same pot. "
(Lawson 1983: preface).
Although Andrew Lawson studied Beaker domestic sites in East Anglia, the frustration he
vented in his attempt to classify them could easily be applied to Beaker assemblages in western
Iberia. The discontinuity between the Chalcolithic and the subsequent Early Bronze Age has
traditionally been marked by the supposed lack of coherence in settlement and burial patterns,
as well as material culture. In western Iberia, as in many other parts of western Europe, Beaker
pots have been used as one of the defining artefacts that are thought to disappear gradually after
ca. 1800/1700 cal. BC. Yet even if the Beaker tradition did decline after this period, it is
important to appreciate that Beaker pots were more a part of symbolic than everyday utilitarian
contexts (Lisboa 1987b) and thus would be influenced more by ideological and ritual
transitions rather than any obvious socio-economic or structural changes (c. f. Braudel 1972).
The problem of Beakers as Chapman states "is one of the oldest and most celebrated in
European prehistory" (1987: 1). Certainly, Beaker pottery in western Europe has been subject
to recent re-appraisal and re-evaluation (Mercer 1977; Harrison 1977; 1980; Waldren 1979;
Waldren et aL 1984; Waldren and Kennard (eds. ) 1987; Diaz-Andreu 1991; Garrido Peiia
1997). It might be argued that not much more could be added to these scholarly appraisals of
"Beaker pottery". Yet an overview this research indicates that most investigators have
concentrated upon the origin and definition of Beakers, questioning how we constitute them
geographically, socially, economically and even ideologically (e. g. Burgess and Shennan 1976;
Sherratt 1987).
4.2.1 Chronology of the Beakers
Less has been made of their temporal dimensions and the endurance of Beaker traditions. In
the Balearic islands, a chronological sequence for sites pertaining to "Beaker associated"
activity has been created from a series of 45 well defined radiocarbon dates (Waldren 1997: 25-
27). As a result, it is now possible to divide the Beaker sequence in this region into two phases
: Early (2000-1700 cal. BQ and Late (1710-1300 cal. BC). For example, the settlement of Son
Femandell Oleza, in Mallorca shows uninterrupted occupation with a continued use of Beaker
ceramics that show only gradual changes in style from 2000 to 1300 cal. BC ; long after the
supposed den-fise of this tradition. Thus, the Balearics have provided one of the best absolutely dated Beaker sequences, and highlight the problems encountered in the Peninsula itself where
the increasing publication of radiocarbon dates demonstrates that the Beakers cannot be slotted
neatly into a specific time frame.
119
The confusion over the persistent Beaker problem has spilled over into the Earlier Bronze Age
and made it difficult to define. There is no obvious difference in material culture with the
Chalcolithic as has been traditionally believed, since the beginning of the Bronze Age can no longer be equated with the disappearance of Beaker traditions (pace Dfaz Andreu. 1991;
Garrido Pefia 1997). To some extent, changes in Beaker decoration can be noted, as the All-
Over-Corded and Maritime traditions gradually decline (Harrison 1980), but other Beaker
styles such as Ciempozuelos, Palmela, Silos, Domajos, Salorno and Carmona continue. Other
supposedly diagnostic Beaker elements - such as V-perforated buttons, archer's wristguards and flat daggers - continue throughout much of the Earlier Bronze Age and into the Later Bronze
Age until ca. 1400 BC (Harrison 1977; 1980: 96; Almagro Gorbea 1997: 218; Senna-Martfnez
1995b). Spindler has adn-dtted to difficulties in differentiating between Chalcolithic and Bronze Age horizons in both south-east Spain and Portuguese Extremadura, which show
uniformity and continuity. "rhe Campaniforme culture survives in certain regions of the
Iberian Peninsular for a large part of the Bronze Age, even through the stratigraphies of Orce,
Palmela and Rotura" (Spindler 1988: 59)1 and "We must accept that the Beaker culture endured in various regions of the Iberian Peninsula until the end of the Middle Bronze Age" (ibid: 60) 2.
Radiocarbon dates show that the Beaker pottery tradition makes its first appearance in the
Peninsula in the last third of the third millennium BC, developing and expanding through the
first half of the second millennium and finally ending in the middle to late second millennium BC (Poyoto Holgado 1984-1985: 93-105). These late dates have generally been ignored or
argued to be erroneous and hence their implications have not been realised. In fact the 1996
publication of the majority of radiocarbon dates presently available for the Iberian Peninsula
(Castro Martfnez et aL 1996) has ornitted some of Late Beaker dates, believing them to be
contaminated.
The argument that the Beaker tradition dwindles in the Early Bronze Age is contradicted by the following radiocarbon dates. At the hillfort of Penha Verde in Sintra, Beaker pottery was dated
between 1585 and 1380 cal. BC (W656: 1470±200BC) (Almagro Gorbea 1972: 239), while
occupation horizons at Zarnbujal, Torres Vedras, showed an extended chronological span in
association with Beaker pottery from 2250 - 1580 cal. BC (Soares and Cabral 1984: 177). At
El Acebuchal or Carmona, in Seville, Beaker pottery was recognised as continuing into Later
Bronze Age levels that were dated by Harrison between 140OBC and 1200 BC (Harrison and Bubner 1976: 86; Harrison 1977: 71-72; Figure 4.2). One conflicting date for Beaker material
comes from Cueva de la Mora, Somadn, in Extremadura, which has been calibrated between
910 and 730 cal. BC (CSIC-67: Almagro Gorbea 1975: 60). At a small open settlement called
120 kh,
the Universidad Laboral, in Seville, a Bell Beaker was found on a hut floor with a date of 1610-
1360 cal. BC (1-10764=1240±120BC: Ferndndez G6mez and Sierra 1985: 19).
It is true that there are only a few dates available that may confirm the considerable endurance
of Beaker traditions, but these absolute dates should not be ignored. We must build typological
and chronological sequences that embrace the survival of this tradition and which agree with
the astute observations made by Sangmeister over thirty years ago, when he recognised that
Beakers survived in many parts of the Iberian Peninsula until the end of the second millennium
BC (1966: 214).
There are still few interpretations of the Earlier Bronze Age in the west that connect
developments with the preceding Late Chalcolithic, and hence relationships between
Chalcolithic and Bronze Age ceramic styles are difficult to assess. The extended association of
western Iberia with the Argaric culture may be partly responsible for this. As a result, most
explanations of the Earlier Bronze Age in the west consider it emerging ex novo, and distinct
from earlier periods.
4.2.2 Bronze Age sites with Beaker ceramics
We must address how long the Beaker tradition really survived in western Iberian ceramic
types, and what the persistence of Chalcolithic vessel shapes and decoration might allow us to
infer.
Zambujal is still labelled as a Chalcolithic settlement although recent investigation has
confirmed that occupation continues into the Earlier Bronze Age (Kunst 1987: 591) and
probably also into the Later Bronze Bronze Age, albeit it on a decreased scale. Recent
excavations (Kunst 1995b: 32-34 and Kunst pers. comm. ) have produced some material and
possibly an occupation horizon dating to the Later Bronze Age. Most notably, a double elbow- fibula was discovered in situ, with other aspects of material culture that might not have been
recognised as Later Bronze Age (in this case eleventh to eighth centuries BC) had they not found in association with the fibula (Figure 4.1.1). The ceramic analysis of Zambujal (see
Kunst 1987: 591-610 and 1995c: 136-149) demonstrated that Bell Beakers are rare, constituting
only 0.34% of the overall assemblage. Furthermore, the term "Beaker" is not particularly
relevant to these sherds, since most of them are bowl forms (Figure 4.1.2), and appear to
represent a derived form of the tradition that might also imply a later chronology, as the late
radiocarbon dates listed above indicate.
This mis-terminology can also be recognised at Cerro de la Encina, Monachil (Molina 1978), El
Acebuchal, Carmona (Harrison et aL 1976) and at Los Millares (Arribas and Molina 1987),
where vessels have been classified as "Beaker" on the basis of their combed and incised
121
decoration (Arribas and Molina 1987: 129-138). Many of these so-called Beakers did not
conform to the traditional Beaker shape, but rather incised decoration was applied to round or
hemispherical bowls (Molina 1983). Thus their evolved shapes could be representative of the
Earlier Bronze Age (Figure 4.2.1). At Cerro de la Encina, round hemispherical bowls and other
evolved Beaker shapes showed continuity into Earlier and Later Bronze Age proto-Cogotas
horizons which were radiocarbon dated between 1850 and 1440 cal. BC (2 sigma - UGRA-14,
UGRA-l 16 and M-1931 - Gonzdlez G6mez et al. 1985: 611) (Figure 4.2.2).
In the Tagus estuary, the evidence suggests that the Copper Age pottery tradition is maintained
with vigour until ca. 150OBC, and continues until ca. IOOOBC (see Table 4.1) Evolved Beaker
types do not disappear until the Later Bronze Age ceramic traditions that are represented in the
west by the horizons of Lapa do Furno and Alpiarga (Schubart 1971; Spindler 1981b). Both
these authors perceive this horizon as the emergence of new cultural groups, who occupied the
same areas as the groups of the Carnpaniforme tradition. However, earlier traditions still
persist in such Later Bronze Age horizons, as demonstrated by the association of pattern
burnished pottery and "Palmela" style cups at sites in the Guadalquivir valley and central
Portugal. These settlements include Monte de Sdo Martinho in Castelo Branco (Pinto and Parreira 1978; Vilaga 1995), Alapraia in Lisbon (Cardoso and Carreira 1993), Alto do
Castelinho da Serra in Monternor (Gibson et al. 1998), Zarnbujal in Torres Vedras (Kunst
1995a and b) (Figure 4.1.2) and Cor6a do Frade in tvora (Arnaud 1979). At the site of
Alpiarga itself, high carinated burnished cups, "Alpiarga" or squat straight sided vessels and footed cups of supposedly Chalcolithic origin, were repeatedly found in the same associations (Kalb and H6ck 1985; 1988a: 193-200; Spindler 1988: 59) (Figure 4.3).
Chalcolithic traditions thus appear to survive at least until the end of the ill-defined "Middle"
Bronze Age (or ca. 1300-120OBC), and, in some areas, particularly central Portugal, into the
"Late" Bronze Age (ca 1000-90OBC). The table below lists ten sites in central and southern Portugal that produced Beaker ceramics in definite Later Bronze Age contexts. This evidence is undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg, and it is important to question how many settlements in
this region have been misidentified as Chalcolithic: on the basis of evolved Beaker shapes in the
absence of radiocarbon dates or associated material culture that is easily recognisable as Bronze
Age.
122
Table 4.1. - Bronze Age sites with Beaker ceramics in Portugal
Site Material Date
AIjustel, Algarve Comb-decorated Beaker Hillfort dated to Later Bronze Age/Early Iron Age shards (Schubart 1971)
Castro de SAo Comb-decorated Beaker Large hilifort: dated to Later Bronze Age (Veiga Bemardo, Moura shards Ferreira 1971)
Castro do Comb decorated and Large fortified castro dated from Late Chalcolithic Chibanes, Palmela Beaker pottery to Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (note Paimela, Set6bal Beaker material In association with Later Bronze
Age occupation levels and bronze objects (Velga Ferreira 1966: 34-36)
Lapa do Fumo, Incised Palmela Beaker, Bell Settlement and burial cave site. Some of the Sesimbra Beakers Beaker material associated with external pattern
burnished pottery but could be due to the stratigraphic mixing of cave deposits (SerrAo 1958a; 1958b; 1960)
Praia clas Magas, Palmela and comb-decorated Chambered tomb with possible nearby open Sintra Beaker shards, comb- settlement site. Radiocarbon date of 1690 *60
stamped maritime shards BC (MFI/3281) (Leisner at al. 1969; Harrison 1977.128)
Castro do Penha Bell Beakers with comb- Hillfort with large defensive wall and stone towers, Verde, Sintra decoration, Palmela and circular houses within. Radiocarbon dated to
hemispherical bowls, 1470*20OBC (W-656). (Almagro Gorbea 1972). Maritime herringbone decorated shouldered jars, incised decorated vessels
Cova da Moura, Incised Beakers and Cave settlement- Beaker materials associated Torres Vedras carinated bowls, Palmela with all-over burnished and undecorated vessels
Incised hemispherical bowls more characteristic of Later Bronze Age. Dated between 1500-120OBC (Tdnidade and Volga Ferreira 1971; Kunst 1988)
Castro do Comb and Incised decorated Hillfort dated from Late Chalcolithic to Later Pragan9a, Leiria hemispherical bowls, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, These shards
Maritime herringbone comb were found in association with other undecorated decorated carinated bowls vessels and all-over burnished medium and high
carinated bowls that may be Later Bronze Age In date (Velga Ferreira 1966: 18-20)
Alpiarga, Footed plain beakers and From both cist cemetery and settlement site that Santar6m comb-decorated were dated to the Later Bronze Age (Marques
hemispherical bowls 1972; Kalb and H6ck 1988a)
Crasto, Figuiera Incised Beaker shards Hilltop settlement site dated to Later Bronze Age da Foz, Coimbra (Rocha 1899-1903)
123
4.3. The Later Bronze Age of north-west Portugal
4.3.1 "Middle" Bronze Age evidence
There is little published data covering the majority of the second millennium BC in northern
and north-central Portugal. Evidence for settlement prior to ca. 130OBC in this region consists
of only a handful of sites. S. 0. Jorge's 1986 doctoral publication includes a number of drawings of pottery that came from the surface collection of the three small open settlements of Sdo Lourenqo, Circo and Nossa Senhora da Bandeira, all in Tras-os-Montes. These drawings
were of evolved Beaker vessels and polished low and medium carinated bowls that may attest
to occupation after the traditional "Early" Bronze Age. Furthermore, the forerunner to the
Later Bronze Age Bai6es Santa Luzia pottery tradition may be detected in the Late Chalcolithic
where post firing incised decoration has been recognised at sites such as Castro da F6mea,
Torres Vedras (Leisner 1961: 42, Figures 1-4), Ameal VI, in Beira Alta (Senna-Martfnez 1989)
and Quinta Nova, Carregal do Sal (Senna-Martfnez 1995a: 70). Some of the vessel shapes (e. g. hemispherical bowls and globular jars) and the incised decoration repertoire (particularly the
barbed wire and corn ear motifs) demonstrates a long and strong continuity with the earlier
traditions of the late Chalcolithic.
Some recently excavated settlements in this region have provided evidence for the once
66elusive" Middle Bronze Age. These include the settlement of Povoada da Sola, Braga,
excavated by Bettencourt (1992). This hilltop site dominates access to the surrounding valleys
on the left bank of the river Cavado, and excavations revealed three successive occupation
horizons. The first period of settlement was dated to the Chalcolithic, the second to the later
second millennium, and the third to the Late Roman period. Five stratigraphic levels relating to
developments "later than the Chalcolithic but earlier than the Iron Age" (Bettencourt 1992:
102-103) were detected from trench 1, trench 3 (C-21/0) and trench 4, located in the central
area of the settlement, and from trench 2 located on the south-eastem part of the hill (Figure
4.4.2 and 4.4.4).
Structural evidence was recognised in all of the occupation horizons and consisted of circular
stone structures orfondos de cabaila, and circular post-hole and mud-brick houses. Wooden
and stone buildings were found to be contemporary, and both occurred in all of the Bronze Age
occupation levels. Many of the pre-existing Late Chalcolithic structures were re-used during
this period, including the earlier stone wall, which showed later modifications. In fact no break
in occupation was detected between the Chalcolithic horizons and those of the Bronze Age, and
the stratigraphy may attest to continuity in occupation over a period of more than 700 years. Unfortunately, all of the radiocarbon dates so far published have been obtained from the
124
earliest deposits, and were attributed to the Latest Chalcolithic occupation (no later than
2000/1900 cal. BQ. Thus we cannot be certain about the chronology of the later phases of the
site.
The ceramics that came from the five occupation levels attributed to the Bronze Age - house
structures, storage pits and eight pits that Bettencourt (1992: 104) interpreted as pit burials -
showed coherence throughout the sequence. All were handmade and included carinated cups,
wide rimmed jars, and plastic cordon decorated globular jars, as well as a continuity in
Chalcolithic vessel types (simple ovoid bowls and straight sided vessels) (Figure 4.4.1,4.4.4,
4.4.8-10). The predon-dnant form of decoration was applied plastic motifs consisting of simple
cordons or applied knobs or lugs on jars and "pucaros" (small earthen ware bowls) (Figure
4.4.1,3 and 7). It was only the latest Bronze Age horizon that produced a large quantity of
decorated pottery (over 40%, and mainly on bowl forms) that included Penha and Bai6es types
with incised decoration, and in trench 4 these were contextually associated with incised pottery
of the Cogotas I tradition (Bettencourt 1992: 105-106).
The pottery sequence at this site is important, since it may demonstrate continuity throughout
the Earlier and Later Bronze Age, and continuity with Chalcolithic traditions. Secondly, the
sequence demonstrates links between Cogotas, Penha and Bai6es incised decorative traditions.
The vessels decorated by these three methods all show similarities in form and manufacturing
technology (small simple bowls, carinated jars etc. ). Perhaps we should start to see these types
of pottery as three related species that can be incorporated into the larger genus of incised
decoration. This would also have implications for our definitions of the supposedly distinct
cultural groupings that they represent. Bettencourt argued that the presence of Cogotas
material may allow this latest Bronze Age level to be dated between the eleventh and eighth
centuries BC (Bettencourt 1992: 104), but Castro Martfnez et al. (1995; 1996: 155-159) have
provided radiocarbon dates that place this tradition much earlier - from at least 1600-1000 cal. BC.
4.3.2 The Bai6es-Santa Luzia tradition
The Later Bronze Age of the Beiras is better understood, although it has been recognised only
relatively recently. Known as the Bai6es-Santa Luzia cultural grouping, it was first defined on
the basis of ceramics excavated from the settlements of Castro de Santa Luzia (Silva 1978: 185-
196; 1979; 1984; Silva et al. 1985), Nossa Senhora da Guia (Kalb 1978: 112-138; 1979: 581-
590) and Cabego do Crasto do Sdo Romdo (Guerra et aL 1989; Senna-Martfnez 1989; 1993d;
1993e). The entity thus corresponds to a small group of settlements which have so far been
found to produce the distinctive type of pottery (Figure 4.5). All of the sites initially placed
125
,, Ito tills "distinct cultural group" (Senna-Martfnez et al 1986; Gil et al. 1989; Senna-Marthiez
1989: 200) are hillforts that are situated in strategic and dominating positions. Sites added to
this grouping later include the hillforts of Castelo de Matos, Bai5o (Quelroga 1984; Queiroga L- tý
and Figuelral 1988), and Castelo de Aguiar, Vila Potica de Aguiar (Figueiral and QLICII-Oga
1988: 143, Figure 9). However, the excavations of Boup do Frade, Bai5o (S. O. Jorge 1988a:
71, Figure 42-B) demonstrated that open settlements can also be attributed to this grouping C- (Figure 4.6).
The definitions offered by Kalb (1979), Silva (1986) and Senna-Martfnez ( 1989,1993a; 1993b;
1995a) allow the main characteristics of the Later Bronze Age Bai6es-Sanla Luzia type pottery
to be suniniarised as follows:
Hand made, irregularly fired with polished or burnished surfaces. Generallv clark brown orl
buiTcoloured fabric pastes.
Incised or etchcd c1ccoration that is Usually madc post-firing (pace Scmia-Martinez 1989: 1
124- 129 who argues this is always the case, some Bai6es decorated sherds from Castel(jo I
and Monte do Frade (Vilaqa 1995: 120-121 and 154-155) were made through pre-firingl
burnish. Also the finer decoration is frCLILIently undertaken in the leather-hard state
firing (Jorge 1988c: 17 1)).
Decoration in horizontal strips and hands, concentrated in the upper vessel area and aro
the neck and rim (Figure 4.6.1 ).
-4. Decorative Illotil Is are predominantly triangular, rhomhoid, zit(l, -zag and harhed wirc (arainel
jOrpado) designs (Figure 4-8).
(), Ice again the cliaracterisation of' it ceramic grouping and cultural entity rests almost entirely
upon the pottery decoration, and vessel shapes have not been adequately stressed, except by
Serina-Martinez ( 1989). From the publications of Senhora da Gina, S, -io Juli,, -io and S5o Ronl5o
and from studying the assemblage of Santa Luzia (see Chapter 3), it is possible to construct a
IN,, )()Io(, y of the shapes represented (see Figure 4.7). These are as follows:
126
Table 4.2
Vessel type Santa
Luzla
Senhora
da Gula
Sio
Romfio
Sio
JUNO Total %
representation
Figure
reference (see Figure 7)
High carinated bowls 15% 13% 21% 28% 19% 4.7.1.5
Low carinated bowls 4% 8% 14% 30/6 7% 4.7.1.9
Middle carinated bowls
11% 15% 12% 9% 130% 4.7.2.4
Middle carinated jars 9% 7% 13% 22% 12% 4.71.4
V-shaped bowls 7% 5% 1% 10% 6% 4.7.1.7
Short necked
globular jars
16% 17% 9% 21% 16% 4.7.3.1-2
Everted rimmed pot bellied jars
13% 10% 8% 0% 7.5% 4.7.1.3
Hemispherical bowls 3% 6% 8% 0% 4%
Bag shaped jars 7% 7% 3% 2% 4.5% 4.7.2.1
Tronconical vessels 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4.7.3.7-9
Large strap handled
everted rimmed
storage earthen jars
6% 4% 5% 0% 5% 4.7.2.2
Straight sided jars 5% 2% Ký 2%
The typological analysis demonstrates that the main diagnostic vessel types differ in
representation at the four sites. V-shaped bowls and straight sided jars are rare at Sdo Romdo,
but some types (particularly the carinated bowls and pot-bellied jars) show similar frequencies
at all four settlements (Compare Figure 4.7.1,4.7.2 and 4.7.3). The assemblage of Sdo Julido
shows less variety with respect to shape in comparison to the other three sites. Thus even
within an analysis of only four sites, certain variations can be detected. The predominant type
is that of the high carinated bowl (19%), followed by the short necked globular jar (16%) and
middle carinated bowl or cup (13%). Other types include carinated jars, ovoid and hemispherical bowls and bag-shaped cooking jars. The morphological analysis undertaken by
Senna-Martinez (1989; 1995a) defined 49 types, but many of these rested upon subtle rim differentiations that over-classified the material. The Bai6es decoration is predominantly
applied to the upper half of the vessels, and Senna-Martfnez noted its appearance on only six of
the 49 forms distinguished. Martins (1987) has recognised ten diagnostic types from the hillfort of Sao Juliao (see Table 4.2), with decoration appearing most frequently on the first
127
three types (i. e. the carinated bowls). The publications of Senhora da Guia and Sdo Romdo did
not provide quantitative data concerning types and percentages of vessels decorated, but the
drawings suggest that roughly a third to a half of all vessels were decorated. Thirty eight
percent of the sherds analysed from Santa Luzia had Bai6es decoration (see Chapter Three), but
pattern burnished and "a cepillo" decoration was also noted (8% and 4% respectively).
Decoration was restricted to carinated bowls (18%), pot-bellied jars (12%), globular jars (6%)
and straight sided bowls (2%).
Thus the decorative motifs of the "Bai6es-Santa LuziaP tradition follow closely the central and
southern Portuguese patterns of pattern burnishing, as do the vessel shapes (medium and high
carinated bowls, short necked, globular and bag-shaped jars) (compare Figure 4.7 with Figures
4.8 and 4.9). It could be argued that they need not necessarily be viewed as separate traditions
corresponding to completely distinct cultural groups. The only major difference between the
two traditions is the actual technique used to create the decoration - incision versus pattern
burnish. Even here the distinction is not absolute, since several sherds at Santa Luzia had
external pattern burnished motifs and Vilaga (1995) recognised Bai6es-Santa Luzia decoration
at Catelejo and Monte do Frade in the Beira Alta that was made by both incision and
differential burnishing. These decorative differences are not by themselves enough to justify
the dichotomy that is assumed to mark a real frontier between two areas of pottery dispersion
and archaeological cultures - Bai6es-Santa Luzia, centred in the settlements of the Beiras and
the north of Portugal and Alpiarga and Lapa do Fumo, in the regions of the lower Tagus and the
Alentejo '- it is time to offer fresh interpretations for the implications of distinct decorative
styles rather than relying on a cultural explanation.
4.3.3 Chronology of the Bal6es-Santa Luzia tradition
There are now a number of absolute dates for the Bai6es-Santa Luzia tradition. Until the
radiocarbon dates for Castro de Santa Luzia (Senna-Martfnez 1991a: 4) and Castro de Sdo
Romdo were published (Senna-Martfnez 1995a: 71), the grouping was believed to be
characteristic of the final phase of the Late Bronze Age and continuing into the Early Iron Age
(Martins 1990). This hypothesis was substantiated by the presence of associated stamped
decorated pottery which has frequently been linked with Early Iron Age Hallstatt and Central
European types (Savory 1968; Silva 1986). The three dates from Sao Romdo have been
calibrated between 1301 and 801 cal. BC, and those from Santa Luzia have a chronology between 1311 and 850 cal. BC, clearly demonstrating that this tradition may be as much as four
hundred years earlier than originally asserted (see Table 4.3). Other dates from Cota da Pefia
(1406-836 cal. BC) and Lavra H (1402-772 cal. BC) confirm this early chronology. In fact the
128
only late dates (after 90013C) for this horizon come from Castelo de Matos and Torroso. The
extension of the tradition back in time also begins to fill in the gap of the "missing years"
between 1600 and IOOOBC.
Table 4.3: Radiocarbon datesfor the Later Bronze Age (Baii5es-Santa Luzia tradition) in north
central Portugal
Site Lab. Reference Age (B. P. ) Calibrated date (2 Reference
slgma)
Castro do Sao RomAo ICEN-197 2910*35 1270-900cal BO Senna-Martinez 1991 a; B[16] 1995a
Castro do Sao RomAo ICEN-824 2680*80 91 0-FO1 call BC Senna-Mart(nez 1991 a, B[25], Sela 1995a
Castro do Sao RomAo ICEN-197 2910*35 1252-949cal BC Senna-Martfnez 1991 a, B, Sale 1995a
Castro de Sao RomAo ICEN-198 2970*35 1301-1041 cal BC Bettencourt 1998 C[ 105], Seia
Bur. Moura de Sao ICEN-600 2770*90 11 12-829cal BC Senna-Martfnez 1995a
Romao, Seia
Castro de S. Luzia, ICEN-489 2960*50 1300-1095cal BC Silva at al. 1982-3;
Viseu Senna-Marfinez 1984a;
1991 a
Castro do S. Luzia ICEN-486 2960*60 1311-1084cal BC Silva at al. 1982-3; Senna-Martlnez 1984a; 1991a
Castro do S. Luzia ICEN-485 2920*80 Senna-Martfnez 1991 a
Castro de S. Luzia ICEN-487 2810*100 11 20-850cal BC Senna-Martinez 1991 a
Castro do. S. do Guia GrN-7484 26501'130 1215-420cal BC. Kalb 1984; 1995; Rovira 1995
Coto da Pefia UGRA-200 2930*100 1406-842cal BC Silva 1986
Coto do Pe6a UGRA-220 2929+100 1401-836cal BC Bettencourt 1998
Santa Catarina, Penha, GrN-5568 2880*65 1260-863cal BC Vilaga 1995 GulmarAes
Citania do Sao JuliAo, ICEN-829 2660*45 899-790cal BC Bettencourt 1994
Vila Verde
Citania de Sao JuliAo ICEN-23 2700*40 907-817 Martins 1988a
Citania de Sao Juli&o ICEN-25 301 O: t35 1364-1228 Martins 1987
Citania de Sao Julido ICEN-27 2890*45 1195-101 Ocal BC Martins 1987; 1988a
Citania de Sao Juliao ICEN-28 2820*40 1 1033-921cal BC Martins 1987,1988a
129
Citania cle SAO Julido ICEN-29 2150*45 352-124cal BC Martins 1987
Citania de SAO JuliAo, ICEN-30 2210*35 370-212cal BC Carballo and Fabr6gas 1991
Citania do SAO Julido ICEN-31 2350*40 420-394 Martins 1987
Citania do SAO JuliAo ICEN-54 3030*80 1413-1199cal BC Martins 1987
Citania de SAO Juliao Gif-6993 2840*80 1123-913cal BC Martins 1986
Citania de SAO JuliAo Gif-7013 2750*60 982-834cal BC Martins 1986
Citania do SAO Julido CSIC-734 2900*50 1212-1015cal BC Carballo and Fabr6gas
1991
Lavra 11, open
settlement
ICEN-414 2980*70 1402-993 cal BC Sanches 1995; 1998
Lavra 11 CSIC-824 2665*65 9 15-772 cal BC Sanches 1995
Lavra 11 OxA-5434 2675*50 910-791 cal BC Sanches 1995
Castelo de Matos,
BalAo
OxA-1759 2730*70 1010-794 cal BC Figueiral and QueirogaI988
Castelo do Matos,
Baldo
OxA-2147 27110: 00 1036-767 cal BC Queiroga and Figueiral
1989
Castelo do Matos,
BaiAo
OxA-2146 2700*90 1024-610 cal BC Vilap 1995
Torroso, Pontevedra GrN-113706 2555*30 801-94-9 cal BC Peha Santos 1992
Torroso, Pontevedra GrN-13678 2515*30 792-520 cal BC Peha Santos 1992
Bouga do Frade, Baido CSIC-629 3955±25 2562-2462cal BC S. O. Jorge 1988a
Bouga do Frade CSIC-630 2720±50 921-821cal BC S. O. Jorge 1988a
13ouga do Frade CSIC-631 2720±50 921-821cal BC S. O. Jorge 1988a
Bour, a do Frade CSIC-632 2710*50 914-817cal BC S. O. Jorge 1988a
Tapado do Caldeira,
Bai&o
KN-2769 3290±55 1649-1508cal BC S. O. Jorge 1983; 1985
Tapado da Calcleira KN-2770 3210*55 1539-1439cal BC S. O. Jorge 1983; 1985
Tapado da Caldeira CSIC-597 2990*50 1325-1131 cal BC S. O. Jorge 1983; 1985
4.3.4 Geographic distribution of the Bai6es-Santa Luzia tradition
Senna-Martfnez (1995a) has argued that the Bai6es tradition was confined to Beira Alta.
Although the majority of settlements (22 at present) containing Bai6es ceramics are
concentrated in this region, this tradition is now known to cover a wider area than the regions
of the Douro Litoral, the Minho and southern Tras-os-Montes. The geographical limits of the
130
Bai6es-Santa Luzia group have recently been reviewed (Castro Martfnez 1992 and see Chapter
Three) to the Mondego river to the south and the lower basin of the Douro to the north.
Vilaga's 1995 publication has widened the southern boundary yet further to Castelo Branco and
Portalegre and a review of Susana Jorge's doctoral thesis (Jorge 1986) revealed several open
settlements with Bai6es decorated vessels in the northern Braga and Vila Real regions, perhaps
also widening the northern extension of the grouping.
The majority of sites with Bai6es decorated pottery are settlements, and only one burial site - that of Tapado da Caldeira (S. O. Jorge 1980b; 1983) - has yet been attributed to this tradition.
Radiocarbon dates from the pit inhurnations at this site span the period from 1649 to 1131 cal
BC (KN-2769 and 2770 and CSIC-597), and may correspond to burial at this cemetery over an
extended period of time.
The present distribution however, is more complex than originally stated. It is possible that
some of the Bai6es type ceramics, or at least imitations, reached more southern regions of the
Peninsula. This hypothesis is based on descriptions, photographs and drawings of published
material from Later Bronze Age sites, although they have not been recognised by their
excavators as such (with the exception of the material from Quinta da Padreira, Abrantes - Mix
and Gibson (u. p)). The examples brought to notice include materials from Castillo de Dofia
Blanca, Cddiz, attributed to the ninth century BC (Ruiz Mata 1988: 44), the upper settlement or
"Poblado Alto" of Carambolo, Seville [tenth to ninth century BC (Carriazo 1973: 393-394)],
Peflon de la Reina, Almerfa (Martfnez and Botella 1980: 301), Cueva de Cortes, Cddiz (Pellicer
1989: 150-156) and even Cabezo de San Pedro, Huelva, where there is the use of the two
techniques of red painting Carambolo and Bai6es geometric incision on the same vessels.
These ceramics were described as "unusual" by the excavators, and may be local imitations of
Bai6es or Penha incised traditions. The fact that Bai6es pottery is found in a much wider
region than previously acknowledged implies that we should adopt a more fluid approach to our interpretation of ceramic entitities, and remove or at least question the rigid "cultural"
boundaries that presently exist.
4.3.5 Settlement types associated with the Bai6es-Santa Luzia tradition
The focus upon hilltop settlements and hillforts in definitions of the Bai6es-Santa Luzia
grouping has underplayed the significance of open sites that can also be dated to the Later
Bronze Age, such as that of Bouqa do Frade (S. O. Jorge 1988) (Figure 4.7.1), and Lavra. H
(Sanches 1988; 1995). The two different types of settlement organisation have been interpreted
by as responses to different social and economic conditions (S. O. Jorge 1990: 248; Martins
1990). The hilltop settlements (Figure 4.11) are assumed to be important centres of production
131
and concentrations of population, controlling both metal production, and long distance
exchange. Open settlements are seen to carry out basic subsistence functions - i. e. agricultural
bases and centres for communal storage. However, most of the hilltop settlements are not
particularly large, and none reach more than two hectares in size. Furthermore, excavations
within them have been confined to small trenches, and only three, Senhora da Guia (Kalb
1979), Cabego do Crasto de Sao Romao (Gil et aL 1989) and Santa Luzia (Silva 1986), have
provided evidence for on site metal production through the presence of clay, stone and bronze
moulds and bronze slag. Only excavations at Santa Luzia and Sao Julido (Martins 1988)
produced substantial evidence of habitation structures, compared with structural evidence
recovered from all the open or rock shelter sites (e. g. Buraca da Moura de Sao Romao (Senna-
Martfnez 1995a) and Bouga do Frade). Thus the differentiation between the settlement types is
based more on assumption than fact.
There are many problems with estimating settlement size since no sites have been fully
investigated, and the small trenches that have been excavated at many can hardly be taken to be
representative of the overall site layout. Furthermore, in the cases of defended sites, the
settlement size has been calculated on the basis of the area that the ramparts enclose. Few
excavators have attempted to determine whether the defensive networks are contemporary with
the Later Bronze Age phases of occupation or whether they are earlier or later creations.
Some of these assumptions stem from the conclusions drawn from the first site to be excavated
in this region in 1977, that of Senhora da Guia, Bai6es, Concelho de Sdo Pedro do Sul, in Viseu
(Kalb 1978; 1979). This site was fortified by a single defensive wall, and its surface was
littered with small heaps of bronze slag. It would now appear that this settlement was a
relatively late development in the emergence of hillforts, since the radiocarbon date from the
shaft of a spearhead (GrN-7484 - 2650±13013P ie 700±13013C) points to a period of occupation
around 800 cal. BC. However, although the spearhead came from the spectacular bronze hoard
found within this settlement, we cannot assume that the hoard was deposited at the same time
as the settlement was occupied (pace Almagro Gorbea 1977; Kalb 1979; 1980).
S. O. Jorge (1990: 240-241) and Rufz-Galvez (1991: 278-280) have both proposed that the
tradition of founding hilltop settlements and hillforts began in certain areas of Beira Alta and
Beira Baixa around the turn of the first millennium cal. BC. However, the radiocarbon dates
presented in Table 4.3 prove that these settlement types emerged much earlier than this, perhaps
even in the late fourteenth century cal. BC. For example, the ramparts and oval house
structures of Sao Julido in Vila Verde were constructed in the fourteenth and thirteenth
centuries cal. BC (Martins 1987: 44; 1988: 146; Carballo and Fdbregas 1991: 259). Thus other
132
hilltop settlements that have dated to the ninth century BC or later on the basis of the Bai6es
tradition ceramics, such as Dos Alegrios in Castelo Branco (Jorge 1990: 240), may also have
earlier occupation horizons.
The open settlements on the plains and in the valleys are poorly known but appear to consist of
small house platforms with circular post hole structures and large numbers of storage pits.
Jorge (1988a) has argued that the pits excavated at Bouga do Frade rnight be interpreted as "pit
dwellings" rather than as underground silos (Figure 4.6.1). The three open settlements of Lavra
in Porto, 0 Casal in Pontevedra. and Bouqa do Frade in Baiio all demonstrate similarities with
many of the Mesetan open settlements that have been dated to the Cogotas I period, such as
Arevavillo de Cega (Ferndndez Posse et aL 199 1 b), La Torrecilla (Cerdefto et al. 1980; Blasco
et A 1988), Soto I and II (Strato 1992), Perales del Rfo (Femdndez Posse 1981) and Arenero
de Valdiva (Diego Conte and Bernaldo de Quiros 1993), all in the Madrid area. Interestingly,
the ceramics that were produced from these sites had much in common with Mesetan traditions,
including Boquique pottery, although sherds of Bai6es decorated carinated bowls and
burnished jars were also noted. Furthermore, two excavated rock shelters in the Coimbra
region - the abrigos of Eira Pedrinha I and II (Vilaqa 1987) - were littered with incised Bai6es
ceramics.
The fact that the rock shelters and the open settlements in this region produced structural
evidence of organic materials (wood, mud-brick and wattle and daub) has led Rufz-Gdlvez
(199 1) and V. 0. Jorge (1995) to suggest that they represent the persistence of a moblie way of life, still largely based on pastoralism and gathering at the very end of the Bronze Age. It
appears that they are both relating ephemeral structural evidence directly with a transient way
of life, and argue that the more solid stone ramparts and building foundations of the hillforts
can be perceived as a later desire to demarcate boundaries in a permamently occupied territory. There are several flaws in this argument. Firstly they both suggest that the transition was from
open pastoral sites to defended hillfort complexes, yet the radiocarbon dates available would
suggest that the development was the other way around. Bouga do Frade has been radiocarbon dated between 921 and 842 cal. BC (CSIC-629,630,631 and 632: S. O. Jorge 1988c: 64-65),
and therefore was occupied over three hundred years later than the hillforts of Santa Luzia and Sdo Romdo. Secondly the use of organic materials may have more to do with raw material
availability and traditional architectural design, rather than with nomadic lifestyles. Certainly
the fact that wooden and stone buildings were found to be contemporary in the Bronze Age
horizons at the settlement of Povoada da Sola (Bettencourt 1992) challenges their theory that
permanent stone structures replace flimsy organic constructions only after the beginning of the first millennium. Thirdly, but no less significantly, the large numbers of storage pits excavated
133
at Lavra and Bouga do Frade, argue against a purely pastoral economy, and several carbonised
cereal grains were collected from pits 6,7 and 8 of Bouga (S. O. Jorge 1988a). These
settlements might also be indicative of permanent occupation, and may be contemporary with
some of the hillforts that are considered to be later.
4.3.6 Conclusions
Research on the Bai6es-Santa Luzia ceramic grouping is still at a provisional stage, but there
are some important observations that should be emphasised. Rather than being defined as a homogenous cultural grouping, it would appear that the pottery demonstrates an accentuated heterogeneity with respect to forms, fabrics and surface treatments. The vessels show a
considerable morphological variety, including low, middle and high carinated bowls,
hemispherical, V-shaped and globular bowls, and bag-shaped and tronconical jars. This variety is undoubtedly a reflection of diverse cultural affiliations and particular functions (depending
on their contextual associations). Initial development of the north Portuguese Bai6es settlement
and ceramic traditions may well be detected in the Earlier Bronze Age, but evidence of this is
limited. Silva (1986: 120-121) and Martins (1990: 130-133) have argued for their earliest
chronological positioning to be around the middle of the second millennium BC, but continuing into the Later Bronze Age. The most important observation, however, is the realisation that the Bai6es tradition encompasses a much wider geographical extent than hitherto appreciated and has a much longer and earlier chronology than previously recognised, dating between the fourteenth and eighth centuries cal. BC.
4.4 The Later Bronze Age of central and southern Portugal and south-western Spain
Since the late 1950s, the Late Bronze Age of central and southern Portugal and south-westem Spain has been primarily recognised through the diagnostic type fossil of pattern burnished
pottery. This was first formally recognised and defined by Cunha SerrAo in 1958 during his
excavations at the cave site of Lapa do Fumo, in Sesimbra, Portugal. Thus, he labelled the decorative technique of partial burnishing that created complex geometric motifs after this type
site (Figure 4.8), and the term has endured until the present day (e. g. see Femdndez Castro
1988; Garnito 1990-1992; Vilaga 1995). Unfortunately the chronology and exact temporal
classification of the pattern burnished pottery from this site is dubious, owing to the disturbed
stratigraphic cave contexts. By the 1960s and early 1970s other sites producing pattern burnished pottery had been recognised, and the known distribution of pattern burnished pottery
was extended to the southern Alentejo, lower Guadalquivir and Huelva regions. Sites included
the rock shelters of Vimeiro and Lapa do Su5o, in Torres Vedras (Schubart 1971: 163-164), the hillforts of Mangancha and Azougada in Aijustrel (Schubart 1975: Map 21; Spindler 1981:
134
Figure 55d) and Mesa dos Castelinhos in Messejaica (Parreira 1971-1975) (Figure 4.9) and the
cemeteries of Atalaia and Santa Vit6ria in Ourique (Schubart 1971). Although none of these
sites had radiocarbon dates, the pattern burnished pottery was repeatedly found in association
with other vessel types and material culture that were recognised as "Late" Bronze Age (eg
carinated cups, hen-dspherical bowls and all-over burnished globular jars). By the late 1970s
and early 1980s, archaeologists had come to recognise pattern burnished pottery as one of the
main defining characteristics in the southern regions of the Iberian Peninsula in the "Late"
Bronze Age (Serr5o 1969: 280 - 303, Figures I-IV; Almagro Gorbea 1977; L6pez Roa 1977:
341-370; 1978: 145-150; Bellido 1975; Escacena 1985; Femdndez Jurado 1988-1989; Vilaqa
1991 and 1995).
4.4.1 Origins of pattern burnished pottery
In the 1960s and 1970s the origin of pattern burnished pottery was sought beyond the Iberian
Peninsula itself. Associations were pursued in the Eastern Mediterranean in particular, which
offered supposedly similar decorative traditions. Lima stated that "the characteristics of this
decorated ceramic suggest that it diffused from the Orient" 4 (1960: 236). Maluquer de Motes
(1963) directly linked the pattern burnished tradition with the Levant, asserting that exacatly
the same kind of decoration could be found at sites like Byblos or Tyre. For him, this neatly demonstrated that pattern burnished pottery represented the first "calling card" of the
Phoenicians, indicating Phoenician trade and Orientalising influence infiltrating into western Iberia along navigable rivers or land routes, including the Guadiana and mountain passes
through the Sierra de Aracena.
one would expect this diffusionist attitude of the 1960s to have been revised in current
archaeological thinking, not least of all because the few available radiocarbon dates
demonstrate the emergence of the pattern burnished pottery tradition at least three centuries before Phoenician colonisation (Vilaga 1995). Nevertheless, this line of discourse continues to be upheld even in recent papers (e. g. see Almagro Gorbea 1989; 1995; Gamito 1990-1992). If
Maluquer had concerned himself more with pottery context, vessel shape and technology, he
would have realised that such far-flung comparsions were unnecessary. Firstly, although the
pottery that he refers to from Byblos is from the Bronze Age, it is from the Middle Bronze Age
(dating to ca. 200OBC in the Near East). Secondly the vessel shapes upon which this decoration occurs are quite unlike the pattern burnished carinated bowls in western Iberia.
Thirdly, the Eastern Mediterrannean types with which he makes direct comparisons are all
wheel made. If pattern burnished pottery owes its inspiration to the Near East or eastern Mediterranean, then it is rather strange that the vast majority of these decorated vessels are
135
hand made. Less than twenty wheel thrown sherds with pattern burnished decoration are
presently known, and these all come from Early Iron Age contexts, demonstrating a continuity
of this tradition after 70OBC (see Chapter Three).
Pattern burnished decoration has a stronger parallel with evolved Late Beaker types of the
fifteenth to thirteenth centuries BC. It would appear that this characteristic pottery type is
merely an extended development of earlier traditions; a fact that it not so exciting as invoking
foreign influences, but certainly more logical. If we accept this possibility we might also be
able to re-negotiate other links with the mid second millennium BC onwards.
4.4.2 Definition of pattern burnished pottery
Pattern burnished decoration tends to be undertaken on well levigated fine ware vessels that are
almost always fired in anoxidised or semi-oxidised conditions. Vessels are grey, brown or brownish-red in colour, and may have been deliberately reduced to enhance the visibilty of the
pattern burnished decoration (Gibson et aL 1998: 205-206). The burnished motifs are executed before firing, whilst the vessel is in a leather-hard state, with a fine blunt instrument on a
slipped surface. The geometric motifs produced include triangles, parallel, vertical and oblique lines, rhomboids and lozenges, many of which are infilled with cross-hatching (Figures 4.8 and 4.9). Originally a distinction was made between the Portuguese and Spanish (particularly
Huelva) burnished traditions on the basis that the former displayed external vessel surface decoration while the latter displayed only internal (Amo 1973; 1974; Almagro Gorbea 1976;
1977; Arnaud 1979; 1992; Beirdo 1973; Cardoso 1986; 1987; Coffyn 1983; 1985; Ferndndez
Jurado 1988-1989; Garnito 1988; 1990-1992; Marques and Andrade 1974; Schubart 1975;
Soares 1986; Tejera Gaspar 1980). This distinction is no longer tenable on the basis that re-
analysis of many Portuguese assemblages has provided examples of both internal and external
pattern burnished pottery, sometimes both on the same vessel (e. g. Figure 4.9.2). These sites include Castelo do Giraldo, tvora (Pago 1961; Spindler 1981: 183-185), Alto do Castelinho da
Serra, Montemor (Gibson et aL 1998; see Chapter Three), Cor6a do Frade, tvora (Arnaud
1979; see Chapter Three), Mangancha and Azougada, in AIjustrel (Ferndndez Castro 1988:
Figure 273; Gamito 1990-1992), and Pedra do Ouro (Femdndez Castro 1988: Figure 275).
The decoration has been found on a restricted repertoire of vessel shapes. These include
carinated jars and long necked jars, hemispherical bowls, and middle and high carinated bowls,
with slightly everted rims. One type in particular, that of the rounded base middle carinated bowl with plain or slightly everted rim, has been recognised as having not only the widest
geographical diffusion, stretching from central Portugal to the Lower Guadalquivir, but appears to be the most commonly pattern burnished vessel (Figure 4.9.6,4.9.8 and 4.9.11). Examples
136
have been cited from the rock shelters of Vimeiro, Maceira, Torres Vedras (Femdndez Castro
1988: Figure 133, a, b; Schubart 1971: 163-164), Barro, Torres Vedras (Spindler 1981: 266,
Figure 53.1-11), Bocas, R(o Maior (Spindler 1981: 184,266; Kunst 1988); the burial sites of
Cabego dos Moinhos, Igreja Nova, Mafra (Spindler 1981: 184,268), and Foio dos Morcegos; at
Monge, Sintra (Schubart 1971: 165, Figure 8f; 1975: 143, Figure 20f), and the settlement of
Cerradinha, Setfibal (Silva and Soares 1981), to cite just a few. Most of these settlements are
located on or near the Atlantic coastline. This observation links with ideas discussed in
Chapter Five about contact and communication between different bronze producing and bronze
using groups along the western fagade of Iberia. While archaeologists have advocated for
relatively intense exchange in bronze metallurgy after ca. 120OBC, they have neglected to
consider how such interaction might be identified in other facets of the Later Bronze Age
material culture. It may have been that pattern burnished ceramics also formed part of this
interaction network or were exchanged and copied to create a more united "Atlantic identity".
It is significant that only certain vessel types were selected for decoration, and this strict
uniformity can be witnessed along the western seabord of Portugal.
4.4.3 Chronology and distribution of pattern burnished pottery
In general pattern burnished pottery still has a rough chronological demaraction, dated between
the tenth and eighth centuries BC. Most of the excavations that have produced this type,
however, have been unable to ascribe the pattern burnished pottery to a specific context, and
even fewer have any supporting radiocarbon dates. Consequently, pattern burnished pottery
remained, until recently, poorly dated. Despite its chronological imprecision, archaeologists
were happy to continue to use it as a type fossil for the Late Bronze Age. Even as late as 1988,
Femdndez Castro, who wrote the currrently most up to date reference work for the Late Bronze
Age Iberian pottery sequences (from the 10' to 8ýh centuries BC) used old publications for her
definition of the chronology and distribution of this tradition, and could not be precise about
the dating of this type. She continued to call it by its out-dated name of the "Lapa do Fumo
culture" and stated "that it can be attributed to the "Bronze Age, probably the Late Bronze
Age" (ibid: 146). The appearance of such a type underpins most Later Bronze Age sequences
in south-western Iberia, and the situation is clearly unsatisfactory.
An attempt to reassess the chronology for pattern burnished pottery can be made in spite of the
deficiency of radiocarbon dates. Some of the evidence will not support the view that pattern burnished pottery is a purely "Late" Bronze Age characteristic, but rather suggests that it
should be given a much longer and earlier chronology. Recently published evidence demonstrates that the pattern burnished tradition is already present before 1350 cal. BC (see
Chapter Three and Table 4.4). This is not surprising, since the ceramic types from all Later
137
Bronze Age sites with pattern burnished pottery show strong continuity with earlier traditions,
particularly with respect to carinated cups and all-over burnished surface treatments. The table
below demonstrates the associations of some of the better stratified settlements that have
produced pattern burnished pottery in western Iberia. One reason why this has not been noted
before may be the continued study of pattern burnished tradition in isolation, without
connections made with other associated ceramic types. This table also includes all the most
recently published radiocarbon dates for settlements levels containing pattern burnished
material.
138
IZ,
2.
Z:
4
_Z
.Z
42
E2
? 46)
(D 0 E E E (D
E 0 E 0 (D
B (D 0 (D U)
19 u
CL CL t2 CL 0 c
0 c:
(0 x
(D
CL (D
CL
Co r- 2 (U -a Co Co
C» 0 C)
2 c (0
2 cr 2
Co cö 2 CY
Co 0
zý 0 0 t» m Co c2 m Co 0 0 0 ca 0 CD C: ) (D C) 0
o 0
0 (D
*m (D CP 0) Co e CO 6 M Z 2ý 10 Co 0
t W
Q a) Ln -
cli - -
C, 2 -
(3) -
0 - C) Z-- - - C)
0 0 .g
(D 0 0 Z)
0 V 0 2 9 0
0 0
'@ cr B (D
- 19
CO P
CL U) 0 CL T Ab N
(U 10 (U m c c: V
x LA 24 E E E 0 - :3
-2 m U 0 c: 0 Z 0 C 0 Z £2 0 0 2
LU (D (D
0 (4 (" ý 10
41 = < - <
1 0 v E Z m1 ZC E -0 1
E
3 E (D
3 E < > E E
m te -0 c: -= I 15 M
Co ZU
' m 0 0 - ig 5 m 0 > (D
'9 8 2 '@ r- .5
u; 0 (0 r < �i
-ý6 9
* m *0 N
_ r_ c 1 0 m
cn U) (L)
LO 0 (0 r-
ce ci
E > c»
r r- 0 r m :E 9
- 0 m _ 0 c2. Lo .2
E 0 , 0 E
c: r >
.0 9
ii :3 8 13 E
Z ý 0 9
> 0 9 -5 0 8 LD) -
c .r Z 0 A
9 E M " E m 79 s; Z
T Z e
79 A
Co Z 0
m T E 5 - :3 Z £ -- 2 Z :3
jo 9 Z m 0
9 Z 0 , & Z m m .2
0
E E E E E :2 iä
a) :2
(D (D
CL 0 < r1. -
tu CL CL CL
ib ' - tu ch - - a
i 75 E ,5 r- -ffl 7 -ca -a :g
. 0 E (A 0 E (D
' w > w 5 w 0 w w w
m
Z ID 9 cu
E m 5 0
(0
0 .2
> (P
tu @ c3) '0 if *0 <
. Z Co M
0 0 -U
0 U) 2 R Z 22
e e 0 0 :@ r- 0 Np CL 8 CL 12
M rn
E (D
(D J--
t2 U) CL
I m Z I m: Z Z FE cc Z: 1
12 m cm Z (D cr; r- - CO
- (Y) Q) (n (D 0)
cö (Z E' Co CY) C» ll E cö 0) ji E
L2 (D
c» - -
r, Co 0 zý -4 2
C) ca
g 0 Co 0
CO ,
C) m
0 Co
C) CD 8 Z 93 Co (7)
- C)
cu 8 8 4 0) Co r- 8 p
(D
(0 Co 0) 9 9 ( ) - 8 Co 9 ä
ID
An 10 9 tu
M 2
0 c
0 CL 10
(D Q 0 CL 0 0
P 8 E
Z Z o m 0
M T
c> (1)
C m § Ao m LO c 0
! @ E E E E m E
79 ý2 -2 8 0
'j= 0 . E a) i2 0 - (D U) (n - ? - (D M Iä > 50 (0
> 2 0 8 > 9 2
c2. 9 X - §
.b <
_)
Z 0 Zc -0 Z , Z l; - Z = E? (U
CL *0
Ef M
c _O m m Lo C m la cm
«2 1 0 : Ca j2
e u I . - EU
Ef g j 0) t
CL M
E > - *ýg E
E .a
,2 b, -
g
-3 f2
e 0 0 @
«o (D m ei
0 Lo (D
E2 s 9) >
10
g Z 0
tu A
m LD)
0 > (0
. 92
cm 8 . - . 2) m 2. ý
' 5 9 . E . - 3: «5 u) n
E r- c3)
Q) m CL E Z ,
2 s 79 a ) .3 -00 2 0 > za
M > 8 9
V CM I >
.L & 0 -3
9 § s r- 0
c 2 9 m 8 iz
E 0 r- R @ (D 0
Z L* 9 '0
e r_
Z 1 i
g LO LA (U
m 0
(t) -
9 E iz -
<a ý g E
m M Z i e 3 m 10 E m m 24 im @ E
(D rr 0 Z 0 Z 0 tu M Z 0 -5 1 E
r_ E (P tu 0
E E E 0 -
E .
tu CL U)
m 25 .2
- 1
vi M r-
w Ui
M ei la 9 e 0 2 0 m 0 ß 2-
0 10 cr M
(0 L) 0 2 ZI (D @ - 0 w
.2 r- Co 8 5
20 c) 0 2 e
c3) Z
c3)
.2 0; 9 C»
-2 0
e 9
m ý LU c2 - Z
0
w Z ; -c Z Z 0 0 0 . Z 1 1
C)
E (1) (D a) (D a) E E E (D E (D E E
(D U)
i3 (D
i3 (D
CL tn CL V 0 r-
U) c
to (D
U) (D
CL K
CL c2. A A 0 0 0
(D ; Z, 5 CD CO -ia (1)
.. 0)
. c: tu Co 0 12 w
15 g CO 7
(13
0) 0
A co 19
(D C: ) CO - U) zý m - Co
C) (j m
CD CO Co
cl -
m
Z: (7)
2? Z; -
0 a e m
0 CC)
8 8 0 Co
8 (D Co c>
0 r-
rýr CD
13
e > 15 t: 6 e 1- (3) X (1) (D q
uo) - 1 (D 0) c) u)
- (0 2
C) (7)
(Y) - -
A
CY) C) -
. -
.2 Z=. Cl-
c >
0 9 0 tu 0)
r) 2 c (D 'm 12
9 (D 0 § c 0
CL a) Q
it 0 8 2 'v
0.
c 49 CI) c3) CY) .d tu tu 0
J2 m '@
(0 c
U) :3 0 tu (0 E r- . - 0 0 cn c-
CL E CL E (D (P
2 :E 0 *
u) CD - 0) (ý (D Z :E
Ln g ýß
t2 -
- 0 . m . - e
0 . ý kL ý
- !2 (Z
0 . E - - § 2 E c3) c3) E
Z :i E ca r- w Z m w «o Z 2 Z 0
c- LL U.
§ 8 s E2 (0 0 9 M c: 0
.5 m
cm A
t U) to -9
79
.s U) (D s
f2 se .9
ý mi 79 < Im «CII, vi _ *m g > T)
c c3) 16 Q)
U)
cn (D CL u) c3)
(D
.g & - E m :E . to 0 L)
1 '@ c: 1
Z 0
C, w 1? 0 0 U)
(13 Q
Mn E 2
.E A . 92 :3 0 E
Q) «o s ý . 2)
m c3)
m « CL
Z '
C - l E E % r_ ' (U m
« E E
9 9 (0 1
9 Z
ý U)
G) m
(1) 19
0» -m
(U m
m @
m 1 a 0
Z 9
0 *s * m ? ry) .
(2. 8 CL E U) e c2. E E 2 E m - Z e 2 E :3 Z
E Z
. E (D . V) M Co . 12
Z (U
E Z E j
cm 2 u)
cm E E Z 1
1 r_ < (4) < 0 w r_ A r_ 2 w 0 w
- (U w c3) w (U w . w
0 Co c3)
.2 t iý [Z 9 9) Z (D
m d Z
0 (D 0 ý m g 0 0.
2 > 0
U.
0 x N 0 1
LU ei
ýo 2! t m 0
Co (0 0 «
U) Co
0 Co
:3 0
cj N Z 0 «a r- x c
if E f
2 Er - ci o 0 CID < w u 0
(D E E E
(D
Cß (0 m (D 0
CL CL
Co - 0 OD - Co
1
Z r-
Z
1 2 Co 0) 00
e
0
C» c 0 Co 0
(U
cn Co c12 m c2 0
z, c3)
sý :j r-
ýü 0 N
r- a) C
0 Co
6 0 N
cs
r- Co
A r- Co
ä Co
g FZ
. 0
0 e ýý 8 0 0 cm ci m cq 0) - - 20
m Q
-0 0 0 CL 9
s § .ä U c- 0 . a) 0 0
C, 0 (D
0 CY) CL E (D E Z m
cn 0 (0 U) Co U) , (In, a m 0 W 0 9 e (D cm
0 Z 10 E 12 , >1) a E E E
.T E c
U-- :, N
r_ Co
CL E
Z .2 Z tu 0
:3
Z f .g & E
T:
(1) 2 (D
a) Aß E 25
(D > AU
91) ca *ri A A 0 E- E -2
Ch
A E o 0 E 0 E U- Z Z U. Z 0 0 i6 < Z
-i C CL Z
15 . 15 M
.2
m Z
9
20 ig
9 a 0 .
9 9 2
(13 2 < 7 <
<
U) U) c Co
m r_ 0 (0
0 < i2 I Co
u
(D (d 3:
2 Z c
e (1)
> (A %) . 2) 0 ý5
M
0 C» e g u
E :, 0 -m ta
m LM . m C» E
GE 2 1 ý tu :l
E m E I (D E
0 CY)
D >
- ' i T c 0
1 tu
Z -ur-) I
E (U 5 -m c U) M 20 XC CL U)
TE Z ci c
-ca E
£2 A
E r= Z cr 0 8 0 «
E Z '
m E Z
- g 2 - .0 v 0 m V
0 9 2 1
i c: . - 90 r E
a) «o (U (1) W 2- E . 9-- 0
9) = 3 _
ii LD 2-- *E (D = 2 r3
r I M
(D
1--13 a ý 0. . - cu 5 9
2 .r - E 2 0 E 9 E m E i9. M E
M E 9 (1) 2 e 0
LU Lu
.9 w UJ c» w Lu «a w w IU,
M 10
0 5 lý Z 0
ei -
> 6 20 - d CY
0 u) C) cm
ý 2 .E ý e d - . - - a 12
io 0 2 -W zc 2 12 r_ -
: rr- (D 2 . d E -e E
cm r- 1 0 2 2 0
CL «o tu (n 0 a) m 0 a) c2 (U CL a. ICU U) cc U) ui
(D
E (D E (D
E
E C, CL 0 Co CL 0 M 2:
0)
(0 0 CP
(D 9 N
Co
(» .
0
cu A (0 1.0 m
CL ez 2 0
- - C) r, N (D
ý 9 Co
3. CY -
Ci) A �»» 0
- (D
, Co 0
e M (» «o
-0 17
I 8 tue) Z (D 0 0 CO
C ) Co tu (n (D E (D CL c . M C) 0
0 E 0 E a Ae r « * C) (0 -
CO 0)
e -
, u c2 - @
ca 0 0
- 0
(0 r - C»
m c 0
(D 3-- -2
Z c5
c> m - - C) Ca. 0 0 c2» 0 CJ . Co (» - -i s. Z: 1 C»
ý 0
9 :E c3) Co le 0
K E CL m 0 9 0
0 0 c 0
0 u 0
c cö 6 r-
S - a c Co M 0
a 8 -0
32 (D C
:3
g lý U 0
m tu LA E
U) > 0) c3)
CCI 0 "
3 .g 2 M0 cm Z C 0
CL E
Eg 0 :2 W E E to -
.r i c2. CL (U r i E!
(U -E (D
r- (D
12 c «a E M - ir .5
0 0 0
> 75 (D
C»
I U -Z CL
.T 0 2
e. -2 m Co
T n 3 CL Ln 8 U) 90
E U) t, (D 0
2 0 3 C, . 2 1 E E 0 : ý; E C" 0 m 0 c 1 c Z i ý5 r_ 0 10 c Co
E Co
iý r 8
9 D 0
< 12 9 0. m
AM «o C a
E2 Co 2 V-
a) . 0
c3) u 12
'9 A V c2 « - s Co c e c
03 9 :gZ 0 -8
g . to m ý5 c I
ro E 0
tý 0 ä E 0
m
2) c tu c:
r (D >
"a E E tz «g E «0 . m 0 ý ta 9 79
CA 0 14
m 9 (0 E Q C»
m m 0 m cn 0 t» m -ý5
0 m E i - 8
E 0 :
0)
9 ,5
E 0 2
4; .5
E 0
: 2
« O (D a
CL A 12.
c m 9 Ci. CL ý ý2. -g r -@ 2 rL C 0
E 0) E E E E h E E AG 0
0 e
0 e w
- «-m m
(D d0 < w
CL C
«2 2 .2 -c:
2 3 LU 0 w 0 - w cm w A
U) b 2 6 A c 9
ca 0 -
- 2 L- 2 0 0 0 .2 0 > B
5: 0
Ni 2 § . -r .9 CL (D -a «c3 cr 10
0
0 0 :
0 2 ra <0 8 8 Z Z Z Q w 0 (D >
en , It
(D E a) 9)
E E E 13 m (D
(D
2 2 2 -2 CL 2 0
92. 2
tf 2 - 2 . -
Z a: i cr. 1: Z: f i
--i (» ý; CO CO
(3) < 5 (0 0
ä - P A Kiý Co (» lw " 2 r- (» (» Co
CD ch
m r=
e A CO N E tlö
*E tu
*0 '@ 3 'ý 0
0-
(ýJ (D
. 2: 0 E OD (» Co lp E
(D E
ir C, (M c E- 0 - e ýý -.: c
<
Z; CM - 8 e
(D 0 m , cn
c, 5 -
il j2 0
-c m c -
0 M
0 (3 C)
u - Cß b; 0 N ti Ln
LO (U B c3 0 0- 0 0
U) 0 (
(» % 8 ý 9 - 2 ' e ca cm D 6 - fz 0 l E ;3
c� r, Co
r, -
(» cýa .5 m ci CL
'm
CI)
-6 tu e «0 15 (1) :3 Ar r 0
- 0
8 (0
cö :3
Co g M CL 0 0
" M 0 '0 8
m 0
.9 c:
, .8 E 9 -6 ý 9 0
2 0 0. 0 u
0 0 0
(D (0 c2. 2 Co (D
M (1) Z N
Q
s A
-
(1) «a 6
Z r-
-
A
2 Z 0
s .2 8 CL
. g
.2 AT 9 0) -
.T E E
Ll$ . U) 5 a)
E > 1 9 0) x
.E c ß w Co M «0 Q < 0 C) iz
E 6) 0 0 i p 6
m 3
E (D «a
Lo Co M cn M 9
0 10
75.
m .5 cs
O - - 2 '@ 19 @ j Z
M 0
@ u ý
»Z-- a A 0 ti)
cö cm *g l a) c Z 2 9
M Z ui < C
(o (D (D
. E- r- c
U) m Z 0 *CI 5 . - An e «a
u m Co c m LA tu e E CL
. LO E E a :a > ' E 75 E
cr -je m @ E JD 0 E E
- 0 e = M 79 D 0
-, C ,
't E 0 (D E 0 E Z
J2 E E > (1) «9 ' m 0 *Z M Z E :3 c2. Z > (D 22 .
E c 4-. E -
« ES . 92
E 12
E : 92
3 cö «a 3: 0 = e 19 - L- g jg ta
- - 0
- - CL
3 cö -
Z c2 2 -g >
@ E
a E a ,9 m ýa ia Ea
E -g -a E 15 -g 3 E c»
W w w c» W < w CU
d ý5 A tu
(D
0 5
0
9 . 0 =
5 0 0
- - a) . 0- (0
- -
'0 U) c: cm
2 0 (D
-0 '0 6 m e 0 ?1 2
1 tö
(D Z e 0 to 2 m 32 c6 C
& al ý2 a - . . 92 tr
1w o ai 0
- - -1 2 0
1 CL ca
- 1W (n ci 12-
--1
, Rt '4tt
E E E E A (D
(D
9)
(D
E
(D ul
0 U) U) U) U) 0
(D CL CL CL CL
0 1: Z i i CL 0 0 Z Z
N ZZ
Q U) N N Co ig (U (D
m CI) 10 0
-C3 (D
N (D
E E E N 0
CC) 0 e c (D
LL 12 u)
(U .5 (7) 0 ca
- C2 CD CM OD
Z; 0 0 5 N
ý; -
Co 6 (Z
8 cli (7)
C) 0 Ln
ý (» "
Ci) 0 0
8 00
8 Co
8 9 U)
ca
§ Q)
(0 0
- CO 6 0
ý tu 0 6 ;v 6 0) ä ; 2-
Co , 6 (D
g (3) g M C) c
- ý C)
Co CL en
Z) r2 -m 0 - tu
'0 -FU 0 ci r_ .0
ia G) c 0
m c M
c 10 a)
'ý U)
E :1
i§ 0 12 CL
Co
Co N
Z
c" T c> x
(n 2
0
E (D
E (D E Z M r i CL
c3) r_
U- - 0 > r
c3) 0 cm Co A
c3) 8 ä
:E . LO Q
Co Ch (D ;Z m Ao 0 2 -0 g 0 u) .2 A
c A E Z 0 r_ 0)
ko *a d
E
E . 0 '9
c c-- Co
ca g -(
-0 (D E «o 2 0 .0 0
ig ce
M Q E Z 10 § 0
9 0
T f2 tö
f m 2 Q
- :3
E
2 a c
(D
:g 3 0
15 m
c 05
E . (0 LD E
E
'9 CL G6 0 '@ 19 Co
16 li .2 -5 1 s
l? e 4 0 >
§ .ý a s cm
-0 C
9 (D -
-r_ 3 m a
9
«9 - - (U Z
0 >
(A < - jg ý *r-
Co Q 0)
8 m
2 c
m T E
A 8 *5
c t2 .2
0 ý5
, 0 "J- g m E
m 5 cu fi a) m «a
. in e r_ g 9 cm . - E a
M Z (D
0 c . Z (0 Z
cm (U (D
8 0 1
M LM
m E >
-3
s N :2 3:
r3 Cö -ä 8
.I (D 9 3
Z I a) Co
0) 40)
c3. M E -g
CL D ci
cm E :3
E a) EN 1 E (D
J - 0 E
Ch Z m E 0
(D 9 E (D
. g E- «g -g . cn -g 5 -g
12
La 0 rL : c: ý2 0
Co M 2 C).
cö A 0)
9 2
m La - A m 0 m Co
g - in Z (4 . E OB -m i '0 E ' E Z
. 92 *
'E ID 'E E
.0 (1) :3 ig tu m b 0 M tu 0 m
E 15 0 E E 0 Co E f; E E (U C 8 (D i (D *g 0) (D
CL a ? CL c3. Ä CL .2
CL CL
E (0 E 9« E 0 > (D E 25 EI E E
e E e , f2 e
w £- 3:
e w < w w w 9c W c w w w
la
(D 6 ý2
.2 2
9
m V 1 0
Z m
r- M (
�u 2 CL 0 0) 0 (0 0 8
:j u; ä Co > M - tu 0
9 zý m g - Q)
E .9
0 N
0 5 0 D 13 g (n (D C CL
ZZ -2 '@ CL UI
0 «2 0 CL tu 3 >
ID 13,
9 9 a) 0
a) cL W CL ( -2 -9 C
9 0
-4
(D 0 E r= E
(P (D 9) (D
0 0) U)
(D 0 U)
CL 0
c2. 0. CL
CL Z 1: i
2 Co OD (Y)
c (D
>
(D 0 - 9
-9 c tu ;3 2g
2 T) Co (» Co
m Co (3)
- -8 0
- 9) cö
9
0 zr r- g re
iý - 1-
tu
- >
t!
-
0 -0
.. CY) a)
> 9 (» (Y) iu 0) - ' Z ig 15 tu
:3 (P 0 ý; N
(D CC Z
-li 0 r- (0
CM Gr
CO ce E
C) c2
:3 CC) 0
Z
cr C) In
N (0
C)
0 LO CD <, < 0 ýi o
0 u) r- .2 0 LO 0 r- (0 c 0 - (2
Co c5 (0 6 0 -0 r E ID 0) _ cu (0 Co LL 0: m
0
0
CD
tu ca 0
U) > CL 0
» Z Z E-
c3)
Z
0 cm 8
Z 9 c ; r_ 0
Z m
c CL
>
<
zo Co £. E
o C» ic G) >
t 5 fi Co
bi a
9 (D
im c
10 -ro 8 - t2 - (#) ý CL g L4
. (n Co - C»
ul 13 . E 0 0
Z 8 2
3: CL (0
(D C» ý «
li c 2 3: Co . t U 9 *m i 2 cu . am s 10 Ci) Z) m (D cci
«a s
15 0 90 U)
(D >
« . LM E 8 Am r
9 (U a) M LA E C» tu - le -g tu
Co E2 j-- ) 1-- u) .2 X U) 2 m :e CL
- Co * -
.2 tu E G) ' E A E m , «ü ul U)
E :2 Z m s tu E 2
- tu '., (0 , m
c2 5 2 0 :) m cm :E Z
Z CM - Z9 LZ 0 «a . .0 @Z,
:m .8 - = e -
'K - = rL *ä
j . ý
ID 9 CL cu CL a -3 E 75 E
, ö ui 0 w o LU
75 CD > VA 0 cc E
0 0 a a 0 0 .2 0 LL
00 M 0 m @
> m t: 6 -c, 2
0 w Z 2 EL (5 rn CL Ca
IC
4.4.4. Other Later Bronze Age ceramic type fossils in central Portugal and the south-
west
Table 4.4 demonstrates that twenty settlement sites provided evidence of pattern burnished
pottery in chronological horizons that date earlier than 1200 cal. BC (several as early as 1400
cal. BQ, highlighting the fact that we have been consistently dating this tradition up to three or four centuries too late. The table also includes several other types of distinctive pottery shapes
and decoration that have been ignored at the expense of the pattern burnished tradition, yet also demonstrate a widespread dispersion over much of Portugal and south-westem Spain (see
Figures 4.10 and 4.11). The distribution of the different types also argues against the
supposedly distinct and isolated ceramic traditions. This research demonstrates that we can
employ a greater variety of pottery types for constructing Later Bronze Age sequences in south-
western Iberia, rather than relying on only one. These would include the "a cepillo", incised,
painted and impressed decorated vessels, and all-over burnished bowls and jars (see Chapter
Three). It is important to dispel the impression that the concentration on the pattern burnished
tradition has depicted. Rather than representing a homogenous single pottery tradition during
the Later Bronze Age, there is a variety of different pottery types and techniques that continue through these periods. In fact some of these pot types show a greater geographical distribution
than pattern burnished types (Figure 4.11).
It is possible to recognise other elements of comparability with respect to forms and styles between the south and north of Portugal. Medium and high carinated bowls, hemispherical
bowls and globular jars, all decorated with "a cepillo" combing or incision, are present at Sdo
Julido (Martins 1988: 139-141,147) and Barbudo (Martins 1989: 78-79), both in Vila Verde,
and Senhora da Guia, Bai6es (Kalb 1978: 132-133), and at Sdo Romdo, Seia (Senna-Martfnez
1989: 452,460-464). All these sites have finger impressed and rim incised decoration
(restricted to the larger necked and storage jars), and all of these shape and decoration types have been documented in central and southern Later Bronze Age settlements including
Cerradinha, Santiago do Cacdm, (Silva and Soares 1978: 82-88), Cor6a do Frade, tvora
(Arnaud 1979: 80-81), Alto do Castelinho da Serra , Montemor-o-Novo, (Gibson et al. 1998:
204) and Outeiro do Circo, Beja (Parreira 1971-1975: 334), Cabeqo dos Moinhos, Mafra
(Prescott et al. 197 1: Figure VI) and Gruta do Cadaval, Tomar (Cruz and Oosterbeck 1985: 70).
Interestingly "a cepillo", impressed and incised decorated pottery has also been found in
Spanish Extremadura, at sites such as Valcorcherro and Escobar, in CAceres and Medellfn
(Almagro Gorbea 1977: 100,134-136). Recent excavations at Alange, Atalaya and Santa
Engracia (Enrfquez Navascuds 1990) have also produced these ceramic types. The same is true
of the Meseta (Blasco Bosqued 1985; Maluquer de Motes et al. 1990) where incised and
147
impressed rimmed decorated pottery and all-over "a cepillo" motifs are present at sites like
Cerro de San Antonio and Pefia de Ardales, Madrid (Blasco et aL 1992), Castillo de Henayo,
Alava (Alonso et al. 1978) and Castillar de Mendavia, Navarre (Castro Martfnez 1992) (Figure
4.12).
The data in this table offers a more comprehensive overview of all ceramic types from
excavations in central and southern Portugal and south-western Spain. As a result, it becomes
possible to construct a picture which illustrates a diverse sharing of pottery traditions amongst
many of the prehistoric groups in the central and south-western parts of the Iberian Peninsula. It
is possible to use the pottery as a tool to indicate the degree and extent of interaction and
possibly exchange along the main riverine and terrestrial routes throughout this region including the Guadalquivir, Tagus, Guadiana and Chanza rivers and the mountain passes
through the Sierra de Huelva and Meseta. This highlights our need to pursue the possible
relationships between Huelva, Guadalquivir, Extremadura, Meseta and central and southern Portugal. These areas have tended to be treated as separate and distinct geographical and
cultural traditions in the past, with real or natural frontiers dividing the different areas. Yet the
wide distribution and similarities seen amongst the pattern burnished and other pottery
traditions argues against this idea. There are two common denominators of these regions - their
supposedly predominantly pastoral economies during the Later Bronze Age and their wealth in
minerals, particularly copper, silver and gold. The geographical expansion of these various
pottery traditions may in fact be indirect evidence of long-distance contact and communication
that was primarily economic and social and not cultural in nature, and might reflect the mutual interest in metal exploitation and production and transhumance of these groups in the south-
western regions of the Peninsula. The complex long-distance interaction alluded to by the
sharing of these various pottery traditions will be expanded upon in Chapters Five and Six, in
relation to the Atlantic Bronze Age and the south-western stelae.
4.5.1 Evidence for central and southern Portuguese "Middle" Bronze Age settlements
There is a dearth of recent reliable information for the traditional "Middle" Bronze Age of
central and southern Portugal. Many of the excavation reports available for Later Bronze Age
settlements in these regions are habitually imprecise about exactly when, why or how these
settlements were occupied (e. g. Kalb 1980; Parreira and Soares 1980; Parreira 1983).
Publication of "Middle" Bronze Age settlements in central and southern Portugal is presently limited to five sites, and one of these, Buraca da Moura de SAo RoMdo, in Seia, lies on the boundary between central and northern Portugal (Figure 4.20). Kalb and H6ck (1980; 1981-
1982) suggested the existence of "Middle" Bronze Age occupation at the hill settlements of
148
Cabego da Bruxa and Alto da Caldeira, in Santar6m, Ribatejo. Recognition was based on an
absence rather than presence basis (i. e. on the premise that this horizon was not
characteristically Chalcolithic or Late Bronze Age). The pottery from Cabego da Bruxa
(associated with two post holes and a hearth) generally lacked decoration, with the exception of
impression, and had only burnished or smoothed surface finishes. Vessel shapes included small
carinated. cups and late evolved Palmela type beakers, low carinated bowls, globular jars and
straight sided vessels (Figure 4.13). This horizon was sealed under a layer dated to the Late
Bronze Age on the basis of the characteristic pattern burnished ceramics, and above a layer that
was ascribed to the Chalcolithic on the grounds of incised evolved Beaker pottery and Palmela
points. In effect, Cabego da Bruxa may provide evidence for settlement continuity throughout
the Later Bronze Age, and the Chalcolithic horizon might in fact be Earlier Bronze Age,
considering the derived nature of the Beaker types, while the pattern burnished decorated
pottery dated to the ninth century BC, might be over four centuries earlier in date. It is
frustrating that we still cannot be clearer about the chronological horizons of this site, or others
in this region, but more radiocarbon dates may clarify the situation.
The two other settlements in this region that have been recognised as "Middle" Bronze Age in
publications are Quiterfa and Pessegueiro, in Sines (Silva and Soares 1979; 1981: 212-234).
Both sites were open settlements with associated cist cemeteries, situated on flat zones near the
sea, and lacked any artificial defence. The houses themselves were rectangular in shape with
stone and post hole foundations and organic superstructures. Each house had a stone floor and
central hearth (Figures 4.14 and 4.15).
These settlements were identified by the authors as "Middle" Bronze Age (between the 15 th and
I I" centuries BQ because they represented totally new settlement types that could not be
reconciled with either the Chalcolithic, Early or Late Bronze Age examples then known.
Furthermore, the associated cist cemeteries were dated to the second phase of the south-westem
Bronze Age (1300-80OBC) by Silva and Soares (1981: 147) in accordance with Schubart
(1975). The recently published radiocarbon date for the cemetery of Pessegueiro (Soares and
Silva 1998: 236; Chapter Two) confirms the "Middle" Bronze Age chronology, and if burial
and settlement were indeed contemporary at this site, provides the first absolute date for this
region and period that has not been rejected. It came from burial 16 of cemetery H and was
calibrated between 1679 and 1442 cal. BC (ICEN-867: human bones - 3270±45 BP).
It would appear that the beginning of the Later Bronze Age in Sines may be recognised by a
gradual emergence of coastal undefended settlements that were based on agricultural and fishing economics. Both the settlements of Quiterfa and Pessegueiro provide a unique
149
opportunity for examining the relationship between contemporary "life" and "death" ceramic
assemblages: a valid comparison with the traditional typology based on the funerary material.
The site of Pessegueiro, (Silva and Soares 1979: 121-152) is located directly to the east of the
island of Pessegueiro. The cemetery, composed of rectangular boxed cists, occupies an area
that is roughly 300 by 180m, and at least seven rectangular structures were situated 20m. to the
east of this in an area roughly 138 by 100m (Figure 4.14.2). The burial ceramics consisted of
narrow-necked jars with polished surfaces and grooved (nervuras) decoration on the body,
hemispherical bowls and pot-bellied jars with horizontal stab and drag rows and vertically
incised bands of decoration (Figure 4.16.2,4.16.24-25) In fact over forty percent of the
ceramics from the graves were decorated, and seventy percent of the vessels were open
hemispherical bowls.
The funerary assemblage contrasts markedly with the material found scattered around the
settlement area. Although fewer forms could be reconstructed, the typology was represented by
straight sided and tronconical vessels (80%) (Figure 4.16.1,8,10,13-14), bag-shaped jars
(15%) (Figure 4.16.1,7,9 11), and V-shaped bowls (5%) (Figure 4.16.1,16-18). No vessels
were decorated although some vessels had lugs (mamelons) below their rims, and surface finish
was restricted to smoothing or all-over polishing and burnishing (compare Figures 4.16.1 and
4.16.2).
The settlement and cist cemetery of Quiterfa had a similar layout to Pessegueiro, and both
cemeteries have parallels with the neighbouring necropolis of Provenga. Silva and Soares
(1981: Figure 145) concentrated upon the material from the burials. Again, hemispherical
bowls were the predominant grave pot type (45%) with narrow necked band decorated or "Santa Vit6ria" jars (Figure 4.16.2,24) providing 30% of the assemblage. Straight sided "Atalaia" cups (15%) (Figure 4.16.2,22) and pot-bellied incised decorated jars (10%) were less
well represented.
The settlement ceramics from Quiterfa were also morphologically distinct to the burial material.
Silva and Soares paid little attention to them other than labelling them as "domestic" wares or
66uso common" (1981: 137). Low and medium carinated cups were the most common vessel
type from the settlement, with twenty sherds that could be reconstructed (46%). Straight sided
and tronconical lugged vessels formed 33% (14 examples), while open plates with internal
carinations constituted 14% (6 examples). Again, none of the settlement ceramics was
decorated and surface finish was limited to all-over burnish (14% -9 examples), polish (54% - 34 examples) or slip (5% -3 examples). Twenty-seven percent (17 examples) had no surface finish at all.
150
The analysis of the ceramics from Quiterfa and Pessegueiro demonstrates for the first time that
contemporary funerary and domestic assemblages show no similarities in vessel forms or
decoration. No archaeologist has yet recognised the importance of this observation, and
although the conclusions apply to a limited data set, the evidence suggests that we must be
careful about directly exporting Schubart's south-westem Bronze Age grave sequence on to the
domestic ceramic assemblages that are slowly coming to light. It would not be unreasonable to
expect that pottery used as grave goods would be endowed with ritual and prestige, with an
accentuation upon decoration to highlight the status, individuality and identity of the person buried. Pottery employed in domestic contexts, on the other hand, would demonstrate an
emphasis upon functional and utilitarian elements, that might result in homogenous and plain
pottery assemblages. Thus, as indicated by a reanalysis of ceramics from the Sines sites,
contemporary burial and settlement assemblages may be quite different with respect to form,
manufacture and decoration. This evidence supports the concerns made in Chapter Two about
the continued employment of the south-westem burial sequence. By adhering this scheme,
archaeologists are assuming that Later Bronze Age pottery assemblages can be recognised by
distinctive morphological and decorative characteristsics. Neither of the two domestic
assemblages had any decorated vessels, or showed similarities in vessel form with the burial
pottery. This highlights one possible reason for our lack of recognition of settlement evidence
for the Later Bronze Age.
4.5.2 Conclusion
A more integrated overview of the Later Bronze Age of these regions involving an
understanding of the settlement contexts, as well as the burial and board evidence, must now be
adopted. It is only possible to make a tentative proposal at this stage, but perhaps the Later
Bronze Age settlement evidence is more prolific than we realise. Since archaeologists have
been examining aspects of this period in a context totally removed from the understanding of
settlements, the limited and specific aspects of the material culture studied have promoted such
a gross omission. We can now readdress this narrow approach. It is the only route forward and
may well be the key to unearthing the "missing" five hundred years of western Iberian Bronze
Age prehistory. The following section in this chapter will demonstrate that recently published
excavation and survey projects in these regions are beginning to uncover evidence for this
period.
151
4.6 Recent detailed excavation and survey projects
4.6.1 NabEo Valley
Katina Lillios has recently carried out an intensive survey and excavation project in the Nabdo
--fley in Tomar, Santar6m, Central Portugal (Lillios 1991; 1993). She primarily excavated the
tiilltop settlement of Agroall, and recognised a long Bronze Age occupation at this site dated
between 2000 and 1000 BC. She estimated that the approximate size of the settlement was 6
hectares for the Earlier Bronze Age, expanding to 12 hectares during the Later Bronze Age
(Lillios 1991: 66). Lillios advocated that the settlement was continuously occupied throughout,
with an abandonment horizon at ca. I OOOBC.
The excavations produced over a thousand ceramic fragments. The pottery fabrics were
predominantly tempered with quartz, limestone and organic inclusions, and showed little
variation throughout the Bronze Age sequence. The only decorative techniques employed were impression and mamelons or small knobs or lugs along the rim or the body of the vessel. The
exterior and interior surfaces were typically burnished or polished and flat based or round bottomed. Six main vessel shapes can be recognised. The most common types were V-shaped
bowls and carinated bowls and jars (42%), followed by narrow necked pot-bellied jars (28%),
tronconical vessels (17%), and straight sided jars (13%). These vessel types and the polished
and burnished surface finish invite comparisons with other settlement sites in central Portugal,
such as Quiterfa and Pessegueiro in Sines (Silva and Soares 1981: 141-180), Outeiro do Circo
in Beja, (Parreira 1971-1975: 31-36), Buraca da Moura de Sao Rom5o in Seia (Senna-Martinez
1991) and Sao Julido in Viseu (Bettencourt 1988: Figure 17). Interestingly, all of the sites
mentioned above were occupied before 120OBC, and hence such vessel shapes may well be
representative of this elusive period.
Other aspects of the material culture included a predominantly lithic tool indisutry. Large
numbers of quartz and flint blades and flakes were retrieved, as were amphibolite groundstone
tools. Only a few metal finds were unearthed during the excavations, and these consisted of
copper fish-hooks, pieces of bronze blades and bronze slag from ceramic crucible fragments
(Lillios 1991: 69). Thus bronze metallurgy was not a substantial component of the material
culture at this Bronze Age site.
The ceramics from the earlier pits (level 2B and 3A) were slightly different from those the later
ones (level I and 2A). The former tended to lack surface finish, with the exception of
occasional polish or burnish. The vessel profiles were either hemispherical, or straight sided. Over 30% of the vessels were decorated with finger impression around the rims and necks and these were classified as "Middle" Bronze Age (Lillios 1991: 79-80). They demonstrate
152
similarities with the Later Bronze Age assemblages from Bocas, in Rfo Maior (Strauss et al.
1981), and Cabeqo do Crasto do Sdo RomAo, in Seia (Senna-Martinez and Fabido 1986: 21-23)
(see Figures 4.27 and 4.28).
The vessels from the later pits were more frequently surface burnished than those from the
earlier ones (60% as opposed to 35%). The vessel walls tended to be thinner and the clay fabrics were finer, with micaceous inclusions rather than quartz or limestone temper. The
shape assemblage was still domýinated by hemispherical and straight-sided vessels, but with the
addition of carinated bowls with flat bases.
Two radiocarbon dates have been published from the sequence of Agroal, both from bone
collagen from pits in the earlier levels. They were calibrated between 2130 and 1520cal BC
(GX-15390-A: 3570±205BP [level 2131 and GX-15390-B: 3560±145BP [level 3]) (Kunst
1995a: 125). These dates confirm the idea that occupation at Agroal began around the
beginning to middle of the second millennium BC, with the later settlement horizon continuing from ca. 150OBC onwards. We can still not be certain about the later phases of occupation, and
whether they confirm Lillios' belief of uninterrupted occupation throughout the Bronze Age. If
the ceramics from this site do correspond to several hundred years of occupation, then the
analysis clearly demonstrates that only minor modifications between the earlier and later phases
can be discerned. Shape type shows little change with the exception of the introduction of
carinated vessels in the later horizons, and temporal variation is more obvious in the changing fabrics, surface finish and decoration.
The evidence from this site has been used by Lillios to challenge the belief that there was a
universal abandonment of settlement during the Bronze Age in the Portuguese lowlands as Strauss has advocated (Strauss et al. 1988: 83). Her thesis has begun the process of reassessing
our models for this period in central Portugal. The material from the Earlier Bronze Age at Agroal - in particular undecorated ceramics and stone tools - share many features in form,
technique, decoration and function with Copper age material culture. Like the present author, Lillios has also questioned the allocation of the term Chalcolithic to many sites that do not have
absolute dates (1991: 81). The lithic industry continues almost unchanged throughout the
sequence at Agroal, with sickle blades, grinding stones, axes and adzes present in large
numbers, emphasising the importance of the exploitation of plant products, as well as animal husbandry. Perhaps Agroal would also have been dated to the Chalcolithic, in the absence of the radiocarbon determinations.
Two new Bronze Age settlements - Porto Velho and Enxofreira - were discovered from the Nabdo valley survey. Both are hilltop settlement sites situated three and four kilometres west
153
and east of Agroal respectively. Surface collection recognised all-over burnished carinated
bowls and tronconical vessels at both sites. The majority of the pottery was undecorated with
the exception of a few sherds of finger impressed decoration. These two assemblages demonstrate parallels with the upper horizons from Agroal, as well as many of the assemblages from the recently surveyed open Later Bronze Age settlements in the Tagus estuary (Cardoso
and Carreira 1991; see below) and may be indicative of Later Bronze Age occupation.
Four other rockshelter sites in the Nabao valley with burial and settlement activities have also been dated to the Later Bronze Age. These are Caldeiro, Cadaval, Lapa dos Furos and Avecasta. Avecasta is the largest of these sites, and small excavations have revealed a long and
complex stratigraphic sequence with at least three separate Bronze Age horizons (176lix, pers.
comm.; Figure 4.22) which would appear to be indicative of intermittent settlement associated
with occasional burial activity. The ceramics recovered from these layers corresponded to
hemispherical and medium carinated bowls, and tronconical and squat jars with simple rims
(Gibson: analysis in Portugal). No vessels were decorated but several bowls had all-over
burnishing. These ceramics can be compared with those from the Later Bronze settlements of
Alpiarga, Tanchoal de Patudos and Cabego da Bruxa (Marques 1972; Kalb 1980) (Figure
4.13.2).
At the site of Lapa dos Furos, an occupation layer with pottery described as "Early" or
"Middle" Bronze Age (Lillios 1991: 95-96) contained ceramics including low and medium
carinated polished bowls and straight sided jars. At Caldeir5o and Cadaval, surface survey
collected a number of sherds that had knobbed and incised decoration. Lillios argued that these
ceramics were characteristic of the Late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age, but she has
misidentified the incised technique as "comb decorated" when it is in fact "a cepillo" (Figure
4.17). Thus these two rock shelters may be Later Bronze Age in date.
Lillios (1991: 97-100) concludes that the transition from the Late Chalcolithic through to the
Earlier Bronze Age was represented in central Portugal by a change from a concentrated to a dispersed settlement pattern that can be equated with the fissioning of social groups. She
argues that the fissioning resulted from over-intensification in the Later Chalcolithic which led
to environmental degradation, and she uses the palynological study of Leeuwaarden and Janssen (1985) in the Lower Tagus valley to support her hypothesis. She states that as the
quality of land declined, the ability of some groups to compete effectively may have diminished
to such an extent that a major realignement of settlement patterns became necessary. The shift
away from a clustered settlement pattern has been linked with a decrease in importance of
competition and prestige goods, in particular amphibolite, and an overall reduction in
154
settlement complexity and settlement size. For example the settlements of Quiterfa and Pessegueiro are smaller than most Chalcolithic settlements, reaching only 0.4 hectares in size,
although Agroal is much larger and extends over 6 hectares in the Early Bronze Age (Lillios
1991: 133).
Lillios's argument is very convincing, but on closer inspection lacks good supporting evidence. Firstly she employs the sites of Quiterfa and Pessegueiro to back up her statements about fissioning. As already stated, neither of these sites are Early Bronze Age, but have recently been dated between 1600 and 1400 cal. BC (Soares and Silva 1998). Secondly the fissioning of Copper Age societies, involving the settlement evidence that she uses, would involve
geographical translocations of over 200kms from the Torres Vedras region to the south. It does
not appear logical that fissioning would involve the enormous movements by social groups that
she suggests. Thirdly, she employs a very limited settlement data base of only three Bronze
Age sites to support her model. Fourthly, the environmental data employed comes from two
cores taken through peat deposits near Alcdcer do Sal, and may reflect localised changes only (Leeuwaarden and Janssen 1985: 225-232). Furthermore, their study demonstrates that
environmental degradation and increased soil erosion occurred after 1200 cal. BC only, and therefore several hundred years after Lillios' proposed decline. Lillios' sophisticated model of fissioning and social fragmentation might well have had a part to play in these changes;
changes that masked other underlying continuities. However, to date this hypothesis is based
upon limited evidence. The evidence offered below may allow other interpretations of the Bronze Age.
4.6.2 Bronze Age in the Tagus Estuary.
Recent investigations in the Tagus estuary by Cardoso and Carreira (Cardoso et al. 198 1; 1986; Cardoso 1987; Cardoso and Carreira 1991; 1993), provided a wealth of settlement data for the Later Bronze Age. Many of the sites, such as the settlements of Tapada da Ajuda and Moinhos da Atalaia (Figure 4.18), were discovered by chance, during rescue work in the Lisbon area, which unearthed Bronze Age occupation buried under three or four metres of alluvium. Both these were open settlements near the coast described as 'fondos de jazidas pescatores" or
small fishing and agricultural open hut settlements. Fifteen Later Bronze Age sites were
surveyed or excavated and these included two burial sites originally ascribed to the Chalcolithic, seven naturally defended hilltop settlements, one rock shelter and five open
settlements.
155
1.
7-
c'3
m cl
CC)
00 0 CD C> c5 a) CY)
< R Co Co
ä 6 c2
8 r-
-- C> r, -
.2 (D e C" ce)
C> m CP (P
N CL ' D ä
< <
. E a - 2 (D N
(D ý : - c3) 0) (D c3)
(D CI) e c i
- . < < < < cli - >
CM :2 2
5 0
0 CO
:2 "ä
0 N
c a) (D (D
0 e - 0- in pi
c> m m m m
C» ! ' -2 A m Q1 `5 C -, - - 0 - t - 3 3 1 m m tu w
(U w
cö ia
cn 0 c: E 0 E (D c2. e
Co d
(D S<' u)
m
ý E
'ö - 0 26 'd u) 2 0 a) >
-0 G) -be .2
r_ Co 0
r_ m 0) >
m
9 0 c3)
< -@ Z
-0 m a Ln 0
c)
ý 0 -5
0 2
U) U) * :
> 9
a)
g > 9
tu 13) a .
0 ' 2 E
(10 a) > 9 lý (D 0
§ «9 g - ý5 -g I.;
- T) (D An c m 0 > 0
t A . L, & =
tu CL
0 E tu
0 2. -e E
r An > Lß V
Z m I (0
E :3 9 = E
Z (5 E Z 0
= > -c 0 r
c
(13 (D :g
> I 0 iz Q 2 0 8 0 0 < 0 U) m < 0 Q CL 0
< 0 1 E N
c2 -0 cm E
(D . 0
Z c m - A ci 9
0. 20 (P 2 r-
0 ig . - U c (0 c m Z
> (D E
r 0 13 - -2
(D 33 «0
'2 (D 0 (D
0 m U)
> 0
& ih 0
Q 8 0
= Z 0 0 0 ý5
Z Z
cu Co Z 0
(D 0 0
cm Co 0)
> -1 d
0
'0 E - (D (0
'i Z0
' E - m : 0 ä
a
C-L 2 0 m ih - 0 .8
(4) c 0
1 iL . E :3 0 c n
IT 0 Z LL
9
I-. 'ei
(D c3) U) c3) C)
Z 2 0 0) <
cm Co w Lt) cu
w Co
w
Im N
0 N 90 JQ
9
c 2
5 (D V)
CJ a) C»
(D 0)
CO m
N (D N
(0
-, Co C>
0 -i ý» j5- M
2 ýa G 20 lý 9 2
M G 2 M G
0) 9 A
0 C)
) - M
e ý,
15 10
8 1 ca
(13 W c» LLI -1 (0
-(ZE 0 Q «9 E 0 Co C cm E ý (D e
'0 0 E ii 12. e
ý5 r - (D
(D c a
> 0
c: C»
0 0 7g 0 m- 2, S Co . E
0 (D gn 2 0
4 CI- 0
(L) > 0 (1)
> (D «o . W. - b 0
(D m (n r- M >
7g 9 Z CL (0 r- ce 79
O d 0 g c, r-
L3 (D > . r- Co
. CD
r- L E 30 E
Z & = g cm m
0 ý m E Z
42 0 -
(U u)
N - E =
(D > E
:i ce A * .
02 CL
Z jo
0 2
- $ -2 '9 2.
- (n «9 ý5 :Z M
E c»
�;
t! R
-2
Co «a
r, a)
I 40
0 l>D cn
m 3; ?
1? ii 0 -g S
M 0 E G -0
> 9 :
10 : -
11) t «7K 8
E --
0 '
a) 15 c
c, (n w
- P 2 9 :@
'i 8 0
E -@ E 4)
cci . :3 j2
(D >
ä . (U '
. 5 Z -
CL -
5 0 0 . 0
E (D -Z ffl z5 .2 ý
A a
Co ca «a T E
:2 0 :g - , 5D . (n tu Z r- 0 M 2! :p e CL ýa 0 E LA
fi > . ý 2 Cö Q 0- r cö
:3 Z
Co (D E
f; . U) 0 Co
a) 0 5 CL
20 CL
-2 r_ CL
2 - E (D
(D U) 2 0 0 a ca
a CL 0
E <
0 0 e 0
(D -8 «a E ,
d 0 0 r-
.a e
-rD E Z .9 0 & .9i;; c 2 Co :3
> 9
o 0 (3 Z r- 4 : 03 4 03 m cr. 0 c2
00
2c
12 .@
le .2 00 t
Z LLJ
N c3 c
cci CJ m
C\i
20 ýt (»
-A cq (D
EE -C3 (1) MA (1) - CL -@ -tg 0 CO
E2 (D Co 'C) -N r- 0C
2 % 3: «, 0 e (1) 2 ni 0
> 79 8 5-- E0 E5 (5 Z 2)
0- CI) : L, 0
(0 3: f jg 9 r- 2-E (0 : 21
0
MA CL CL CL 2ý, c2) 4--
t
(D
. kl
Z
igý c4 m 'e CI)
The majority of these sites lack radiocarbon dates, but Cardoso and Carreira ( 199 1; 1993)
argued that the all-over burnished carinated ceramics were consistently found in horizons
stratigraphically earlier than pattern burnished pottery, as at Rua dos Douradores, Catu. 1al,
Moinhos de Atalaia, Funchal 11 and QUinta do Perce. jo (Figures 4.19). Furthermore, all-over
bUI_IIIShed pottery tended to be associated with evolved Beaker types, and hence was believed to
be indicative of a chronological horizon earlier than the dissemination of pattern burnished
pottery (Figure 4.19.1,2-4 and 4.19.2,1-3). Thc recently published radiocarbon clates for
Tapada cla Ajuda (Cardoso 1995a. and bý Bettencourt 1998: Table 4.6) were calibrated between
1444 and 921 cal. BC, confirms such a hypothesis. Thus these sites and their pottery
assemblages may represent "the initial phase of the Late Bronze Age, or the final phase of tile
Middle Bronze Age" (Cardoso and Carreira 1993: 32). These are important discoveries, for
they throw light oil this poorly documented period. Stich observations demonstrate that tile
-C, -ound tile Tagus estuary may boast thirteen settlcment sites that contribute to out- "Illall al a al
understanding ofthe Later Bronze Age in this region.
Table 4.6. * Radiocarbon datesfi-ont Tapa(hi da A. juela
C 14 dates calibrated to 2 signia
ICF-, N-96: 3O9Ot5O BP (1437-1211 cal. BC)
ICEN-97: 3010t6O 1311 (1406-1032 cal. BC)
ICEN-99: 2980±50 BP (1383-1019 cal. BC)
ICEN- 100: 309Ot4O BP (1426-1224 cal. 13C)
ICLIN- 184: 3000t 100 BP (1444-921 cal. BC)
4.6.3 Mondego survey project
Sciina-Martfnez has embarked upon an intensive survey and excavation pro ect ofthe Mondego J Lý
river valley of central Portugal employing a diachronic perspective ( 1989,1991,1993a-f,
1995a-h). lie studied sites from the Late Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age, and amassed
evidence from fourteen sites which lie excavated, and twenty four new sites discovered fron)
field survey. These were compared and analysed with data from previous work oil another
thirty seven sites, to produce the first ever detailed and intensive regional archaeological
programme in central Portugal (total of 75 sites), with tile exception of the ývora survey
pro. lect. Tile study showed an uneven representation of(fifferent sites according to site type and
chronology. Burial sites markedly outnumbered settlements in all periods under consideratio"
by a ratio of2: 1 except for the "Late" Bronze Age. In the latter period, II settlement sites were
159
found, complemented by only four cemeteries. He amalgamated evidence from the "Early" and
"Middle" Bronze Age, confirming the observations that it is difficult at present to differentiate
between the two periods.
The chronological framework that Senna-Martinez presented was based upon the material
culture sequences, complemented by detailed straigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates,
where available. He aspired to use the stratigraphic and absolute evidence first and foremost, in
order to define some of the type fossils more precisely, and then to offer a re-definition of the
main cultural phases. This methodology removes undue biases from the typological record and
provides a more objective perspective.
Table 4.7: Chronological Distribution of the Archaeological sites in the Mondego river valley
Type Late Neolithic Calcolithic Early-Middle
Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age
Sure ? Sure ? Sure ? Sure ?
Settlements 0 1 1 3 2 1 10 2
Necropoli 7 10 15 14 24 6 1 3
Totals 7 11 26 17 7 11 5
The "Early/Middle" Bronze Age has been recognised only as a slightly clearer horizon through
Senna-Martfnez's research, enhanced by the realisation that many of the megalithic
monuments, far from being purely Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic in date, demonstrate
continuous use throughout the Bronze Age (Leisner and Ribeiro 1968; et al. 1984; Senna-
Martfnez 1989; Kalb and Mck 1979 and see Chapter Two), Senna-Martfnez was obviously
frustrated by his almost fruitless search to find associated settlement horizons dating between
1800 and 130013C. He excavated the only well stratified settlement with occupation
attributable to this phase - the rock shelter of Buraco da Moura (Senna-Martfnez 1995a-, 1995b;
Senna-Martfnez and Nufles 1993a) (Figure 4.20).
The limited ceramic assemblages related to this period show the gradual introduction and
appearance of new pottery types (see Figure 4.21), and an overwhelming continuity with the
Chalcolithic forms of the Mondego valley basin. However, some subtle changes are evident.
While the pottery forms continue Copper Age traditions, the surface finish and decoration show
modifications. Polishing and burnishing becomes more common as a surface treatment after ca
180OBC, and the level of decoration decreases dramatically. Only five percent of the "Early"
and "Middle" Bronze Age ceramics from Buraco da Moura were decorated, contrasting with
160
61% of the underlying Chalcolithic pottery. Interestingly, the decorative motifs and techniques
- incised, combed and finger impressed - continue the tradition of the previous period.
Senna-Martfnez has introduced the idea that a standardised system for volume measurement
emerged after ca. 160OBC in central and northern Portugal (1984a). Measurements of a
specific vessel type - the vasos tronco-c6nicos invertidos or inverted cone-shaped or
tronconical jars (Figure 4.21.8) - demonstrated specific clusters in vessel volumes, and these
regularities are comparable between the Beiras and northern Portugal (Senna-Mart(nez 1984a:
Figure 11, type 26). Four different vessel volumes were noted - 313-325cM3 . 513-54OcM3 935-
940cm3 and 2129cm3. Both Lillios (1991) and Vilaga (1995) have expanded upon Senna-
Martinez' investigation and provided volumetric measurements of vessels from the sites of
Castelejo, Monte do Frade and Agroal that ranged between 320-330crný and 523-543cO. This
may imply the increased standardisation within regional groups, and increasing long-distance
exchange of pots as containers for measured quantities of foodstuffs.
This may correlate with the movement of bronze, already highlighted through the wide
dispersion and uniformity of pattern burnished and Bai6es decorated ceramics discussed earlier.
It places more emphasis upon the contents of the pots rather than the vessels themselves, and further illuminates complex practices of social interaction and increased regional exchange.
Unfortunately, there is no published data on any residue analysis studies of Bronze Age pottery in western Iberia that might identify the products contained in these pots.
As in other parts of western Iberia, a model of continuity with origins securely grounded in the Copper Age is the best approach to an understanding of Bronze Age traditions in the Mondego
region. Senna-Martfnez has published only a few radiocarbon dates for this period in the Mondego, but those from Buraco da Moura suggest that this period of continuity in traditions begins in the early second millennium BC and endures until ca. 1050 cal. BC, the latter date
corresponding with the later occupation horizons of S5o Rom5o and Santa Luzia.
4.6.4 The tvora Survey Project
This was an intensive survey project that recorded all archaeological periods in an area roughly 250kO in extent immediately to the west of tvora in south-central Portugal (Figure 4.22 - 4.24). It still remains one of the most extensive and intensive field surveys in western Iberia.
In the six years of survey, some 568 sites were discovered. Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites
were the most obvious and hence best represented for later prehistoric periods, with a large
number of meglithic monuments (dolmens, antas, chambered cairns, standing stones, cromlechs
or stone circles and cup-marked stones) being recognised. The main directors of this project (Burgess and Correia) and sub-directors (Lynch, A. Gibson, Oliveira Jorge, Blood, Mathers,
161
Harding, C. Gibson and Mason) realised the increasing problems in identifying evidence for the
Bronze Age in that there were no material culture type fossils for the period in this region, other
than characteristic cist cemetery sites. Thus initial conclusions drawn for the traditional
"Early" to "Middle" Bronze Age remained scarce. Only three cist cemetery sites - at Bandeiras, Banhos and Zarnbujeiro - and four settlements (one hilltop, three open hillside) were identified to represent this period. For the Later Bronze Age, apart from the site of Cor6a do
Frade, which falls into the tvora area, and the site of Castelinho, five other hilltop defended
settlements were discovered, but because they were not excavated, judgement must be reserved for assessing whether any of them are Later Bronze Age or later in date (Figure 4.22,4.25 and 4.26). This scant evidence serves to emphasise the invisibility of the "Middle" Bronze Age in
this region of Portugal, even with rigorous fieldwalking techniques.
Part of the research undertaken for this thesis was to re-assess all the evidence from the survey
project and study the material retrieved in surface collection in an attempt to identify possible Bronze Age sites. The material was stored in the tvora museum, and only the Neolithic,
Chalcolithic and Roman pottery had been distinguished at this stage. The data base produced from the survey demonstrated that the sites recorded during the actual survey (i. e. by the fieldwalkers) could be allocated to the following periods (see Table 4.8). It must be noted that
the preliminary assignation of sites was biased by the fact that fieldwalkers were more
competent in identifying Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Roman material culture and sites, and were
completely unfamiliar with evidence for other periods (particularly the Bronze Age, but also for
the Medieval period).
Table 4.8: Sites by period
Period Number of sites
Neolithic 43
Neolithic-ChalColithiC 23
Chalcolithic 4
Chalcolithic -Bronze Age 4
Bronze Age 5
Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age 7
Later Iron Age 20
Roman 91
Medieval 7
Post-Medieval and Modem 140
Unknown 224
162
Table 4.9: Early Prehistoric sites
Period Type site Number
Neolithic- Anta/dolmen/chambered tomb 42
Chalcolithic
Neolithic- Menhir/standing stone 6
Chalcolithic
Neolithic - Pottery and lithic scatters - ? open 13
Chalcolithic settlement
Chalcolithic Enclosed settlement - possible 4
causewayed enclosure
Neolithic- Cup marked stone 23
Chalcolithic
onwards
4.6.4.1 Potential Later Bronze Age settlements
The research concentrated upon the 224 sites which had been left unrecognised as to period or
even settlement type. The majority of these consisted of dense pottery scatters that were found
fortuitously as a result of recent ploughing activities. During the summer of 1995, a detailed
study of all of these materials (mainly ceramics) was undertaken in the Museum of tvora in an
attempt to characterise and date the material. Of the 224 sites, 171 were discarded, either
because they were post-Iron Age or because the pottery assemblages were too small to analyse
accurately. The remaining 53 revealed some interesting conclusions. All these "sites" had
produced pottery sherds or assemblages that were almost entirely hand made, and only eleven
had some wheel made material. The pottery was largely undiagnostic and the majority was
undecorated with the exception of three sites with finger impressed jars (Quinta do
Benamarique, Courela and Amoreirinha), four sites with "a cepillo" decorated vessels
(Cabaflas, Courela de Pau, Monte da Pouca-La and Navalhas), and two sites with external
pattern burnished sherds (Amendoeira and Azinheiro do Campo). Thus to summarise, the
pottery was not particularly characteristic or distinctive and this obviously created problems in
any classification. The sites identified can be divided into the following categories.
163
Table 4.10: Potential Later Bronze Age sites
Site Type Number
Hillside pottery scatter-no structural evidence 9
Hillfort 6
Pottery scatter in valley area with no associated structural evidence 10
Hilltop enclosure or hillside platform settlement 8
Hilltop pottery scatter with no associated structural evidence 6
Cist necropolis associated with possible open settlement 3
Pottery scatter located on open or slight undulating plain 4
open settlement or low lying open platform settlement 7
4.6.4.2 Pottery Analysis of the bora survey
The pottery analysed is surnarised in Table 4.11.:
164
c3) 1 X 0 a 02
2 - W
1 ?
0 -c,
20 (D
Co -0 0 T)
9 (D
«9 li 0 CC$ :, E O m 2! m
Co l> > zu r-
Co :3 0 E - ro- g m Y
< Lij
CL E 0 = 0 0 0 r- -
-vi 2 Z: E
. c12 i . 8 C
c> e u M 0 (1) 0 e E2 - . ýg (0 Q 0 a (0 "di m- mo
A o
tu 4 >, 7ö
c: E
2 r- Co
(D :e 0
ci (1) = cö 9 -0 0 m
M O
(U « 0 cr
(D Z
5-
L o
= 9) Z (t C)
. - m (0
Co Z]
. ri (D
.1 1 Z . 92 iü
79 cr
9 ý
(D cr - c (D 0> *
E 0
4 b 0 ý S ch ü0 : r3 cu >,
. LA E
3: 1 e- 0 -
E 0
e £2 CL «
- 8a M A :i g 2 2 8 E M t» e (D
m I 0
9) > e 0 < i (U (2) -C3
tu IU Co 0 c- CM -2 C 0
cn . - *g o <
g! 0 0 - 9) c7 0
.2 -E- "C23 9) (D 0
) 0 CC) i c c> CO
E tn i (D i-
(D E
12 0 w 0 >
c3 'a E -@ (n 3: - 2, 0 0 U) c
i 2 , 9) >
"r3 - a)
: -0 CU 0 0
* ký r
* G) C). =Z
- -0
o w -2
(1) -5
cý «Z-1 P, ý
Z Q)
2? a)
g E -
r1-2 @ E
& <J '
9 '
2ý
. f; (n Q) 0 g 9)
Z ý
(D , 0 Co LL cn @
-0 79 3-1 ?
> 0 *0 U) (D
rL E c a) X . cn c *r- (0 E- E m Ln
L 0 0
- r- «a Ca -- (D 0 ý
0 i cö r - Z( 0 . E 0 m E
@
E - ý (D -
(D e
c2. f
0 0
28 E 0 c c$ = 2 0 i
9 9 m E ý cii (f c -0 --S C
e (D
'@ Z 0)
0 < = <
x--
u) = <
Co
m 0 w E m Co m 2 3:
c r_ 0
8
g c Co 0
0 0 E -4 3 (D . ;
0 2
E f g
cu E 0 0E
C: ) ,e
0 --42 a 0 0
:3 Er
90 c
>ý A .0
c: U) Z) Co
M c
ID a
u) c )
e
M N
"rn CI) (D :3C 0
G) B > Z, m
(5 , ,
0 0
*
CL
E c)
:2 -0
CL 0 1 -a ;5 :g --- 0 :2 «9 (1) iä E M
c> 5 t:
e 0 ý 9 cm E
C, C ) 3 ý Co 0 = = 2 0 0 : Ci) e .
e w ? -, m ? -, 28 m 2- ý c2 3: CL 0 CM
0 0 ";, cm m 9) . 0
2 M
:2 0 0 c .
0 0 0 > E * ca a. v KL Z. IL 0 CL CL e :E (D 0 0) - f ö. Z:
Cß Z m d 0 Co 0 0) r- 0 Co
Le) (D 0
8
N CY r4 CY CY CO)
13 c m
y 0 0) Co vl
Co
9 Ci
e Co c4 c, ) c4 17 N l": 0) 0 = 0 - - - CO Co
(4 Co Co Co Co Co Co
0 XO
.x ia c12 m 9 TU 0 0 . c
Co Z Co > 0 > Co 0 a) E E < < < Z <
N IV)
Q)
ty) (D M
tu (D " to
-c- cr 2 CL 0
0
Z fi
Q
-e U) (D
0 E tu m
. C- 0 Co 0
9
U) c ý E- m «C-- 0 C) a) L0) R 0)
2 m R
CL 3: 0
La E -Z 13
tu
M
U) -
0
CL 2
2
Q -99 cö IL '0 T 0
, :i !ý (li 4.
Q -0
? m
1 Q
a) c
u5 -2 :3
, «
tu
m c
zr_ «a in
* 0 W
ý5 >
2i a) E C (U = M C) [2 Z
za E
15 4 -= bi
0 C) tu 0 0 (D
-0 0
- CO (D ä r- «o 0 m tu 2a LLJ (V 4) 1
m CL
0 (1) a)
) ju- 125 "' a) .. 9 9
0
0 Co E CL 3ý (D E
G) E 0 Z W
U) (2) M
33 (D 0 . (D
2 m 0 c tu 2 0 ' -
c3 ý; ý w m
0 r- -M c 11)
m «a
b, U R R 3:
. 2) c3) Au :3 rT . @ c-- L r- 0
(A 0 - F. CL 0
9 0 c 8 E = 0 2 -9
0 c:
-Ci r- E
Z
< (13 (D
',
ý5 e > E 0
c3) 0 0
'0 (D �i 0
=
0 - lu--) 21
>
CL (D r CU
E 0 e th E -M 0 0 - c 9 3: ý; ,
= 0 0
0 m - 'cn
'
> m 21 -
*--
'0 o
«9 < 0 " - FL E
0 in E
-0 , CY
r- CG),
t: Co
r- -0
@ -
2 W- 0 3, 0 =
9 2) r- cu - 90
U) ý u ) 2
0 > 0
« -Z 0 "
c 0 j . 0 (D - 0
f; ,
a (D >
' r .2
s 0 2
P U) 0 c
m e -g
lý 9 u 0
(0 (D 33
C 0
' '0 -@
cö Z e 0 -5 :1 CM
9 , , 5
s s . 5 -
cö G)
e 0) m Cß 0 :5 c «cl e (D 0 79
92. E 0
(Z 0
Ci. E 0
M C3 Co LE D c
cli w
0 0 (D c ý; 1
>, -Q w
cm c:
T, c 15
a) --
Co c 0 %P
r CM . 73
0 Cb . t2 0
10 «o c 0
a) =
0 -0
:l 2 c
«o CD
r-
.2 (D
(D E CD
2 Z 45 V, 21 r l
- C 0 -3 m 2 . ru 0 (d . U) .2
- - cö
: .2 Kp
- IS
- r% ý
0 8
. 0
= x
2 th fi . -
0) >
(D
> .5 -
- lu �, .5
E c 20 -5
r- c -
«a -0 m ý 21
CL 21 cm
c3) L, 0 e, Z 21 « 15
0 r
(1) E CD
(D
0
0
0
C (D
0
(D
0
s
- 0 EL to (D CL M ci 0» c: IL 0) CL «a IL (0
0 CI)
(0 Ln
0 Co
0 0 0 CM CY CY cli
C\i ö Co
ID CY d
Ln CI) Ul) (7) - (0
8 -i Ln
c4 117 k ci c4 (0
Co (D OD
0 00
Co r,
Co r- 1 [Z: rz *ll Co C" Co 0
COOD
Z ty lý -
CM 0
. w -0 e 2 P) 0
(D Z CD
(D (x)
ia (D
L- 1 0 - CY
1 v)
1 e
-
e %0
CL
z
Co Z cr 0 0 (0 c
m 0 c -A F)
3:
"CI -
g a
E
Z ýa
cq 1 0 m C
9 Lt) 2
«o C «CI U)
2 0 '9 -0 J-- 2 m V: c
cm -
* ý
0 lu 8 i2
0 - 0
r- gr- 111 E AU E 0 90
"3 0 E (ö - M ?, *0- g C) (U = 0 0 - «u
c 0 A
LL W, -0
J-
cm < W
(D l- E
CY) u
« 't
Co (n
= ý5 3:
0 pý
-- =
- 0
- e Cof -d Am V. -ö 0 r
v c\I 9
- 0 m 4:, Jý A
x .Z
CL (D
ID r- p
ci a)
r= 0 u)
E a) i-'
2ý 0 E 'ö -r-
«c3 a; ID «E! < 0 :3 (0 . (0 r
1 m fi :3 cr-
-
0) m
ca >Q 0 -0 A
,D -
r- (1) tu
.r <
's -0 r-
Co r-
-0 9 2 A
Q .
E - _
- 0 r» r-
:E c» cm 0 0 CD
0
Z Co 2) CL CD E 0 0 3,
>ý -0 C ) E 2 U) . (D 0 r (D
= i; . c, Q 0 f l= -a C V C e -0
c CD) c E KL
E ID fa
2 M E IM
0 3:
3: -M 2
-0
E 0
«0 0 f; 3 -g
I 0 0 >
« j r-
tu p Co
m .
«o c 0
(Z 't-- ý: , u
E 0 0
> 0 E
b. E :
C) Z Z 0 is
s ' 0 ce m (Z m :3 0 r - ý.
:E .
U 0 (D ý r- ID
@ m
cö ýA =
Co -g tu E 0
CL
« 0 ý5 *g CI) U)
a) a
cu = <
*g 0 Q
c - 0
V (D
-i-
M kl 2 = g
- -0 0
-- ý! c
cu = 0 0
0 (D
> M
< .0 - ý; bi (D
r ý5 CL
2 -
0 = 8
> 0)
0 Cö Z
0 0 =
2 > ý: (P
-5 t: 0 >
(0 Z- a
3 i :5
- 2,
Igl C, 0 >,
1? - m ca --J - 20 0 0 CD (A . -z. CU E (D
-0 (0 c 0
> 0 CL) 0 1-zý
> 3 c
E Z
0 > (D
> rn c x l' 2 2 u)
E 9 . (U 2 cy : O
C,
l w m 0 - ui w -e E < u E e
7 0 E 0 A
0 =- A - Z (D 79 2
2 Co 9
E Z:
:E 0 (D
(0 - ý
E U) 0 Q
29 (D 22 2
t! . «5 e A,
M
- tu (D : -Z r- 0 0 tu 9
3 - Co
e -rj Ln
CO o -- ,D (D 3-- 2
«9 :3 M r- :3
tg-- tu
> 0 (J
Z L
ce E . - E e
. - 8 Z, > m > . - -r-
, t! 0 - 'cl.
E 0 (D
:e Co 3
0 2-
?,
0 t m e t (U
:g
E c
E -5
20 - ýp c c» A -
- 0 32
C 0 A5
0 Co - 0 cm Co 9
2 cm 2
0 x
i (D 0 E
U) - c- 0 e 0
-ý w g
A- C» m
r_ 0 p E! (D - 0
Z a) la) r_
1 1 > ID r-
2 : 9 r- 0 2
C ? r-
0 0 . -
E a) (P
Li 0 " Z - 0) CL =
0 Z u) 0
0 N rA
(1) 21 0
0 2
L *g c: (3)
0
g
0 lu c 2 -2
g
, f5 Z
A 2
A - - x
CO E c E ý
r- = 0 l- LL 0 0) u5 0- 3. C) U) 5 Q) U) O CL U ) ý w :E
Co ul 0 0 - * cq
Co cli
Ci cli
cý Ci
Co
Co - c3)
(D 1: CY)
C) Co cii Co Co zý -:
m ei 0
Am M a 0 (i (U
m
i CL
1 .2 - -
(D 1- - -
rý Co 0)
t--
G) c u; 3: U E 0 Z -
CY (D a m c 6 9 0
'0 a) Co
«s r ID Z
2'
0 g
(D E
0 e r- (0 0 U) 0 3: - 0
ei c i; C,
< Co
Co 0 9 r-
.a 0 > ý vi Co c .2 e c-- CO ce E 0 2 Q 2 .2 8 8 -d
G) ký «0 > (0 -0 t- -a (1) c) . :3 -Z - (D E 0
ýa 0 ZL ý: -g 2 g c3) 2, ' E L* -jE 0 0 ci
«a 9
0
c» 0
0, m
- 0 a)
E it: ýa ILO '0 - a) 0
0
0) C
tr- G)
0 Q
c 0 ig 0 r, ýoýO - 0
a)
m Q 0 32
r
0 uý 3: «
Z 0 ! 2: -
CL 9 -ý z- .9 ' ý; 0 < 9 f; '
c: t v) - E
0 E 0 m irm_ ä (D
E -m 0 m
2 a (D 12 . %; Z (D
0 (2. Z ? -l' 0 E 0 -9 ý r- : r: e 2,
r E ce E
Co E
r_ Q)
7ö 0 Ln
r_ cm
Z m
E :3
.2 Z
0 R 0
8 E- u -
*us ý Z £2 , 0 , CL 0 (0 LU
-0 c: 8 E 0 0 -0 M
. -ö 3:
? 0 - 4; g
< m , 0 ä 0
Z > <
Co c
. - r ") 21
u r= 's '
8 -
A U) E
0 79 , :' 0 (U 0
3: (Z - (1)
a) a ) 0 E j2
M - Lj 2
0 to 0
:G
- ýi
0 &-- ýp3
r-
(1) Q E
0
" c 0 U) .0 g M 3- - 0. E
LL a) CL c 0
0 - 8 r- (D
c3)
? Z ý
0 - -0 0 T) 15
«9 .
c: ý3 . (1)
8 *0
Z g u;
t w e .
T) 0 0 U r= 0 (D
, Ln -
'0 10 '0
0 E (U - 1: i
0 c Loi a) -0 r- 11-- g 0 e! c) 'a U) 0 «e a 7@ ?' - Q) c tu 0 A 2 CÖ 12
«a cö (0
2 Ij 0 r (U a = (D
2 0- 28 a)
m m 0 cm '0
C c- 0 M
0 0
Co A «9 1-; u) -s r- = 6) (1) 10 0 o J (D
0 C. ) 5 m Co e rD ce Z E 0
(0 m
Co ý -9 tu 12
ö > 0) cr
m M Q T3 C, C»
ID *I w (0 Co cm CL 5 -, 5, , .2 0 CJ) < a a < ýe 0 iz 0
CL 2
A el c a; :2 : E; . - 3: (1) A
Z (D > 0
c 0
0 0 A CM . C- (0 2 ci
0 U E 0 > m ýp
r- (D Z 0
a) Z
c e
N >, 3: - -m C 2ý c 0 gl, sc ý5 : 2-ý, > (1) '0 0
- Z 0
- C 0 @
, 0 (D (D
E CY LU
0 Iß 0 0
9) Z CI) r-
Z; 0 eL
t! u3
CO «3 Q :c «a
c Z. .
8. U e (D E
LC) *@ >
B 8
U) ZI Z
:2 :9 .0 5 (P > EL
= (0 r ', (n 1-
2 CO (D
9 Z,
cn 0 go = -2 5 m ci
Fd (1) u 9 (D 01 -
1) ý U) G) . - 0
( a) f 12 0 LU . (i m 0
2 U) Co :2
Co (0 CM CY
tn ci cil
C» ci N
9
-: V) N
- Co i ýn 'C4
ce N 0 Co
Co)
ei N Co
CD 00 r-
(3) r-
il Z cli Co r,
rz Co
(0 Co
Z (P 'W
Co CL
cm A
ID >
0 -
OR
(D 0 E
R
Co U)
iu > < (0 Q
a Li.
0 cli
- cli
00
9 (D 0 Z 0 0 0
:3 m Co CL Z CU C Z j r- (D :3 0 - cn (D 0
(D Z tr C Z
_ cm
0 u)
ig in 0
E 20 < '0 cm -- - -0 - c . c, LU >, a) M 0 2 tu c 0) 0 :2 Z
(D m
ýi 0
Z a) ý cm r- C(I cý E 0 . v r- n Z m T E Z
-u Q E
0 tu -
c (D
E (U 0 u) c m 5 A 1 - Z r- 2 g 0
0 U') C, e -2
. 3
cm m ý
W -U (0 F- @ CL 2) 0 M ýB E & a)
21 0) 0 c- 0 r JA
E > -5 Z ul Z E
CL
0 8 = r_ rz . 0 -
A ' 0 0 - U) 2 - rt R %ö -@ -0 r , ýi cm m 5 A cm 2 < 3
r- . E N 0 , 0 ý (U >Z 0 e 0 :3 E
l e ý JZ, 5 E ID c -? i i LO U -
. E- 23
r G -
«g *
r- Z a: . -0 ? cr Z
o U. ) N
M . (0 «a .2 U) 0) r-
W- Ic (D ý-, - ia - M
m r- o 3:
r- - Im
(D :a -
it, 0 0 s ý! A 2 0
a) (D > ü, cu 0 E «o :2 Z -ö 0 r- cm «g 0 Z . - C, 0
0 li- , 0 IZ
(0 Z m ý e -0 0 är
«a (0 ; -_ M (11 U «Ö - E r- cu
& (2 -0 0 E Z Zt E 0; 1
5 -@ E (D 9
0) E = 0
c- M
r, (D 0
r 2
:3 n c: m a) 0 0 CM Z U) x Co 0 ci e M g
-0 .2 1 -i; 0 E 1 (D
0 (1) E ( ) Z c CI) 0 to 0 0 -0
10 Z m E m 0 Z E LU 'ID m E Z. =
:, r ý
0 3: C)
in 2
.2 > ý: 0) 9) c 0 (1) c:
E ö
Z -6 in . M (U M
- (D c»
-', -e
0 c
0 Cli -ffl 8
ý
0-* F- u
rL - c «j 0 0 cft (D L 'OA ýa 0 0 3:
Q 0 2ý E 92. i= >ý CY E c C) 3 Co 0 M 0 (0
9 m - (D 0) = 0 c:
2 (D -0 M 0- N CM c R %ö cl 9 -le ci
c3) ý5 2 0 (D u) 2 - 0 c =
A 0 c .2 LA e C e; 0 -0 0 (D E
8 'ä *2L f= , 12 ý ?:. 2 r- E -
G) 0 > a. E 0) ia 8 CO
e - cn «p . - 3: 1 0 E r- 0 0 z .2 g . 2 «@ 0 3 '3 i>. m
«9 E
«o (D .
2
CM
9
CM a)
m 0 0 *r- 9)
0
p -he
2
0 § E 2
tu Ug :R & -r- U)
ý .2
Z g 2 m
0 L',
: .0 g
1
« u)
ý Üi 0 25 t -
8 2 a c» -e j 0 a (0 E - -0 < ci CL - <
(D (D
0 LO G) S'< 0 Q 9 ä
0 .2 Z- 0 Z
c J c CD to
CO . a .@ > Li - A =
.0 0 Co
m ý5 0 -
:3 cr
9) ý5 0 (D 79 O 0 . 4ý r- m Co
> tu - C
Co =
c q
g , c3)
, N
-- i Z -
U) 0 ecu C 0 - Q
@ - tu 0 15 8 0
u)
. 2 > Z 0
c -0
l w 0 U) 0)
R .
0 0
& Z a; 0
*r-
ý ý 0 . CL 1
(1) 0 «a 9 (0 2 CL E
0 - 8 (D
0 Ci C (D
9 2 u)
(D > 9 = C,
r_ (D
- = ID
R -g 0 tu
- - l-
cli (D (0 Co Co
cr)
'
ei Co ' --
le Lii
Ln (» - c5 Co Ul) " ci
00 CY Lii
- ý5 a Ln - CM N C%i ci 2 ci r- Co Co i ca (0 Li) Co Ln Co r, Co r-
0 M L
Cm . '0 '0 0 0
>
0 0 0 LL LL 2 -9 : 2
(D cli
Co CY
a) 1 CY 0
Co CI)
all
z« C a)
0 -. c; 3:
3 < V
(D
(D 0
(D (0
8 1
-u 0
cl
-ý (D 0 U) 0 Z
0 U) M C:
0 jg C ' tu Co) ýri Z
. 20 9 s ig -
2 I n
CO (2. '0 E '
0 a) ch
0 -0 tö
tu :3 rr
o r cm
(P C
10 m An C Co
cn 0 CL 5
(D >. m m
.5 .5 ID 0 10
e - .9 .2 00 CU 0 r-
0 (1) >
C CM E 0 (D
ES 9 ci CM 10 0 «a «c3 C r - , (2. L) 0 8
C .. 0 E m C tu j= 0 to
Z0 t) t»
0 0 M
r-
0
- * -
Z 0 (D
9 <
. t- u) C cli :,
:3 0
8 0
-0 :, A 0
02 Z (0 rj -6 (D
Q 0 0 Z
(D
0 E E Li E
-g 2 .2 -
0 > (? .: 2
« *E cm 2 ý; 2
E, 0 U) 0 (D
.2 «9 C
3: :ä a = A
3: - V
2 CL u; L»
19 t5
15
,g 2 j2
m CO m
M 0 E
0 0 2? -r_ 9
«
9
0 (D 8
(D - 4! 0 A
. 93 0 - 0 2!
. 92 a 0 2 um :3 , e s
0 ce m 2 .2 Ln
0
8 cm Co
i3 . -
-0 3: 2 .
tu CL
(n 0 - r
0 >ý E Z; - (D
8 r- C» - LO 9 m (0 t) En U
2 a ja Co
0 cn Z 0
U) m :, 0 r_ m L r E U) 0 «t3 (13 r E 0'- CO -0 0
r- t» E M tu .2 C CL je Z Co
Z m c: E
0 E . s2
, , '@ -a
m E - 0 0 0
T, r
0 = 0 i-- r_ 0 0 E v: C
-2 2 (0 . LA r
c, r_
7e M 0 r-
0 cy r- (0
- tu :ä 9 -U) Co m 0 cr-
(D u) 06 3: - = 0
M ý 0. d (n Cö
3: -2 0 , U 10 r- 0 (U
E 0 00 e2 0
" j (D 2
0 Q «o - r 0 %p
a Z =
u 2
ý ý 0 (0 (1)
m » 0) 0
. c2 1 9 C) ci CE 0 «p - a) 0 E r= V
e (U (0 , .2 A
m (4)
Z 0
0 Co -
< ý (D > u 0E 2 c2» z -i5 Z (0
Co 0 C 0 Z] C -
CL
0) C
a) i;
ý >ý ja
0 -; >ý (D - 'ö
£2 (D
Co (D , a)
tg (D >
CO C, 4 M > -he : C
(D
U) -0 -g 8 ý - C tu ? (0 (D U) ýB 6 CD C
0 0 Co -
U) C» V
r- 49 0
N >
0 - 5 E (D 0
' = M
r 6 r- e 2 0
"
1 c3)
r
5
U) 12) cl 3-- - R
0 s
G) 5 Z a)
m (D e
& 0 c» A
ý a)
'0 0 2
U =
:a el M
- .
- «a 9
, (1) :e -0 Co
0 0 E -0 E 0 >
0 a -1 w, cm Co -as (n C, 3 0- 0
Co 0 Co Co CI)
(0 ui LO ý 0) £e Ci 9 ci üi % C, 4 (1) c4
Co r- Co U') Co to Co 0) u; (»
0 (» C» rý cl; N Ln Co Ln Co
tu
m r_ 0 Co 0 w
Co
0 0 (0 C (0 tu -@ (D ca U)
N 8 Z; tn (0 I ýi ce) --
1 1 e) C )
0
e 2? E
«o cr E 0
0 Lr- (D 0 -@ 0 49 E :a FA M Z u . 5
: CU M i! > , -- c 0 0 62 m tu c t2 -6 E 0 :3 '0 Q) a 9
.2 f; E m
CL E0 C) r c) Z 0 C) E 0) (0 (U 2 0 (1) Co 0 ýa C) cu
F - 10 ký Z 78
9 >
1-- :3
(5 c: 01 0 0 0-
>- z3 0
Cß 0- - 0
(D 0 g
8 (D
5D 13) 2e F. 0 le c 0
E p bi r- Z cr
(D 0
r= E 2 e.
Ln c (D '0 c,
r ci C
(D 0 tr- ID c cö (0 m 0 ý
s g
. (D
CL "T Z CL 0) gn eE -2 jg . (>
in 0 e >ý 0 -6
v c cm 0 73 r Z 0 r- ns «
2 92 (D A 02
c2 ? c 0
c g t-- . CL 0 c . 0 Co 9
0 (D CL 0
(0 : r, E 0
c: »
0 0 ' 0 < m
P 0 m
(D a) Z8 0
0 -0 CS
(D =
r- C»
CD . (IJ E -45 (0
s. -g 0 -9 9 -, 5 -cl U) 0 Co «g 2 r- CM A 0 -Z 2 2, >, e , 2 0 w N0 a: 0 0g
.2 < c Z (D - < 2 >,
.0 (D
0 CI) a; C 0 (0 r 3: , a 0 0
- n e? 0 23
w 5 g r- -@ Z U) - 6 n
(D le t (0 M 2? (0
3: ic >,
0 0 t» E
(D M :2 Z)
(n 0
. -
0 (D . CA 0 0 a) (0 (n IE
n) 0 - ' c 0 - a)
0 - @ (D
Z (D 0 - CD c 0
R
0 - (D
a) M
m :2 E r- 2 2ý e Z E
A - 8 cis *rß 0 g a) >
U ýi = - , - - 2 lou, u 0- -9- - " 0 - - «a R 0 E E Co 0 E CD. .c z5 0 0 m 0 m 9 r-
0 E r- c 0 (D A
- --
e c (D
CY 1 cn
c CL (D Z 2 a)
. 9
0 C, 2 (4)
e Z
0 c o >, 0 2 ý
? 9
0 Z m Ci) 0 0 . :2
ý m
0 & Li) :g r ö a) - E C- (n = L4 (5 2 Lo E 2 - C I l 0)
Z - w 0 a) (A 0 Z - ei U) ro .; r 0 ;3
CI) CI)
ty Ln Z ci r- c i -0 Co cr)
rz 9
5 c4 N Ii i s- c4 25 0) r-- Co
(D Co Co
r- Co le CY
Co Co
Co Co 9 9 A m u TO
0 0 0
(D 2 0
m r_
> cm >
: LO
< E
IL (0
Co CI)
0 le
N
13 ei 9 vi 0 e c3) . 25
D M M 0 c e 0
c: zr-
c (0
T r= E ý -x A *E r_ 2
4i (D ýa
0 &;
(D U) cs
L 0) 9
- E r- c:
(D E ;, Z c» , 0 (D - > Co Co 12 0) (D c3 cu
25
--
0 r (D
- u (D (U 0
rL E (D
C, c3) r E Z m
«E A E w Z e r LM
0
0 c» v)
im (D 0 0 E - 4r- e cý - M
0 0 0 c- «$ A - E U) < Ln E cz
r- (D ; - r- 2 r-
c2
- E *c3 m ýa
0 LO (D . -
Co u;
E P 0 E MD r B 0 « Z '2 2
3: 8 . Q . - ::: 0< - m m a) >
9 (D (D c» 2 -, -a 9 < 0 0 cm C» - c: c in C»
CI) a 2 E
0 : f9 (n ý 0 (A (D c :i
cr (D E j;
@0 8 E
(D (2
* > t 0 . tg cl)
> - .= -: -2 3
« CL (U (0 C, e a -
ro lo- : -Z. 0
, -5 0 3: cl, 0 ? s
2 Z, cr - Za - 0 t5 (D
LO Z:: ý Ln t21 Z - a
m (0 u)
0 ý . - 0 *0 (0 1- (D , > 79 *g r- 0 r 0
3: 0 0 r Z «ý E Z
.g ': e 2
- 0
lý c -FZ ý ý ý';
cý 0 (D
v 2 (D
-2 cn 0 Co . 5 cm - - 8 p J
0 « 8 r= « .2 0
0 cu 5 Co
Q (D . 0 0 -
0 ic > m e
- 1- Z Z
Q) Z - :, u 5
- E ,
ffi (D m
= ' Q
3:
« Co «2 E
ý
= -5
c - -r
a)
ý 2ä 9
(? ä 5 u) c» 0- .8 « 9 , Z 9 s< c l . o « r : ý
ý1)
. 92 Di 2 tu l
(D 0.
- r- 0 ý-, cýZ - 8 U) - E 2
a) 9 -
ý - s , A- tu tu i
CU (D
(D r 0
-0 Cd
. LO (" 0 . LU m = -r. (D
m 0
C -6 e .T ;, - tu E m C
49-- -13 E 0 10 .5 tu cö 0 0 E E 13
c cu 0 72 a) Z A , :e 0 :3 CY 2, M ja Z E 0) >
0 Ce a r Z CL cli > 5 0
C2 E E ý5
- rý V
u) 0 < . L u) EL 0 . CY 0 (0 C- Co
Z g) 0) Z
- ja cö - a) Z
ci d Co ý5
Co M a; :p 2 0
>ý
> 0
0 2! Z 11) c
0
g *o 0 '
0 7D Z U) 72
G; r-
0 -5
0 Co . - 0
(D - (D
> r t»
(D 9 0) (0 8 0 0) > a a) 1 Co Co fe 0) CD c cii 0
c ý
LL- m (D 0 ;ý 0) C» c3) , c: C) 0 - C) =
ä U) 15 :3
e :3
2 :2
0 0 Z c
(D cn e ei a 2. r- 22 Z 0 0 Z 0
c (D
m . CL 0 3 w cl co CL CL
0 0 (D CI) CM
00 c\I tn
C%l r)
(3) N % Ln Co
Ln 't tlz c4 "
ci cq
Co r- 0) r- Co ý: r, Co Co Co Co
ce m .c
(D 0 CY
2
r- 0
(D a M
Ln (0 r- Co (» 3 Ilt l*
0) e! :,
-c- CO) 2
0 @ ( - l 0)
cli i 13
9 (0 tu ' Z (D 1) >O [3 5 e -2
2! Z) cr
E . 0
« e 0)
- l o (D m
8 (0 cu
3: (D >
V C
0 0
0 ci
9
E (D 12
0 2
u 55 RL
1-
0 CL t (D CIJ
cu U %m 0
Co '9 : ,
. c- r 8 W t»
5 - E 0 0
U) 0 c
cu 19 A 8
a) 0 Z 1,3
4- r
�i E Q) 4;
. Q E 0
= - *5 tu 2 ý
« cy 0 5 gl
cö -
a 0 .a 0 s . - e - >, , 0 -0 (1) 2 e : 0, E A E
0 m (D r- G M 'r- 8
.2 ch 4;
cm
2 < (-)
Co 0 -
Z a) : (D 6 Co
M 01 . - U') Co
r- u ll c: E' (D CL E t cli
c4 LL E
e M 0) -a A - 4 2
-0 0 3:
- 0 LL 3:
- - U) E -, e, r- Z 0
2ýý «
«9 -on - 0 15 0
O m 2 0
A E a 1) M U) ý5 ý 'E .
« tu C ' - - 0 - R ý
E 0 :;, = 9 r- m
0 0 0
S r 0 0
- CL
-a 8 ý U 8 e > > 0 -
0 :3 E c v 9
0 u=
0 Jc, 9
2 -0 r-
8
0 0 2
C» m
-r- ý Z (D
tu Co Ca. 0 A = , 0 . cm
3 0 -0 0 .0 c
(D : r,
Co -- «
E -ý tu e
0 5 = CY (0 * CO m 0 * c
.0 10 u >, m &
, aD -0
ý ; >_, 0 O E-
m
a a 0
21 (D cm -5 0 E 5 5 0 32 C :3
2 Z. 3-, c 22 (9 E r 0 : r, 0 0 s 0 '5 0 - CU
- - 0 ý ,
c- 0 M u) -- 7
0 zý 9 3:
(2 m m
2 (D
* ri -ffi
Co . : (1) E
(D > g 2 ; t
ý - -
9 1 ID
-0 j2 m U) Q
t k O tr- ir 2 a 5
E 0 5 r Cö
E 0
r 0 13 3: > 9 Co - 0 0 u " E « r 0 Q 0 - (D
Ln n 0 w 5 r- cu 9) tu -Z :p >
r- -9
2 -
9
m fi -
'n r- C»
>, ' 0
(D ch cr ;_
2 - 2 ý! g
=< E oc § E
0 j29 i r-
A : 0 Co Z r 0 E -r C» E -
c
E LO
0 . r- > cy > x *
-C3 C 0 ,
Lü E (0 0 ü= 15 4 s g :2 > u r- 0 - Za 7= = 3: -g 0
L2
c E t «g .2 0 u.
j> Ci) G) E
C) E '
0 2 u0-- E 21 0 e c3) Q) > Mo
Co , Co -r CI)
Co cj C rz 2ý : 0) 2 -22 e 3: ' :e Q)
. - 3: .2
g .2 21 . r
2 W a) E
> 0 IL 'ö 0 13) 0 mi 0 £, -
0 > (0
8 D; Ln Co CY c4 cy
Ci (Y) Ln Co xt CY in a (D
ýr ci c\I Co cö [Z
CO cý r- C-3 Co
0 e 0) Z E C- Co
Z a.
LO Ln
ýz ru
.Q
C"!
ILI
; o2 r4l)
2. CQ
E
M t-
As already stated, most of the pottery studied was undiagnostic and consisted of small abraded
sherds. All of the sites analysed were plotted on the 1: 100 000 maps (see Figures 4.22 - 4.24).
The distribution of site types demonstrates an interesting pattern, but it would be premature to
base too conclusions upon the ceramics with which they were associated. However, the
majority of definite hillforts or hilltop settlements were located in the north of the survey
region, and only two were situated on the highest or most strategic hills of the area. No obvious
spatial pattern could be detected, and with the exception of Castelinho and Valada de
Almansor, were clustered together (Figure 4.22). Most of the platform and open sites were distributed along the main river arteries in the north-east and east of the survey region (Figure
4.23 and 4.24), and the central region of the survey area was almost entirely lacking in potential Later Bronze Age settlement data. Since this is the area of the highest topography and steepest hills, one might provisionally conclude that Later Bronze Age activity was mainly confined to
the lower more gently undulating parts of the landscape in the tvora region. However, other factors must also be taken into consideration.
Since the analysis is based upon surface collection, it is lacking in any stratigraphic detail. It is
unlikely that any of the assemblages are particularly representative of overall occupation
sequences, and most were brought up to the surface by ploughing. However, some of this
material may hold a key to our recognition of Later Bronze Age settlement in the region. The
section above outlined some of the principal pottery types that have recently been recognised as
characteristic of the Later Bronze Age (1500-1000BC) in central Portugal (Cardoso 1987;
1994; 1995a-c; Cardoso and Carreira 1993,1995; Cardoso and Encamagdo, 1990; Cardoso et al. 1981; Lillios 1991; 1995; Senna-Martfnez 1984a; 1989; 1993a; 1993b; 1993c; 1993d; 1994b;
1995a; Senna-Martfnez et aL 1993a-c). Indicative vessel shapes include straight sided and
tronconical. vessels, hemispherical bowls, low and medium carinated bowls and jars, bag-
shaped and globular jars, V-shaped bowls and evolved "Beaker" shapes, often lacking
decoration (see Table 4.12). In fact the shape types that represent this "transitional" phase very
much represent a blend of earlier and later traditions. Pottery decoration is limited to
occasional finger impression, and all-over polishing and burnishing are common surface finishes. Using these observations as a guide, it is now possible to ascribe provisionally thirty-
seven of the tvora survey sites to the Later Bronze Age, between 1600/1500 and 800/70013C.
This identification may be an important break-through in our re-discovery of this elusive
period. The total number of sites with similar diagnostic material in the tvora survey are listed
below.
174
Table 4.12: Diagnostic Later Bronze Age vessel t. yPes and decoration fi-om Evora surveY
settlements
Vessel type/ surface finish No. of sites
Low or medium carinated bowl 16
Carinated jar 2
Tronconical vessel 4
Straight sided vessel 4
Bag-shaped jar 5
Globularjar 6
V-shaped bowl 3
Evolved Beaker 4
Holemouth jar 2
Hemispherical bowl 3
Decoration
All-over burnished vessel surfaces 25
Finger impressed decoration 3
11 a cepillo" decoration 4
External pattern burnished decoration 2
4.7. Central and southern Portuguese Later Bronze Age Settlements: Conclusions
Hilltop enclosures and hillforts are the main settlement type in Later Bronze Age central and
southern PortLIgal that have been excavated in recent decades. Thc ina . jority of archaeologists
who have excavated or interpreted settlement evidence for the later Bronze Age in this area
(e. g. Marques and Andrade 1974; Arnaud 1979, Arruda 1993; Beir5o 1983; Coffyn 1985;
Gamito 1988; Kalb 1978; 1979,1980a and bý Parreira 1971-1975; 1983; Parreira and Soares
1980; Ruiz-Galvez 1991) have presented the view that these are the predominant, it' not the
only, type of settlement that this period offers. Many authors (particularly Parreira and Rufz-
Galvez) maintain that the beginning of the first millennium BC represents it sharp break with
what went before, through the presence of these hilltop settlements that are believed to
charactcrise the reSUrgence ot'population in these regions, along with it renaissance in cultural developments. Furthermore, it has been directly or indirectly inferred that these naturally or
175
artificially defended sites represent an increasing preoccupation with organised warfare - again
quite at variance with preceding developments.
The recently published radiocarbon dates from the hillforts in north-central and central Portugal
(Tables 4.3 and 4.13) allow a reappraisal of the traditional interpretations concerning the
emergence of Later Bronze Age fortified sites. Rufz-Gdlvez (1986; 1991) and Senna-Martfnez
(1989: 644-655; 1995a: 81) have both argued that this development began in northern Portugal
around I OOOBC and spread gradually south (see Figure 4.40). The radiocarbon suggest that this
process was underway long before the turn of the first millennium throughout western Iberia.
Furthermore, evidence that will be discussed in more detail below, imply that some hilltop
settlements were not abandoned after the Chalcolithic.
Although it has not always been explicitely stated, from reading through the archaeological
literature for all the periods under consideration, one is left with the general impression that the
Late Chalcolithic in western Iberia -a period that is highly visible archaeologically - can in
many ways be paralleled with developments in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1000/900-70OBC) - through defended hilltop settlements; in fact often the same settlement is reoccupied. At
present, we can list at least thirty hilltop settlements in western Iberia that demonstrate
occupation in the Chalcolithic followed by an apparent hiatus, and then reoccupation
supposedly at the very end of the Bronze Age. The vast majority of excavations at these
defended settlements lack radiocarbon dates to support such a sequence, but the overwhelming
conclusion is that only these two periods in western Iberia were times when demographic
augmentation led to an increasing notion of territory and warfare.
4.7.1 Bridging the gap between the Chalcolithic and Later Bronze Age
Settlements that have hitherto been recognised as attesting to Chalcolithic and then Late Bronze
occupation include Castelo de Giraldo, tvora (Pago and Ventura 1961) (Figure 4.27), Passo
Alto, Outeiro do Circo and Castelo de Sdo Bras in Beja (Parreira 1980), Castelo de Alcdcer do
Sal, S6tubal (Silva and Soares 1979) (Figure 4.28.1), Ratinhos in Moura (Schubart 1971;
Gamito 1988) (Figure 4.38.2), Alegrios and Monte do Frade in Castelo Branco (Vilaga 1995),
and Valencina de la Concepcfon (Femdndez Gomez and Oliva 1980) and Papa Uvas (Martin de
la Cruz 1986; 1991) in Huelva. It appears to be a recurrent pattern that cannot necessarily be
bome out by a detailed reassessment of the evidence. The long breaks in the settlement
stratigraphies of these sites that would support the idea of a hiatus or an abandonment of these
sites for a period of over a thousand years has not always been obvious in the publications of
these sites (e. g. Figure 4.28.3). It is true that erosion of sterile soil layers or their destruction by
later horizons of occupation may have exacerbated their invisibility, but there is the possibility
176
that some may in fact have been occupied throughout the Bronze Age (although not necessarily
on a continuous basis). Unfortunately, out of the sites listed above, only three - Alegrios,
Valencina de la Concepcfon and Papa Uvas - have supporting radiocarbon chronologies. Those
from Papa Uvas were taken from definite Chalcolithic horizons, while those from Alegrios do
attest to occupation horizons between the Chalcolithic and Later Bronze Age, as will be
discussed in more detail below. One of the dates from Valencina (UGRA-72) taken from one
of the upper horizons on the site (Sdnchez and Domingo 1986: 12) was calibrated between 1890
and 15 10 cal BC, adding weight to the above argument.
Lillios (1991) has argued that the sequence of occupation at the hill settlements of Outeiro do
Circo, and Agroal may be dated between 2000 and IOOOBC, with possible continuity
throughout. The deep stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates from Alegrios in Castelo Branco also
highlight the likelihood that there is no obvious break in occupation from the Late Chalcolithic
to the Late Bronze Age (pace Vilaqa 1995: 164,198). The five dates provide a continuous
sequence from 2140-1206 cal. BC, and the occupation horizons do not suggest any obvious
layers of abandonment or hiatus.
The majority of ceramic assemblages studied have come from these hill settlements, and little
work has as yet been undertaken on the material from the open settlements (see Chapter Three).
This section will add to the results of the observations made in the previous chapter.
The univallate hillfort of Passo Alto, Mina del Nifio in Serpa, is situated on a prominent spur at
the confluence of the Vidigdo and Chanca rivers. The surrounding region is predominantly
infertile slatey micaceous soils which, according to Parreira and Soares (1980: 122), would
support only pastoral activities. The surface scrapings produced large amounts of lime and
mud brick debris which were interpreted as remains of hut structures. The superficial
excavations also yielded over a hundred weathered sherds, which were all hand made, and
external pattern burnished and finger impressed decoration was identified on seven fragments
(Parreira and Soares 1980: Figures 8.9-32 and 9.1-8) (Figure 4.29.2-7). This settlement was dated to a single occupation phase at the very end of the Bronze Age, again on the basis of the
five pattern burnished sherds.
The nearby hill settlement of Serra Alta, in Moura, Beja lacked any artificial defences and no
settlement structures were identified within the site. Investigation was again restricted to
surface scrapings and these produced a large number of hand made sherds, that were also
predominantly undecorated. Four sherds had external pattern burnished decoration (Parreira
and Scares 1980: Figure 10-12-15), one had "a cepillo" motifs (ibid: Figure 10.11), and one
other was painted with Carambolo geometric designs (ibid: Figure 10.10). The pottery was not
177
analysed further, but again used to ascribe the site to the end of the Late Bronze Age. Other
material found at this site included a large number of flint sickles and blades, rubbing stones,
loom weights and a flat bronze axe (MFIX cat. no. 41 OB). The axe type is not diagnostic of the
Late Bronze Age, but rather is a type that would be more in keeping with "Middle" Bronze Age
traditions (see Monteagudo 1977: 135-138).
The fortified settlement of Sdo Bras L in Serpa, shows several parallels with that of Outeiro do
Circo (Chapter Three). The site was defended by a double circular wall, and was situated on a
naturally defensive spur, overlooking the Guadiana river. The excavations were carried out by
Parreira in 1979 and he argued that evidence for continuity in occupation from the Chalcolithic
through to the Later Bronze Age could be demonstrated at this site. He noted continuity in the
material culture in all of the stratified layers, with Bell Beakers appearing in the lower three
horizons and only gradually being substituted by medium and high carinated bowls with all-
over burnished surface treatment in the upper two levels (Parreira 1971-1975: 31-36). External
pattern burnished pottery was present only in the latest level and was associated with metal fish-hooks, flint blades and carinated and tronconical vessels. Unfortunately the ceramics from
this site were not analysed in any depth, and, since they have all been discarded, it is impossible
to confirm the possibility that the sequence from Sdo Bras demonstrates continuity in pottery
traditions over a period of a thousand years or more.
A re-analysis of the ceramic assemblage from Castelo do Giraldo, in tvora, was carried out in
the Museum of tvora. Unfortunately the pottery had lost all of its contextual association, and hence was not analysed quantitatively. This site is a small fortified settlement, not exceeding 0.25 hectares in area. The excavations have been poorly published (Pago and Ventura 1961)
and mention was made of only the earliest Chalcolithic deposits, with evidence for later
settlement being neglected. The excavation plans and sections suggest however that there were
several phases of occupation (Figure 4.27). It would appear that the fortifications were
constructed during the Chalcolithic but were substantially modified during later, possibly Bronze Age, periods. The ceramics certainly support such a proposal. Over 50% of the sherds
analysed were not recognisably Chalcolithic in form or decoration. Over a hundred sherds belonged to highly burnished carinated bowls, and ten sherds, corresponding to hemispherical
and high carinated everted rimmed bowls, were pattern burnished on their exterior walls. Straight-sided and V-shaped bowls, and bag-shaped jars were also noted. These ceramics imply re-occupation or continued occupation of this small settlement in the Later Bronze Age,
perhaps as early as 140013C.
178
Several pieces of Later Bronze Age metalwork were also retrieved during the excavations,
although they were not published in the excavation report (Pago 1960: 477-478). These
included hafted axes, fish hooks, a dagger, a spear-point, a gold arm ring typical of Sagrajas-
Berzocana traditions and fragments of leaf-shaped swords. This metalwork supports the idea of
a Later Bronze Age chronology at this site, from the twelfth century BC, if not earlier. It would
be misleading to make any suggestions about the nature of occupation at this small highly
defensive settlement. The lack of contextual information also prevents any inferences to be
made about whether the occupation was continuous or interrupted between Chalcolithic, Later
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age phases, although there would appear to be a break between the
latest Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age levels.
Other sites in this region of central and southern Portugal that were dated to the end of the Late
Bronze Age (900-70OBC) on the basis of pattern burnished pottery alone include the small
hilltop settlement of Castelejos, and the hillforts of Castelo do Alcdcer do Sal, in Sdtubal
(Schubart 1975: 262; Silva et al. 1981), Castro de Pardieros in Vidigueira, Mesas do
Castelinhos, in Almodovar, BeJa (Lima 1960: 236 and Schubart 1975: 288), Outeiro dos
Castelos, Castro do Azougada and Castro de Ratinhos in Moura (Lima 1960: 236-239).
Castelejos, Ratinhos, Azougada, Mesas do Castelinhos and Outeiro dos Castelos were all fortified settlements, and both Ratinhos and Azougada had at least two lines of rampart walls.
Unfortunately, these sites remain poorly published, and the ceramic assemblages from
Castelejos and Outeiro dos Castelos have now been lost. The available data published shows
that ceramics from both included all-over burnished and polished carinated bowls, bag-shaped
jars and that pattern burnished decoration was observed on both interior and exterior vessel
walls. The belief that these hillforts represent late developments on the basis of a few
fragments of diagnostic pottery will be assessed below, in an attempt to dispel the myth that
Later Bronze Age settlement occupation prior to 90OBC still remains elusive.
It is worth noting that surface reconnaisance at Sdo Bras I yielded pottery that was initially
assigned to the Late Bronze Age only (Parreira 1971-1975: 30). This raises the question as to
whether other hilltop sites in this region, such as Serra Alta and Passo Alto, have been correctly
assigned purely Late Bronze Age chronologies on the basis of small soundings and surface
scrapings. This is important, since the majority of excavations in central and southern Portugal
of such "Late" Bronze Age sites have not been excavated in any stratigraphic depth and under 20% have reached bedrock or natural subsoil. It is only since Portugal joined the EEC in 1986
that more intensive agriculture involved the deep ploughing of fields. Even now, deep
ploughing is rarely practiced on hilltops and hillsides, and many of the areas where Later
Bronze Age settlements have been detected are in pastoral landscapes (see Parreira and Soares
179
1980 above). Thus, if earlier occupation horizons rest under Late Bronze Age settlement deposits, it is unlikely that surface reconnaisance will have detected them, in the absence of
heavy erosion and ploughing. This may be a significant factor that has negatively affected our
recognition of "Middle" Bronze Age settlement occupation in this region. Only in the last
decade has excavation methodology begun to obtain deep stratified sequences in this region,
and the results from such projects (see Vilaqa 1991; 1995; 1998; Gibson et al. 1998; Burgess et
al. 1999) confirm suspicions concerning the hitherto elusive "Middle" Bronze Age.
A reinvestigation of the ceramics from two other hillforts in central Portugal that have
traditionally been dated to the Late Bronze Age, demonstrates that they might also attest to
continuous or intermittent occupation from the Chalcolithic through to the Late Bronze Age.
Both the settlements of Outeiro do Sao Bemardo in Moura (Veiga Ferreira 1971: 139; Bubner
1979; Parreira 1980: 129) and Cerro da Mangancha in AIjustrel (Schubart 1975; Parreira 1983)
produced pottery that included evolved Beaker forms, tronconical vessels, bag-shaped jars and finger impressed short-necked jars as well as the more characteristic external pattern burnished
carinated and hemispherical bowls (Lima 1971: Figure 5). Other finds from Outeiro do Sao
Bernardo included bronze spear points, awls and fish hooks and closed bronze arm rings of Later Bronze Age date. At Mangancha, the remains of several oval stone house foundations
were detected (Schubart 1975: 246), but analysis of the material from both these sites remains
at a preliminary stage. However, it is well worth noting that these sites may have been
occupied during the elusive "Middle" Bronze Age period, on the basis of the ceramic evidence.
The important recently published doctoral thesis by Raquel Vilaqa (1995) has provided the first
good series of radiocarbon dates that were taken from settlement contexts in the Upper Beira of
central Portugal associated with pattern burnished, geometric painted Carambolo, "a cepillo" decorated and other characteristic pottery types that are supposedly indicative of the final Late
Bronze Age (900-70013C). For the first time it is possible to question the claim that these decorative types are late traditions. The hill settlements of Monte do Frade and Moreirinha and
the open and rock shelter site of Alegrios - had a total of fourteen calibrated dates that were taken from horizons containing diagnostic "Late" Bronze Age material (see Chapter Three). Four dates from Monte do Frade were calibrated between 1263 and 792 cal. BC, and predominantly lay between 1250 and 900 cal BC. Another four from Alegrios showed a similar sequence between 1480 and 1261 cal. BC with one outlier between 795 and 407 cal. BC. Finally, Moreirinha confirmed this chronology with four dates ranging between 1266 and 805
cal BC.
180
This discovery has important ramifications for chronological and cultural sequences based upon
the ceramics alone. Although pattern burnished pottery is characteristic of the Late Bronze Age
between 900 and 700 BC, these dates confirm the suspicion that it must be recognised as part of
a much longer tradition that stems back to the thirteenth and even fourteenth centuries BC. The
chronology of the settlements summarised above must now be questioned in the light of these
absolute dates. Sites with pattern burnished pottery levels immediately sealed by layers with
wheel thrown ceramics, or contextually associated with wheel made pottery (e. g Alto do
Castelinho da Serra, Montemor; Cabezos de Esperanza and Sin Cristobdl, Huelva, Monte de
Sao Martinho, Castelo Branco, Quebrantahuesos, Huelva, and Sdn Bartolomd de Almonte,
Huelva) may have been correctly allocated chronologically to the beginning of the first
millennium BC. From a collation of Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlements
presently known in western Iberia, there are over 50 sites that have been dated between 900 and
70OBC on the basis of pattern burnished and Carambolo decorated pottery alone, and without
any supporting radiocarbon dates. We must now reconsider that at least some of these sites
may have been earlier in date, perhaps as much as four hundred years earlier. The implications
of this are enormous, and may begin to help to close the hiatus that lies between 1600/1500 and
100013C.
Some of the more recently excavated non-hilltop settlement sites in central and southern Portugal have provided evidence that might illuminate the early phase of the Later Bronze Age
(Cardoso et al. 1980-1981; 1986; Cardoso 1987; Cardoso and Carreira 1991; 1993 and see Section 4.5.2) Excavations at the three rock shelters of Casa da Moura, Buraca dos Mouros and Boca sul in Rfo Maior, Extremadura Portugal (Strauss et al. 1988) provided evidence of Later
Bronze Age occupation. Although these sites were expected to produce evidence of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity only, a large number of "Bronze Age" sherds were
retrieved during the excavations. These included medium carinated burnished bowls, polished tronconical vessels (Figure 4.30.14-15,17), globular jars and pattern burnished high carinated bowls (Figure 4.30.1-2,4,6-7 and 10). Kunst (1988: 77-80) argued that the majority of the
pottery from Casa da Moura could possibly be attributed to the late Chalolithic, although he
admitted that they were more in keeping with Bronze Age forrns (Figure 4.30.6-7,10). He was
more definite about the pottery from Buraca dos Mouros and identified the polished carinated
pottery as Late Bronze Age (Kunst 1988: 82).
The sites of Casa da Moura, Buraca dos Mouros and Bocas Sul all yielded Chalcolithic as well as Later Bronze Age materials. It is interesting that there is apparently nothing that is typical of
the "Earlier/Middle" Middle Bronze Age. This situation is characteristic of Portuguese
Extremadura where other caves and open sites such as Pedra do Ouro, Chibanes, Rotura, and
181
Praganqa (Leisner and Schubart 1966: 46), Barro and Monte da Pena near Torres Vedras
(Maderta et aL 1972), Penedo (Spindler and Veiga Ferreira 1974: 10), Cabego de Moinhos near
Mafra (Vicente and Andrade 1971: 235), Columbeira (Schubart 1970: 72-73 and Abb 10), and
Arrabal de Portillo (Femdndez and Roja 1986: 64-65), have all provided evidence of
supposedly Chalcolithic and Late Bronze Age activity, but nothing in between. The evidence
for continuity between periods therefore is elusive but this pattern of Late Chalcolithic with a
potential Transitional horizon and then a Late Bronze Age phase is a common and recurrent
pattern. It would appear that these recurrent patterns indicate that the "Middle" Bronze Age
invisibility has indeed been clouded by mis-identification and misinterpretation.
Another important consideration in our understanding of the western Iberian Later Bronze Age
rests with the kinds of settlement evidence that archaeologists have principally used. As
already stated, the hilltop settlements and hillforts have been assumed to be the dominant, if not
the only, fonn of settlement at this time, and hence have been interpreted as representing
permanently occupied and complex sites often of large and socially-complex communities
(Almagro Gorbea 1977; 1986; Arnaud 1979; Arruda 1983-1984; Ferndndez Castro 1988;
Gamito 1988; S. O. Jorge 1990; Marques and Andrade 1974; Martins 1987; 1988; 1989;
Parreira and Soares 1980; Parreira 1983; Silva et aL 1980-1981; Silva et aL 1984; Silva 1986;
Silva and Gomes 1994). Archaeologists have naturally been drawn to these sites and
concentrated upon them, simply because they are the most visible form of settlement. It is
easier to find a hillfort than a low-lying open terrace settlement that may be buried under
several metres of alluvium. Yet hillforts may not have been the main form of settlement and
some of them may not even have been permanently occupied. This has not stopped most
accounts of the western Iberian Later Bronze Age from ignoring settlement that is not situated
upon a hill. Despite this, recent excavations, particularly concentrated in the Guadalquivir and Tagus valleys, have provided a wealth of evidence for over seventy undefended open and low
lying settlements - most of which are referred to as fondos de cabafia (see earlier in chapter).
Many of these have been well excavated, with stratigraphy associated with radiocarbon dates,
and since many show occupation (both continuous and intermittent) throughout the Bronze Age
(ca. 1800-70OBC), it is time to include them in our overviews. We also need to make
comparative analyses of the material culture from open and hill settlements in an attempt to
produce a fuller account of this period.
There is even less investigation of rock shelter and cave sites. It is an ironic situation, since
some of the key type fossils for Later Bronze Age periods - particularly Boquique and pattern burnished pottery of Lapa do Fumo type - were originally named after the cave settlements in
which they were first discovered.
182
It is unwise to assume that hilltop settlements were all analogous, or fulfilled the same functions - namely that of permanent settlements. Some of them may have been occupied only
during times of "crisis" (for example warfare and strife), and may have been constructed to
fulfil the need of a sanctuary during periods of unrest. Others may have acted as small central
markets for a population which lived in widely distributed farms in the neighbourhood; a function similar to some of the causewayed enclosure sites that we know for the Later Neolithic
in other parts of western Europe (e. g. Hambledon Hill in Dorset - Mercer 1990). Certainly
some of them were undoubtedly occupied continuously by large groups of people during the
Later Bronze Age, although most definite examples of these are not found in central or southern Portugal (e. g. Llanete de los Moros, La Mesa de Setefilla, Acinipo, Los Quemados, Cerro de la
Encina). It is perhaps pertinent that the majority of recently excavated open settlements (e. g.
Pessegueiro, Quiteria, Arevavillo de Cega etc. ) have produced structural evidence of domestic
dwellings, whereas a large number of hilltop sites has not. The reason for the disparity in
occupation evidence may be that not of them were occupied permanently. Constant apologies
are made for this lack of structural evidence e. g. "owing to the small trenches excavated,
structural evidence eluded the soundings opened" or "the houses must have been made of
organic materials and hence all perished". If the latter case is true, this contradicts the fact that
organic constructions (post hole, wattle and daub and mud-brick) have been so well preserved
at many of the open settlements.
This research is not arguing that some hilltop sites and hillforts were not permanently occupied
settlements, but rather that we should not assume that the presence of fortifications on the
summits of hills can always be equated with permanent occupation, or even settlement at all. The archaeological structures, or rather lack of them, from some of the better excavated hilltop
sites in central Portugal and the southwest are listed below (Table 4.13) to demonstrate this
point.
183
qtt 00
0) 0) 2 (D f= e CD c _O
0 3: C» r
0 (D 2 Z c (1) Z =i A
0 iä d LO
(» 0
0 0 O cn r=
p a)
:p m cm
CJ 0 j2
c (D _ m L2 8 e :3 0) 3:
Z h< e (D CL :, 2 (»
C 0 ý, -3 0 . l= MG) 0 Z 0
Co 2 Ck. :3
ei CO ! ý2
Z 8 9
U- *ýg - cl. C)
a Z k- U) <, ý :3M (D
e EZ Z
0 Z -
c . En
0 02 Z 18 23 - V 00
c" ZP 8 (7)
c :2 «t
cý < r c: @ < 0) -
a) m cm Z - 6 0 c) 2 (D
0 !=
.. ICI",
0 «o m
9 0
8 CI) r_ * i= 0- 0) r-
0 cb r-
CL Co r
C-) -6 ca u) u) r-
0 0) 5 (0
(D ý u (4
tu - (D q)
.2u a) CD (D U)
(D N Co Z CO
0 (D CL (D
> ca r- Co 0
Co 2 (D
4-- 212 0 < - , 0 <
r_ 0 -
. cn E
a :3
Z cm Z ?:, r 4 ýý t t3 73
.= CL - iö '
- 0= -a
0 ts m in 2 r'-" r - rI-D d
0 0 .
m _O -0
W ý b M 3: - «o 0 :2 - 9 ?Z 122 (0 X e u 4-- e
e Z 0
- 0 0 v m -0 0 -2 0 0 Q ý
- R - - 2
0
-0 r- . «o
2 gý U za - 0 E u) r- r_ ý 2 0 tu
E 2 d l l E
0 0 c» < 0 r- u
f > Co
U) -a m 02 fe5
(D 2 A
-0 u) ej -zu 20 m 0
ý 0 a 0 2 r_ 0
0 e ll > 00 -2 (P c:
0 Li)
0 0 x 00 9 e r- 2) i
Z Z Q) a Z0 . Z 49 0 u
(D x E U) 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 c ý Ln >, CY -5 - 0 4) E 0 0 ýZ , 0
> - 0 0 x
0 43 (D
CY c .5 -
0 m 0 r_
r= 0
0 r- 0
-6 r-
0 - -ja
-a
(1)
72
cl E 9)
cm U)
-8
rn
cýa 0
c tm e M cu
0 > -
2 0 P) g! x C: ) -0 g E E -L' e t >, «2 r- 0
e ý; r- ý g m 20 e=
. EP , X
: 0 ' 4 ;;
- 0 cli - Co r- o 0 (D 0 -: r. :E -1 0 ö
. c- 0 0 9 U) s g .r 2 1: 10 c
0 0 2
' ýi 0)
E C) 0 «
'a L>
(D E Co 0
' ö 0)
E (D MV cm V 8
Co 2!
v g 9 (P o
9 u
*a 0
B 0
9 e (D
p- -
! Lo- Z
0 -
_O
lin -2 Z , u) 0 Z
= 4) :E U) : : 0 31» - Z?
__ f Jý m ca
V) 00
(D
< C) Co 0 (\I Co (P
0 C)
« m cm U) cm Z" r- C»
m
8 if 20 G 2 0 Q u 0 >ý (» = 0)
m -
ca Co
0 r-
(D :3 c (D
m Co
(D -rz
-5 Ci c 0
;Z 2, (D -
cs 8 0 iý
(D 2 A= Z
0 c3) 0
- a Z c2. N
(D
(D
8 9 CD
p -t 3 c:
0) f;
ý R - c g cö 0Z
i U :3 E 0 r_ 0
0 x
15 : 5; ý5 2 2 § _j - 0. m . e C
-, .2 a
(D A
Z ýE
(D m c 9
ý5 :E En 0. r, B CL,
tu (>
c
4ý c c13 W 0
» Co
-0 o 0 0
90 ' ü CL 2 -g e Co *F ' «g G -0 _A @
Z Z 10
o 6
cm (1)
@ Z m
c:, C) 0 < < Co IL
CY) 3- L. . (D 12
v C> (D (D
CL
cu ri 0 E
0 C) 0 E- m 9 * C3 .9 2
-0 a) fi 0 ýg =a , . e 0
.5 :2
6c 2E - - E 0 tu .5 (1)
-0 - Co >
c (D «o
t
> In - b -$ 0 E 20 g 0 > t! 10 'zý E 0 2 x
lö zi r_ lö 0 a) m ig (9
- 0 0 cu , '15
a) 0
:3 0
2 1
2 Z ýa 5 m tu 0 r_ 0 0 0 Z (D
'. Z5 ö E 0) m i 0 0 0 0
.5 9
(D . t2 2
0 2
0 2 A, E c:
j -0
1 Co ' lý Co
0 0 C) C) 0- 0 ö
.2 ID A r_ 0
0 (D c0
0t x 0 (D Z (0 Z < 9) 0
.2 - ig d CL
.2 0
-0 6 a -
U) (D -0
0 0 M '
(n (D
G .0 E 0
9 0 4
0
t > n E c2.
2 2 Ci
) E 0 - -2 13 1
0 2 j3 u) . = u) 0
1 13 2
(U (1)
(D in
(D 0 0 Co 9) 0
140 00
(D 0 0 (D
1 . F. ce cli CL 1
r- E 0) 9
M
v5 E e l»
Z Z
G) 0 c3)
(D 0 c 9 cm
CD N
c lý r=
ria 0 . - 0. 0
ý: 0 0
, 0 . 0 < = -ja
e 83 J I 0 c 0 0
0 « CL. 0 m
C (1) » 0 e m V) cm (» >,
rn Z 0
(D C»
0) -
< r_ - '
9
c3) N CO 2 C F=
m
2 m
Co r_ c: 2 F=- <
2 M 20 m 79 @ 0
a) 8 m lý a :3 W Co 0 ig Co E M tu
10 (D e, 0 .3 -9
8 8 t Co
3
(D e «a - «a (U - 0) - .2
a CL
- Co j; A A 2 c: r» (y) . r-- 0 0 ( j 0 ý e Z) le (D 0 C
0 20 a) >
tu 0 (U U) g
M c)
c 2 P
6 (D
c * E > E E
- L E
cö :ý Co cu E r, :; 0 W CL 5ý - a) -e G Ci)
C) pl (3) 2! Co - ja (3) in - J -ö E 0) N Co E *ö 0
c 3 '@ 9) (D 0
2 cu
T 3-1 r_
2 CI) --
A 2.1
0 m
M 0
LO 12
ý
EI e
(D u rn
a) E ,
0 (D U g r- 0 m cu u) U wl < - < 0 e : 5, < 0 tr 0
(D 3: (D
0 F Z 1-2 - C\i
ia 3: (D . < U) - -
t C r-
0 c3)
E 1
2 g
r- r- (1) >
0 ýa 0 - - 0 ) 2
ý -5 0 93)
U) 0 - 9 E Q
r- r_ Z)
Q r
(D r-
12 (D -@ tu
- E Z
0 12 ýa
lenö ca
0) L)
- 13) :e j
_ 0) 90 -0 3: - ja -@ >
r_ t cl)
r- > 0)
C (D
t) ; rl
CI) ýa - r-
-a Da . tu 9 1
-M E 9) ,2 0
2 0 ,' cm c .5 13) MD E (D ý F.
5 v 0 2 15 :2 2 0 0 0 9
0 0 Co u) t 10 UJ u) cn «c: ] e Z *0 U)
N 3
3 m 9? i; 2 cu 2 0 r-- cu CL 3:
- 2 0 c - ( ci
% - ? E- D
2 !ý 9 -ze CI) 0 12
ýa (D
1 E C 13) CU 2? E 'n 0 m tu 0 1 to
(D e
8 9 >, 5 >
. r- cu ý c & (D -e 0) 0 to l c ci 5 U) 2 8
(D U) 0 Z ö 0 x C) (D
0 0 2 m
ý (L)
t: 2 6 - u)
Co 12 0 (6 0
NJ :3 -1
U - = T, - e!
ci 0 2
ig c c t: e 0 Z . 0
t: 2 0 r= 5 0 CO m m .2
.2 9
0 0 = Im (0 0 -2 GC = w
0
o Z U)
n 2 ' 5 A .2
ci 2 U 0 (D d -c 0 ý g Cd S U) 9
% . 2 (E2 20 g
0 > Je e m
Q ýw Q m C) ci ti 12. ci
r- 00
is c T 21 r
e tu (b f3 ýa
tu 2 r
0 E
2 Z c>
_ 0 cu
0 U)
0 5 '9 . ý: 8 m 9
-2 5ý z - c 0 r- C) m >,
Li 0
-0 m E 6 2 4-- t fi Z
Z rz 9 20 0 0 .
CYJ m 0
r_ «9 - Z o c: = *ý tu ý5 , '@ 0 :3 cý 2 a: M
CL (D E . a 0
m -0 CY) CC Co '9 C 12
(D cm <
8 0 2 r 0 5 o M
>, 2 N 0) 0 c CL Z A 0 0) - Z >D - ý, Z 8 Co , 0 Co
17 c Cl Z
r-
- (> , f
5
E , t A a r Z;
U ) ci
8 Co -
EI 0 E cu
Co 8
e C) 0 r
, (D 0 - 0 - 0 = ä Co CO 8 - e c2. - r w 0) (D r - (D
(D r_ 0
5 JZ (D
- 8 D (D c» (D
>
E . 0 > " ,: 0 13) >
e *5; 0 0)
(D 0 IM c :E L ý '
< IP 2 -@ CL 0
LL 0 (D 0
A Co 2 7s CO N 0
1
x 3 c" E? cm .
to C» ý2 CL e
cm ", ) E a) E p a)
(D 2! 0 -Z m «ý
5 -i !: b, < Co Co < 0 0) «C) - < -, -v; S 0 m
9 LL 0
(D > A c r_ r- E
Z r e s
w c 2 E :3 (0 (n »
0 ý lý -
- t 8 8 Z 8 0 0 12 _ .g .
m > E
0 9
u) A t 0 c t% .5 g 0 0 -0 0) :E
C O
G) '2
0) '0
9) 49 r_ 0 _ 0
a
CL G)
:i a t n ä 13 u 2 0 9)
j3 (1) (D
0
(D c i 0 9 9 .9 G) 0
ig , s > 0 ri 0 g 2
0 h Z Z Z Z
!D (D
> (D 9
0 > r_ 0
5 > 0
% CL Z
0 (D x
9) 0
-: ( Z i 2 P CL
t 0 8 E 2 0 c E (D
cl, 0 E u) x o < cy 0 Z T
h- Ln ce c 0) ci
N c; Q)
0 t 0)
0 CL g
u 9 0) IE Ri E > Z E 0 2
d E -0 ý ii. G) u) 0
Q ) (D
i3 9 5 9
20 CL ci to
00 00
19 tu 2 -9 _Z (»
a) e
Z N 9ý ci: . m
(D
(D E (D
E (D
0 &- (U CI) «g < (D N
CL
0) >
CO 2 8 >ý m CY
9 m z= r- CO)
W (D
k; a > cr)
-Z, 5 rz C. 90 ,Z
(U CL rl_ «a
S 0 gi t: 0) G) -
a l_e ig CL
e t'- 2ý Z
a) 2 E 2 0. (b > C» (0 3 0
cm .. Co < Co N 0 < Ln (D (D
N - a) 2! No
20 LD (D -z.
2 9)
«9 53
e 4
cr) (D *m 21
m m
(1) < <
(D E (D (D -@
: IN
: -2 g!
(D -s 0
0 0 jg 0
c 0 c-
c .@
c 0
,g r- jg 0 (P !5 D «3 ? t p 5 ;
4 A «9 A .2 0
j 0 t I
. >
- ,
> ac) m c *-
(D M (D fi
- 0 im (D (U c
5 m - v
0) (D -0 c2. 2 -, o
tu
0 (D - tu
- r, , Co 0 tu >m m 0 r a)
U)
- 0 A
CL Co - m CY Im E .2 Co 0 19
Z Co Z Z
m ? 0 Co E - x r- 0 0 0
1 c cm P x =
R
>, M 0 :3 e U = 0 (D
9 io cli > Co 2. 0
x k, c c
, :,
-E r- Cö X
0 0 0 A-
cr
m 0 E
if e 0 CM
= < D -0
(3 1 8: r 1 ru 1: 3 x O :ý 1 1
cyý 00
2 0 0 (D
ýt C» e 2 0 CI) Z «5 CI) < a) (0 E Co
(D T] c 0 tu
N c
- (D . r, m c c ä c ýiv 9 (D
ý 42 2? Z
0 a5 LO
:E
2 0
-5 5 Co 0 -d Z
tu 2
0 cm <
- 9
in -.
0 (>
CL m L)
0 EI (D
f. -e E
. «9 , E Co .5 . - 8 .5 5 C:
(n 29 - N 0) Co -
0
0
N
5 Lo -u- cm
Z 0 ,' Co . V-
tu -7, - (D
r- A 0 . (D
8 (0
- 2ý 2
0 -: g
0 (D >,
0 2 9 0 (D
> c» -z. '5 J2 cm (5 c» 0 C2L 0 23 8
0 g
tu (D ci
CL >, Co CD C> (D cm Z Q CY) <
C) 0 0
.0 9 9 - 0) =O 1-- -
ý -9 = t 0
.2 8 :B
v 3
2 ci. Z (D Ei - 2
2 0
M (D u) (0 c < CY LL LL CLO e C» 0 cö (D r «c3 0
r 0 0 ý ca - U) c: , :3
.2 (D Lii (D
> -
0 e Co 0 ce -4- E 0 -...
«b (D - Z g c> c
(D (D
>ý = CO
ul ým
E CD c G) U) n .,
u *
e 0 c 'A= 0 r (D M
cn LU
a - 0
L ti 0 ýý 95
:3 Ln §0 (3)
i= 22. E
G (4 (D
-ll
cn 0 *
.2 0 c 0 0
«5 , -
c M
Co m c
tu 47) L -a o u)
C, w c
Z _O
e c
2
20
5 *0
Z .
3:
0 -
0 :3
in
CL < E ý CD ig CY) (b
(D (D
(0 e0 Z tt: c
5 i 12 g Z cz
>, 0 CO
m
N > ý U= c >ý
(0 r- & 1 - U)
2 Co
v5 w
c" c2. <
0
m 03 - in 2 Co 0 u - <D
2 :ö c3) 2
r .5 r- 0
u 2
= t5
. - E
0 -X 0
U) T - p z5
c» d) -9 A CU uj 0
C 0
Co f2 «OB A 4 0 tu 0
1 (0
E 10 0 .
M 0 m > *a 0 ý5 . j9:
tu - r-
:3 ý
0 -M 5 & m
:3 a
t Q 0 r
- a q) 2 c , 0 0 -
Z 92. 12 CL j k. Q r- 0 2E 0 a
i t c 0 3: s 0 e 9 20 :g ci 0 3: U) a > ., - q
'tä ýým c
2 J= ýi 0-@ -a ý
C3. E Lq (0 '
E
E *9 0
E
0 cý 0 9
0
A (0
;5 e2 ci 9 r)
. 5 (0 e e
c :3
.2 *
0 m
a) M
t» 9 cm
0
9
(0 a)
c 1 ID 0 ID
3 . 5: 0-5 Z; § Z 3
. 9 0 2 0 21 = ä Z 0
9 Z 0 Z Z >0 Z u ) LL. c-- m
0 en 0
-
i
(D 0 m
(D c
0 2 j= x c
0 &
0 0 U') - cl
c
ý. m
Z C
E ý: 3 a) ý2 m cm Co -5 E i 2 a) 12
e 9 cm L» (D 13
0 c
(D > I)
C» W t
r- x 4) x E J W
C
0 CL CL
0
E t:
00 0 tcö
fi > G)
,» = '(D
06 m ci
0 ui k5 «o 0
0 E i§ r-
r_ (D Z, 0
72 CL P
r- 0 '12 ý E
8 U) ja «E 20 -e cj
0 E (D
2 9
E (D
ý f 0 2
tu >m 200 0 2 ýf 0 2 m
Ei (1) 0 cci
0 C' -4
2 (D
ý f; 2ý zu 0 0 (D
Co CD
OD ?2
m b U) I t ci 5 k Lt, Lo 0 9 2 -e (D (D 0
2 Z T) 19
Z cö
6 C: )
-0 ig
E (D ? LC)
0) .Z 0 0
c ý; - C)
-M s?
a (D
:3 --"
(D -
N r_
s
0 CO CM
< N (D 2 6ý
e CO =
3 -0 ä 0 (D c» - (CI
E =
0) E != E ID e > E 29 r Z LL , l=
m 0
0 LU CO Co w
cý r- 0 ý E - E Z z- -
(D
Z 0 2 a) -? 0
a) (i r-
S - . Co Co (0 22- 0
7 Co G) Z 0
(D CO
g
li. , -: e > 0 0 M r- - CD m 0) Co N
r-
e b
0 6
:c - E 0
t) CL
« N :p > .5
r :, 0 0
L- ca -ffi
- 0 -0 >ý e
=
«ö 9 E :G (1)
9 CC,
r- 2 - « (0 r- 0
-. - (0 - ý r- 0 > 3)
0- . -
C»
< CM
- m (3)
0 cö CL 0 9 0 N Co
m
ý 3:
0 c * c3,
- G 2 .
ý r- f3 - (D e 25
- 0 CL 3
0 C) . ca (D
E
(1) 0 < a u) GC -k -. G ý9 k 0 < 0
j2 0
.5 - 'r'-, *@
. 92 0 ký a)
C ,' r- (D
r 2
21 2 ia
, 0 Co 0 E x .9 . - CL c (D cri (D
N E 0 (D 1 ' U ,
0 t 2 3 (5 :) = Q 2 (D Q
E = c
r- (D -
0 a)
CO i2 .
:p > 0
c (D
k (D :2 >
22 72
0 E g k »
a) 0 > (D :g
> 75 --
2
0 q) (1) GE . 0 Co Z l 'n W . ri '@ Z ci
R
p!
- r_ -0 . 9
9
fß 0 0
m 2!
0 c: ü ä > rg . 0
C> 0 2 2) (7) Z 9) 0)
E U)
21) c 9) - =
(D M- 03 c2.
x - i Z CO (0 u) *w
Co - EI 9 «a Z d U) 2 E
v 9) Q
0 9 ä
(0 . - 2: - r 0 Z
Z m
-0 =
f 13
20 V Z 0
ý (d
(U E
6 ý§ , -0 0 .
. to: tc CL 0 Ci)
= 0
IZ
VIC
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
E No structures E 1-3 structures 04-5 structures ED 6-7 structures M 7-10 structures 0> 10 structures
Graph 4.1: Structural evidence ftom hillforts and hilltop settlements
Table 4.13 and Graph 4.1 demonstrate exactly how limited the structural evidence from
hilltop settlements and hillforts really is. This worrying reality has not been given due
consideration in analyses of hilltop settlements (e. g. see Almagro Gorbea and Martin Bravo
(eds. ) 1994; Arruda 1987: 32-34; Correia 1995; Gamito 1988; 1990-1992: 55-60; Guerra
et al. 1989: 193-200; Kalb 1979a: 587; Kalb and H6ck 1980: 195-197; Ruiz-GAlvez 1991:
277-279; Senna-Martinez 1995a; 1995b; Parreira 1983; 1995: 132; Soares and Silva
1995: 138; Vilaqa 1995). In all the references cited above, the archaeologists have
interpreted hilltop sites and hillforts as evidence of permanently, often densely, settled
locations. And yet they have often reached these conclusions on the basis of one or two
post-holes or small numbers of hut circles, or sometimes (e. g. see Arnaud 1979; Soares
1984-, Parreira 1983; 1995; Pinto and Parreira 1978; Vilaqa 1995: 92-96), without the
support of any structural evidence at all. It is incomprehensible that they have continued to
interpret the evidence in this way, and even more alarming that such explanations have
remained largely uncriticised.
if, as the evidence in Table 4.13 and Graph 4.1 suggest, many of these hill sites were not
permanent settlements or indeed settlements at all, then the pottery, lithics and metal
artefacts excavated from them may be a partial representation of the overall Later Bronze
Age material culture. For example, if the hill site of Castelejo (Vilaqa 1995) functioned
only as temporary refuge for groups of people from the surrounding low-lying villages
occasionally (perhaps every ten or twenty years), then the ceramic assemblage would
provide a limited and chronologically disjointed snap-shot of the overall typology. The
present state of Later Bronze Age excavation in many parts of central and southern
Portugal is still strongly biased towards such sites, and this doctoral investigation can only
191
raise the possibility that open settlement sites may provide the key to unlocking the real
nature of the Later Bronze Age and its material culture. It is likely that the general
omission of open settlements from typo-chronological frameworks is a significant factor in
our poor understanding of this important Bronze Age stage. One of the future research
projects that this doctoral investigation has stimulated is a detailed field survey in the Sines
region in the coastal Lower Alentejo, where minimum alluvial build-up has permitted the
discovery and identification of several Later Bronze Age open settlements (Silva and Soares
1995; 1998; Alves pers. comm. ). This research is planned to begin in the summer of 2000.
Collation of the available published excavations of Later Bronze Age open settlements and
rock shelter sites in the same regions of north-central, central and southern Portugal does
allow some interesting comparisons with the hill settlements (see Figure 4.49). It confirms
that the open sites should be the focus of attention for the understanding of this period.
Only II sites out of a total of 43 produced no internal structural evidence (ie only 25%),
and this may be partly a result of the small sondages cut through them. This contrasts with
the 54% of hillforts and hilltop settlements that did not produce any structural evidence.
Furthermore, the number of circular, oval and rectangular stone and mud-brick buildings
that have been recognised particularly at open settlements is much greater than from hill
settlements, as the graph below demonstrates.
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Open sefflements
E No structures M 1-3 structures D 4-6 structures 0 7-10 structures 0 11 -20 structures 0 21-30 structures
Graph 4.2: Structural evidence detected from excavations of Later Bron-ze Age open
settlements in western Iberia.
192
4.7.2 Conclusions
The preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from this settlement analysis show
that the Later Bronze Age in north-central, central and southern Portugal is not as
enigmatic or invisible as even recent publications suggest (e. g. V. 0. Jorge 1990:
225-230; S. O. Jorge 1996; Silva and Varela Gomes 1994). The key to unlocking
this period lies in the way we have used and interpreted the settlement and
associated cultural evidence thus far. When we remove the narrow-minded
perspectives that particular ceramic classes (in particular the Beaker, pattern
burnished and Carambolo types) represent short temporal phases, and the view that
Later Bronze Age settlement is primarily denoted by hill settlements, then the
recognition of this period becomes clearer. It is now time to expand these
objectives and embrace the wider elements of the archaeological record that
encompass this period.
4.8 Spanish Extremadura
The Later Bronze Age in Spanish Extremadura (ca. 1500/1400-80OBC) has, until
recently, been poorly defined, as a result of the paucity of documentation for the
region (see Almagro Gorbea 1977: 81-136). Although distribution maps of this
area depict a large number of finds that can be attributed to the Late Bronze Age
(Almagro Gorbea 1977), the majority of these correspond to hoard deposits or
single finds of metalwork.
The scarcity of sites results from a chronic lack of intensive fieldwork in this area, and a poor excavation record, and this situation has just begun to be rectified (Enriquez Navascues and Hurtado 1986; Enrfquez Navascues, et al. 1984; Enrfquez Navascues 1990a; 1990b; 1992; Celestino Pdrez et aL 1992). Most of the ceramic sequences lacked context and therefore chronological or contextual resolution. Ferndndez Castro maintains that "It is only possible to obtain a general idea of the
modus viviendi during the long expanse of time of the Late Bronze Age in
Extremadura" (1988: 148)
The best known settlements of this period are cave or rock shelter sites that include Boquique, El Escobar, and Valcorcherro, all in Plasencfa (Almagro Gorbea 1977:
82-97, Figures 2245). Only recently have we been able to identify open and hilltop settlements that can be tied in with the occupation of rocksbelters in this
region (Enriquez Navascu6s 1990b: 41-57. ). Unfortunately, the majority of these
still suffer from the lack of stratified and systematic excavation.
193
Most of the hilltop settlements were situated in strategic naturally defensive
positions that dominated the surrounding landscape, and were directly related to
rivers. In general these are large settlements extending over one hectare in size,
with only the smallest, Nogales, being slightly under half a hectare in extent. Examples of these include Alcazaba de Badajoz (Celestino Pdrez et al. 1992), San
Cristobal, Badajoz (Enrfquez Navascues and Domfnguez 1984), Villagonzalo and
La Oliva, and Oliva de Wrida (Enrfquez Navascues 1990b: 41-42) (Figure 4.31).
Only small sondages have been excavated at these sites and information published
about them is minimal. Like many of the hilltop sites in north-central, central and
southern Portugal, all of the Extremaduran examples demonstrate two apparently
different phases of occupation - Chalcolithic and then Late Bronze Age - and these
were distinguished on the basis of the ceramics alone. None of the site reports
make any mention of obvious stratigraphic: changes or sterile soil abandonment
layers that would support the argument of a hiatus of over a thousand years
between the two phases.
At Alcazaba, San Cristobal, Oliva de M6rida and Alange, the Bronze Age horizons
were differentiated from the Chalcolithic on the basis of the presence of Boquique
incised and internal and external pattern burnished carinated bowls, yet the
"Chalcolithic" levels showed parallels with many of the Later Bronze Age pottery
types (medium carinated bowls, globular jars and tronconical vessels) (Figures
4.31 and 4.32). The only obvious difference between the phases was the presence
of evolved Beaker forms with incised decoration in the lower levels and the pattern burnished vessels in the upper. It would appear that decorative techniques alone
are adequate for arguing for a thousand year settlement gap where other aspects
emphasise continuity. This chapter has already demonstrated the late endurance of Beaker traditions and the earlier appearance of pattern burnished pottery. Thus, it
would not be unreasonable to suggest that the occupation levels at these
settlements in fact demonstrate some evidence of occupation from the middle of
the second millennium BC onwards.
An overview of several other hilltop settlement excavations in this region, - Capilla, Cogolludo, Navalviller de Pela, La Barca, Herrera del Duque, and Sierra
de la Martela in Sugura de Le6n (Almagro Gorbea 1977; Enrfquez Navascues and
Rodrfguez Dfaz 1991-1994) - may confirm this hypothesis. All of these sites
produced occupation horizons directly preceding the characteristic "Late" Bronze
Age levels with geometric decorated pottery. These upper horizons contained
194
ceramics that demonstrated a fusion of Late Chalcolithic and Late Bronze Age
forms, but lacking any characteristic decoration other than polishing, occasional incision and all-over burnishing (Enrfquez Navascues 1988: Figure 5; 1990: 42-43)
(Figure 4.32.20-25). Unfortunately, this argument cannot be substantiated without
the support of radiocarbon dates and since none of these sites have any published for their sequences, this possibility remains open. In fact, there is not one single Bronze Age radiocarbon date yet available for Extremadura (see Castro Martfnez
et aL 1996).
Enrfquez Navascues and Hurtado (1986: 52) have admitted to this difficulty in
their identification of Bronze Age settlement sites. "In Lower Extremadura the
strong essence of the Chalcolithic continues, maintaining similar settlement and
material culture types, and these early traditions are not completely substituted
until well into the later second millennium BC".
4.8.1 Problems with the Later Bronze Age ceramic sequences for
Extremadura
The summary of recent investigations highlights the variety and mixture of
ceramic traditions coming from Extremaduran sites. Evidence for incised,
Boquique, Cogotas L Carambolo and external and internal pattern burnished
pottery is known from many settlements. These include Boquique, Valchorcherro,
El Escobar and Cueva del Conejar (Almagro Gorbea 1977: 231-254; Gibson,
research in Madrid National Museum 1996), Medellfn (Almagro Gorbea 1977:
127), Nogales (Enrfquez Navascues 1990a: Figure 3.2), Atalaya de Zarza
(Enrfquez Navascues 1990a: Figure 4,1-3), Villagonzalo and La Oliva, and Oliva
de M6rida (Enriquez Enrfquez Navascues 1990b) and Alange (Enriquez
Navascues: 1990b Figure 6.1) (Figure 4.31.2,1-5,16). Thus there does not appear to be one single united ceramic tradition, but rather a heterogenous, almost
eclectic, variety of different ceramic styles and types. Thus again the ceramics
may highlight the extensive communication between Extremadura and other
regions of western Iberia at this time, including the Meseta (Cogotas 1), central and
south-western Portugal, western Andalucfa (pattern burnished pottery) and the
Guadalquivir valley (Carambolo). This interaction may be related to pastoral and
transhumant activities and the exchange of metalwork. Other evidence that
demonstrates the complex nature of this interaction will be discussed in Chapters
Five and Six, in relation to the Atlantic Bronze Age and the south-west stelae.
195
4.9 The Mesetan Bronze Age: The Cogotas I Tradition
The Cogotas I grouping has been subject to a long history of investigation by
numerous authors. The first investigations were concerned with attributing a foreign origin to the ceramics. Almagro Basch (1939: 143) dated the Cogotas I
culture to ca. 80OBC from evidence in the Ebro valley, and argued that it provided
evidence of migrations of central European Hallstatt and Urnfield cultural groups
across the Pyrenees. In the 1950s, Maluquer excavated sites in the Meseta
including El Berrueco and Sanchorreja (Maluquer 1956; 1958a; 1958b). Maluquer
adhered to Almagro's theory and advocated that the tradition was the result of
waves of Celtic invasions or migrations infiltrating the Meseta via the Ebro valley.
Thus the main elements of this tradition, particularly the excised ceramics, were believed to have had an extra-peninsular origin, from central European Iron Age
cultures, and were dated to the seventh and sixth centuries BC. From the 1950s
until the 1970s, this culture was believed to have spread to the Meseta from a
principal focus in the Ebro regions, despite increasing evidence to the contrary.
Some of the first radiocarbon dates came from the Castro of Alava, in the Ebro
valley, and they placed this site well within the Iron Age to the seventh and sixth
centuries BC. Such phasing contradicted the material evidence from this site,
which did not contain any elements that were characteristic of the Cogotas I
tradition. The latest level of the nearby settlement of Henayo (Llanos et aL 1987-
1989) produced radiocarbon dates in conjunction with excised Cogotas I pottery
that ranged between 1200-1000 cal. BC. This indicated that the Cogotas had
begun earlier than originally believed.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, archaeologists began to reasses the chronology
of the Cogotas I tradition (e. g. Arteaga 1976-1978; Martfn Valls and Delibes 1976;
Arteaga and Molina 1977; Jimeno 1978; Femdndez-Posse 1979; 1981; 1986;
Delibes and Femdndez Manzano 1986-1987). The first phase of Cogotas I was
pushed back to the Later Bronze Age (ca. 120013C) and held to be represented by
small open settlement sites as at Ecce Homo in Alcald de Henares (Almagro
Gorbea and Femdndez Galiano 1980), or La Requejada and San Romdn de Homija
(Delibes 1978). Archaeologists began to interpret these sites as evidence of small
pastoral transhumant groups (Delibes and Ferndndez Miranda 1987). However,
larger more permanent hilltop settlements and hillforts were also recognised in the
later 1970s associated with Cogotas I pottery types such as Fuente Alamo
(Schubart and Arteaga 1978) in western Andalucfa, Cogeces in Valladolid
196
(Delibes and Ferndndez Miranda 1987) and Los Tolmos de Caracena in Soria
(Jimeno 1978), which may argue against a purely pastoral economy. Most of these
sites demonstrated continuity in occupation and material culture with earlier
horizons, and archaeologists began to realise that Cogotas I type ceramics need not
have had an external origin. Thus in the last twenty years or so, the interpretation
of the Cogotas I has begun to change from that of a defined culture diffusing from
extra-peninsular regions (central Europe) in the Early Iron Age to that of a
distinctive tradition with an indigenous origin in the transition from the Earlier to
Later Bronze Age, although many interpretations still cling stubbornly to the
earlier perspectives (e. g. Delibes and Femdndez Miranda 1987: 18).
4.9.1 Re-analysis of Cogotas I
The reanalysis of the Cogotas I tradition will be undertaken from a triple
perspective. The evidence will be examined from settlements with detailed
stratigraphies, sites with good series of radiocarbon dates, and comparisons will be
made with the Cogotas I and other contemporary traditions, to remove the problem
of isolation.
4.9.2 Ceramic types
A literary overview of excavated settlements also revealed that the majority of
publications that recognised the presence of Boquique pottery defined the type
purely on the basis of decorative technique and motifs, and paid little attention to
vessel shape (e. g. Baquendo Beltran 1987a: 225-226; Simon Garcfa 1989: 434-
436; Arribas 1976; Castro-Martfnez 1992; Tejera Gaspar 1977; Martfn de la Cruz
1978-1979; 1987; Chaves and Bandera 1984; Aubet 1980; 1989; Aubet et aL 1983;
Sdnchez 1983; Ferndndez Posse 1979; Diego Conte 1993). Thus the definition of
the Boquique tradition or even "culture" continues to rest rather precariously upon
an ill-defined basis. Many of the publications that have identified Boquique
pottery in their ceramic analyses have failed to include drawings or plates of
examples, and this creates difficulties for reassessment of the vessel shapes and
fabrics. From the drawings availalble, the majority of vessels are hemispherical
bowls, straight sided jars and tronconical vessels, with carinated bowls being less
frequently decorated (Figures 4.33 and 4.34).
4.9.3 Traditional Phasing of the Cogotas I tradition
Ferndndez Posse (1979; 1981; 1986) has defined three periods of the Cogotas I
tradition, and provided the definitive sequence for the Later Bronze Age pottery in
197
the Meseta, which is still adhered to. She identified these phases primarily
through vessel shapes and pottery decoration (motif types and complexity), and the
sequence lacks association with the different settlement sites and absolute dates.
The earliest phase (Pre or Proto-Cogotas - 1800-150OBC) was characterised by the
use of Late Beaker types of pottery, in conjunction with incised ceramics known as
"Silos-Vaquera" types. The second period (Early Cogotas I- 1500-130OBC),
originally defined through phase HA of Arevalillo, was linked with the endurance
of Beaker pottery forms with impressed and triangular incised decoration, along
with the coexistence of new forms of "smooth" pottery. Vessel shapes
demonstrate continuity with the earlier phase (carinated bowls and jars), but
carinations are perceived as becoming more pronounced and placed higher on the
vessel profile. The most distinctive characteristic of this phase was held to be the
introduction of Boquique decoration, with incised com ear and zig-zag motifs,
believed by Femdndez Posse to mark the embryonic stage of the full Cogotas I
tradition. The lithic industry continues during this phase largely unchanged from
the Chalcolithic, with the endurance of Palmela points. The final phase (Full or
Classic Cogotas I- 1300-90OBC), has been testified through the continued
presence of the Ciempozuelos late Beaker styles, in association with the
introduction of the excised Cogotas I tradition. A re-assessment of the evidence
for these three phases in this chapter will challenge the belief that excised
decoration is a late development within the sequence, and the assumption that
Boquique pottery dates only from ca. 150OBC onwards.
4.9.4 Ferndndez Posse's typological analysis
Femdndez Posse was one of the first archaeologists to recognise that the Cogotas I
tradition stems back earlier than previously assumed, to the middle of the second
millennium BC if not before (Femdndez Posse 1986: 479-480). Yet, it is difficult
to discern exactly how Femdndez Posse felt so confident about identifying this
"Early Cogotas" phase so precisely, since all the pottery shapes and decorative
techniques and motifs that characterise it continue to be used throughout the whole
development of this tradition. She appears to gauge it upon the factor of
decorative complexity and percentage of vessels decorated, and argues that
decoration remains rare (under 20% of the assemblage) and simple during this
stage, restricted to incised triangular bands and zig-zags, with no evidence for
excision (Figure 4.35.1,1,5,7,10 and 4.35.2,1-3 and 16).
198
Defining this phase on the basis of percentage of vessels decorated is problematic
since the proportion of decorated to undecorated pottery from settlements
accommodated within this stage varies considerably from one site to the next. For
example at Cogeces del Monte, 33% of the pottery was decorated (Delibes and
Femdndez Manzano 1986-1987: 62), while at sites in the Tagus valley, the
percentage with decoration seems to be much lower. For example at Arenero del
Soto only eight percent of the pottery was decorated (Martinez Navarrete and
M6ndez 1983: 202) while at El Negralejo, it was only five percent (Blasco et al.
1983: 117). At many of the cave sites, such as Perales del Rfo and Getafe, near
Madrid, decoration does not even reach this proportion (Femdndez Posse 1986:
480). No investigator has yet undertaken a detailed study of the smooth
undecorated pottery from all of these sites which suggests a serious omission,
particularly if it accounts for 92% or more of the whole assemblage. Thus pottery
decoration would appear to be influenced by a number of factors, and cannot
simply be equated with temporal variation.
The second of Ferndndez Posse's Cogotas stages (1300-90OBC), also known as the
"expansion" or full Cogotas I stage, was identified on the premise of the increasing
presence of decorated vessels, complemented by a larger variety of techniques and
decorative motifs. She states that during this stage, Boquique decoration reaches
between 20-35% of the total decoration, if not more (at El Berrueco, this
proportion is 50%), while pseudo-excision and excision is found in only small
percentages - around 5% - and is restricted to relatively simple motifs (Figure
4.35.2,6,7,8,11 and 12). The incised bands of motifs are believed to become
much more complex, and cover larger zones of the vessel body than before
(Figures 4.35.2,6 and 4.35.3,1 and 4).
The vessel types in which the decoration is undertaken appears to be mainly the
carinated and V-shaped bowls and globular or bag-shaped jars. These show
continuity in form with the preceding phase, although there is a general tendancy
for the jars to be of much larger dimensions, and with more prominent bases and
carinations, and a development of the upper body to give a bitronconical shape
(Figure 4.35.3,7,14-15). There is also the appearance of new forms such as
support stands and low bowls (Figure 4.35.3,2,4 and 9).
In the final stage of Cogotas I (around the turn of the first millennium BQ, the
most frequent type of decoration is excision. Decoration includes even more
199
complex motif compositions, which are created using a variety of different
techniques, generally occupying larger areas of the vessel surface and appears
more frequently on closed vessels (Figure 4.35.3,11-18). Boquique and incision
lose their predominance at the expense of much higher percentages of excision,
and motifs tend to be more curvilinear than geometric, including circles and loops
(Figures 4.35.2,14,15 and 4.35.3,11,12,16). Thus in the final stage, excision
excedes the roughly 5% that it represented in preceding stages. At Homija, of the
23 vessels from the pit inhurnations, nine had excised decoration (Delibes 1987:
247), and at Sanchorreja excision represented 15-20% of the assemblage that was
analysed (Femdndez Posse 1986: 484). However, at this site, excision never
occurred as a technique used on its own, but always in conjunction with incised
motifs, which were used to separate the decorative zones (Figure 4.35.3,15 and
17). Therefore, this neat chronological distinction between Boquique and excision
is not as clear-cut as Femdndez Posse advocates, and other evidence that
contradicts her sequence will be expanded upon below.
4.9.5 Problems with the Cogotas typological sequence
Femdndez Posse's sequence looks good on paper but works rather less well in
practice. One of the problems is that she constructed the scheme from a limited
data set, predominantly using the ceramics from one site - that of Arevalillo da
Cega- and used only a few radiocarbon dates to support her chronological
distinctions. The sequence rests upon the premise that shape and decoration types
become increasingly complex through time, and later stages can be characterised
through greater heterogeneity and variety of decorative compositions. The
analysis of pottery assemblages from other settlements sites in the Meseta
demonstrate that this sequence is not as precise as has been advocated, and may in
fact only reflect local changes in a small part of Sdgovia. Its continued use for
other sites in other regions in the absence of absolute dating sequences may have
encouraged false confidence in other site chronologies.
The majority of Later Bronze Age settlements in the Meseta have produced pottery
that is not simply characteristic of the "Late Bronze Age" per se. Both the
Boquique and excised decoration techniques and the vessel shapes that are
decorated demonstrate strong continuity with the ancestral Beaker traditions, and
hence it is difficult to be precise about the chronology of these types. Many of the
sites dated between the seventeenth and fourteenth centuries BC have produced
200
late or derived Beaker types, known as "Silos" (incised bands of decoration) or
"Molinos" (pseudo-excised motifs) traditions, such as Las Pinzas de Curiel (Palol
and Wattenberg 1974: 85-88). Both therefore may be paralleled with Boquique
and excised Cogotas I decoration respectively, and the use of so many pottery
terms may create distinctions when none exist. This may also be noted with
respect to the use of the terms "Cogeces" and "Ciempozuelos".
Recent investigations have made the link between the Cogotas I groupings and the
Beaker and Ciempozuelos pottery types. The only distinctions between
Ciempozuelos and Proto-Cogotas (Cogeces) or Boquique traditions is that the
latter decoration is undertaken on an already burnished surface while that of the
former style has no prior burnishing, but sometimes includes incised motifs with
white paint infilling. In essence, Ciempozuelos pottery is just a species of incised
decorated pottery that belongs to the larger Beaker genus (e. g. see Delibes 1987:
23). The forms and decorative techniques show clear continuity with both pre-
Beaker and Beaker types, and support the argument for continuity and local
evolution in indigenous groups from the Late Chalcolithic into the Earlier Bronze
Age, and on into the Later Bronze Age Cogeces and Proto-Cogotas traditions.
Authors are not agreed upon the date of decline of the Ciempozuelos tradition,
perhaps for the simple reason that it does not diminish, but rather evolves. We
have few radiocarbon dates, but Ferndndez Miranda (1981: 57-58) and Martfn
Valls and Delibes (1989: 75) have argued that it endures no later than 1600-1550
cal. BC on the basis of the radiocarbon dates from burials with "Ciempozuelos"
pottery from Fuente-Olmedo in Valladolid. However, at Los Tolmos de Caracena,
only a few incised "Ciempozuelos" sherds were recognised throughout the
settlement sequence from the 18'h to 13' centuries cal BC, whereas excised
decorated pottery was the predominant decorative type throughout (Jimeno 1982a).
There are other contradictions and exceptions to the perceived development and
expansion of the Cogotas I grouping. One important discovery made at Arevalillo
(Femdndez Posse et aL 1991a), was the presence of Boquique and Late
Ciempozuelos with more traditional Beaker pottery in the same contexts, thus
providing a direct connection between the Cogotas I and Mesetan Campaniforme
traditions. At this Segovian cave site, however, the radiocarbon dates for this
assemblage were between 1480-1340 cal. BC, suggesting an even longer
persistence of early traditions. This evidence also begs the question as to why at
201
Los Tolmos (Jimeno 1984: 199-200), a site only 50kms to the north-east of
Arevalillo and dated to more than two centuries earlier (radiocarbon dates of 1738-
1621 cal. BQ, had only a few sherds of Ciempozuelos pottery in contrast to the
large quantities found at Arevalillo. The assemblage at Los Tolmos was
dominated by excised decoration, argued by Ferndndez Posse and others to be a
late development (after 130OBC) within the classic Cogotas I phase. Similarly, the
stratigraphy of La Plaza de Cogeces (Delibes and Femdndez Miranda 1981)
demonstrated the association of enduring Beaker traditions and Proto-Cogotas and
Cogotas types around the sixteenth to fifteenth centuries cal. BC. The traditional
chronological sequence would advocate that Beaker and Ciempozuelos pottery
should have completely declined by this time. Thus, we can begin to see the
cracks developing in the original ceramic typo-chronology and realise that regional individuality, associated with differing local rates of change and pottery
development may have played an important part in this more complex situation.
We should no longer consider these pottery types as distinct entities that represent
separate periods or even "ethnic" or "cultural" groups, but accept the intermixing
and considerable longevity of all of these pottery traditions.
Diego Conte and Bernaldo de Quiros (1993: 64) agree with Ferndndez Posse's
seminal works on the Cogotas ceramic sequence (1979; 1981; 1986) and state that
the technique of Boquique belongs to indigenous groups, while excised decoration
owed its origins to foreign inspiration. In fact many recent publications still differentiate between the two decorative traditions, advocating that they represent
two separate ethnic peoples or "cultural" groups. This argument will be developed
later, but results from the continued belief that excised ceramics are indicative of
central European influences. We can no longer accept such an out-dated concept,
particularly in the light of the literature survey which has noted around forty three
published settlement excavations that have produced both these ceramic styles
together in the same contextual horizons. These sites include Cueva de Atapuerca,
Burgos (Appelldniz et al. 1976; 1987); El Guijar, Soria (RevilIa and Jimeno
Martfnez 1986); El Negralejo, Madrid (Blasco Bosqued 1982a; 1992); Honos de
Castillo, Cuenca (Martfnez Navarrete and Valiente Canovas 1984); La Coronilla,
Redondos (Cerdefio and Garcfa Huerta 1982; Cerdefio 1986-1987); La Plaza de
Cogeces, Valladolid (Delibes and Ferndndez Miranda 198 1); La Muela de Alarilla,
Guadalajara (M6ndez and Velasco 1984; 1988); La Requejada, Valladolid
(Delibes 1990); Las Cogotas, Avila (Cabr6 1929; 1930; ); Lianete de los Moros,
202
Montoro (Martfn de la Cruz 1978-1979,1987a); and Los Algarbes, Tanfra (Mata
Almonte 1991). If they represent two different ethnic groups, then there has as yet
been no explanation as to why the Cogotas and Boquique types of pottery are
consistently found together in the same contextul associations at sites.
4.9.6 Settlement Evidence for the Later Bronze Age in the Meseta
Settlements known for the Later Bronze Age (after 1600 cal. BC) correspond to
three main types: small open settlements situated along river terraces and plains,
hilltop or hillfort settlements and cave sites. In effect a dichotomy in settlement
patterns has been drawn by many authors arguing for social and economic
distinctions between the undefended settlements and naturally or artificially
defended hilltop sites (e. g. Ferndndez Posse 1986: 477; Delibes and Ferndndez
Manzano 1986-1987). It has generally been assumed that the open settlements
characterise the earlier part of the Later Bronze Age in the Meseta, from ca. 1600-
1400/1300 cal. BC, and although they continue into the full Cogotas I period (after
1200 cal. BC), they are thought to have been gradually replaced by defended sites.
Open settlements are particularly common in the Madrid area, and include La
Torrecilla (Cerdefia et al 1980), Villaverde (Almagro Basch 1960), El Ventorro
(Priego and Quero 1991), EI Negralejo (Blasco et al. 1983) and Arenero de Soto
(Martfnez Navarrete and M6ndez 1983).
The domestic structures from the open settlements tend to be oval or circular in
plan (Figures 4.36 and 4.37). Since they are generally constructed from perishable
materials- wood, adobe and mud-brick - they have left ephemeral traces in the
archaeological record. They are more frequently recognised from the large
number of pits and silos with which they are associated. In general these small
open settlements have been correlated with predominantly pastoral activities,
associated with semi-sedentary occupation (e. g. Martfn Valls and Delibes 1975;
1976; Femdndez Posse 1986: 481; Diego Conte and Bernaldo de Quiros 1993: 62).
This is because the majority of excavations have produced large quantities of
animal bone - mainly cattle, sheep, and to a lesser extent, pig. Sites where cattle
and ovicaprids represented more than 80% of the faunal assemblage include Soto I
and II (Martfnez Navarrete and Mdndez 1983), La Torrecilla (Blasco et al. 1988),
Getafe (Delibes 1978), Sdn Martfn de la Vega (Florfn et al. 1989) and Perales del
Rfo (Blasco et al. 1991), all to the south-west of Madrid.
203
The problem with these interpretations is that they fail to take account of the
evidence for large underground storage pits and silos that are present at all of these
sites (Figures 4.36 and 4.37). In fact, from the nine sites of Soto I and H, La
Torrecilla, Getafe, Sdn Martfn de la Vega, Perales del Rfo, Arenero de Valdiva,
Arevavillo de Cega and Carrelasvegas, a total of over six hundred storage pits
were excavated, and these represent only small parts of the overall settlements.
Underground pits frequently function for storage of grain, and although some of
the pits were used as middens or for burials, these may have been their final
functions, after they went out of use as grain stores. Unfortunately, there is no
published evidence of any macrofloral analysis and palaeobotanical research does
not appear to have been undertaken at any of these sites. No environmental
samples were taken from any of the pits and this has surely contributed to the over-
emphasis of bone assemblages at the expense of botanical evidence. In effect, the
idea that pastoral economies and transhumant groups were represented at these
open settlements may be a consequence of our biased archaeological data. Again
the assumption that perishable settlement traces should necessarily be directly
equated with transitory settlement should be questioned.
The general impresion that the Proto-Cogotas and Cogotas I periods were
represented in the Meseta by primarily transitory settlements is based upon two
main assumptions. Firstly, until the Meseta became subject to more detailed
archaeological investigation in the 1970s, it was envisaged very much as a zone of
passage - an area that conferred communication between north and south-east
Spain with northern and central Portugal. Thus it was the Meseta that facilitated
the supposed migrations and diffusions of the Argaric, Hallstatt and Umfield
"cultures" across Iberia. Although these cultural movements have now been
expunged from Iberian archaeology, the idea of the Meseta as a through route has
not, and the region remains consciously or unconciously perceived as one that
lacked permanent settlement throughout the Bronze Age. Secondly, many of the
settlement sites in the Meseta appear to be situated along major routes of historical
and modem transhumance, and not near land that would be "suitable" for cereal
agriculture (see Delibes and Femdndez Miranda 1987: 17), but rather better for
stock-breeding (cow, sheep, goat and horse) and deer hunting. We must remember
that the present or even historical configuration of the landscape need not
accurately reflect that of prehistory, and since there is no archaeological
environmental evidence to support such an argument, we cannot transpose the
204
present economical circumstances without question. Certainly the deep layers of
stratigraphy at many of these supposedly temporary settlements would argue
against seasonal occupation, especially since so many of the sites indicate
continuous and long-lived occupation horizons (e. g. Honos de Castillo (Martfnez
Navarrete and Valiente Canovas 1984; Ulreich 1984), Los Tolmos de Caracena
(Jimeno 1984) and Arevalillo de Cega (Femdndez Posse 1991) to name a few).
This does not deny the possibility that many of the Later Bronze Age settlement
sites in the Meseta were transitory or seasonal, but we should not equate all of the
Proto-Cogotas and Cogotas groups with nomadic pastoral economies or societies.
4.9.7 Refining the Later Bronze Age of the Meseta: Radiocarbon
Chronology
The excavations at Honos de Castillo, Pajaronchillo, Cuenca (Martfnez Navarrete
and Valiente Canovas 1984; Ulreich 1984) have allowed a refining of the sequence
of the "Cogotas tradition". The settlement shows occupation from the end of the
Copper Age until the Medieval period, and the radiocarbon dates provide a
stratigraphic sequence from ca 2600/2400 cal. BC to 1300/1100 cal. BC. There is
no reference to any levels of abandonment or sterile soil layers, and thus it appears
that this site demonstrates continuous occupation for over a millennia right through
the characteristicallly elusive "Middle Bronze Age". The site appears to have been
fortified around 1550 cal. BC, and contains a sequence of circular stone domestic
structures that show architectural congruity throughout the second n-dllennium BC
(Martfnez Navarrete and Valiente Canovas 1984: 105).
The pottery assemblage demonstrated continuity throughout the sequence, with
only subtle modifications from earlier to later horizons. The Later Bronze Age
pottery (radiocarbon dates of 1600-1250 cal. BQ was composed of three main
vessel types: cylindrical and tronconical jars and rounded hemispherical bowls
with incised Boquique zig-zag, hatched and linear decoration. Many vessels also
had lugs or mamelons that became more common in the last phase which was
labelled full Cogotas I (Martfnez Navarrete and Valiente Canovas 1984: 109).
This site thus provides a stratigraphy that shows a continuous development from
the Earlier Bronze Age and Ciempozuelos (polished vessels with stab and drag and
"puntillado" decoration) right through to Cogotas I traditions. (Martfnez
Navarrete and Valiente Canovas 1984: Figures 7.6 and 8.5).
205
it is possible to integrate the evidence from this site within a broader regional
framework, drawing upon other settlements with comparative radiocarbon dates
and similar pottery and other material culture traditions. At Cerro de la Encina in
Granada, the earliest horizon (Phase 1) was dated between 1850 and 1440 cal BC
(UGRA-14 and 116) and contained a mixture of both Late Ciempozuelos and
Proto-Cogotas decorated pottery. At Cuesto del Negro, a horizon originally dated
to Argar B (Zone A Stratum VI/S) contained pottery types and decoration very
similar to the later horizons of Honos de Castillo. This level provided dates
between 1510 and 1334 cal. BC (GrN 7284 and 7286, and BM-2542, all from
cereal grains). The latest date (1427-1334 cal. BQ came from carbon from the
hearth of a house that had been assigned to the Late Bronze Age. These three well
dated and stratiried settlements all suggest the co-existence of Ciempozuelos and
Proto-Cogotas traditions and their continued existence over a period of up to six
hundred years or more.
Table 4.14: Absolute datesfor Cogotas I (listedfrom earliest to latest)
Site Reference Date BP Date bc Calibrated BC
Setefilla, Loro del Aubet eta/. 1983: 48 1-11070: 3520: 05 1570 1984-1734
Rio
Arevalillo de Cega 1, Fernindez Posse UGRA-99: 1560
SG 1981: 51 3510*140
Setefilla. Aubet et al. 1983: 48 1-11067: 3470*95 1520 1925-1673
Atapuerca, lbeas Alpelldniz and Uribarri 1-9880: 3470: 090 1520 1976
Los Tolmos, Jimeno 1982: 335 CSIC-480: 1430 1743-1621
Caracena 3380*50
Los Tolmos, Jimeno, 1982: 335 CSIC-442: 1430 1743-1621
Caracena 3380. tSO
ElAsno, Los Eiroa 1979: 69 CSIC-340: 1430
Rdbanos 3380*50
Los Tolmos, Jimeno 1982: 335 CSIC-408: 1420 1738-1615
Caracena 3370*50
Los Tolmos, Jimeno 1982: 335 CSIC-409: 1410 1729-1608
Caracena. 336WO
Los Tolmos, Jimeno 1982: 335 CSIC-443: 1410 1729-1608
Caracena 3360: 60
Atapuerca, lbe7s- I Alpelliniz and UrIbard 1-9881: 3340*160 1
1390
206
1976
Arevalillo de Cega 2 FemAndez-Posse CSIC-422: 1350 1981: 51 3300*50
Arevalillo de Cega 3 FemAndez-Posse CSIC-423: 1350
1981: 51 3300±50
Cabezo Redondo Balbfn 1978: 79 GrN 5109 3300: t5O 1350 1656-1518
Arevalillo de Cega 4 Femindez-Posse CSIC-400: 1340
1981: 51 3290±50
Tapado da Caldeira, S. O. Jorge 1983: 55 KN-2769: 3290*55 1340 1649-1508
Baido
Fuente Alamo, Schubart and Arteaga B-3652: 3280±70 1330 1653-1479
Cuevas de All 1983: 61
La Vaquera, Zamora 1976: 63-71 CSIC-208:? 1330
Torreigleslas
La Plaza, Cogeces Delibes and Femdndez GrN-10617: 1325 1614-1506
de Monte Miranda 1986-1987: 23 3275±30
Fuente Alamo, Schubart and Arteaga B-3653: 3250±70 1300 1653-1479
Cuevas de All 1983: 61
Tapado da Caldelra, S. C. Jorge 1983: 55 KN-2770: 3210±55 1260 1539-1439
Balio
Los Tolmos. Jimeno 1982: 335 CSIC-479: 1230 1510-1421
Caracena, 3180±50
Boecilla Jimeno and Lomas (u. p) CSIC-557: 1220 1480-1362
3170±60
Atapuerca, lbeas AlpellAnlz and Uribarrl 1-9879: 3170±130 1220 1590-1320 1976
Purullena. 1, Molina Gonzdlez GrN-7285: 1210 Granada 1978: 170 3160±35
Los Espinos, Mave 1 Santonja et aL 1978: 381 1-11117: 3120±95 1170
Ecce Homo, AlcalA Almagro and FemAndez CSIC-163: 1150 1453-1316
de Henares Gallano 1980 3100±70
Purullena 2, Molina Gonzilez GrN-7284: 1145
Granada 1978: 170 3095±35
La Vaquera, Zamora 1976: 63-71 CSIC-149:? 1100
Torrelgleslas
Ecce Homo, Alcalik Almagro and Ferndndez CSIC-164: 1070 1412-1129
de Henares Galiano 1980 3020*70
Ecce Homo, Alcal. A Almagro and Fernindez CSIC-165: 1070 1412-1129
de Henares I
Gallano 1980 I
3020*70 I
207
Los Tolmos, Jimeno 1982: 335 CSIC-407: 1060 1379-1211
Caracena 3010*50
Ecce Homo, AIca1A Almagro and Femddez CSIC-167: 1040 1376-1110
de Henares Gallano 1980 2990*70
San RomAn de Delibes 1978: 237 1-9604: 2960±95 1010
Homija
La Paul, Arbigano Llanos 1983: 102 1-11590: 2900: t85 950 1256-971
Los Espinos, Mave Santonja et al. 1982: 381 1-11116: 2830*95 880
San RomAn de Delibes 1978: 237 1-9603: 2820*150 870
Homija
BIzcar. Maestu Llanos 1983: 102 1-? No reference 670 860-750
published for date
La Fdbrica, Getafe Priego and Quero 1-12863: 2490±95 540 1982: 302
4.9.8 Geographic Distribution ot the Cogotas I tradition
In recent years, the evidence for the formative period of the Cogotas grouping has
shown a strong concentration in the interior of the Meseta, with a denser number
of settlements in comparison to other regions. However, the focus upon origins
has once again detracted from and simplified the complexity of the Cogotas
evidence throughout the Meseta and other regions.
A number of recent discoveries has demonstrated how inaccurate and ill-conceived
our past perceptions of the Cogotas I grouping has been. These new discoveries
are relevant for they are still not widely applied archaeologically, yet have altered
our whole chronological and geographical understanding of this Bronze Age
tradition. Firstly it has only been since the end of the 1980s that the Cogotas I
sequence has been been recognised in its formative stages in the traditional
"Middle" Bronze Age - i. e. from 1600 cal. BC onwards. Secondly, as already
stated above, archaeologists are beginning to appreciate that the Cogotas I tradition
is part of an indigenous evolutionary process already well underway at the end of
the Early Bronze Age.
Thus the Cogotas tradition has now been recognised as having a much greater
chronological and geographical extent, dating from 1600 cal. BC if not earlier,
until ca. 850/800 cal. BC, and extending over the regions of the Meseta, Ebro
valley, the Levant, western and eastern Andalucfa, Spanish Extremadura and
central and northern Portugal throughout this time.
208
4.9.9 Expansion of the Cogotas I tradition
The expansion of the Cogotas I tradition from the Meseta was believed to have
occurred only in the final stages of the full or classic phase, around the ninth
century BC. In the lower Guadalquivir, Andalucfa and Extremadura, Cogotas I
decorated pottery is often associated with internal pattern burnished pottery and Carambolo painted pottery, as at Purullena in Granada, Carmona in Seville and Solacueva in Alava (Amores et aL 1984-1985). At many of the Extremaduran
sites, the Boquique decorated ceramics also co-exist with the external pattern burnished pottery, generally middle and high carinated bowls, and thus
traditionally dated between the tenth and eighth centuries BC (Rivero de la
Higuera 1972-1973: 117-126, Figures 15-23; Almagro Gorbea 1977: 87, Figures
28-29; Femdndez Castro 1988: 149, Figure 138). In Portugal, to the north of the
river Tagus, Boquique decorated pottery has been found in association with Baibes
Santa-Luzia and pattern burnished decorated vessels at Senhora da. Guia, Bai6es
(Kalb 1979: 584-585), Quinta da Padreira (Gibson u. p.; see Chapter Three), Tapada
da Caldeira and Bouqa do Frade (S. O. Jorge 1983) and Castro de Sao Romao, Seia
(Fabido and Guerra 1988-1989: 79, Figures 7-21).
The densest concentration of Cogotas and Boquique ceramics outside the Meseta,
comes from the Lower Guadalquivir and Andalucfan regions, in Almerfa, Granada,
Murcia and Alicante (Molina Gonzdlez 1978). ' Examples include the sites of Cabezo Redondo in Villena, Isleta de Campelto, Santa Catalina in Murcfa,
Monachil, Berrueco in Medina Sidonia, Cddiz, Montemolin and Carmona in
Seville, Purullena and Fuente Alamo, Cuesto del Negro and Cerro de la Encina in
Granada, Gatas in Almerfa, and Llanete de los Moros and Setefilla in C6rdoba.
The evidence from these sites has been interpreted as the result of an advance of the Mesetan complex after the Argaric decline, and therefore in terms of contact
and clashes between two distinct cultures. However a reappraisal of stratigraphic
evidence from the sites of El Argar, Cerro de la Encina and Cuesto del Negro and Purullena have produced evidence of both Cogotas and Argaric material in the
same horizons, long before the decline of these sites. The hiatuses noted at some
of these sites - after level IV of Cerro de la Encina and Phase III of Cuesto del
Negro for example - have been interpreted as "el Cultura Cogotas I se superpuso a
un poblado argdrico abandonado" (Molina and Arteaga 1978: 187). A re-analysis
of the stratigraphic evidence from these sites suggests rather that there is continued
co-existence of the two ceramic traditions for several centuries, and this implies
209
that they should not be held to be indicative of two separate cultural entities - one
intrusive and one indigenous.
Interestingly, some of these sites provided absolute dates for these horizons that
negate the theory that the Cogotas I "culture" expanded to these regions only after
the tenth century BC (see Table 4.14). At Cabezo Redondo de Villena (Molina
Gonzdlez 1978: 205), evidence of Cogotas I material was noted in Level V, dated
between 1656 and 1518 cal. BC (Schubart and Arteaga 1980: 271-272). Other
settlements that contained Boquique and Cogotas ceramics in horizons with
recently published associated radiocarbon dates include the following: Monte
Berrueco - 1705-1504 cal. BC (Escacena and Frutos 1985: 19); Llanete de los
Moros - 1454-1020 cal. BC (Martfn de la Cruz and Perlines 1993: 337); Cerro de
la Encina in Granada - 1850 and 1440 cal. BC (Aguayo 1986: 263); La Mesa de
Setefilla - 1270-950 cal. BC (Aubet et aL 1983); Cabezo Redondo - 1656-1518 cal.
BC (Vogel and Waterbolk 1972: 72; Soler 1987) and Fuente Alamo - 1570-1390
cal. BC (Schubart and Arteaga 1986: 292). These all attest to the presence of
Cogotas I ceramics over 300 years earlier that the supposed climax and expansion
of this Mesetan cultural group.
Some of the findings of excised and Boquique pottery in northern Portugal might
also be dated much earlier than the beginning of the first millennium BC.
Although there are fewer dates available, and those from Bouga do Frade are later
than the frst millennium BC, the nearby cemetery of Tapado da Caldeira contained
Boquique and excised ceramics from graves dated between 1649 and 1131 cal. BC
and the unpublished dates from Monte do Padrao range between the thirteenth to
twelfth centuries cal. BC (Fdlix pers. comm. ).
A new peninsular map of the Cogotas I tradition was drawn up in an attempt to
understand what the wide dispersion of this grouping may mean (see Figure 4.38).
Although the Meseta is the area with the largest concentration of sites and also the
only region which lacks large gaps between sites, this may be more to with the bias
in excavation rather than the real nature of the distribution. Interestingly, the
clustering pattern of sites in the Meseta overlaps with all the main copper veins in
the region. From this central or core area the diagnostic Cogotas elements are
manifest in a more isolated and dispersed manner, and from a spatial point of view
become more diluted. Yet there are also important densities of sites in the Douro
valley, the lower Guadalquivir and central and eastern Andaluda, with Cogotas I
210
ceramics that date to the same period as the Mesetan sites (see Figure 4.38). In
general Cogotas I vessels do not form a significant component of the ceramic
assemblages from other regions, suggesting that may be considered as "exotics".
For example, at Cabezo Redondo de Villena, Fuente Alamo and Monachil, they
constituted under five percent of the whole Later Bronze Age pottery assemblages,
while at Llanete de los Moros, Cogotas I sherds formed less than one percent of the whole assemblage.
Explaining the Cogotas expansion through demographic concepts of migration,
advance, domination and ethnic displacement clings on to invasionist
connotations. Even the recent explanations of this grouping (e. g Almagro-Gorbea
1986; Blasco Bosqued 1994b; Blasco Bosqued et al. 199 1; Delibes and Femdndez
Miranda 1986-1987: 18-20; Delibes et al. 1990; Ferndndez Posse and Martfn 1991;
Martfn Valls and Delibes 1976) continue to follow that well-trodden path of
diffusionist cultural development, after Molina (1978) who argued that the
presence of Cogotas I pottery at Purullena resulted from Mesetan groups
pentetrating lands in Granada in search of good pastoral lands. It almost appears
ironic that so many archaeologists have perhaps unconsciously substituted the
migrationalist interpretations of the Urnfield and Celtic invasions (after Bosch
Gimpera and Almagro Basch) for those of the Cogotas I. Perhaps, since they are
internal rather than external diffusionist concepts, they somehow seem more
acceptable and convincing. Even if we can demonstrate that the Cogotas I pottery
does represent the movement of elements of Mesetan origin far from its initial
frontiers, there is absolutely no evidence that can verify that people were moving
along with the pottery. A Cogotas I pot in a ceramic assemblage from northern
Portugal or the lower Gualdaquivir region need not mean that the people who were
using this were ultimately derived from the Meseta. The fact that so many regions
began to embrace this particular pottery style may well indicate other social and
economic changes, such as the breakdown of certain boundaries. Why was this
pottery style so widely adopted?
In effect, at these sites and others, the pottery of the Cogotas I tradition appears to
be only an addition or an enhancement to the local substratum , and cannot be
hailed as indicative of a new cultural group expanding its territorial extent. There
are several alternative explanations that may be offered to substitute the "cultural
expansion theory".
211
Perhaps Cogotas I pottery found in areas beyond the nuclear zone was regarded as
exotic or prestige goods, associated with exchange of other materials. It might be
possible to reinterpret the expansion of the Cogotas I tradition, using the pottery as
a valuable tool for indicating important routes of exchange or interaction. If we
bring metallurgy into the equation, it is interesting how the distribution of Atlantic
tradition metallurgy and Cogotas I pottery strongly overlap (see Chapter Five).
Until recently, archaeologists were surprised by the quantities of Atlantic
metallurgy turning up in the Meseta, including the large Later Bronze Age deposit
of bronze cauldrons, spearheads and elbow shaped fibulae at Castro de los
Castillejos in Avila (GonzAlez-Tablas 199 1) or the elbow shaped fibulae from Sdn
Romdn de Homija (Delibes 1978), Cerro del Berrueco (Delibes 1981), and
Arevalillo de Cega (Femdndez Posse 1981). 1 have already indicated that there is
evidence to support the argument that long distance contact between the Meseta
and western and southern Iberian regions was well developed in the Later Bronze
Age, and Cogotas I pottery may be just one element of these undoubtedly complex
interactions. Petrographic work will confirm whether the pots themselves were
being transported or whether they were being imitated in the other regions.
4.10 Final Conclusions. The Later Bronze Age in Western Iberia: Myth or
Reality?
This chapter began by assessing the limited evidence presently available for the
elusive earlier part of the Later Bronze Age (traditionally Middle Bronze Age) in
western Iberia. The premise underlying the re-analysis of the settlement and
ceramic evidence in these regions was the belief that the absence of a "Middle"
Bronze Age should no longer be accepted. The "Middle" Bronze Age has been
written off as a time of stagnation and decline, but this makes no sense if we look
at the earlier and later developments which frame this phase - relative complexity
and densely populated parts of western Iberia in the Late Chalcolithic and again in
the Late Bronze Age. Since we can now dismiss all the earlier diffusionist models
of invasion, migration and colonisation in the Bronze Age, we must look to other
explanations for this apparently sudden demise for hundreds of years, followed by
an equally spectacular demographic explosion and abrupt return to complexity.
One of the main issues that this chapter tackled was the lack of definition of
"Middle" Bronze Age culture horizons in western Iberia. Only a limited number
of material culture type fossils have been identified for the period from 1600-1000
cal. BC, and this situation makes it difficult for archaeologists to recognise Later
212
Bronze Age settlement evidence, when they have virtually nothing with which to
compare it. This general absence of material culture sequences for these centuries
has undoubtedly exacerbated archaeologists' inability to clearly distinguish it.
A second important point is that, in the absence of material culture sequences from
settlements, archaeologists have continued to use the typological frameworks
produced from the funerary evidence (see Chapter Two). The limited evidence
available for spatially and chronologically contemporary burial and domestic
pottery assemblages (Silva and Soares 1980; 1995; 1998; see Section 4.4.1), has
demonstrated that there is virtually no comparison between the two. Thus one
reason for our inability to recognise this period lies in the fact that archaeologists
expect the highly decorated pottery assemblages associated with the south-western
Bronze Age funerary typology (Schubart 1971; 1975) to be equally represented in
the Later Bronze Age settlement spheres.
In an attempt to remove the problem of comparing like with unlike, this chapter has begun the mundane but necessary process of creating a Later Bronze Age
ceramic typology for central and southern Portugal. The first point of note is that
the assemblages that appear to be indicative of this phase are predominantly plain
and undecorated. This fact in itself has doubtlessly contributed to our lack of
recognition of the period. The second point of remark, one that has been reiterated
throughout the Chapter, is the continuity in material culture traditions between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age and the lack of any obviously marked changes between these two periods, as traditionally advocated and assumed. In fact, the
endurance of Late (derived and evolved) Beaker types well into the Later Bronze
Age may well mark one of the most significant keys to its identification.
Unfortunately, it must still remain an open question as to how many Bronze Age
settlements, in the absence of radiocarbon dates, have been wrongly allocated to
the Chalcolithic. Only a detailed reassessment of all of the ceramic evidence from
such sites, complemented by a detailed radiocarbon dating programme, can
provide answers to this question, and such research is well beyond the limits of the
funding for this thesis. However, the lesson must be leant that we should not
automatically assume that Beaker ceramics and the associated material culture can
always be correlated with Copper Age or Early Bronze Age chronologies.
From a collation of the evidence discussed in this Chapter it is possible to offer a
new, more embracing typo-chronological framework for settlement ceramics in the
213
western Iberian Later Bronze Age. Table 4.15 surninarises the key sites and key
ceramic types but acknowledges the local and regional diversity that the research
has exhibited.
Table 4.15: Ceramic typology for Later Bronze Age settlement sites in Portugal
and Extremadura
Later Bronze Age of north-west Portugal (1600-1300 cal. BC)
Key sites and site types Key diagnostic Decoration
ceramic types
Open settlements - Sao Lourenco, NO SO Continuity in Beaker forms Barbed wire and corn ear incised
da Bandeira (Tras-os-Montes) and other Chalcolithic motifs. Penha type incised
Hilforts - Povoada da Sola, Castro da shapes. Simple shaped decoration and Ciempozuelos
vessels - ovoid bowls and decoration Fornda (Braga)
straight sided vessels
Later Bronze Age of north-west Portugal (1300-800 cal. BC)
open settlements - Lavra 11
Bouqa do Frade (Baiao)
Hillforts and hilltop settlements - Slý da
Guia (Bai6es), Sao Julicýo (Vilavercle),
Sao Rom5o (Seia)
Derived Beaker forms.
Middle and high carinated bowls, hemispherical and V-
shaped bowls. Globular,
carinated, straight sided and bag-shaped jars
Predominatly Bai6es-Santa Luzia
post fired incised decoration (zig-
zags, triangles etc. ) but also
impressed, "a cepillo" and pattern
burnished decoration. Decoration
forms an important component of
domestic assemblages (between
40% and 60%)
Later Bronze Age of central and southern Portugal (11600-1300 cal. BC)
open settlements near coast- Pessegueiro and Quiteria (Sines),
Tapada da Ajuda (Lisbon), Alapraia
(Cascais)
Rock shelters - BuraQa da Moura de Sao
Romdo (Sela), Bocas and Casa da
Moura (Rio Maior)
Evolved Beakers, Simple
vessel forms including low
and middle carinated bowls
and straight sided jars. V-
shaped and hemispherical
bowls and globular and bag-
shaped jars
Decoration is rare, and restricted
to incision, impression and
occasional plastic motifs (knobs).
All-over polishing and all-over
burnishing are common surfave
treatments
Hillforts and hilltop settlements - Alto do
Caldeira and Cabeýo da Bruxa
(Santar6m), Agroal (Nab5o), Funchal I
and 11 (Lisbon)
Later Bronze Age of central and southern Portugal (1300-800 cal. BC)
Open settlements - Quinta da Padreira Derived Beakers. Continuity Exterior and interior pattern
(Abrantes) in ancestral ceramic burnished decoration, "a cepillo",
Rock shelters - Alegrios (Beira). Lapa do traditions, Medium and high finger impressed, and painted carinated bowls, V-shaped Carambolo are the most cornmon
Fumo (Sesimbra) bowls, straight sided and types. Excised, Boqulque and
214
Hillforts and hilltop settlements - tronconical vessels, globular, Cogotas I decoration are also
Azougada and Mangancha (Aijustrel), bag-shaped and ovoid jars present, although in smaller
Castelejo, Monte do Frade and numbers. Note that decoration
Moreirinha (Beira), Alto do Castelinho never forms a significant
(Montemor), Cor6a do Frade (Evora) component of the domestic
assemblages (never over 20%)
Later Bronze Age of Extremadura (1600-800 cal. BC)
Hilltop settlements - Nogales, San Endurance of Beakers. Eclectic mixture of ceramic
Cristobal, Alcazaba cle Badajoz and Middle and high carinated decorative techniques, including
Alange (all in Badajoz) bowls and jars, tronconical external and internal pattern
and straight sided vessels burnished pottery, Boquique,
Carambolo and Cogotas I styles. Decoration forms between 10%
and 35% of domestic
assemblages
it is hoped that this ceramic sequence can be refined when ail increasing number of
radiocarbon dates are made available for this period; dates that are critically
needed for a better understanding of this region. However, in the meantime, this
chapter has challenged the biases and assumptions that stand in the way of
understanding the Later Bronze Age. The Later Bronze Age ceranlic types
demonstrate only gradual developments in comparison with both earlier and later
periods. Such changes are only detectable through quantified cerarnic analyses,
and since so few assemblages have been analysed in this manner, then it is hardly
surprising that archaeologists have failed to identify the SUbtle distinctions evident
(see Chapter Three). Many of these changes have less to do with pottery form and
decoration, and are more linked with alterations in ceramic fabric and technology,
and type ratios within overall assemblages.
Another key to our discovery of the Later Bronze Age lies in our biased
understanding of settlement ceramic assemblages. Domestic ceramic assemblages
still predominantly corne from hilltop settlements, and this chapter has
demonstrated that these are not the only or necessarily most import, "It settle"IcIlt
form dUring this period. Some of them may not even have been settled oil it
perniament or serni-perniament basis, and therefore the associated pottery nlay
provide only a partial representation of Later Bronze Age overall typological
assemblages. it is tirne to incorporate the material ctilt(Ire froin Later Bronze Age
open settlements and rock shelter sites into 01.11' U riderstand i fig of tills perlod, since
these may well provide the "missing links" in our material culture sequences.
215
The most important insight that this and Chapter Three have highlighted is that no
sudden or obvious changes occurred between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age in
western Iberia. The sooner we appreciate that Bronze Age material culture was
not necessarily different or particularly "Bronze Age" in appearance, the sooner
we can begin to recognise the key elements and the wealth of settlement data for
the Later Bronze Age period that is only now slowly coming to light.
The ceramic traditions discussed in this -chapter demonstrate complex and
widespread distribution patterns, and highlight the increasing interaction and
exchange during the Later Bronze Age throughout western Iberia (see Figure 4.41-
4.45). Until now, archaeologists have tended to approach the Atlantic Bronze Age,
the south-western stelae and the Later Bronze Age settlement and ceramic
evidence as separate and distinct fields of study. This research will now undertake
a combined approach that brings together the evidence from these disparate themes
to provide a fuller understanding of the social, economic, political and ideological
developments in western Iberia during the Later Bronze Age. Figures 4.41-4.45
clearly demonstrate that many of the ceramic traditions once thought to be
culturally or regionally distinct, show much wider dissemination. These serve to
indicate the significance and complexity of long distance communication and
exchange between the different social groups in western Iberia. This interaction
was related to diverse social and economic practices, including transhumance and
pastoral activities, and the production and exchange of bronze metallurgy. These
aspects of the Later Bronze Age will now be explored and developed in the
following two chapters.
216
Chapter Five
Plain Sailing? The Atlantic Bronze Age and western Iberia
5.1 Introduction
It is only now that the process of revision of the Later Bronze Age in western Iberia has been
undertaken that it is possible to understand and re-interpret other previously isolated themes
related to this period. This includes studies of the "Atlantic Bronze Age" which have
predominantly focused upon dry typological arguments concerned with the spatial and temporal distribution of metal types (see Chapter Two). These lines of inquiry have generally failed to
address wider issues, and ignore how changes in metal types and patterns of deposition can be
related to other social and economic developments occurring within the Atlantic regions of Iberia. Although the concept of the Atlantic Bronze Age has been employed in archaeological discussions in Iberia for over half a century, it has only been in the last few years that
archaeologists have begun to question the validity and meaning of the term. Regional and
contextual analyses of the metal deposits and their association with the Later Bronze Age stelae
and ceramics highlight the complex patterns of metal consumption in western Iberia and the diversity of influence from other parts of central Europe and the central Mediterranean. The
distribution of bronzes in Iberia clearly indicates that Atlantic contact was not restricted to
coastal zones but was connected with the interior heartland, where the main concentrations of
raw materials lie. The location of bronze and gold hoards and their artistic representations on
the stelae in strategic fluvial or terrestrial points in the landscape offer new lines of interpretation concerning the social, economic and ideological aspects of the Iberian Atlantic
Bronze Age. In particular, the gold-work and diadem stelae hint at the importance of women
and female ideology within the Atlantic system, aspects that have been neglected due to the
emphasis placed upon male warrior elites.
5.2 Geographical considerations Geographically, the coastline of Atlantic Europe stretches from Iberia to Scandinavia.
However, in archaeological terrns, Atlantic Europe is generally reduced to a smaller region that
extends from the Shetland Isles in the north to the Straits of Gibraltar in the south, and includes
western Britain, Ireland, western France, northern and western Spain and Portugal. The
geographical extent of the "Atlantic Bronze Age" and its coastal communication is
considerable, with western sea-ways covering a distance of some 2300kms from north to south (Figure 5.1)
Western Iberia is important in any discussion of the Atlantic Bronze Age because of its wealth in raw materials, particularly copper, tin, silver and gold, and its strategic position at the cross-
roads of the Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranean sea. The natural topography of Iberia has
220
naturally encouraged her outward looking perspective. With the exception of the Ebro, all of
Iberia's river systems flow into the Atlantic, and most of them, particularly the Douro, Tagus,
Guadiana and Guadalquivir, and their tributaries allowed naval penetration far into the Iberian
interior (Oliveira Marques 1968; Daveau 1980; Stevenson and Harrison 1992). From
prehistoric until Medieval times, the rivers were the principal means of transport in western Iberia, and the extensive network of fluvial routes in these regions undoubtedly promoted the
efficient communication of the Atlantic bronze system.
Iberia's mineral richness has been offered as the main reason for her renewed attraction to other Atlantic regions, like bees to a honey pot, in the Later Bronze Age (e. g. Coffyn 1985; Rufz-
Gdlvez 1987) (Figure 5.2). Gold deposits are known throughout the Peninsula, but with the
exception of the north-west, they are in the form of alluvial deposits in the rivers Douro, Tagus,
Sado and Guadalquivir. Silver is the most prolific of the precious metals in the Peninsula, with
veins of silver bearing galena present throughout Spain and Portugal, but particularly
concentrated in Andalucfa, Seville, Rio Tinto, Sierra Morena, and Lower Alentejo in Portugal.
Copper deposits occur widely in the Peninsula, although the largest and most important
concentrations are situated in the south-west, particularly in Alentejo, Algarve and Andalucfa.
Almagro Gorbea (1977), Aubet (1986) and Ruiz-Gdlvez (1991), amongst others, have
maintained that the rich pyrite belt extending from western Seville to the Upper Alentejo was
not exploited intensively until the Phoenician colonisation . However, there is now good
evidence to demonstrate that many of these copper and silver mineral resources were already
exploited intensively in the Later Bronze Age from ca. 140OBC onwards, particularly in
Huelva, Rio Tinto, Badajoz, Andalucfa and Lower Alentejo (Rothenberg and Blanco Freijeiro
1981; Rufz-Mata 1989; B61en and Escacena 1992; Giardino 1995; P6rez Macias 1995; see Chapter Seven).
The distribution of tin contrasts markedly with the main copper veins, being predominantly
restricted to the north-west of the Peninsula, particularly in Galicia, Minho and northern Portugal (Trds-os-Montes) and Upper Beira (Monteagudo 1977: 12-17). However, some large
tin deposits and Later Bronze Age mining sites have recently been discovered in Badajoz,
Cdceres and Spanish Extremadura (Meredith 1998) (Figure 5.2).
5.3 Atlantic Bronze Age chronology
The concept of the Atlantic Bronze Age was introduced in Iberia in the late 1930s by Martfnez,
Santa Olalla (1938-1941) and expanded upon by Almagro, Basch (1940; 1952a; 1958), Savory
(1949) and macwhite (1951). These and many subsequent interpretations of the Atlantic
Bronze Age have concentrated mainly upon studies of the metalwork (Savory 1968; Almagro
221
Gorbea 1977; Monteagudo 1977; Rufz-Gdlvez 1984b; 1987: 251-253; Coffyn 1985; Brun
1991). As a result, the concept of an Atlantic Bronze Age culture has been defined on a formal
basis of physical traits - such as the distribution of leaf-shaped or Carp's Tongue swords or
looped axes. Thus, the majority of Iberian Bronze Age studies have tended to focus upon
issues concerned with typology, chronology, production, and distribution, in attempts to
provide increasingly precise chronological resolution (see Chapter Two). These typo-
chronological narratives go little further than charting the geographical extent and temporal
duration of particular bronze styles and technologies. However, typological classifications
based upon observed regularities in material culture divisions often fail to question the reasons
as to why this regularity exists in the first place. Furthermore the regional variability of metal
types, context and distribution evident in western Iberia offers more information than that
simply pertaining to typology (e. g. see Ehrenberg 1989: 77-79). It is time to expand the study
of the Atlantic Bronze Age beyond the purely typological metal orientated lines of
investigation.
The definition of the Atlantic Bronze Age rests on a negative as well as a positive basis. In a
sense the Atlantic regions have been perceived as similar in that they lacked visible burial and
settlement traditions and they appeared different from the Urnfield cultural complex (Bel6n et
al. 1991; Rufz-Gdlvez 1991). The dominance of particular types of weapons and tools amongst
the bronze objects represented in the Atlantic regions and the fact that most of the objects come
from single finds or hoards in watery deposits rather than from settlements or burials, has also
been used to infer a united identity. Another shared feature, apart from the common sea-front,
is that these regions were all rich in raw materials - particularly copper, silver, gold, tin and
lead. Such characteristics, by themselves, however, cannot be used to validate a united Atlantic
Bronze Age identity.
The Atlantic Bronze Age therefore is a concept based predon-dnantly upon similarities in metal
objects. Similarities in bronze artefacts between different regions, however, need not imply
similarities in everyday life, and should not be used to denote economic, social, cultural or
ideological connections. Although the Atlantic Bronze Age as a term has been in use for over
half a century, it has been only in the last few years that its validity as a cultural complex has
been questioned (e. g. Brun 199 1; S. O. Jorge (ed. ) 1998).
5.4 The re-establishment of Atlantic contacts with Iberia
During the Middle Bronze Age there would appear to be a dislocation of Iberia from Atlantic
connections, and it is only at the beginning of the Later Bronze Age in Iberia that we witness a
complete re-orientation in the Atlantic trading systems. The reasons for the Middle Bronze
222
Age interruption are still weakly understood, but generally argued to have been the result of a
radical exploitation of copper in other areas and in particular increased contacts between
central Europe and northern parts of Atlantic Europe during this time. These changes have
almost been correlated with modem day market economy models, with the lull in western
Iberian economies (and assumed societies) having been initiated by changes in the flux and demand of raw materials.
Although the chronology ascribed to the Later Atlantic Bronze Age has varied over the
decades, it is now generally accepted that relations between Iberia and other parts of Atlantic
Europe began around 1250 - 120OBC (Almagro Gorbea 1977; 1986; Kalb 1980; Rufz-Gdlvez
1984; 1995a), but a full incorporation of western Iberia into the Atlantic Bronze Age only
occurred after lOOOBC (Almagro Gorbea 1977: 345; Coffyn and Sion 1993). This is evidenced from the huge increase in production and deposition of metal objects in western Iberia, and
metallurgical analyses which indicate a distinct preference for Iberian metal sources to those of
central Europe in many parts of Atlantic Europe (Northover 1982a; Bradley 1988a; Rufz-
Gdlvez 1989). The re-establishment of Atlantic commerce with Iberia appears to occur almost
simultaneously with incipient interaction between Iberia and the central Mediterranean
(Almagro Gorbea 1977; Coffyn 1983; 1985; Rufz-Gdlvez 1992b). However, it has also been
argued that these developments promoted the emergence of larger and more complex settlement
systems in many parts of northern and central Portugal and south-western Spain.
This chapter, however, challenges the conventional interpretations offered for this
strenaissance" in western Iberia in the Later Bronze Age. It has generally been assumed that it
was the external catalysts - in other words the renewal of Atlantic contacts and the opening up
of new eastern trade routes - that stimulated these changes in fortunes and pulled western Iberia
out of her supposed socio-economic recession. One idea is that tin was a reason for Atlantic
regions to expand into Iberia (e. g. Rufz-GAlvez 1987: 253). Yet many of the Atlantic regions
were using lead in their bronze alloys by ca. 1300-120OBC, to compensate for the deficiency of
tin. Tin would not appear to have been a relevant factor in the renewal of Atlantic contact with
Iberia. Perhaps we are asking the question the wrong way round - seeing western Iberia in
terms of a periphery -a provider of raw materials rather than an active participator. Most
current explanations also envisage the Atlantic Bronze Age networks in one way - in that they
hinged upon primarily economic interests, when in fact they may have been predominantly
social and ideological in nature.
The supposed "resurgence" in hilltop settlements and hillforts only after ca. 1000BC in these
areas has been conveniently coupled with the consequences of Atlantic contact, whereby
223
incipient social "elites" responded to the new opportunities through restructuring their
territories and constructing settlements in strategic positions that were better suited to
controlling mineral mining, metal manufacture and the movement of bronze (Gdlan 1993; Rufz-
Gdlvez 1995b: 147-149). Thus the transformation of the Later Bronze Age landscape has been
directly linked with foreign intervention. This argument would appear systematic and elegant;
a close correlation between the dearth of settlement in the "Middle" Bronze Age and socio-
economic involution contrasting with the large number of permanent settlement complexes in
the "Late" Bronze Age that have been coupled with an accelerated economy, increased
complexity and political changes that were promulgated by the external demand for minerals.
However, Chapters Three and Four have shed some light on the "Middle" Bronze Age of
western Iberia, and demonstrated that there is a large corpus of evidence that supports a
continuity of material culture and settlement patterns between the Earlier and Later Bronze
Age. They have also demonstrated that the emergence of hilltop settlements occurred much
earlier than the conventional benchmark of the first millennium BC. Rather than perceiving the
Peninsula as a passive "pawn" within a core-periphery Atlantic circuit, there is now good
evidence to suggest that it was the Iberian regions themselves which had already reached the
necessary level of restructuring and socio-economic complexity to enable them to initiate and
participate within Atlantic exchange networks.
There are several reasons why Iberia may not have participated in the Atlantic Bronze Age
exchange networks prior to ca. 125013C. It was only in the Later Bronze Age that technological
developments in new ship types allowed an increased manoeuvrability in potentially dangerous
waters (Muckleroy 1981; McGrail 1987; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991: 373-374). In comparison
to the Earlier Bronze Age Atlantic contacts and exchange, the extent and intensity of the Later
Bronze Age Atlantic networks with Iberia would appear to be far greater, and on a completely
different scale (e. g. see Briard 1998: 114-121). The earlier contacts are predominantly
restricted to north-western Iberia, and would appear to be occasional and sporadic, limited to
flat axes and Palmela points (Briard 1965; Senna-Martfnez 1994b). It has also been suggested
that they were more indirect, being filtered north and south through Armorica (Blas Cortina
1983; Briard 1998: 115). Thus the advances in seamanship that occurred in the Later Bronze
Age may also have opened up new opportunities for Iberia and other parts of western Europe to
expand the Atlantic routes further. It may also be no coincidence that Iberia became
reintegrated into the Atlantic system around the time of the destruction of the Mycenean
civilisation ca. 120013C. The disintegration of the Mycenean trading networks had a knock-on
effect upon central European bronze commerce (e. g. Popham 1994; Harding 1994; see Chapter
Seven). Thus, perhaps at least one reason why Iberia became part of the Atlantic networks in
224
the Later Bronze Age was because, to put it simply "the time was right". A combination of
internal social and economic development, maritime technological advances and new
commercial opportunities may have prompted Iberia herself to move back on to the
international stage.
5.5 Hoarding and Classification
Since the majority of evidence for the Atlantic Bronze Age comes from hoards, it is first
necessary to understand the complex reasons behind metal deposition (e. g. Levy 1982; Bradley
1988a; 1990). In western Iberia a proper theoretical and methodological investigation of hoarding behaviour has only been embarked upon relatively recently (e. g. Hernando Grande
1990; 1992; Rufz-Gilvez and Gdlan 1991; Gdlan 1993; Meijide 1994; Rufz-Gdlvez 1995c;
1997). Until these studies were published, it was generally assumed that the deposition process
itself could be taken as a common factor that linked all of the bronze hoards and the objects
they contained. This assumption simplifies the nature of metal consumption, and glosses over
the complex social and cultural behaviour underlying such activities. Since bronze objects
would normally have been melted down and recycled, the fact that large quantities have
survived in the archaeological record should not be taken for granted.
Metalwork hoards have been subject to numerous types of categorisation in the past, including
classification in accordance with the dominant type of material represented - e. g. tools,
ornaments or weapons - or the context in which they were placed (wet or dry). They have also
been divided into two distinct categories - the mundane (utilitarian or economic) and the ritual
(votive or symbolic). Utilitarian deposits are harder than votive ones to characterise. They
have often been labelled as "merchant's hoards" when they are represented by large numbers of
one type of object, or as "founder's hoards" when they tend to be more heterogeneous in
composition and contain worn-out or broken objects that presumably were destined for
recycling. Votive hoards, on the other hand, have been distinguished on the basis of pristine
metal objects often associated with evidence of ritual activities, such as food offerings or the
deliberate destruction (warping, breaking) of the bronze pieces. The location of these deposits
in places that made their recovery difficult, dangerous or impossible, might also allude to their
votive nature (Levy 1982; Bradley 1985b: 29).
There are many suggestions for why metal objects were deposited. Parker Pearson (1984: 69-
71) proposed that hoards formed part of a bronze deposit system whereby unused wealth was
stored and invested for later use in structuring social relations (such as gift-giving and debt
forging). Some authors have argued that metal was deliberately removed from circulation and
destroyed in order to generate scarcity or to combat inflation (O'Shea 1981: 177-179; Bradley
225
1989: 12; Ruiz-Gdlvez 1991), or to legitimise the hierarchical order and power of the elite
(Jensen 1982). Bradley (1990) has interpreted votive deposits from rivers or bogs, as one
method to create prestige through offering "gifts to the gods".
Most Later Bronze Age metalwork from western Iberia comes from contexts that imply that
they were part of a formal deposition process (pace TorbrUge (1971) who argued that all the
Bronze Age metalwork found in watery deposits were the result of casual losses or shipwrecks).
Many archaeologists have advocated that ritual activity intensifies during times of social stress
and change (e. g. Cherry 1978: 429; Hodder 1979; Knapp et aL 1988; Knapp 1990). By
drawing parallels with the English Civil War, Burgess and Coombs (1979b) have also argued
that hoarding or burial of precious objects would mainly occur during times of insecurity and
unrest. Several archaeologists have correlated the increase in metal deposition with the
emergence of hillforts and hilltop settlements in the Later Bronze Age (after 100OBC) in both
southern Britain and in western Iberia (Bradley 1985b: 23-24; 1990; 1997a: 30; Rufz-Gdlvez
1991: 278-291). This might explain why some of the Later Bronze Age deposits are markedly
martial in character. Some authors (e. g. Femdndez Castro 1995: 145; Vilaga 1998) have even
linked the increased production and exchange of metal weapons in Later Bronze Age Iberia
directly with a marked expansion in hostility and warfare.
Superficially, the idea of increasing hostility, aggression and insecurity in the Atlantic Bronze
Age does appear to be supported by the evidence of the increase in weaponry and hillforts. If
we look at the Iberian evidence from a different perspective, however, it is possible to draw
other inferences. Although it very difficult to detect evidence of warfare from the
archaeological record (Vencl 1984; Keeley 1996; Carman 1997; Monks 1997), there is no
obvious evidence of increased aggression during this period. Firstly, the majority of weapons
come from fluvial deposits and rarely from settlements; contexts that are less easily reconciled
with the notions of actual warfare. Secondly, many of the swords recovered from watery deposits in western Iberia are in almost perfect condition and show no evidence of use (Coffyn
1985; Ferndndez Manzano 1984; 1986; Meijide 1994; Rufz-Gdlvez 1995b). Thirdly, many of
the Later Bronze Age settlements originally labelled as "hillforts" do not appear to have been
fortified until later in their occupation sequence (e. g. Alto do Castelinho, da Serra, Montemor-o-
Novo - Gibson et al. 1998). A number of hilltop sites with ramparts in central and southern Portugal, including Alto do Castelo, Santar6m (Marques 1972; Kalb and H6ck 1983), Monte de
Sdo Martinho, Castelo Branco (Vilaqa 1995) and Castelo de Sdo Bras, Beja (Parreira and Soares 1980) have been labelled as "hillforts". None of these sites were single-period , and
since no excavations have been carried out through the defensive structures of these sites to
determine the relationship between them and the occupation within the settlement, we should
226
refrain from calling them fortified Later Bronze Age settlements until excavations can prove
otherwise. Fourthly, as stated before, the evidence from Chapter Four suggests that a number
of hilltop settlements were occupied long before the turn of the first millennium BC. Thus the
correlation between increased weaponry and defensive sites is no longer so neat.
In this context, the emergence of hilltop settlements in the Late Bronze Age may be better
linked to the importance of strategic positions in the landscape, associated with visibility and dominance over particular territories and control of routes rather than for offensive or defensive
purposes. Likewise, weapons and weapon deposits may not have indicated an increase in
hostility or have been related to periods of crisis, although they may have functioned
symbolically in contexts of surrogate warfare (Bradley 1990: 139-140; see Chapter Six). It is
therefore necessary to examine other possible explanations for the practice of metal deposition
in western Iberia.
5.6 Objects, contexts and meaning Many of the Iberian deposits have been discussed in the past without due consideration to their
nature or context, and several publications (e. g. Martfnez Santa Olalla 1938-41; Savory 1949;
Almagro Basch 1940; 1958; Almagro Gorbea 1977) have made only passing reference to
context, number of objects and condition of metal items. Frequently, deposits with broken
objects have been interpreted as "scrap", and hence secular in nature. One such example is the
River Hio deposit, in Pontevedra, interpreted as scrap on the basis of the large number of broken metal objects and the heterogeneous nature of the find, including swords, spearheads
and axes (Almagro Basch 1952a; Rufz-Gdlvez 1979; 1982). A re-analysis of a number of the Hfo pieces (Meijide 1994: 213) demonstrated that many of the weapons were deliberately
broken, and showed no actual use-wear. Other hoards with objects that were broken include
San Esteban de Rfo Sil in Orense (Almagro Basch 1952a; Coffyn 1985), Huerta de Arriba in
Burgos (Rufz-Gdlvez 1984; Femdndez Manzano 1986), and Montijo, in Badajoz (Almagro
Gorbea 1977: 65-66). All of these deposits were from rivers, but if the objects they contained
were destined for recycling, throwing them into an irrecoverable situation may not have been
the best way of achieving such an objective. The re-analysis of the swords from the Rfa de
Huelva deposit (Rufz-Gdlvez 1995a; 1995b: 131) has revealed that several were undoubtedly deliberately bent, and draws parallels with similar weapon deposits of Monte Sa Idda
(Taramelli 1921), Alcald del Rfo and Flag Fen (Pryor 1992) (Figure 5.3.2.1,8 and 10). If this is
indeed the case, then the sword blades may have been intentionally warped in a act that
physically and symbolically destroyed their power or through some kind of ritual sacrifice (e. g.
see Rowlands 1986: 746). It would appear therefore that our distinctions between scrap,
227
utilitarian and votive deposits are misleading and blurred, and mask the complex nature of
metal consumption.
It has recently become fashionable to question whether we can universally ascribe similar
meanings to similar objects, and how the context in which an object was found may affect the
meaning. It can be difficult to distinguish between the mechanical function of an object and its
societal role (Graves-Brown 1995: 90). A sword was a weapon but may never have been
intended for actual fighting. In a fluvial context it may be interpreted as a ritual offering, and in
a burial it may have been employed as a sign of prestige or rank or to re-affirm a "warrior elite" ideology. Some archaeologists have argued that objects exchanged over long distances may
lose their original meanings and either be untranslatable in another cultural setting (Sherratt
1993b) or else be incorporated within new social and ideological constructs (Kristiansen 1998).
Perhaps it is not necessary for an object to be understood for it to become a significant element
in exchange. Mary Helms (1988) has shown that social value and prestige may come from
access to the exotic and unknown and the ability of the local community to give new meanings
to unfamiliar things. One possible example of this relates to the distribution of Iberian
articulated spits in the Mediterranean (Lo Schiavo 1991; G6mez de Soto 1991; 1993; Giardino
1995). In Iberia, these spits tend to be in pristine condition and come from deposits within
hilltop settlements as at Alvaidzere (Coffyn 1985), Senhora da Guia, Bai6es (Kalb 1980), and
Cachouga, Idanha-a-Nova (Vilaga 1990). In the Mediterranean they have come from non-
settlement contexts where they are generally found in a broken state. Examples include the
Monte Sa Idda spit, in Sardinia, found as part of a hoard in a stone built chamber in the
mountains (Taramelli 1921; Lo Schiavo 1991), and the spit from tomb 523 of Amathus, in
Cyprus, deposited as a grave good (Karageorghis and Lo Schiavo 1989). Although not
necessarily used in distinct contexts, these spits were finally consumed in different ways,
implying separate ideologies concerning their ritual meanings.
5.7 Metallurgical analysis of Iberian bronze objects
Few metallurgical analyses of bronze objects in Iberia have been published so far. However,
the data that they provide has begun to scratch the surface of the complexity of the networks of
exchange of the Iberian Atlantic Bronze Age. Tin bronzes are not believed to have become
common in the Iberian Peninsula until after ca. 140OBC (Montero 1994; Fernindez Posse and
Montero 1998: 193). Certainly analyses of metal objects dated to the Earlier Bronze Age
suggest that tin is rare and of little economic or technological relevance (Harrison and
Craddock 1981: 163-164; Rufz-Gilvez 1987: 253-254). A supposed shared technological
characteristic of the Later Bronze Age Atlantic workshops (after ca. 120OBC) is the inclusion
of lead within the bronze alloys (Coffyn 1985; Rufz-Gdlvez 1987: 253). In general the
228
Mediterranean Later Bronze Age alloys are considered to be binary while the Atlantic ones are
tertiary. For example tertiary alloys predominate in the Vdnat hoard (Mohen 1977: 122).
However, some of the recent metallurgical studies have provided evidence of technological
differentiation within the Atlantic workshops of the Iberian Peninsula itself. The results so far
available demonstrate that in the main bronze objects from Galicia, northern Portugal and the
Northern and Southern Meseta are tertiary, while those from Andalucfa and the south-west are
binary. For example, the bronze swords from the hoard of Illa de Touzas in Pontevedra,
contained 4% lead while the dagger deposit of Oceanilla in Soria contained 6.5% lead
(Femdndez Posse and Montero 1998: 198). Several other axes from Galicia were composed of
tertiary alloys (Rovira and Montero 1995: 60). Of the 363 objects analysed from the Rfa de
Huelva deposit, 56% contained between 10 and 15% tin, while a further 34.4% possessed less
than 10% tin (Rufz-Gdlvez 1987: 257; Rufz-Gdlvez 1995c). Lead did not form a significant
component of any of these alloys, with 64.74% containing a negligible quantity of between 0.3
and 1.3%, and the other 35.26% comprising only ca. 1.3-1.5% lead.
To summarise the other available findings, it would appear that the metal workshops from the
northern half of the Peninsula were more strongly affiliated with the types of alloys coming
from the Later Bronze Age Atlantic workshops, while those in southern Iberia were more
similar in composition with those from the Mediterranean (Rovira 1995: 154). There are,
however, some interesting exceptions to this general principle. The analysis of the eleven tools
and six bronze bracelets from the deposit of Coles de Samuel, in Coimbra, northern Portucral
(dated to ca. 900-85OBC) clearly showed that they were all of a binary composition. The pieces
themselves showed morphological similarities with the deposit of Monte Sa Idda in Sardinia
and thus appear to have a stronger affiliation with Mediterranean workshops than Atlantic ones
(Perea 1995: 163; Rovira 1995: 159-160). Other exceptions include the axes from the deposit
of AlcAntara, CAceres with 7% lead and hence a tertiary alloy in what has been considered a
binary zone (Rufz-Gdlvez 1995b: 63).
The recent publications of bronze objects from the Meseta have highlighted even more complex
patterns (Delibes et aL 1994; Femdndez Posse and Montero 1998). A large number of axes
from Valladolid, Salamanca and Palencfa were analysed. Interestingly, looped flat axes
associated with the full Cogotas I tradition contained lead but not always in large quantities.
The heeled axes of Atlantic typology from the three regions studied were binary alloys. The
percentage of lead in the looped axes varied from region to region - in Valladolid it averaged at
18%, in Salamanca 12% and in Palencfa 8.5%. Femdndez Posse and Montero (1998: 199)
concluded that the introduction of lead alloys was a slow and retarded process in the Meseta in
229
comparison to coastal zones. More metallurgical analyses will undoubtedly shed increasing
light upon the complex nature of regional variation, technological differentiation and Atlantic
and Mediterranean interaction of the Later Bronze Age Iberian metalworking traditions. The
use of lead bronze was unlikely to have been purely for economic purposes (i. e. saving on
copper and tin) but may have transcended cultural factors.
Binary and tertiary alloys are thus known to have been produced at the same time and need not
reflect regional affiliation or chronological distinctions. The traditional distinction between
Atlantic and Mediterranean Bronze Age "technological" or even "cultural" on the basis of lead
bronze alloys may be a gross over simplification, and local conditions may have been partly
responsible for the inclusion of lead in the alloys. Giardino (1995: 341) has argued that, in
silver-working areas, lead is produced as a bi-product of the extraction processes (from the
galena) and may have been reused in the bronze alloys.
Coffyn (1998: 175) has recently published the results from the metallurgical analysis of four
deposits in central Portugal: Rfo Moinhos, Quinta de Ervedel, in Alpedrinha, Porto do
Concelho and Castelo do Caratdo, both in Maqdo. Only two of seventeen objects analysed
contained lead and these were an axe and a bracelet from Caratio. However the other objects from the deposit in Castelo do Caratao, (two sickles, three axes and a Carp's Tongue sword)
contained only negligible quantities of lead (between 0.02 and 0.07%). This demonstrates that
even objects that are typologically similar and come from the same deposits may have quite
different compositions. This either means that metal workshops in the same region were
employing different technological processes in their manufacture of bronze objects, or else it
highlights the complex nature of the exchange mechanisms involved in the Atlantic Bronze Age
networks within Iberia itself - linking up with both Mediterranean and Atlantic currents
simultaneously (see Chapter Seven).
5.8 Regional analysis of metal deposition
Recent studies in western Iberia clearly demonstrate that the term "Atlantic Bronze Age" has
been imposed on a variety of different cultural contexts (e. g. Senna-Martfnez 1989; 1993a;
1993b; 1995b; 1998; Vilaqa 1995; Bettencourt 1998; Kalb 1998; Fernsndez Posse and Montero
1998). In fact the area embraced by the Atlantic Bronze Age is by no means uniform,
homogenous, or necessarily united. It is only when analysis is conducted from a more "global"
perspective that such a pattern may been inferred, but differences become more and more
marked as we focus upon regional and then local scales.
230
5.8.1 Changing contexts of metalwork from the "Middle" to "Late" Bronze Age
This increase in quantity of metalwork in the Peninsula after ca. 120OBC results from two main factors. Firstly, fewer bronze objects were being manufactured prior to this time (Savory 1968;
S. Jorge 1990; Senna-Martfnez 1994a; 1994b; Briard 1998) and secondly, metalwork
consumption and deposition practices would appear to have changed significantly during this
time, thus biasing the archaeological record. There is insufficient metalwork evidence for
earlier periods to allow us to understand the nature of these changes and the reasons behind
them. The material available, however, suggests that most of the copper and bronze artefacts dating between ca. 1800 and 120OBC in western Iberia come from caves, occasionally graves and isolated dry deposits in the ground (Schubart 1971; 1975; Senna-Martfnez 1994a; 1994b;
Meijide 1994). In other parts of Atlantic Europe, archaeologists have noted that bronze
metalwork (in particular weapons) is predominantly placed in burial contexts for most of the
second millennium BC, and that a transition to primarily fluvial contexts occurs just before the
turn of the first millennium BC. Bradley (1985b: 24) has demonstrated this changing depositional behaviour in southern England, and Briard (1976) and Wegner (1976) have argued
a sin-Lilar changeover in western and eastern France respectively. The changing relationships between metalwork deposition in burials and hoards would appear to be significant in these
regions, whereby the increase in riverine metal finds is inversely related to the decrease in
metal as grave goods.
No such pattern may be inferred for western Iberia, since the presence of metal objects in burial
contexts between ca. 1800 and 120OBC is relatively rare (see Chapter Two and Hernando and Gdlan 1989: 191-192). In fact, under one percent of the cist burials from central and southern Portugal (data from Schubart 1971; 1973; 1974; 1975; Varela G6mez 1986; Arnaud 1993)
contained bronze grave goods of any sort, and these were restricted to winged axes and tongued
daggers (e. g. Schubart 1974: Figure 4). Furthermore, only six cist Bronze Age burials from the
Huelva and Seville regions (about 1.5% - data from Amo, 1974,1975b; 1993; Rufz Mata 1994)
have produced metal grave goods and these consisted of bronze knives and daggers and silver
ornaments.
Thus the proposal that the changing ideology associated with metalwork in the Later Bronze
Age rested upon the changing importance of watery contexts over funerary arenas cannot be
supported by the Iberian evidence. It is not feasible to suggest that metal deposits in the Iberian
Later Bronze Age may represent a cheaper alternative to the provision of elaborate grave goods in burials as they have been interpreted in other parts of Atlantic Europe (e. g. Kristiansen 1989;
1993). Instead it would appear that the Earlier Bronze Age metalwork was consumed in a different way in the Peninsula in comparison to other parts of Atlantic Europe. At the moment,
231
there is not enough detailed evidence to interpret the complexity of the consumption, but a
provisional explanation is that it was more commonly recycled, and hence left no obvious trace
in the archaeological record. Again this view may be biased by the limited understanding and
impoverished archaeological recovery of evidence pertaining to these centuries in western parts
of Iberia.
With this in mind, however, another provisional observation might be drawn. It would appear
that the manufacture and consumption of metalwork in the Peninsula contrasted markedly with
other parts of Atlantic Europe until around 120013C. After this time, metalwork deposition
practices in many areas of the Peninsula (particularly Galicia, Andalucfa and the south-west)
began to echo those of other Atlantic regions. The significance of this similarity may not be
coincidental and a detailed contextual investigation below will attempt to unlock the
complexity of the changing relationships between metalwork and socio-economic and
ideological factors.
5.8.2 Later Bronze Age contextual analysis of deposits
Western Iberia has relatively few metal hoards in comparison with other Atlantic regions such
as Brittany (Briard 1965), Northern France (Blanchet 1984) and south-east England (Coombs
1988; 1998; Bradley 1990), although even fewer are known from Gascony and the western Pyrenees (Burgess pers. comm. ). Another difference with other parts of the Atlantic fagade is
that the majority (90%) of the metal hoards in western Iberia are small, rarely exceeding ten
objects. Only three regions - Andalucfa, Galicfa and northern Portugal - produced deposits
containing over 100 pieces of bronze, and only the Rfa de Huelva deposit exceeded 400 metal
objects (Figure 5-3).
The contextual analysis of the bronze hoards demonstrates that the specific patterns of metal-
work consumption, particularly sword deposits, may be related to routes and movement of
metal and people. The reassessment of the most celebrated deposit in the Iberian Peninsula,
that of Rfa de Huelva (Rufz-Gdlvez (ed. ) 1995a) provided one of the first detailed publications
that pursued a different interpretative approach to the study of Atlantic Bronze Age metalwork.
Although this deposit at the junction of the Tinto and Odiel rivers was originally interpreted as
the cargo of a sunken ship (Dfaz 1923: 40; Almagro Basch 1940: 55; Terrero 1944: 9-10), Rurz-
Gdlvez's contextual and metallurgical study suggested several other possibilities. First of all,
the majority of objects within the deposit could be described as prestige items, lacking in tools,
and failing into the categories of offensive and defensive weapons, personal adornments and
feasting equipment. In fact only two pieces -a chisel and a double pointed punch - had a
distinctly practical character. Thus most of the items might be linked with conferring social
232
status. The Huelva deposit does differ markedly in composition from the few other large
contemporary hoards such as Bai6es and Hfo, which were more mixed in character. Secondly,
the compositional analysis of over 300 of the objects (Rufz-Gdlvez 1995a: 128-137) proved that
most had been cast in a single region in the Iberian Peninsula, although not necessarily in a
single workshop. The composition of the Huelva deposit is quite different to known Later
Bronze Age shipwrecks. The cargoes of Ulu Burun (Bass 1991), Cape Gelidonya (Bass 1967;
1986), Kfar Shamir (Galili et A 1986) and Rochelongue (Bouscaras 1971) were more varied
and contained both raw materials (e. g. copper ingots) and prestige objects. The goods they
carried also had many different origins. For example, with respect to just the swords from
Gelidonya, eight different sources were represented (Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Germany,
Sardinia, Greece, Syria, Hungary) (Burgess 1991: 26-27; Giardino 1995). Another point that
argues against the Rfa de Huelva deposit being a shipwrecked cargo is the fact that many of the
spearheads were found with their wooden shafts still intact (Hooper and O'Connor 1976). It
would seem strange that a ship would carry this unnecessary bulk. Furthermore, as mentioned
earlier, several of the swords recovered from this deposit had warped blades. It would be
unlikely that a cargo would carry deformed objects unless they were being transported as scrap.
Thus Rufz-Gdlvez (1995c) argued that the Rfa de Huelva deposit was symbolically charged in
several ways, not least because of its composition, but also as a result of its "ideologically"
meaningful situation at the junction of the Tinto and Odiel rivers -a point of entry and exit to
the interior of Iberia (Figure 5.4). Its position marks the half-way point between the
Mediterranean sea and Atlantic ocean; a symbolically and economically privileged location that
unites the east and west and allows access to the mineral and agricultural richness of the south-
west and Spanish Extremadura. With respect to Huelva, it would appear that power and
prestige may now be interpreted as stemming from access to and control over strategic points
within the Iberian landscape. The notion of marking out nodal points within the landscape
using weapons, tools and objects of adornment might apply more widely and reflect new
aspects of social control and display, and a reorganisation of the Iberian territories. The
deposition of weapons in water has been argued to represent an occasion (or with respect to
Huelva, perhaps a succession of occasions) when elites legitimised and reclaimed political
rights in front of the wider community (Bradley 1982; 1990; Rowlands 1993). Structural-
Marxist archaeologists (e. g. Miller and Tilley 1984: 5-8) consider that not only the control but
the distribution of material culture is inseparable from social, political and ideological arenas,
and that power was bound up in socio-ideological practices (Knapp 1988: 133).
A regional analysis of other Later Bronze Age metal deposits in Iberia was undertaken to
demonstrate the degree of similarity and difference visible in the deposition behaviour of nine
233
Peninsular regions that have produced "Atlantic affiliated" metalwork (see Figure 5.5). Six of
these regions from north to south - Asturias, Galicia, northern and central Portugal, Spanish
Extremadura and Andalucfa - demonstrated more direct Atlantic influence while the northern
and southern Meseta, the south-west and north-east Spain exhibited less intensive links. The
analysis was based upon deposits that were adequately published and which included details
concerning the number and types of objects represented, the condition and the context.
Many of the deposits were relatively homogenous, containing only one or two different metal
types, and the association of different categories of objects (such as tools, weapons and
ornaments) was quite rare (see Table 5.2). This observation is hardly surprising since a large
number of the deposits (4 1% of those studied) were single finds (Figure 5.6).
The total number of metal objects from all the deposits from the nine regions were calculated
according to type, and the results demonstrate several interesting patterns (Table 5.1 and Table
5.6). With one exception, tools and weapons were the most common metal types. In Spanish
Extremadura, however, ornaments predominated in the hoards, outnumbering the total of both
the weapons and tools. In four regions - Asturias, north-east Spain, Northern Meseta and
Andalucia - weapons prevailed over tools, while in northern and central Portugal, Galicia and
Southern Meseta and the south-west the reverse was true. In most of these regions the
differential representation between weapons and tools was negligible. However, in Andalucfa,
weapons accounted for 45% of all metal objects deposited, while in both Galicia and northern
Portugal, tools constituted 70% of all the metal finds. Broken objects (scrap) that could not be
identified as to metal type accounted for more than 20% of metal pieces in only two regions - Asturias and Northern Meseta. Ornaments were only noted in any number in two regions - Andalucfa and Spanish Extremadura. Thus even a simple analysis of metal types and their
counts demonstrates different patterns of object deposition in the Iberian Peninsula. The
challenge is attempting to understand what these differences mean. The degree of wealth in
different areas is often taken to be a direct reflection of differences in social organisation and in
the display of social hierarchy. Furthermore, consistent differences in the metal hoards
between different regions (e. g. the weapon dominated deposits of Andalucfa as opposed to the
tool dominated ones of Galicia and northern Portugal) have been assumed to reflect social
differences between the areas in question.
234
Table 5.1: Totals of metal types andfrequency by region. Key: And= Andalucia; Ast= Asturias, CP=
Central Portugal, Ert= Extremadura; NM= North Meseta; NP= North Portugal; NES= North-east Spain;
SM+SW= South Meseta and the south-west.
Region and Number of each metal type
Metal type And Ast CP Ext Ga NM NP NES SM+ Total Sw
Weapon 250- 20- 108- 22- 60- 67- 62- 24- 21- 634
45% 38% 25% 1
31% 22% 30% 15% 48% 26%
Tool 105- 17- 164- 10- 186- 62- 287- 20- 26- 877
19% 32% 38% 14% 70% 28% 69% 409o' 32%
Ornament 166- 3-6% 55- 37- 6-2% 33- 33-8% 4-8% 15- 352
31% 13% 52% 15% 18%
Feasting 14- 0 5-1% 2-3% 3-1% 8-4% 12-3% 2-4% 0 46
2.5%
Scrap 5-1% 12- 75- 0 9-3% 52- 19,5% 0 15- 187 23% 17% 23% 18%
Ingot 10-2% 0 23-5% 0 0 0 2- 0 4-5% 39
0 . 5%
Total 550 52 430 71 264 21-2 --4-5 50 81 2135
The metal deposits themselves were initially divided into four main categories - tools, weapons,
ornaments and feasting elements, and then sub-divided further into category combinations. Tool deposits (mainly containing axes) predominated, representing 33% of all the boards
analysed, while 26% were sword deposits. Other weapon type deposits (daggers, spearheads,
arrowheads) were less common, and were primarily focused in the Northern Meseta. Ornament
deposits, containing gold torques, gold and bronze bracelets, pendants and necklaces (13% of
all deposits analysed) were found in all of the regions, but showed a pattern of concentration in
central Portugal (33%) and Andalucfa (21%) (Figures 5.7 and 5.8). Deposits that contained
combinations of tools, weapons, ornaments and/ or feasting objects were rare and restricted
mainly to northern and central Portugal and Andalucfa. The association of weapons and
ornaments was common only in Andalucfa and central Portugal - interestingly in areas which
do not have a concentration of warrior stelae (Table 5.2) (see Chapter Six).
235
Table 5.2: Deposit types andfrequency by region. Key: And= Andalucia; Ast= Asturias; CP= Central
Portugal, Ext= Extremadura; NM= North Meseta; NP= North Portugal,, NES= North-east Spain; SM+SW= South
Meseta and the south-west.
Region and number of deposits
Deposit type And Ast CP Ext Ga NM NP NES SM+
SW
Total
Tool 6 5 51 7 3 17 38 5 4 136
Sword 38 1 11 2 12 18 11 5 9 107
Weapon (other) 4 6 4 2 16
17 3 4 2 48
Gold ornament 7 1 13 6 2 5 4 0 3 41
Tool + weapon 2 0 4 1 2 2 3 1 0 is I
Tool, weapon + ornament 2 0 5 0 1 2 0 2 0 12
Bronze ornament 4 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 11
Weapon + ornament 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 11
Feasting 0 0 1 1 0 3 01 1 0 6
Tool, weapon, ornament
+ feasting
2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 6
Weapon + feasting 0 0 2 0 0 21 0 0 0 4
Tool + ornament 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
Ornament + feasting 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 69T: 98 20 28 68 66 18 20
Nearly 50% of axe deposits came from Galicia and northern Portugal (189 and 213 out of a
total number of 653). Only central Portugal produced any other significant quantity (103). The
context of these axes was also significant. In Asturias and central Portugal, dry land axe deposits predominated, either located on natural crossing points through hills, or in the case of
central Portugal, near stelae or statue menhirs (within one kilometre of distance - e. g. Sao
Martinho I-VII) or in hilltop settlement deposits. In Andalucfa, Northern Meseta and
particularly in northern Portugal, axe deposits came from fluvial contexts. In Galicia, a notable
concentration of axes was detected in the estuary of the rivers Miflo and Vigo, and along the
coastline. Thus the axes demonstrate different regional practices of deposition and
consumption (see Figures 5.9 and 5.10).
Of a total of 288 swords that formed part of this contextual study, 33% (94) came from
Andalucfa. The bulk of these were retrieved from wet locations (64%), that included river junctions and fords (54%) or the mouths of estuaries (10%). In comparison, only 22% came
from settlements, while 7% were found along natural crossing points through the mountains.
The majority of swords from Spanish Extremadura and Galicia (90% and 78% respectively)
also came from riverine locations. In contrast, in central Portugal (19% of all swords), 47%
236
came from actual hoard deposits within hilltop settlements, while only 9% came from fluvial
locations. A further 29% were located along dry deposits on hillsides and natural crossing
points through mountains. A similar pattern emerged in northern Portugal where deposits
within settlements formed 60% of all sword contexts, and a further 24% could be attributed to
routes and crossing points in the hillsides. Only 16% of the swords from north Portugal were
retrieved from water locations (see Figures 5.11 and 5.12).
5.8.3 Condition of the metal objects
An interesting variable that has been generally overlooked in Iberian studies of the Atlantic
Bronze Age metalwork was the condition of the bronze and gold pieces that were found in the
various deposits. Unfortunately, publications do not always refer to the condition (pristine,
whole, broken or slightly fragmentary, worn) of the metal pieces, and the analysis of this factor
was restricted to a partial data set. For ease of data comparison, the metalwork condition was divided into two categories; whole and broken. Whole refers to objects that were either pristine
or complete, while broken pertains to objects that were worn or fragmentary. The study
showed that whole objects did outnumber broken ones overall (63% as opposed to 27%).
However, within the individual regions, broken objects predominated over whole ones in
Southern Meseta and the south-west (65%) and in central Portugal constituted nearly half of the
metal pieces (46%). In all of the other regions studied, broken objects formed the minority,
with Spanish Extremadura exhibiting the smallest percentage of broken objects in comparison
to whole ones (only 12%).
Another poorly studied aspect is the relationship between the context and the condition of the
metal pieces (Table 5.3). In Andalucfa, broken pieces were rare (12%) but 6.2% of these came from deposits in estuaries and river mouths and a further 4% came from general fluvial
contexts. In central Portugal, broken objects came predominantly from crossing points along hills and mountains (17%), and a further 27% occurred in settlement contexts or actual hoards
within settlements (14% and 13% respectively). In Galicia the majority of whole objects came from estuary and coastal deposits (59% of all objects), while broken objects were only noted in
any number at fords (22%). In Northern Meseta, broken objects predominantly came from
mountain crossing points (21% of all objects), while whole pieces were primarily associated
with fluvial contexts (28%). In Northern Portugal, only complete objects were recovered from
fluvial contexts (50%). while broken objects mainly came from hoards within settlements (14%). In Southern Meseta and the south-west, broken objects were consistently found in
general dry land deposits (55%). Thus, the overall Peninsular distribution of broken and whole
objects may imply that certain contexts were to some extent restricted for either whole or
complete objects. The majority of objects from hillside crossing points were complete (69%)
237
as were those in watery contexts (84%). On the other hand, slightly over half of all the objects from hoards within settlements were broken (58%), as were those from general dry land
deposits (5 1 %).
Table 5.3: Condition of metal objects by context. Key: Bkn= Broken and Wh= Whole. And= Andalucia; Ast= Asturias, CP= Central Portugal, Ext= Extremadura; NM= North Meseta; NP= North Portueal: NES= North-east Spain: SM+SW= South Meseta and the south-west.
CONT EXT Region and object condition
Hill/ mtn crossing point
Fluvial Settle context
Hoard In settle
At coast/ estuary
Dry land general
Bkn Wh Bkn Wh Bkn Wh Bkn Wh Bkn Wh Bkn Wh And 1 104 1 12 72 1 5 135 8 19 1 41 154 1 0 1 Ast 1 12 23 3 10 1 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 01 CP 73 76 1 36 59 4 52 15 5 54 3 30 Ext 7 67 4 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ga 4 7 40 32 0 0 0 0 22 159 0 0 NES 5 24 0 17 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNI 48 30 1 20 63 8 26 0 01 11 31 1 7 NP 18 39 11 189 1 0 01 56 54 0 12 15 19 Sm+SW 14 11 91 0 01 2 0 0 0 46 5
This analysis was taken a stage further to determine whether different types of objects were
treated in different ways in different regions, depending upon their condition. Axes, swords
and other weapons (spearheads, daggers and arrowheads) were chosen for analysis, since they
formed the largest group of types deposited. Broken axes were only noted in any number from
three regions - central Portugal (30% of the total), Galicia (12%), and Southern Meseta and the
south-west (92%). In these regions they were restricted to three contexts; watery
(predominantly in Galicia), hoards within settlements (only central Portugal) and general dry
deposits (primarily south Meseta and the south-west).
Forty per cent of all the swords for which data was available were found in a fragmentary or deliberately broken state. These were concentrated in four regions - Andalucfa (25%, and 84%
of these were from river crossing points or estuaries); central Portugal (27%, with 67% of these
from boards within settlements and a further 23% from hill crossing points); Galicia (20%, all from river crossing points) and north Portugal (12%, with 89% from hoards within settlements).
Other weapons (daggers, spearheads, and arrowheads) were rarely found in a fragmentary state,
and only noted in three regions. In Andalucfa and Galicia they came predominantly from river
estuaries and in north Portugal they were noted only in hoards within settlements.
5.8.4 Interpretations and Conclusions of the regional analysis The regional analysis demonstrates that markedly different patterns of metalwork consumption
are visible in the various regions of the Iberian Peninsula, with respect to metal types, condition
and context (see Appendix 5.1). The fact that weapons particularly dominated the deposit
238
repertoire of Andalucfa, while tools were dominant in Galician and north Portuguese hoards
may imply that different objects held different levels of importance or meaning in the various
regions. The symbolic importance of swords will be discussed in more detail later in this
chapter, but it would appear that weapons were instilled with ideological significance
particularly in Andalucfa, Asturias and the Northern Meseta. Many weapon deposits have
come from navigable rivers, particularly in the southern half of the Peninsula. These include
the Gdnil, Manzanares, Mondego, and Guadalquivir and their tributaries (see Table 5.4).
However, swords from fluvial deposits only occur in certain rivers - mainly the river Guadalquivir but also in the G6nil (a tributary of the Guadiana) and the Mifio, and concentrate
around the river estauries (Figure 5.9). Four weapon deposits (two swords and two spearheads)
were retrieved from the river Gdnil (L6pez Palomo 1978: 233) and three separate deposits of
swords were recovered from the mouth of the Guadalquivir, at Matalasceflas, Bellavista and Cortijo de la Cartuja (Rufz-Gdlvez 1984: 127-129, Figure 10.3; 1988, Figure 2.2).
Concentrations of swords are also known at river fords, and these include the deposits of San
Esteban de Rfo Sil, Orense (Almagro Basch 1954; Ndrdiz 1993: 104), Rfo Ubrigo, L6on
(Delibes and Mafizanes 1979), Rfo Henares, SigUenza (Almagro Gorbea 1995) and Rfo
Alhalma in the eastern Meseta (Siret 1913). The large Rfa de Huelva deposit contained over
thirty swords, and was strategically placed in the Huelva estuary; exactly half-way between the
Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranean Sea and at the cross-roads of east-west and north-south interaction.
Sword deposits are rare in other rivers, such as the Tagus, Douro, Cdvado, Vouga and Sado,
although we know that these rivers were navigable in later prehistory (Daveau 1980; Daveau
1985; Ruiz-Gdlvez 1995b). The fluvial tradition of consigning weapons to water is not an all-
encompassing one throughout western Iberia, and there is the possibility that a separate socio-
economic or ideological tradition was in operation in these regions. These rivers, however,
have not been extensively dredged, and the recent discovery of a pistilliforme sword in the Tagus estuary at Cacilhas, near Lisbon (Coelho and Varela Gomes 1991; Rufz-Gdlvez 1995b:
30) may imply that the evidence is there, but that it remains to be recovered.
Recently the symbolic dimensions of axes have been discussed. Patton (1991: xv) has argued
that axes could be symbolically charged with masculine metaphors related to agricultural
production and biological reproduction, on the basis of their phallic shapes. Thus he suggested
that in some areas, axe exchange and axe deposits might have been an element of bridewealth.
Thomas and Tilley (1993: 233-235) have also associated axes with agricultural production and hence social reproduction, but this time more on the basis of links with their functional aspects.
239
The Galician and northern Portuguese axes may have been imbued with this symbolism, but
there is a more feasible explanation for their predominance in these areas.
There are few known examples of ingots in Iberia, and the hoard of Quinta de Ervedal in
Castelo Branco contained the largest number of metal ingots in the whole of the Peninsula, with
a total weight of over l3kgs (Monteagudo 1977; Rufz-Gdlvez 1984: 250; 1986). The objects included five whole plano-convex. ingots, 18 fragmentary ones, four whole and eight fragmentary heeled axes and two fragmentary swords. The only other ingots known from Iberia
came from the deposit of Fonte Velha (Russell C6rtez 1946; G6mez Ramos 1993) and this was
composed of four bun ingots, 15 double ringed heeled axes and a large number of pieces of slag
and fragments of axes. Coffyn (1983) and G6mez Ramos (1993) undertook spectographic
analyses of the ingots from Quinta de Ervedal and Fonte Velha respectively, and the results
confirmed that they were all essentially copper ingots (between 97.6 and 98.4%) with little tin
or lead impurities. Interestingly the weights of two of the ingots from Fonte Velha (213-120g
and 214-1280g) added up to the same weight as a third (212-1400g), providing evidence of a
possible primitive proto-currency system (Figure 5.13). The association of the ingots with large
number of whole and fragmentary axes in the same deposits may be significant. In Sardinia,
numerous deposits with bun ingots and axes have been documented. Lo Schiavo (1981: 306)
has argued that the axes also funtioned as ingots. The small number of actual copper ingots and
the lack of bronze ingots in the Peninsula may demonstrate that it was the axes which fulfilled
the role of ingots (or hachas-monedas - see GonzAlez Prats 1990; 1993). Thus in Galicia and
northern Portugal - the two areas which were in closest contact with other parts of Atlantic
Europe and hence potentially associated with the most intensive Atlantic links - we may be
witnessing the strongest evidence for a balanced pre-monetary system in bronze through the
typological standardisation of axes.
It is only in northern and central Portugal that metal deposits within settlements have been
noted, and it is also in these two regions where dry deposits were strategically positioned along
routes through the landscape. In contrast, in Andalucfa, Galicia, Extremadura and the Northern
Meseta metal objects were frequently placed along important fluvial routes and in river estuaries (Figures 5.9 and 5.12). The context of metal deposition may to some extent reflect the
way in which bronze objects functioned in the Iberian Bronze Age, and suggests that the roles
of weapons and tools varied in the different regions. The difference between the predominantly "dry" contexts of northern and central Portugal versus the "wet" contexts of the other regions
may be interpreted as indicating different ritual or symbolic systems operating in these different
regions (Bradley 1990; Rufz-Gdlvez 1995b). There is also the possibility that they may be
incorporated into part of a single ideological system that was concerned with marking out
240
strategic points in the landscape associated with terrestrial and fluvial movement. This point
will be discussed in more detail below.
An important element of this study concerns the way in which deliberately broken or worn
objects were deposited. Until now, interpretations concerning the rather unusual northern and
central Portuguese practice of hoarding within the settlements has been interpreted from a
strictly economic point of view. Since these deposits tend to contain large numbers of broken
objects, it would seem logical to assume that they were scrap or "founder's hoards" destined for
recycling (Kalb 1979; Coffyn 1985; Rufz-Gdlvez 1994). The fact that they were placed in
situations that made for subsequent easy recovery would support such a theory. If they had a
strictly utilitarian or economic function, however, this implies that metal was thought about and
consumed in quite different ways in these regions when compared to other parts of Iberia. It
might presuppose a division between the Atlantic regions of the Iberian Peninsula that were
primarily economic in their metal deposition behaviour (north and central Portugal, and to some
extent southern Meseta and the south-west), and those that structured their metal consumption
around different social or ideological constructs.
Another interpretation might be followed that these hoards within settlements did not have a
primarily economic function. Firstly, if they were all destined for recycling then it seems
strange that so many have survived in the archaeological record. Over 40 such deposits are
presently known in northern and central Portugal, and this does not appear to be an under-
representation of this deposit type when compared to other kinds of hoards recovered from
these regions. Secondly, many of the objects (particularly the swords, spits and sickles) from
the deposits of Monte do PadrAo (Silva and G6mez 1994: Figure 58), Senhora da Guia, Terroso
(G6mez 1993: 92), Cota da Pen-a (G6mez 1993: 95-96), Alvaidzere (Coffyn 1985) and Santa
Luzia (Silva 1981) would appear to have been deliberately warped, rather than accidentally broken, showing similarities with the deliberately bent objects from the Rfa de Huelva deposit.
Perhaps these settlement hoards also held social and ideological significance, and the evidence
may illustrate that in northern and central Portugal a different arena was chosen for the
destruction of metal objects and the gaining of prestige, power or ritual or territorial control by
certain members of the community.
An attempt to look at the dynamics of the deposition of Atlantic Bronze Age metallurgy
highlights some important factors that have been hitherto unexplored. If the settlement hoards
held ritual or ideological significance, they may well symbolise that much of the consumption
of metal in northern and central Portugal was linked to the importance of fixed and permanent
points in the landscape - complexes of habitation. On the other hand, the deposits in other
241
regions - particularly Andalucfa, Extremadura and Northern Meseta - revolved around strategic
places in the landscape - particularly mountain and fluvial crossing points. In Galicia and
northern Portugal to some extent, deposits were connected with coastal locations and river
mouths - points of exit and entry into the Peninsula. Although an obvious point, these regions
are geographically nearest the rest of Atlantic Europe and may be where the most intensive
Atlantic bronze exchange with external regions took place.
To summarise, the different regional patterns of metal consumption may be read on one level as
evidence of different ways of structuring the landscape and exerting territorial control. In
northern and central Portugal, this was mainly associated with fixed and settled locations; while in the other regions, connections were with points of movement through the landscape
expressing fluidity and the importance of natural routes. This idea will be expanded in Chapter
Six in relation the Bronze Age stelae.
The importance of the settlements and their locations in parts of Iberia in our understanding of
the Atlantic Bronze Age networks may be taken a stage further. Many of the Portuguese rivers,
particularly the Limia, Cdvado Douro, Ponsul, Vouga, Mondego, Tagus, Sado and Guadiana
were navigable in prehistory, and some have remained navigable to the present day (Tagus,
Mondego, Guadiana and Sado). Yet, as already stated, these rivers generally lack bronze
deposits of any sort, particularly weapons. Although this deficiency may have resulted from a different practice of metal consumption in these regions, there is another possible explanation.
If we look at the distribution of Later Bronze Age settlements in these areas, it might be seen as
almost coincidental that they are strategically located at the estuaries and main crossing points
along these rivers. Examples include Santa Olaia, Castelho Velho and Castelo do Crasto de
Sao Romdo (Mondego), Castelejo, Abrantes and Sao Mamede (Ponsul, tributary of Tagus),
Almada, Tapada da Ajuda and Moinhos de Atalaia (Tagus estuary), Alcdcova de Santar6m and Monte de Sao Martinho (Tagus), Alcdcer do Sal and Mangancha (Sado), Cerradinha (Corona
estuary, tributary of the Sado), Outeiro do Circo, Castro de Ratinhos and Azougada (Guadiana).
if weapons were marking strategic crossing points in some regions and indicating particular
control over them, then perhaps along those rivers where hilltop settlements and hillforts were
already in commanding and dominating positions, weapon deposits to reiterate control over
these major river arteries were unnecessary.
The significance of river crossing points in the strategic location of settlements may be further
bome out by Medieval town names which include references to fords as prefixes or suffixes. Although obvious examples from Britain may be cited - including Hereford, Oxford and Bradford - in Iberia there are also many toponyms that refer to fords or vados. These include
242
Vado de las Palomas in Cdceres, Vadofresno in C6rdoba, Vado de los Morales in Toledo, and Vado del Alamo in Malaga. There are even more town names that refer to bridges (puentes or
pont6ns) such as Puente de la Reina in Alcdntara, El Puente in Huelva, Puente de Salia in
Mdlaga, Puente del Arzobfspo in Toledo and Puente del Gdnil. Thus, perhaps the location of
some of the Later Bronze Age settlements in western Iberia took into account the importance of
the most strategic positions along the riverine routes, not only for promoting Atlantic contact but also other networks of exchange.
Other levels of symbolism may be read into the deposits that occurred at wet or dry crossing
points. Van Gennep (1909: 26-28) has suggested that in pre-industrial societies, social and
territorial boundaries were marked by neutral zones, often associated with natural crossing
points in the landscape. Crossing points may have embodied both physical and ideological
points of passage. Since the contexts of these deposits are frequently associated with obscurity,
difficulty and danger they may have marked not only physical transition from one territory to
another, but also ideological transition from profane to sacred worlds, from safety into danger,
from culture to nature or from death to regeneration and rebirth (see Chapter Six).
It is possible that these crossing points also acted as points of confluence between the world of
the dead and that of the living. Although only a tenuous link between the transition from
burials to hoards in the Later Bronze Age can be made for the Iberian evidence, river fords may
have symbolically marked physical and ideological entry and exit. Many myths and legends
relating to the world of the dead play upon the water and river metaphors. Examples include
the Greek myth of Hades carrying the dead across the river Styx, and the Irish myth of beautiful
sorceresses using glass sail boats to transport bodies to the island of the dead (D'Arbois de
Jubainville 1981). In Britain the famous legend of Le Morte dArthur depicts the dead king
being carried by boat to the river Avalon, piloted by his sister Morgan (Tennyson 1842). The
Vikings also practised the tradition of interring their kings and elites of society in boats or
tombs in the shape of ships. We should not forget that that the Atlantic was a dangerous and formidable ocean. Not every sea journey in the Later Bronze Age would have been successful.
Perhaps some of the swords found along crossing points in the rivers, like Bellavista, Rfo
Guadalquivir (Rufz-Gdlvez 1995b: 30) or Henares (Almagro Gorbea 1995) (see also Appendix
6.1) represented cenotaphs for the dead sailors who never returned to Iberia - following the rite
that those who lived by the water also died by the water.
The dangers involved in sailing the Atlantic ocean might also provide another explanation for
bronze deposits in fluvial locations - particularly at river estuaries and near the coast. Childs
(1978: 150-151) has observed that the winds and currents along the coast of western Iberia
243
would have made it difficult and hazardous to traverse during the summer months as well as
winter. Maritime travel across the Atlantic required a detailed knowledge of weather patterns, landfalls, safe harbours and specialist navigation, and thus was likely to have been carried out
by groups of specialist seamen (Muckleroy 1981; McGrail 1983; 1993). In this respect the
Atlantic can be contrasted with the Mediterranean, which is calmer and not so prone to difficult
seas, with the exception of the strong eddies and winds encountered when entering the Straits
of Gibraltar (Gasull 1986; Rufz-Gdlvez 1986). While the Mediterranean could be described as
a "mar entre terras" (Carvalho 1996), the Atlantic is more like a "mar entre montanhas". It
offers far less predictable climatic conditions, beset with violent storms and greater extremes in
weather conditions. Many of the headlands along the Atlantic route, such as Cabo Sao Vicente
in Sagres, Cape Finistierre in north-west Spain, the Bay of Biscay and Land's End in Cornwall,
acted as points of reference, but they also posed difficult points of passage (Bradley 1997a).
Tbus greater risk taking, danger and unpredictability were all linked in with the Atlantic bronze
exchange network, and this may have implicitly encouraged more ritual association with
Atlantic travel, perhaps including bronze offerings in river mouths before the advent of a
sailing expedition. It may also have conferred greater prestige upon any Atlantic bronze objects imported into Iberia, or indeed the sailors involved, since they too may have been affiliated
with peril, bravery and fear of the unknown.
5.9 Elites and the Atlantic Bronze Age
To some extent the increase in metallurgical production in the Atlantic Bronze Age has been
linked with the idea of the emergence of elites, who monopolised the exploitation, production
and distribution of the metal products (e. g. Brun 1991; 1998; Sherratt 1994b). In western Iberia, however, the archaeological record does not provide substantial evidence for this
recognition. With the single exception of the eleventh to tenth century BC tholos tomb of Roga
do Casal do Meio in Sesimbra (Spindler et aL 1973-1974), there are no exceptionally rich Later
Bronze Age burials, or even any obviously differentiated burial evidence. (Schubart 1974; 1975; Amo 1974; Beldn et al. 199 1).
Furthermore, although there is relatively little evidence in western Iberia for prehistoric mining,
the data available from copper and tin mines such as Quarta Feira (Monteagudo 1977: 216;
Vilaga 1995: 78-87) and Colmeal (Domergue 1987: 511; 1990) in the Beira Interior suggests a
rather primitive form of mineral exploitation in the Bronze Age, with few identified deep shaft
mines (Giardino 1995; Kalb 1998: 160). Sdnchez and Pdrez (1989: 16-19) have suggested that
gold extraction in the Later Bronze Age came primarily from panning the gold-rich alluvium of
rivers in Asturias, Galicia and south-western Iberia.
244
Similarly, evidence for metal production has been detected from the presence of bronze moulds,
crucibles and slag from the Later Bronze Age hilltop settlements of Senhora da Guia (Kalb
1998), Castelo de Matos (Queiroga 1984) and Crasto de Sdo Romao (Guerra et al. 1989) in
north-central Portugal, Alegrios, Moreirinha and Castelejos in the Beira Interior (Vilaga 1995:
364-366), Cor6a do Frade (Arnaud 1979) in central Portugal and Cortelo de Santa Justa
(Gongalves 1982; 1988-1989: 46) and Pessegueiro (Silva and Soares 1981: 141) in the south-
west of Portugal. With the exception of a metalworking quarter identified at the settlement of
Pefla Negra in Alicante (Gonzdlez Prats 1983a-d; 1992: 251-253) all the metallurgical evidence
has come from habitation structures, and suggests a domestic mode of metal production, with
no distinct or specialised spheres. The evidence for mining and metal-work production in
western Iberia may allow us to conclude that it was predominantly organised on a local scale
without any elite monopoly of either metal exploitation or production (see Yoffee 1993).
There are other ways that elite status may have been achieved beyond the manipulation of key
resources and metal manufacture. The exchange of metal resources and products may well
have involved elite organisation and control, as will be highlighted below. The fluvial and
terrestrial routes through the landscape were essential for the successful movement of raw
materials and finished metal goods and formed the infrastructure that underpinned the Atlantic
bronze exchange mechanisms. Control over strategic routes may well have conferred power to
and status upon certain members of the community. The deposition of the metal objects that
have been found at such strategic points throughout the landscape could have formed part of
this system for gaining prestige and dominance.
5.10 Routes through the landscape
The importance of both terrestrial and fluvial routes highlighted by the contextual analysis has
to some extent been ignored in our understanding of the Iberian Atlantic Bronze Age, yet such
paths and passages would be required for effective communication and exchange. As the
regional analysis has demonstrated, it may not be a coincidence that the majority of bronze
hoards in western Iberia appear to have been strategically positioned in relation to the
surrounding landscape. Spanish Extremadura, composed of the Middle Guadiana and Tagus
valleys, and north central Portugal have frequently been characterised as frontier zones and
areas that functioned as boundaries between the copper and silver bearing zones of the south
and the tin regions of the north (Almagro Gorbea 1977; Celestino Pdrez et al. 1992; Rodrfguez
Diaz 1994; Senna-Martfnez 1994b; 1995b). Both these regions can be envisaged as intermediate zones that offered a large number of natural routes between northern Portugal, the North Meseta and Andalucfa and south-central Portugal. It is also in these areas where the
245
majority of south-westem stelae are situated, which may have symbolically protected natural
resources and marked these important routes (see Chapter Six).
In comparison to the bronze metallurgy and deposits, studies of the Iberian Atlantic Bronze Age
have paid less consideration to the importance of gold and silver metalwork in gaining an
understanding of the Atlantic system. It is unlikely that many of these gold torques and bracelets would have functioned as actual ornaments since most were too large and heavy to
have been wom. The solid gold torques from Sagrajas and tvora each weighed over two
kilogrammes, while those from Sintra, Penela and Berzocana weighed between one and two
kilogrammes (Sdnchez and P6rez 1989: 21). Some authors have suggested that they functioned
as ingots (e. g. Enrfquez Navascues 1991) on the basis of several having similar weights of
around one kilograrnme. It would seem unlikely, however, that so much skill and effort would
have been expended upon them (see Figure 5.15) just so that they could be re-smelted. Rufz-
Gdlvez (1992: 235; 1995d: 52-53) has argued that the gold ornaments, and, in particular, the
large solid torques and bracelets of Sagrajas-Berzocana type, may, like the diadem stelae (see
Chapter Six), have represented marriage alliances or political gifts by male elites, associated
with establishing and developing commercial contacts linked with the demand for metal raw
materials (see Figure 5.16).
The majority of these gold treasures were found in isolated deposits in the landscape, but most
occur in strategic positions related to natural topographical features (Figure 5.8). Some of the
most famous include the deposit of Berzocana in Cdceres (Almagro Basch 1969: 275-296).
This treasure included two solid gold torques and a gold collar, all with incised geometric zig-
zag decoration, and a small beaten bronze * footed cup which served as a container for the
torques. Other gold torques include those from Sintra (Vasconcelhos 1895; 1896), Portel
(Cartailhac 1886), Cantonha (Cardozo 1957) and Sierra de Estrela. The famous Villena
treasure contained several gold torques, bracelets and the total gold weight was 9.112kgs.
Although the Villena treasure was a house foundation deposit, the settlement was located at the
crossing of natural routes between the Meseta, Upper Guadalquivir and the coast (Soler 1965;
Schfile 1976; Rufz-GAlvez 1989). Similarly the treasures of Bodonal de la Sierra and
Navalvillar de Pela, in Badajoz, and Berzocana in Cdceres, were found at important natural
crossing points of routes through the mountains. Several other examples are noted in Table 5.5.
Deposits of bronze artefacts found concentrated along hazardous mountain passes in the Alps
have been interpreted by Mayer (1978: 18 1), as offerings to the Gods in an attempt to safeguard
these passes against mists and violent storms. It is possible that some of the gold deposits
found along mountainous routes in western Iberia may have a similar function. Many are found
in the mountains near the sources of tributaries of the alluvial gold rich rivers of the Tagus and
246
Guadalquivir. Perhaps these locations were associated with ritual redeposition of a different
nature - that of offering the gold back to the natural features from whence it originally came (e. g. see Bradley 2000: 53).
Table 5.5. Context of gold deposits in western Iberia.
Name of Location Contents Bibliography
deposit
Almoster Foot of Serra de Almoster. Gold torques Severo 1905-1908
Boa Vista
Bdlmez In the mountains of Sierra Two solid gold torques and a small Almagro Basch
Morena, C6rdoba beaten bronze vessel which 1969
contained them
Berzocana At the crossing of mountain Two large solid gold torques, and a Almagro Gorbea.
routes in CAceres beaten bronze vessel 1974a
Cantonha Southern slope of Serra da Gold bracelet Cardozo 1957
Penha
Fuenteung Found on road from Medarra Gold bracelet Delibes, Rodrfguez
rillo to Villaba, Valladolid and Santonja 1991
Penela Foot of the Sierra de Sic6 Gold torques Cartailhac 1886
Portel Foot of the Sierra de Mendro Solid gold torques Reinach 1925
Portalegre Foot of the Serra de Sao Gold bracelet Cardozo 1959
Mamede
Sintra Foot of the Serra de Sintra Three gold torques Vasconcelhos 1896
5.11 Conclusions
This contextual analysis of the bronze and gold deposits expands our understanding of the
Atlantic Bronze Age in Iberia beyond the dry and sterile debates concerning typologies,
chronologies and metalwork affiliation. By moving away from "global" overviews of the
Atlantic Bronze Age as a "culture" and focusing upon regional perspectives in western Iberia, it
is possible to reveal the different metal deposition patterns, and offer new lines of interpretation
concerning the social, economic and ideological aspects of bronze consumption. Iberia was not
a peripheral backwater in the Later Bronze Age, but an active participator and contributor in the
initiation and development of exchange between both Mediterranean and Atlantic Bronze
systems.
The distribution of Atlantic bronzes in western Iberia clearly indicates that Atlantic contact and
communication was not restricted to the coastal regions, but that interior zones were also
conpected with the sea through terrestrial and fluvial routes. These natural corridors from the
sea linking up the interior are important for it is in the heartland of Iberia that the richest
247
distributions of raw materials lie. The patterned deposition of weapons in water, gold
omaments along crossing points in hills, or weapons and omaments incised on stelae may have
been components of a symbolic language that marked the territory in particular ways and highlighted the importance of routes which were necessary for the success of long distance
exchange in raw metal and finished goods.
The over-emphasis of archaeologists upon the male warrior elite ideology has resulted in the
playing down of the significance of the female symbolism of the Iberian Atlantic Bronze Age,
as witnessed through the diadem stelae and gold-work. Yet these elements nevertheless hint at the important social power that women may have held in the Late Bronze Age. Rather than
viewing the gold-work in a passive way, as proof of matrimonial exchanges amongst male
elites, we should re-negotiate the nature of the Iberian Bronze Age gender relationships (Sorensen 1998). While the ideology of the male warrior may have operated on an international level amongst the different Atlantic communities from Scotland to Iberia, the ideology of the female elite may have functioned on a supra-regional level within the Peninsula
itself, complementing and balancing the masculine dominance. This chapter has thus attempted
to offer several different interpretations for metal consumption and accepts that different
deposits may have functioned in different ways. Some may have been intended to have been
ambiguous in meaning and others may have fulfilled several different functions (territorial
marker, ritual offering and even cenotaph) simultaneously.
A re-contextualisation of bronze and gold deposits in the landscape, and comparison with the
distributions of Later Bronze Age settlements, demonstrates that a combined analysis highlights
specific patterns that mark out routes through the landscape. The idea that these elements also hint at a growing process of territorialisation and political and social reorganisation of regions
within the Iberian Peninsula during this time will be expanded upon in the next Chapter,
through a complementary analysis of the Later Bronze Age stelae. The complex patterns of bronze consumption are in many ways related a new understanding of the conception of
movement through the landscape and restructuring within it; patterns that the south-westem
stelae also highlight.
248
Table 5.6: Total numbers of all types of metal objects by region REGION
Metal type And Ast CP Ext Ga NM NP NES SM+
SW
Total
CT sword 163 1 41 6 4 15 8 0 4 242 Pistilliforme
sword
4 1 11 31 6 4 7 3 68
Sword
(general)
9 8 3 4 8 4 14 5 7 62
Dagger 20 5 28 2 5 14 11 10 4 99
Spearhead 17 5 22 9 13 22 26 0 3 117
Arrowhead 39 0 3 0 0 6 0 2 0 50
Axe 31 17 103 3 186 51 214 20 25 650
Chisel 18 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 25
Punch 40 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 41
Knife 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6
Palstave 1 0 55 7 0 3 53 0 1 120
Sickle 15 10
6 10 0 0 11 0 0 32
Bronze
bracelet
24 0 18 0 2 7 13 2
I
1 67
Gold bracelet 64 3 14 11 1 3 10 2 9 117
Silver
bracelet/
torque
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Gold torque 6 0 10 16 0 3 0 0 0_ _35
Gold button 24 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 33
Gold pin 14 0 5 2 2 9 0 0 1 33
Gold spiral 4 0 0 15 0 0 01 0 3 22
Elbow fibula 20 0 4 0 0 7 7 0 0 38
Pantallica
fibula
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Helmet 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 6
Razor 2 0 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 9
Gold bowl 9 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 14
Silver bowl 2 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Cauldron 3 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 14
Flesh-hook 0 0 0 0 31 0 4 0 0 7
Spit 0 0 5 1 0 0 3 0 0 9
Gold ingot 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Copper ingot 8 0 23 0 0 0 2 0 4 37
Scrap 5 12 75 0 9 52 19 0 15 187 r7otal
430 87 264 222 413 50 81 2151
249
Chapter Six:
"If a Picture Paints a Thousand Worlds": The Later Bronze Age stelae
of south-western Iberia
"What men in past ages thought and felt, what they believed and wished, they engraved upon
rocks which have retained the pictures to this day. "
Kühn 1956: xix
6.1 Introduction
The stelae traditions of western Iberia have generally been studied in an archaeological
vacuum. With few exceptions, the majority of publications have adopted this isolated approach
from two perspectives: the analysis of discoveries of single stelae with little reference to other
known examples, or the investigation of the stelae as an isolated phenomenon, with little
consideration of associated Bronze Age cultural developments. Our understanding of the
stelae, however, provides an excellent link between all of the themes studied within this
research. This chapter explores the different ways that the stelae allow us to appreciate the
emergence of new territorial boundaries and the development of routes and new spheres of
interaction during the Later Bronze Age. An attempt to understand these routes of
communication is relevant to many other themes that this thesis addresses including
metallurgical production and exchange, and pastoralism and transhumance. The depictions on
the stelae hint at their important functions in determining different social groups, that may
relate to differences within settlement patterns and material culture. Perhaps even more
significantly their depictions of Atlantic and Mediterranean objects indicate the growing
internationalisation of Later Bronze Age Iberia, and the importance of interaction and exchange in the south-west during this time. Thus the stelae may provide the connection to increasing
our understanding of relationships between the Atlantic Bronze Age and eastern pre-Phoenician interaction. They highlight the importance of the conception of movement through the
landscape and the formation of new circuits of interaction during this time. Like rock art, the
main problem that archaeologists face with respect to the stelae, is attempting to understand
what the depictions are really trying to say.
6.2 History of Investigation
The first south-western stele to be found and published was that of Solana de Cabafias (Rosso
de Luna 1898). Subsequent chance discoveries of stelae were published in the form of short inventories (e. g. Vasconcelhos 1908; Breuil 1917; CaW 1923) but it was not until 1966 that a
250
synthesis of the stelae was produced by Almagro Basch. This work was the first to establish different groups of stelae and make comparisons and contrasts between the known examples.
With the exception of this stelae corpus and only a handful of other studies (e. g. Barce16 1989;
Bendala GaIdn 1977; Celestino P6rez 1990; Varelo Gomes and Pinho Monteiro, 1977; Ruiz-
Gdlvez and GaIdn 1991; Galdn 1993), most of the publications concerning new stelae discoveries are isolated reports (e. g. Almagro, Basch 1962a; 1963; 1972; 1974; Almagro, Gorbea
and Sdnchez Abal 1978; Beltrdn and Alcrudo 1973; Bendala Galdn et aL 1979-1980; Berrocal-
Rangel 1987a; 1987b; Bueno 1984; Bueno and Pifinon 1985 ; Chaves and Bandera, 1982;
Curado 1984; 1986; Enrfquez Navascues 1982a; 1982b; Enrfquez Navascues and Celestino
Pdrez 1981-1982; 1984; Fatas 1975; Femdndez Chicarro 1961; Ferndndez Miranda 1986a;
Garcia de Figuerola 1982; Iglesias Gil 1980a; 1980b; Oliva 1983; Oliva et aL 1976; Rodriguez
and Nuflez 1983-1984; 1985; Ruiz Lara 1986; Valiente Malla and Prado Toledano 1977-1978;
Vazquerizo Gil 1985; 1989; Vasco Rodrigues 1958). Thus one of the primary aims of this
chapter is to re-contextualise the variety of stelae types within the landscape and establish
potential links between the different traditions.
6.3.1 Origin and Chronology of the stelae This methodological approach has meant that much of the stelae investigation has resulted in disjointed and brief accounts of various monoliths that were primarily focused upon typo-
chronological considerations. As mentioned above, overviews of the decorated stelae traditions
remain scarce. Their study has gone through three main stages; the origin stage, the typo-
chronological stage and the contextual stage. Until the 1990s all of the stelae reports were predisposed to the first two concerns. Six different archaeological camps can be detected, with all but the sixth advocating exogenous inspiration or derivation, and hence adhering to a strongly diffusionist outlook.
The Central European theory was first advocated by Almagro Basch (1966: 209-220), and was later defended by Curado (1984; 1986). The stelae representations were believed to have been
the material manifestation of a Celtic warrior people, who invaded and occupied south-west Iberia after 80OBC in the Early and Late Iron Ages. This hypothesis fitted in well with the
classical accounts of the Celts and the Celtic invasions (Bosch Gimpera 1939 after Avienus'
Ora Maritima). Curado suggested that the swords and the shields on the stelae were a tangible
reflection of central European traders and immigrants coming in search of metals in southern Iberia. The Central European origin thus offered a late chronology for the stelae, beginning at the end of the eighth century BC, but lasting until the third century BC.
251
An eastern origin was proposed by Bldzquez (1983; 1986; 1987) and later supported by
Almagro Gorbea (1989; 1990). Both authors, however, differed markedly in their temporal
assignation of this development. While Bldzquez dated the stelae to the eighth and seventh
centuries BC, coinciding with the actual Phoenician colonisation, Almagro Gorbea proposed
that they provided evidence of a Proto-Orientalising horizon, and hence were as early as 1000/
950BC. An Aegean origin is maintained by Bendala Galdn (1977; 1983; 1986; 1987; 1989).
He argued that many of the elements on the stelae, particularly the lyres and wheeled vehicles,
could be paralleled with Greek funerary scenes depicted on Black Figure ware, and hence to the
eighth and seventh centuries BC.
An Atlantic origin has been advocated by Coffyn (1983; 1985) and Barcel6 (1989), with a time
span between the eleventh and eighth centuries BC, concurring with Atlantic Later Bronze Age
developments. The fusion of both Atlantic and Mediterranean elements represented on many of
the stelae led Pingel (1974), Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro (1977) and Almagro Gorbea
(1977) to propose that their derivation came from the union of western and eastern influence,
that culminated between the ninth and seventh centuries BC.
In the last few years archaeologists have begun to consider the possibility of an indigenous
origin for the stelae, with advocates including Ruiz-Gdlvez and Galdn (1991), Mompean
(1992), and Galdn (1993). They have placed less emphasis upon their chronological
demarcation, other than agreeing that they were erected during the Later Bronze Age.
6.3.2 Problems with Origin and Chronology
The above summary of the history of stelae research demonstrates that inquiries primarily
revolved around the various elements they depicted. The emphasis placed upon the search for
external origins has led to a complicated and contradictory series of interpretations. It has also
removed the stelae from their local context. Since most archaeologists viewed them from a foreign perspective, and hence related them to exogenous diffusion or influence, their position
and function within the Iberian landscape and their relationships with indigenous social groups
was deemed irrelevant.
In general the typo-chronologies of the stelae (Figure 6.1) have hinged upon the premise that
the simple stelae (i. e. those with the fewest elements) were the earliest, dating to around the
eleventh to tenth century BC (Almagro Gorbea's 1977 sub-type IIA and Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro's 1977 sub-type A). Those considered as "intermediate" in date included more
complex representations that contained wheeled vehicles, mirrors and combs (sub-type U13 or B). The incorporation of human figures into the depiction were considered later in date (sub-
type IIC or Q. The latest stelae were seen to be the most complex of all, culminating in the
252
presence of entire scenes and wheeled vehicles (i. e. Sao Martinho II, Ategua and Ervidel H-
sub-type III or D).
The majority of simple stelae depicting the triple weapon composition of shield, sword and
spearhead come from the Tagus region; hence the tradition was believed to have begun in this
area, later spreading to surrounding regions (Almagro Basch 1966; Almagro Gorbea 1974: 25-
32; 1977; Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1977; Varela Gomes 1990). It is important to
question the assumption that simple depictions can be equated with an earlier chronology, and
more elaborate ones with a later date, since such a belief implies that these monoliths were
merely repositories of typo-chronological information, and ignores the complex symbolism of
these stones. For example, Thapar's study of the hero stones of India demonstrated that the
simple representations potentially indicated a less hierarchical region (1981: 299-301). Galdn
has adopted this argument and stated that the stelae with complex motifs reflected the high
social standing of the person or group that the stone represented (1993: 50-51). Such an
interpretation again makes a simplistic equation: that increased complexity may be coupled
with heightened social status. It assumes that the depictions on the stelae can be interpreted
like grave goods, and side-steps other potentially complex reasons behind their creation.
Bradley (1991; 1997) has argued that the abstract rock art of Atlantic Europe, generally
perceived to be less complex than the schematic style, may in fact have been endowed with
profound meaning. He eloquently makes the point that simple, often codified, designs, required
access to particular knowledge in order to comprehend their symbolism. This could restrict the
knowledge of their iconography, and access to such knowledge is a source of power (e. g.
Shanks 1982; Miller and Tilley 1984; Therbom 1980; Mann 1986; Helms 1988; Knapp 1988).
Further chronological misgivings come from several assumptions concerning the typology of
the elements depicted. Neither Almagro Gorbea nor Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro have
given reasons why they consider the depiction of the anthropornorph to be a late development.
Since the earlier rock art of the Iberian Peninsula frequently includes representations of human
figures, it would seem that such a supposition is unsubstantiated (see Figure 6.2). Furthen-nore,
the representations of U and V-notched shields, swords, fibulae and wheeled vehicles have all
been assumed to be good typo-chronological indicators (e. g. Ram6n and Femdndez 1942;
Beltrdn and Alcrudo 1973; Bldzquez 1983; 1986; Almagro Gorbea 1977; 1989: 280-284;
Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1977; Bendala Wan 1977). This methodology raises
doubts because of the lack of parallels in the archaeological record of Iberia, with no examples
of shields, wheeled vehicles, mirrors and other portable items. This approach also assumes that
the carved elements were accurate depictions of real objects. For example, the authors cited
above have referred to Carp's Tongue swords, elbow-shaped and violin bow fibulae depicted
253
on the stelae. Their typological argurnents appear convincing until one examines the
representations to which they refer. With few exceptions, these are schernatic, incised next to
stick figures of hurnans and boxes with circles that pass for wheeled vehicles (e. g. see Figures
6.5-6.7). Since the stelae iconography is highly stylised it may be misleading to expect them to
provide exact or realistic typological data. We must therefore avoid attempting precise
chronological assignations.
Furthermore, many of the weapon carvings have been incorrectly identified, leading to
misleading temporal allocations. All of the swords represented on the stelae have been
assigned to the Carp's Tongue tradition (Alrnagro Basch 1966; Varela Gornes and Pinho
Monteiro 1977ý Galdn 1993). A re-analysis of this element demonstrates that many of' tile
swords do not fit into this category, and are more leaf shaped in their composition (e. g. Sýin
Martin de Trevejo, El Carneril, Robledillo de Trujillo, Alamillo - see Figure 6.4.2. A). Leaf-
shaped swords are arguably tenth century or earlier, while the Carp's Tongue complex is
traditionally interpreted between the tenth and eighth centuries BC (Burgess 1991: 39-40).
Thus, we cannot expect the stelae to provide precise chronological information, and it is time to
silift the focus of study frorn the problematic arena of typology. The stelae were undoubtedly
erected during the Later Bronze Age. probably fi-orn the early eleventh century BC onwards.
The rest of this chapter will depart from detailed chronological discussion, and combine the
various sub-types into a single tradition that can be studied as a coherent whole.
6.4 Function of the south-western stelae
The function ofthe south-western stelac have been considered from three main pci-spectives:
1. As tornh markei-, (for which there iN lIttlC SUpporting evidence). LI 2, As cenotaphs or commemoration stones Osimilar to (lie hero stones of India or the Rune
stones of Scandinavia).
3. As territorial markers within the landscape.
The earliest interpretations of the stelae perceived thern as grave markers or covers, associated
with pit or cist inhurnations (Almagro Basch 1966: 199-, Schubart 197 1; 1975). This conclusion
rests upon three considerations. Firstly the stelae were interpreted as serving the same function
as those of the earlier -Alentejo- stelae, which have been found predominantly in association
with cist cemeteries (e. g. Mornbeja, Alfarrobeirra, Assento and Santa Vit6ria) (SChUbart 1975;
Varela Gonies and Pinho Monteiro 1977: 178-182; Harrison 1988: 3 1-32). Secondly, many of
the stelae depicting a hunian form were interpreted as marking the grave of it member of' the
warrior elite or celebrated leader (Pingel 1993b: 219-226, Varela Gonies 199(), 1995b: 130-
132). Thirdly, the other elements represented on the stelae, including the sword, shield.
254
wheeled vehicle, mirror and comb, were assumed to be the pictorial representations of prestige
grave goods.
Evidence to support the rationale of the south-westem stelae functioning within a strictly funerary context is lacking. In only three cases does a tenuous connection exist between burials
and their presence. Rossa de Luna (1898: 180) referred to the stele of Solana de Cabaflas as
covering a pit containing a human skeleton and grave goods. However, this stele was found
during agricultural work and may have been ploughed out of context. Furthermore, over twenty
years elapsed between its discovery and publication, raising questions about the validity of the
oral information. The stelae of Granja de Cespedes (Almagro Basch 1962a; 1966: 105-108)
and Setefilla (Almagro Gorbea 1977: 324-330) were also considered to be grave covers. Again
neither was found in its original context, and the stele of Setefilla was actually reused in an
Orientalising tumulus (Aubet el aL 1983: 19). Thus there is no direct evidence that sustains the
view that stelae functioned within a funerary domain (see Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn 1991: 258-
259).
It is easy to appreciate why so many archaeologists associated the stelae with burials since
many superficially appear to exhibit funerary symbolism. Some of the images could represent a
dead "chief' laid out stiffly, with all of his funerary paraphenalia including weapons, chariot
and personal effects positioned around him (e. g. Las Herencias I, Solana de Cabaflas, Fuente de
Cantos and Esparragosa de Lares I- Figure 6.6,6.7 and 6.9). These examples invoke parallels
with the Chieftain tumuli of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age central Europe, including Vix in
eastern France (Wells 1980) and Hochdorf and Hohmichele in central Germany (Kimmig 1983;
Wells 1980; 1984). Many of the stelae with representations of human figures (approximately
50%), however, show this supposedly deceased chief very much in action, with weapons
brandished or in hunting pose (e. g. Aldea del Rey III, El Viso U-IV, Ervidel IL Torres Alocaz;
Sao Martinho U- see Figures 6.8-6.9). Varela Gomes (1995b: 132) suggested that these
examples followed the ideology of integrating the great warrior chief at death with an ever- living form - creating a dynamic collective memory for the deceased's society and allowing it to
continue functioning normally despite his loss.
Rodrfguez Hidalgo (1983) and Barce16 (1989) have postulated that the stelae may have been
associated with battle grounds, commemorating the place where an important warrior or leader
fell. Like the rune stones of Scandinavia (Randsborg 1980; Samson 1991) or the hero-stones in
India (Thapar 198 1), they argue that the dearth of associated funerary evidence may support the
idea that these monoliths were memorial stones representing cenotaphs. Many of the rune
stones of Sweden have been interpreted as memorials to men killed in battle. We cannot
255
dismiss the possibility that some of the stelae may have functioned in this way. However, the
rest of this chapter will focus upon other factors relating to the stelae tradition that suggests that
the main motive for engraving and erecting these monoliths was not one of funerary
significance.
Recently, Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn (1991) and Galdn (1993) have challenged the association of
stelae and tombs. They recognised the stelae as hitos or boundary posts, acting as visible
markers for people moving around the landscape. They suggested that they indicated routes of
communication for pastoralism and commerce. The research by Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn is
important since it has begun to contextualise the stelae in relation to the surrounding landscape,
and has widened their possible interpretations. However, both authors have again classified the
stelae as homogenous, with all of the orthostats performing the same function - essentially the
demarcation of routes. They paid scant attention to the actual elements depicted on the stelae
and whether their symbolism may indicate different functions depending upon their geographic
location. The stelae show a variety of compositions (Figures 6.5-6.9), although a certain grade
of standardisation is adhered to, and the objects selected and their spatial configuration on the
stelae themselves may impart greater meaning than we have hitherto considered.
6.5 The Alentejo Stelae
The relief carved stones of the Alentejo region were originally interpreted as the precursors of
the later more elaborate south-westem stelae (Almagro Basch 1966; Varela Gornes and Pinho
Monteiro 1977: 178-183; Harrison 1988: 28-34). Recently the links between these two groups
were severed, when it was realised that they came from different contexts and hence were
argued to function in distinct ways (Barce16 1991: 18-19; Varela Gomes 1991; 1995a Galdn
1993). It is, however, important to study the Alentejan tradition in order to have a fuller
understanding of the later south-westem stelae, since several points of similarity may be noted. The Alentejo stelae do have an earlier chronology; confirmed by both the elements represented
upon them and the contexts in which they have been found. With few exceptions (e. g. Pedreirinha and Sdo Jodo de Negrilhos), the majority of these decorated slabs have been
recovered from Later Bronze Age cist cemeteries that date between the sixteenth and twelfth
centuries BC (Beirdo 1973: 18-21; Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1977: 178-179; Barcel6
1991; Arnaud 1992; Varela Gomes 1995a; Silva and Soares 1998: 236-237). Although they
were all initially interpreted as grave covers, some of them are more rounded in form and were found standing erect in the ground as monoliths, implying they also acted as grave markers.
A total of 22 Alentejo stelae are presently known. They are principally distributed in the
Lower Alentejo, although a few examples come from Barlavento in the Algarve (Varela Gomes
256
1995: 135). The majority are concentrated in a zone to the west of Beja (14 examples) and in
the regions of Santiago do Cacdm, Castro Verde, Almod6var and Ourique. Recently, an important concentration has been noted in the Silves region, with three stelae coming from the
cist cemeteries of Alfarrobeira, Passadeiras and Marmalete (Varela Gomes 1991). Only one
example has yet been discovered in Spain, coming from the cemetery of El Torcal in Cord6ba
(Varela Gomes 1995a: 135).
The elements represented are generally carved in relief, and tend to follow a predominantly tool
and weapon format (Figure 6.10), centred upon swords, halberds, axes and bows. There are
also examples of objectos ancoriforme or axe/ anchor idols which have parallels with the eye idols known from Spanish rock art iconography (Figures 6.2 and 6.3). Examples of
ancoriforme idols are known from Earlier Bronze Age schematic paintings from the cave sites
of Sierra de San Sevdn, Badajoz, Magro, Udiz and Cueva del Arco, Huelva (Acosta 1968: 39-
40). Acosta (ibid: 37) has interpreted these idols as schematic representations of humans,
reduced to almost acephalous depictions that adopt an anchor form. The repertoire of the
elements and their chronological associations with the various cist cemeteries have permitted
archaeologists to divide these stelae into three temporal sub-types. The earliest sub-type (A)
includes the stones with the largest dimensions and the ancoriforme is placed in the centre of
the stone. In general, this is associated with a long sword and a Montejfcar type halberd,
allowing a rough chronological allocation of 1600-140OBC (e. g. Defesa, Abela and
Alfarrobeira). The examples allocated to sub-type B have been dated between 1500-130OBC,
and are concentrated in the Beja region. The sword becomes the central element of these
compositions, associated with a bow or axe, and the axe idol loses its importance (e. g. San
Salvador, Trigaxes I and Assento). Examples assigned to the latest chronology, of ca. 1300-
120013C, are mainly of rather small dimensions. The sword is generally represented on its own,
or accompanied by a halberd or pair of sandals (e. g. Sao Joao de Negrilhos, Mombeja I or Gomes Aires). All of the representations of sub-type C are executed through the technique of incision rather than relief.
Some of the Alentejo stones suggest a vaguely anthropomorphic form (e. g Abela and
Alfarrobeira). For example, the upper part of the stele of Tapada de Moita in Portalegre
(Oliveira 1986; S. O. Jorge 1999: 118) has been worked in such a way to indicate shoulders
(Figure 6.10-8). The examples of Defesa, Santa Vit6ria, Pedreirinha and SAo Jolo de Negrilho
could be interpreted as depicting a human figure wearing "warrior equipment", since each
indicate a central belt to which the weapons and tools are attached (Figure 6.10.6 and 7). Thus
in some respects this tradition hints at links with the later Extremaduran one. It is also important to note that the examples from sub-type C are executed by means of incision; again
257
implying a link in the techniques of the two traditions. The Alentejo stelae, like the later south-
western monoliths, focus upon particular elements; symbols of power such as the sword, the
halberd and the anchor idol. The fact that the emergence of the south-westem stelae tradition
roughly co-incides with the demise of the Alentejan one, suggests a further connection. Thus it
could be advocated that both stelae traditions were created for similar reasons. They both
demonstrate a preoccupation with a particular symbolic ideology that revolves around humans,
weapons and tools. When read in this way, the later south-western stelae might well have been
an elaboration and expansion of this symbolic tradition, and its relocation from the world of the
dead (and perhaps a focus upon specific individuals) to the world of the living (and possibly an
emphasis upon the wider social group). This change in context of the ideology may be highly
significant; why did the stelae now begin to function in the landscape as a whole rather than
specifically within cemeteries? One possible answer may relate to the important developments
taking place within western Iberia at this time like the opening up of new routes of
communication and the changing concept of territories and landscapes. It is possible that the
new arena for stelae erection was intimately associated with activities and social groups
becoming more dispersed across a wider landscape. This premise will now be explored through
a contextual analysis of the stelae.
6.6 Geography of the south-west 6.6.1 Overview
In order to understand the relationship between the stelae and the surrounding landscape, it is
first necessary to provide a general impression of the geography of the south-west. In some
respects, the physical terrain determined the economic practices of the region as well as
providing barriers and facilitators to communication. The region is bounded to the north by the
river basins of the upper Tagus and the Serra da Estrela, to the west and south by the Atlantic
Ocean, and to the east by the convergence of the plains of La Mancha with the mountains of
eastern Andalucfa which surround and close off the Guadalquivir valley. The principal internal
units which make up the south-west are the basins of the river Tagus, Guadiana and Guadalquivir, and their tributaries, the mountains of Toledo and the Sierra Morena, and finally
the southem coastal plains of Portugal (Figure 6.11). The rivers that flow to the Atlantic
provide easy routes of access into the interior, with the Guadalquivir being the most navigable,
The south-west is predominantly an open zone with hills of medium altitude. The plains of
central and southern Portugal do not present major obstacles to overland travelling, but the
mountains of the eastern regions towards the Meseta hinder movement around the margins of
these plains. The Guadiana valley is an easily navigated route, but that of the Tagus is hilly
with fast flowing rivers, which offers few convenient crossing points and permits easy
258
movement only in the surrounding plains (Hemdndez 1967: 76-84; Galdn and Martfn 1991-
1992). This geographical configuration allows relatively easy east-west travel, but impedes
north-south journeys, with numerous barriers caused by the dominant east-west direction of
both rivers and mountains. Historical sources relating to ancient passages through the
landscape of the south-west highlight the navigable north-south routes that facilitated
movement. Villuga (1546) noted that a company of men travelled loookm by foot in 1352
from Estrella to Seville, traversing the Vfa de Plata for much of their journey and covering
around 60km per day. Serrano-Piedecasa (1981) also alludes to the speed of movement that
this region encouraged for pedestrian travel.
Such geographical constraints apply to many of the region's traditional routes, such as the
famous Vfa de Plata. This route has followed the main axis of the western Peninsula since
antiquity, exploiting certain important but limited crossing points, and passing successively
through the Central System, the Tagus valley, the western foothills of Toledo, the Guadiana,
and finally, the Sierra Morena. The route was sufficiently hazardous in Roman and Medieval
times to encourage the creation of certain control points along it (Madoz 1847; Hemdndez
1967).
6.6.2 Natural terrestrial routes
The region of Extremadura offers a series of natural routes through the landscape which form
the backbone to the fault line from Alentejo to Plasencfa. This spans the northernmost zone of
this region in a south-west-north-east direction from Albuquerque towards the Punto de
Tornavacos, crossing the passes of Puertollano (Aliseda) and Los Castafios (Ongil 1986-1987).
It is a large fault line, over 5OOkms in length, and bridges two other lines of communication
with the North Meseta. Both routes leave from the important ford of Alcon6tar, which is at the
confluence of the Tagus and Almonte rivers. The first is directed towards Salamanca through
the Punto de 136jar, while the second route travels towards Avila through the pass of Tomavacos (Alvarez Rojas and Gil Montes 1988: 308, Figure 4).
6.6.3 Fluvial routes The major rivers and their tributaries running through the region also promoted movement,
although crossing them could seriously impede travel. The navigability of the river Guadiana
has been seriously reduced by n-dllennia of erosion and alluvial accumulation, but historical
documentation (Strabo HL 2,3) suggests that the river was penetrable by boat to the interior in
protohistory. Oliveira Marques (1968: 140-141) states that, in the Middle Ages, Pulo do Lobo,
to the north of M6rtola, was an active port (see also Gamito 1988: 156). The river Guadalquivir
offers favourable conditions for navigation. In the Middle Ages, the river was navigable as far
as Seville for cargo boats, Alcata del Rio for smaller boats, and C6rdoba for river boats (Bishko
259
1965; Cruz Villal6n 1980). Thus, the river Guadalquivir offers a fundamental route of
penetration into the interior heartland of the Iberian Peninsula (Tejera Gaspar 1977: 207). A
reconstruction of the Tagus estuary (Daveau. 1980: 13-39) has demonstrated that the sea
penetrated much more deeply into the interior than it does today, permitting navigation as far as Santar6m until the last few centuries (Oliveira Marques 1968: 139-140).
6.6.4 Economy of the south-west The south-west Peninsula does contain some zones that offer excellent agricultural potential, particularly in the plains of the Guadalquivir and the Guadiana. In general, however, the area lacks fertile land that can be exploited intensively for agriculture, and is relatively deficient in
water. The Central System and Guadalquivir valley are the youngest and hence least eroded region with the thinnest soils. The thin and unproductive soils in many of the south-westem
regions, associated with recent palaeo-environmental evidence (Kalb and H6ck 1988a: 193-
197; Stevenson and Moore 1988; Stevenson and Harrison 1992; Garcfa Sanjudn 1996: 132-136, Figures 38-43) suggests that most of the land would have been suitable for pastoral activities and stock-raising only. The poor soils would have created problems in maintaining harvest
productivity, and may help to explain why a permanently settled way of life was slow to develop in much of the region. It does, however, emphasise the potential importance of transhumance in the Later Bronze Age economy, and suggests that the mobility associated with
pastoral lifestyles was an important factor in the maintenance of successful economic practices in this region.
A further aspect that adds to the contrasting nature of the economy in the south-west relates to
the unbalanced mineral richness. The Guadalquivir valley and Sado-Tagus depression, owing to the Tertiary geology, are the centres of a concentration of minerals, including silver, copper,
tin and gold (Almagro Gorbea 1977: 6-10). The Huelva region is also known for its abundance
of copper and silver resources (Blanco and Rothenberg 1981; Rufz and Pdrez 1987; Rufz Mata
1989; see Chapters Five and Seven). However, the distribution of the minerals is uneven, with
copper appearing in the Huelva regions and the Sierra Morena, and only more sporadically in
the north towards Extremadura (IGME (Cu) 1972). Although tin is principally found in the
north-west of Iberia, it is known to outcrop in around the western parts of the Sierra de Gata in
the Central System, and in Upper Extremadura, but only sporadically in the hills north of the Sierra Morena, and it is non-existent in Huelva (IGME (Sn) 1972). However, recent work in Badajoz has demonstrated that important concentrations of tin were also exploited there in
prehistory in association with copper resources (Meredith pers. comm. 1995; Meredith 1998). Gold is known from the alluvial deposits of the river Tagus and her tributaries, and in regions of Extremadura (H6rail 1984; Sdnchez Palencfa and P6rez 1989: 17-19).
260
It is difficult to estimate the importance and influence of the minerals in the Bronze Age, and
the extent to which they were exploited, except in the Huelva zone. Here there is a good
relationship between the mineral distributions and settlement patterns (Ruiz Mata 1989), as
well as evidence for mineral exploitation (Blanco and Rothenberg 1981). Silver and gold
extraction in the south-west during the Later Bronze Age appears to have been intensive
(Sanchdz-Palencfa and P6rez 1989: 23-24; Perea 1991,1995). The Later Bronze Age gold
treasure hoards such as Sagrajas, tvora or Berzocana may coincide with the exploitation of
new resources (Ruiz-Gdlvez 1989: 48; Domergue 1990: 14 1).
This brief summary of the topography and resources of the south-west highlights the constraints
and advantages of this region with respect to communication and economic activities. It is now
time to consider whether any of these factors were relevant in the location of the stelae. Thus
the next section will discuss the relationship between the stelae, ancient pastoral routes and
networks of communication, settlements and mineral resources. It is the landscape that
promotes and constrains social contact, and hence perceptions of movement through the
landscape are vital in our understanding of the increased interaction and exchange that we
witness in the Later Bronze Age. It is within this context that a different perception of the
stelae will be presented - as dynamic components in the construction of the Later Bronze Age
landscape, rather than as static dots on a map.
6.7.1 Landscape and networks of communication We can evolve an impression of networks of communication in the past through evaluating the
nodal points along them. The features in the landscape around which prehistoric peoples may have constructed their worlds include rivers, prominent hills or mountain ranges and fertile
valleys, and these may have been emphasised by the stelae. Such routes and the physical landscape that they traversed may also have influenced the formation of social territories and frontiers. For example, Thomas and Knox (1994: 89-90) have noted that the mountain chains in the Indus valley were instrumental in the formation of the Harappan civilisation. The
restricted number of passages through the mountainous terrain were vital for peoples engaged in trade, migration, and invasion, and many ancient settlements in north-western Pakistan were located close to such passes.
In this context, therefore, we should not consider the landscape as a neutral space disconnected
from other social and economic structures. Space and territories were undoubtedly defined,
measured and delimited. "If space allows movement, place is pause" (Taun 1971: 6). Tilley
argues that boundaries are of immense importance since they create distinctions and mark out
social and cultural differences (Tilley 1994: 17). The acculturation of the landscape involves a
261
specific and symbolic ordering of space. "The landscape is a series of named locales linked by
paths, movement and narratives" (Tilley 1994: 73). Changes to these connections and
transformations of these routes restructures the perception of that landscape.
6.7.2 Reanalysis of the stelae in relationship to the landscape
The dramatic increase in the number of stelae found between the early 1980s and the present day has considerably altered the typological configurations defined in previous works (Almagro
Basch 1966; Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1976-1977; Almagro Gorbea 1977). More
importantly, these new discoveries have expanded the known geographical distribution, and highlighted some important previously undetected spatial patterns. Although they were
traditionally called the "Extremaduran" stelae, this term can no longer be applied since many of
the stones lie well beyond the confines of this region. The discovery of the stelae of Baragal
(Curado 1984: 81-82) and F6ios (Curado 1986: 104) in Sabugal has extended the northern line
of distribution, while those of Luna (Bendala Galdn 1983: 141-142) and Valpalmas (Mompean
1992: 71) in Zaragoza have widened the known north-eastern distribution by over a hundred
kilometres into the Central System (Figure 6.11). Since Galdn's comprehensive 1993 catalogue
of stelae, another three examples - those of Almargen, Ab6bada and Talavera la Reina - have
been published to add to the complexity of their distribution (Mompean 1992; Bendala Galdn et
aL 1994; Hernando and Jim6nez 1996). Furthermore, Galdn's desk top survey missed three
other stelae - those of Las Mangades, Almoroqui and Alcorrucon. At present the known
distribution of south-westem stelae can be divided up as follows: Algarve (1%), Badajoz
(28%), Cdceres (28%), Ciudad Real (7%), C6rdoba (10%), Guarda (3%), Seville (10%) and Toledo (3%).
6.7.3 Placing the stelae in context
An attempt to understand the south-westem stelae in relationship to the surrounding landscape
is met with difficulties, since, unlike rock art, the stelae are portable, and many have been
removed from their original context. Because the stelae were originally believed to have been
linked within the funerary arena, their lack of association with burials led many archaeologists
to conclude that they had been found out of situ, and hence their exact location was deemed
irrelevant. References to co-ordinates are infrequent in most of the publications prior to the
1980s, although this dearth of detailed contextual information is partly the result of the stones
being found during agricultural work and hence lacking direct archaeological intervention. In
spite of these difficulties, Galdn (1993: 94-110) managed to obtain co-ordinates for 50 stelae,
and relatively precise contextual information for a further 13. Of the remaining 20, eight had
been reused and were found in burial or settlement contexts that were of Iron Age or later date.
262
6.7.4 Geographical location of the stelae The south-westem stelae are predominantly distributed along the three large river basins of the Tagus, Guadalquivir and Guadiana, with a notable concentration around the Z6jar (a tributary
of the Guadiana), and two other small clusters between the Tagus and Guadiana in the Sierra de
Montinchez. In general , the stelae linked with fluvial routes were not associated with the Tagus, Guadiana and Guadalquivir themselves, but rather with their smaller tributaries. They include the stelae of Cogolludo (tnriquez Navascues 1982) and Esparragosa de Lares I
(tnriquez Navascues and Celestino Pdrez 1984), situated almost opposite each other on the
river Caya, a tributary of the Guadiana, while the cluster of Sdo Martinho I-III is located along the river Ponsul, a tributary of the Tagus (Almagro Basch 1966; 32-40).
Outliers from this south-westem focus include four stelae from the province of Ciudad Real,
one in Zaragoza and three from south-eastern France. Within the south-western region itself
there are also interesting vacuums where none has yet been discovered, for example in the
province of Huelva or around the Tagus estuary, and the stelae phenomenon is almost
completely restricted to the interior Peninsular regions. Only two coastal stelae locations are
currently known - those of Figueira, in the Algarve (MacWhite 1951; Almagro Basch 1966)
and Torres Alcolaz, in Seville (Oliva and Chasco 1976: 389-390).
6.7.5 Contextual analysis As mentioned earlier, Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn (1991) undertook a contextual analysis of the
stelae and concluded that the stelae were markers of routes through the landscape. Rather like
modem signposts, they proposed two possible routes that they may have demarcated; the first
linking the western area of the central system with the Lower Guadalquivir, and the second,
more eastern, one, joining the middle Tagus basin with the Guadalquivir valley and the area of C6rdoba (See Figure 6-12).
The first route runs from the central system to the western foothills of the Sieffa de Gata, beginning in the region of Sabugal, where the stelae of Foios and Bam9al have recently been found (Curado 1984; 1986; Vilaqa 1995: 408-413). In 1546, Villuga described this area as part of a natural route running from the Atlantic coast to the region of Salamanca and the Douro
plains. From here the route continues to Meimdo, the location of another stele, and on to the
Ponsul valley, in the region of Castelo Branco, where the three stelae of Sdo Martinho were
situated (Ruiz-GAIvez and Galdn 1991: 264).
Other paths branch off from this main route, including an eastern route towards Trevejo, (stele
of San Martfn de Trevejo - Garcfa de Figuerola 1982) and the valley of the river Tralgas (stele
of Herridn Pdrez -Almagro Basch 1972). A southern offshoot from the western route is marked
263
by the stelae of Alburquerque and Granja de Uspedes, the latter associated with a crossing of
the Guadiana at the river Caia. This route may be projected further south with the stele of
Monte Blanco de Olivenza (Bueno and Pifion 1985) and Capote (Berrocal 1987a). A south-
western branch may have extended from Monte Blanco, indicated by the stelae of Ervidel H
(Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1977), and Figueira, in Faro (MacWhite 1951: 159-160;
Almagro Basch 1966: 72-74). Historical sources (Madoz 1847) imply that this passage was
part of a transhumant route towards the pasture lands of the Baixo Alentejo, linking with the
Atlantic coast in the south-west of the Peninsula.
The second, more easterly route (Ruiz-Gdlvez and Galdn 1991: 268-269) follows a line from
the middle Tagus to middle Guadalquivir valleys and on to C6rdoba . It crosses the central
system and the Tagus, a river which offers few natural fords. Directly south of Castelo Branco,
at the ford of Alcon6tar de Cdceres, a sword was found in the water (Almagro, Gorbea 1977;
Ruiz-Gdlvez 1986: 31). Thus weapons consigned to rivers may show connections with the
routes potentially marked by the stelae. The strategic value of this crossing is enhanced by the
fact that it forms part of the ancient Vfa de Plata, and even in the Middle Ages, a road from
Seville to Valladolid involved a ferry crossing at this point (Hemdndez 1967).
It is also possible to cross the Tagus further east, as at Serradilla, Monfragiie, and Albalat
which lead directly on to the plains where the four stelae of Torrei6n el. Rubio were discovered
(Ongil 1983). The two stelae of Trujillo and Cortijo del Carneril. (Almagro Basch 1974) are
situated directly south of here, close to the concentration of stelae marking the crossing of the
Sierra de Montdnchez. The latter cluster are formed by Ibahernando, Santa Ana, Robledillo de
Trujillo (Almagro Basch 1966), Zarza de Montdnchez (Almagro Gorbea and Sdnchez Abal
1978), and Almoharfn in the southern foothills (Ongil 1983). From Almoharfn one reaches the
ford at Medellfn, one of the most important crossing points of the Guadiana. The stele of
Valdetorres is situated here (Enrfquez Navascues and Celestino Pdrez 1984).
Likewise, there appear to be many forks from this main course. Running from north-west to
south-east, this route first encounters the stele of Las Herencias (Femdndez Miranda 1986a) at
the ford of Azutdn, where two deposits of carp's tongue swords have also been recovered
(Jimdnez 1954). This route is also connected with the western one at Torrej6n del Rubfo, and
this important cluster of stelae may denote the confluence of various routes - both riverine and
terrestrial. The eastern route travels further south and is marked by more stelae at a shallow
point on the Guadiana (Quinterfas - Vazquerizo Gil 1989), its tributaries in the Z6jar valley at
VaIdetorres (Capilla I and H- Enrfquez Navascues and Celestino Pdrez 1981-1982) and the
river Bonbonal (Guadalmez - Rufz-Mata 1986). After crossing the Guadiana for Castillo
264
Blanco, there are two important concentrations of stelae - three at Cabeza del Buey on the river Zdjar and the four of El Viso all situated on or near tributaries of this river.
Some of the stelae along this route certainly appear to be situated in relation to the control or demarcation of river crossing points. However, the singular importance of the stelae as boundary markers needs to be considered in more depth. A detailed contextual analysis of the
stelae supported Rufz-Gdlvez's and Galdn's proposal that they were closely connected with
routes through the landscape. Many of the stelae were found in highly visible locations, on hill
tops or centrally positioned in an undulating landscape. This suggests that they were meant to be seen over a considerable distance. For example, ten stelae (Silo Martinho I-III, Valdetorres
I, Ategua, Ecija I and H, Montem6lin, Ervidel H and Las Herencfas I) were found located in
mountainous zones which confer excellent visibility over surrounding regions.
Forty seven percent of the stelae were positioned less than 300m from fluvial routes or at the
convergence of fords and terrestrial routes, while a further 16% were situated at strategic locations at crossing points of mountain passes. Twenty-four percent were found in foothills or
along pastoral routes through mountains, and six percent were placed under 500m from the
confluence of two or more important fluvial routes (Figure 6.11). Interestingly, some of the
most complex representations (with more than one human figure and a full array of weapons,
omaments and a wheeled vehicle) were located in some of the most strategic locations in the
landscape, and at the junction of two or more routes (Figure 6.13). An evaluation of the
significance of the stelae depictions, however, requires a deeper appreciation of their
iconography.
6.8.1 Reading the symbolism of the elements In order to understand the stelae as containers of symbolic information, one needs to read
meaning into the elements represented on them. Bourdieu (1977) proposed that symbolic
systems were employed in three main ways; firstly as a means of communication, secondly as an instrument of knowledge that allowed an objective construction of the world, and thirdly as a vehicle of domination that used ideology to establish and legitimise dominant cultures and
social divisions (see also Shanks and Tilley 1982: 133). It is possible that the symbolic system
of the stelae incorporated aspects of all of these functions into their iconography.
As with rock art, there is the possibility that the depictions on the stelae should be understood in a metaphorical sense. Their meaning may have depended upon the types of elements incised
on the stone, their association with other elements, and their spatial position within the overall scheme. Unlike rock art, the majority of the stelae representations appear to have been created in a single event, although there are exceptions to this. Both the stelae of Monte Blanco (Bueno
265
and Pifion 1985: 3743) and La Vega (Moreno Mufloz 1990: 14-15) show a superimposition of
elements, which suggests a later addition of some of the motifs. Furthermore, Varela Gomes
and Pinho Monteiro (1977: 185-186) have maintained that the stele of Brozas demonstrates
reuse, on the basis that two different techniques were employed to engrave the elements;
picking for the shield, sword and spearhead and incision for the comb and fibula. Thus it is
possible that later elaboration of some of the stelae occurred after they were originally erected.
The elements represented on the stelae tend to follow a certain standardisation. Although
certain key symbols were common to almost all the stelae (in particular the sword, shield and
spearhead), this need not imply that they functioned or were thought about in the same way
within different regional systems. Galdn concluded from his contextual analysis of the stelae
that the most complex examples (defined on the basis of the greatest number of elements
depicted, particularly "exotic" or prestige goods) were situated in the central basins and interior
zones - principally around the Ujar basin and the Sierra de Montdnchez. By contrast, he
argued that the more simple engravings without human figures are located in peripheral
regions, which Galdn defined as Beira Alta, Beja, Badajoz and Extremadura (1993: 3940,
Figure 6). Galdn concluded that this dichotomy represented a hierarchical organisation of
space and territory within the south-west regions, with the more complex designs indicating a
more stratified society, with increasing emphasis upon warrior elites.
These conclusions appear convincing, considering GaIdn's detailed landscape analysis, but they
lack conviction because he read the designs at face value; simple designs equated with a simple
society. Furthermore, there are many exceptions to this rule. Some of the most elaborate depictions actually come from these so-called "peripheral" zones; a fact that Galdn appears to
have glossed over. They include the stelae of Monte Blanco in Badajoz and the Ategua in
C6rdoba, the hunting scene from Sdo Martinho I in Castelo Branco, the "combat" scence from
Ervidel II in Beja. Thus the deeper symbolism and meaning in relation to context have still been neglected.
The compositional aspects of the stelae have been insufficiently studied. The analysis of the
arrangement (grammar) of different elements on the various stelae demonstrate that certain
formulae (syntax) within the compositions were adhered to in different areas, with particular
elements placed on specific locations on the different stelae. This analysis considered certain important questions that have hitherto been neglected in stelae research including:
266
a) symmetry versus asymmetry of the stelae depictions
b) the varying size of the different elements depicted - evidence of hierarchical organisation of
elements
C) the interaction of different motifs on the stelae, or whether each element should be
considered separately
d) the exact spatial location of each element within the depiction (stelae were divided into 3
horizontal and 3 vertical zones)
e) the representation of elements from different perspectives. E. g. wheeled vehicles are always
depicted frorn an aerial perspective, while 111-1111iin figures are always drawn frontally, never
in profile.
A consideration of the compositional analysis was to question whether there was sorne kind of
hierarchy or value systern adhered to in the depiction of elernents. The position of' tile various
motifs and their respective sizes might indicate this. Tile principal molit's of' the stelae are the
human figures, shields, swords. spearheads and wheeled vehicle,. It is possible to detect
changes within the compositional importance of the shield. In tile simplest stelae forms
(corresponding to Almagro Gorbea's 1977 sub-type IIA), the shield almost always occupies tile
centre of' the composition-, sandwiched between an tipper spearhead and a lower sword,
Ahriagro Gorbea's subtype JIB includes the same scheme, but with the addition of other
elements, including wheeled vehicles (e. g. Valencia de AlcAntara ii, Torrej6n del Rubio 1). 'File
shield continues to retain its, central position in sub-type IIC, characterised by the addition of'
one or more human figures. Thus the appearance of' the human form does not always displace
(lie shield from its central position within the composition (pace Bendala Galan 1989: 13).
Examples where this occurs include Figueira, Ervidel 11, Cabeza del Buey 11 and Setefilla.
6.8.2 Respective size of the motifs
Only 69 stelae could be subJect to this analysis, since It could only be undertaken oil entire
stelae. In 28, the elements were in roughly similar proportions, but the remaining 41 Indicated
sorne dorninant depiction. In the size analysis, 27 out of 41 denionstrated that weapons were
ove r-e xagge rated at the expense of other elements. The fact that weapons tend to be visually
dominant may imply that they were used to make -, orne sort of' staternent. Their depiction may
have been symbolically linked with the formal dress code of the warrior, reiterating the
ideology and iniage of a inale warrior group (e. g. Nakou 1995: 10, Treherne 1995: 114).
267
Table 6.1: Size and dominant position of motifs
Dominance of particular elements Shield Sword I All
weapons Human figure
Human figure and weapons
Helmet 1 Mirror
14 31 10 8 2 21 2
6.8.3 Warrior imagery
Another important consideration of the warrior imagery relates to those stelae which contain
one or more human figures. In the thirteen definite examples, nine depict a dominant human
figure centrally placed alongside a much smaller, almost child-like, figure (e. g. Burguillos, El
Viso I, Cuatro Casas and Valdetorres 1). Some of these stelae - including El Viso 1, Ervidel H
and Ategua - appear to present victory parades or duel scenes with the dominant warrior
overpowering the weaker enemy (Figures 6.8.3 and 6.18.2 and 4) In the latter two examples of
Ervidel H and Ategua, the principal "warrior" figure is depicted as quashing the other humans
by stamping on them. These stelae invite comparisons with some of the Iron Age warrior
scenes described in the Val Camonica rock art (Fossati 1991). Here there are representations of
warriors duelling, and the weaker loser is always illustrated as much smaller (Fossati 1992;
1995: 5 1). These were interpreted as votive images engraved as part of initiation rites, through
which young men of the local aristocracy achieved access to adult society (De Marinis 1988;
Fossati 1991). Perhaps some of the stelae, through focusing upon this warrior image,
symbolically emphasised the importance of belonging to, or identifying with, such a social
group.
As stated above, the depiction of the shield is the most constant feature of the stelae, with only
nine examples of a total of 92 not displaying this element (Figures 6.4.1 and 6.14.1). Ilere are
many reasons why the shield may hold a special significance in the stelae representations. Its
importance may simply be due to it being the main component of the warrior's defensive
armoury, protecting him and guaranteeing his security and survival. As the principal motif, it
may have bome special significance as a heraldic element of display, and perhaps also group
affiliation and social rank. We can observe the significance of shields in other cultures,
particularly in Mycenean and Greek tradition. Classical authors have frequently made
references to the shield as a cultic emblem and object of adoration (see Mylonas 1977). In the
Iliad (xvIM, Homer describes the weapons that Hefaistos forges for Achilles, paying
particular attention to the shield, which he discusses in great detail. Conversely, the helmet and
body armour are only mentioned in passing. Mycenean, Greek and Iron age Iberian shields
were often embellished with decoration or heroic scenes (Rutkowski 1981). Thus the shield
was more than simply a defensive weapon; it was also frequently covered with omate designs
and hence acted as vehicle of self-identity (Figure 6.15). Classical accounts recall the richly
268
decorated character of the shields of the Myceneans (Herodotus 1,171) and Lusitanians (Strabo
3,3,6), signifying the importance of personal expression. Mylonas (1977: 111) has also argued
that the decoration on shields could be linked with magical or religious protective qualities. Thus the representation of the shield on the stelae may have expressed the identity of a
particular social group, as well as symbolising its ideological protection.
6.9.1 Groups of stelae
One reason for questioning whether the stelae were simply erected to mark routes through the landscape is their overall spatial distribution. There are several concentrated clusters of stelae,
and these include the seven monoliths of Sdo Martinho, the four stelae of El Viso and of Capilla, the three of Aldea del Rey and two of the Toffej6n del Rubio group (Figure 6.11 and Appendix 6.1). In these cases, the stelae are located no further than one kilometre from one
another. Few explanations have been put forward to clarify why these clusters of stelae occur. Galdn (1993: 35-36) has suggested that they may have been grouped to designate particular funerary spaces, although evidence for such a claim is lacking. It is possible that they were
clustered in specific locales to indicate and surround specific natural resources like good
agricultural land or raw materials. They may also have signified a focus of ideological power,
or specific territorial boundaries in the areas where they were most densely aggregated. One
could also postulate that groups of stelae were associated with the social group as a whole,
while single monoliths were linked with individuals. This is a simplistic assumption, equating isolated stelae with a personal memory and groups with a communal effort, but there may be an
element of truth in such a suggestion.
It is important to investigate the reasons behind stelae aggregation more deeply. If all the stelae
were meant to be boundary markers as Rufz-Gdlvez and GalAn suggest (1991), their attempt to
trace linear routes of passage is not representative of their overall configuration. Their real
pattern is more complex than the function of sign posts in the landscape.
269
Table 6.2. The main stelae groupings and their relative concentration or isolation in the
landscape.
Grouping of stelae Stelae In group Geographical location
Completely isolated Abobada. Estoril Completely isolated Ervidel 11 Aliustrel Completely isolated Haza del Trillo J6en Completely isolated Fiqueira Faro Completely isolated Almargen Antequera Completely isolated Quinterfas Badaioz Completely Isolated Jarandilla C6ceres Isolated Granja de Uspedes Badaioz Isolated Monte Blanco Badaioz Isolated Arroyo Bonaval Alanae, Badaloz Isolated Magacela. Badajoz Isolated Burquillos Seville Isolated Setefilla Lora del Rio Isolated Alcorrucon C6rdoba Isolated Torres Alocaz Seville Non-clustered group Cuatro Casas, Montemolfn, La Lantejuela and
Eciia 1-111 Marchena region
Non-clustered group La. Vega, Atequa and Cerro Muriano C6rdoba Non-clustered group Baragal, Him, Meim&o, San Martin de Trevejo
and Hemcin 136rez Sabugal
Non-clustered group El Cameril, Solana de Cabahas, Logrosin and Almoroqui 11
Sierra do Guadalupe
Non-clustered group Valdetorres I and 11, Magacela, Cogolludo, Esparraqosa de Lares I and 11.
Guadiana
Slightly clustered group
lbahemando, Santa Ana de Trujillo, Robledillo de Trujillo, Zarza do MontAnchez, Almoharin and Salvatierra de Santiago
Sierra de Montdnchez
Densely clustered group
Benquerencia. de la Serena, Cabeza del Buey I -111, Zarza. Capilla, , Capilla. I- IV, El Viso I-VI, Belalcizar, Canco Roano, Zujdr
ZOjar valley
Densely clustered qroup
Pozuelo de Calatrava. and Aldea del Rey 1-111 Ciudad Real
Densely clustered qroup
Valencia do Alcdntara 1-111 River Aurela
_ Densely clustered qroup
S&o Martinho I-Vil Castelo Branco
-Densely clustered qroup
Torrej6n del Rubio I-IV Tagus group (Monfrlkque)
Densely clustered group-
Las Herencias 1-11 and Talavera La. Reina. I Talavera La Reina
6.9.2 Pairing of stelae
Within the different groups, it is also possible to detect an almost deliberate pairing of stelae.
This is particularly true of many of the stelae in the Zdjar valley. Capilla H and IV are situated
opposite one another on either side of the river Zdjar, El Viso I and IV and El Viso II and M are
placed in pairs directly opposite one another on the Rio GuadAlmez, a tributary of the Zdjar (see
associated maps). Interestingly these three pairs of stelae all depict humans (or warriors), and
the southern monolith in each pair contains two or more human figures, a relatively unusual
element of the stelae (only noted on 13 stelae out of the presently published 92 examples).
Even more illuminating is the fact that a diadem stele was found in the immediate vicinity of
each pair; Capilla I 2krn to the north of Capilla H and IV; La Berfilla to the south-east of El
270
Viso I and IV and Belalcdzar to the south of El Viso H and IH (see associated maps). The
symbols of masculinity and aggression presented by these warrior stelae may have been
complemented by the female symbols of power and prestige as depicted on the diadem stelae.
6.10 Reinterpretation of stelae function in relation to context
6.10.1 ZOjar valley
The Zdjar valley is the zone where the densest concentration of stelae occurs, with a total of 27
presently known. Twenty stelae were located in a small area of only 28km by 24km around the
source of the river Zdjar itself. The positions of many of these stelae correlate well with important river crossing points that have been used for pastoral transhumance since antiquity
(Madoz 1847; Hemdndez 1967: 72-73; tnriquez Navascues 1982a; 1982b). For example, the
stelae of Cogolludo and Esparragosa de Lares I lie next to an old course of the river Guadiana
(Enrfquez Navascues and Celestino Pdrez 1984) and near two ancient fords associated with
pastoral routes (Enrfquez Navascues 1982a). Certainly the Zujdr valley stelae concentration
shows a much stronger relationship with routes than with a densely populated landscape, since
this region has provided little evidence of prehistoric or even historic settlements (Almagro
Gorbea 1977: 81-136; tnriquez Navascues and Hurtado 1986; tnriquez Navascues 1990b;
tnriquez Navascues et al. 1992; Garcfa 1990; see Chapter Four). However, the dense cluster of
stelae in this region indicates something more complex than the simple designation of pastoral
routes through the landscape. An analysis of the depictions on these stelae shows that the
shields portrayed on these 27 stelae indicate a variety of types, including rounded, U-notched
and V-notched examples, with between one and five inner concentric circles. There is also
much diversity with respect to the central bosses and decoration of these shields.
The Zdjar valley is a strategic zone with routes Proceeding east to the mineral region of
Almaddn and the pastoral lands of the Alcudia valley, in Ciudad Real. Ancient routes also pass
through this area to the south and the south-west, linking with C6rdoba and Seville as well as
the rich pastoral and mineral territories of Badajoz (Bishko 1965; Domergue 1990). In the
Middle Ages this region was a frontier zone, forming a boundary with the southern Arab
influenced regions (Vazquerizo Gil 1989). Perhaps the Zujdr valley also acted as frontier
region in the Later Bronze Age. One characteristic of frontier zones is the potential for conflict
(e. g. see Thapar 1981). Interestingly almost all (90%) of the stelae within this region depict
human figures, often in an aggressive pose, with the sword brandished (Figure 6.14.2). Within
the whole south-western stelae tradition, only 55% of the stelae contain a human representation.
In the Zjjjar valley, therefore the male warrior image was a highly important component of the
stelae iconography. In addition, the diversity of shield types incised on these stones may have
represented the rivalry of different social groups attempting to lay claim to and compete over
271
this vital zone. The absence of a densely settled landscape in the Zdjar valley may have
encouraged different transhumant groups to mark particular ownership over strategic points in
this region. Thus the stelae in this region may not have functioned primarily as route markers, but rather their erection may have signified territorial control by distinct social groups.
6.10.2 Ecozones
Eleven of the stelae were located along ecozones and these strategic positions might support the
argument that the stelae also functioned as territorial markers. The group of stelae in the Sierra
de MontAnchez lie between the base of the pastoral valley and the agricultural campifia, as do
several of the stelae in the Guadalquivir valley (Rodrfguez Hidalgo 1983: 229). In particular,
the examples of Burguillos and Fuente de Cantos were both situated at transitional zones between the alluvial plains and the mountains. Points of transition between pastoral and
agricultural lands were of vital economic importance and may well have been strongly
competed for by various transhumant groups.
6.10.3 Mineral resources Furthermore, some of the stelae appear to have been located on or near mineral resources. Although we know many of these metallic resources were exploited during this century (Minerfa en Extremadura 1987), the lack of archaeological investigation cannot confirm
whether all of these were also in operation during the time of the erection of the stelae. However, there is evidence of ancient tin mining activity near the stele of Alburquerque
(Minerfa en Extremadura 1987: 77-78). Furthermore, Aldea del Rey H was situated a few
hundred metres from the mouth of an abandoned copper mine, known to have been exploited in
antiquity (Valiente and Prado 1979), as was the Herndn P6rez stelae cluster (Minerfa en Extremadura 1987: 79). Thus one may postulate that the knowledge, access and control of
certain metal resources may have been a relevant factor in the positioning of a few of the Late
Bronze Age stelae. In general, though, the evidence for ancient mineral exploitation comes from zones where the presence of south-westem stelae is limited, particularly in the
metalliferous regions of Beira Alta, Badajoz, Ciudad Real and the Sierra Morena (Domergue
1990).
In contrast to the limited association between mineral resources and warrior stelae, an analysis
of another tradition - that of the Later Bronze Age diadem stelae - demonstrates a far more
significant link. Ilese have been remained poorly investigated (e. g. see Bueno Ramfrez 1984;
1987; 1990; Almagro Gorbea 1993a; 1993b) and the few explanations that have been posited for their creation include the idea that they represented and marked political alliances
undertaken by male elites through the exchange of women (Galdn 1993: 42; Rufz-Gdlvez
1992a; 1994; 1995b: 145-147; 1997). This rather androcentic perspective of the "bartered
272
bride" (Rufz-Gdlvez 1994) does not appear to be in keeping with current engendered
perspectives of the past (e. g. Rothschild 1990; Gero and Conkey 1991; Robb 1994), but
continues to depict women in passive rather than active or socially important roles.
In many respects the female diadem stelae invite parallels with their male warrior counterparts
(Figure 6.16). They depict women wearing large and elaborate head-dresses and necklaces;
items of prestige that could infer female elite status. A contextual study of their situation in the
landscape highlights four distinct clusters of diadem stelae - in Salamanca to the north, Cdceres
to the west, Ciudad Real to the east and Badajoz to the south (Figure 6.17).
Interestingly, these groups all correspond closely with the distribution of important deposits of
raw materials. The Salamanca group is situated near tin deposits, the Cdceres group is
associated with tin and silver deposits, the Ciudad Real cluster is located next to silver and
copper deposits, and the Badajoz group is surrounded by copper veins. It- would appear
therefore, that the diadem stelae also demarcated strategic points in the landscape, but instead
of marking routes of passage, they may well have delineated important zones of mineral wealth.
Thus, the diadem stelae may well have indicated or symbolically protected zones of mineral
wealth, fulfilling a function that the warrior stelae did not strongly correlate with. In this
respect, the roles played by the warrior stelae as indicating routes of communication or
denoting territorial control over strategic passages through the landscape by male elites, may
have been complemented by the equally important delineation and control over raw material
resources by the diadem stelae and female elites.
6.10.4 Stelae and bronze deposits
The deposition of bronze weapons in the Atlantic regions of the Iberian Peninsula was roughly
contemporary with the erection of the south-western stelae. Thus it is worth investigating
possible links between the two traditions, since the weapons depicted on the stelae are one of
the only elements actually represented in the archaeological record through such deposition.
Many of the Atlantic metal deposits show a structured deposition along terrestrial and fluvial
routes through the landscape. Several authors have suggested that some of the deposits may
represent tariffs derived from merchant or pastoral traffic for crossing river fords or entering
passes through mountains, thus suggesting a possible link with the routes that the stelae may
have demarcated (Garcfa Martfn 1990; Uriol 1990). The main concentration of sword deposits
came from the large rivers of the south-west - particularly the Guadalquivir and Tagus (e. g.
Cacilhas, Porto de Concelho, Matalascefias, Bellavista, and Alcala del Rfo). Many of the
reasons behind metal deposition have been considered in Chapter Five, and do not require
repetition here. However, their relationship with stelae has not yet been adequately considered.
273
Although there is some concordance between stelae and metal deposits, their distributions are
not exactly complementary. A large number of stelae are situated in the eastern zone of
Badajoz, and in Toledo and Ciudad Real; areas disconnected with Atlantic metallurgy.
Although stelae and Atlantic bronzes are both present in the lower Guadalquivir, the stelae are
situated on dry land while the bronzes were consigned to the water. The closest
correspondence between stelae and Atlantic bronzes occurs in western Extremadura. Here, the
sword of Montijo was found in the Guadiana, a few kilometres to the east of the stele of Granja
de Uspedes, while the sword of Alc6netar, in the river Tagus, was situated two kilometres to
the east of the Torrej6n del Rubio stelae group (Almagro Gorbea 1977; Ruiz-GSlvez 1986: 31).
Other than this, there appears to be little geographical association between the two traditions.
Several studies of Scandinavian rock art (e. g. Malmer 1981; Bertilsson 1989; Bradley 1989;
1990; 199 1 a; 1997a; 2000) have noted the incongruity between the rock art representations and
the actual existence of metal objects. In general, metal hoards were only located in regions
adjacent to the rock art and thus the authors have suggested that the engraved objects on the
rocks may be substitutes because of a scarcity of actual bronze weapons and tools. In this
respect, we can draw some parallels with the stelae; they exhibit objects such as mirrors,
combs, bronze weapons and wheeled vehicles in zones that were peripheral to the main focus of Atlantic and Mediterranean cultural impulses, and the circulation of such objects. Thus, the iconography of the stelae may have been a relevant factor in their creation in these zones. Although these regions were marginal to the main thrust of foreign influences, the depictions of
exotic objects provided substitutes for the real objects and reaffirmed the association with these
cultural currents.
6.11 Analysis of stelae depictions, context and region The final analysis in this chapter relates to the association of the context of the stelae and the
elements depicted, in an attempt to determine whether there was any correlation between
location and imagery. This analysis concentrated upon two aspects; the relationship between
the specific position in the landscape (e. g. at a river crossing or along a mountain route), and
the regional groups of stelae (see Appendix 6.1).
274
Table 6.3: Correlation between the context of the stelae and the elements depicted (see
captions to Figure 6.11 for stelae names and see Figures 65-6.7for the depictions).
Stelae Situation Stelae number Particular characteristics of stelae group At or near ford/ river 4,5,29,30,34,38, Wheeled vehicle frequently depicted (59% of crossing 40,41,50,51,53,58, examples); either at top right or bottom left of
72,80,81,82,85,87, stele. 1 example of raft or boat (no. 34). Shield 89 shows no obvious correlation. Mirror, fibula and
comb important elements (noted on 67% of examples). Mirror normally placed In top left of depiction, in anthropomorph's right hand with comb and fibula situated to the right of the human. Bow and arrow, which is a rare element (only 13 examples in total) was indicated on 4 of these stelae. Homed helmet also noted on 5 examples.
Confluence of both 6,7,17,18,19,23, This group shows a more standardised fluvial and terrestrial 27,32,33,35,36,37, convention. The shield almost always routes 48,49,54,56,59,60, dominates In these depictions as the central
61,63 element. 56% of the stelae In this group conform to the triple association of central shield with upper spear and lower sword, occasionally with the addition of other elements (e. g. wheeled vehicle or fibula). Wheeled vehicles are common in this group - (6 examples - generally located In bottom centre of the composition). Most of the shields have 2 Inner concentric circles and a central boss and either circular or V-notched. Helmets are uncommon (only I example)
Terrestrial route 1.10,12,13,16,21, Generally simple stelae with the triple through mountains 25,42,68,84 combination of central shield, upper spear and (often ancient lower sword (70% of examples), although pastoral route) occasionally with addition of mirror and comb In
top right of depiction. Unusual element of horizontal ladder motif in 2 examples. Human ficiure rare (30%).
In foothills (ecozone 14,15,20,26,28,39, Human figure common In this group (71% of or fertile region) 46,47,64,67,69,70, examples) and it Is always depicted In an along pastoral route 73,74, aggressive confrontational pose. The human
figure tends to dominate the composition as the central element, displacing the shield, and almost always with the sword brandished in the left hand or ready to be drawn at the hilt. The helmet Is rare, but In 2 examples the central figure appears to be crushing an enemy (64 and 74).
At crossing of two or 11,22,24,43,44,45, No obvious correlations or similarities noted more terrestrial 62,65,66,78,79,88 amongst the elements depicted on these stelae. routes No standardised format. Unknown 2,57,76,83,86,90, Not applicable.
92 Near ancient mine 52,55,91 Human figure always depicted, in aggressive
pose. Near LBA settlement 3,8,9,71,77 Human figure generally represented, and In two
examples Is ssoclated with a bow and arrow. Near coast 75 Not applicable.
The table above indicates that there is some correlation between the context of the stelae and
their representations. It would be premature to read too much into the significance of these
inter-relationships, since it is unlikely that we will ever be able to unlock all the hidden
meanings of the stelae iconography. For example, the two wheeled "chariot" may have been
275
incised as an element of prestige or social status, associated with the warrior ideology (Filip
1972; Kossack 1971; Harbison 1967; Celestino Pdrez 1985). The location of depictions of
wheeled vehicles suggests that they were not symbolising practical considerations, such as the
transport of goods. These are all associated with fluvial routes or near mountain passes,
particularly in the Guadiana basin; ironically in parts of the landscape where they would have
been of little practical use. Similarly, the symbolism of other exotic prestige objects in
association with the human figure, including homed helmets, fibulae, combs and miffors, may be interpreted as emphasising this particular male warrior image, focusing upon grooming, self- identity and warfare (e. g. see Treherne 1995: 114). This image was most strongly emphasised
on the stelae that were located at ecozones, or along fertile plains and foothills. The aggressive
format of these stelae hints at one of the functions that these stones may have had; that of
denoting ownership and control by various social groups in zones where competition was
fiercely contested. By contrast, the stelae located along ancient pastoral routes generally
followed simple compositions and rarely displayed the human figure. The relative lack of
hostility symbolised on these stelae suggests that they were not territorial markers, but, as Rufz-
Gdlvez and Galdn argue, were signposts in the land.
The correlation between stelae representation and regional situation (Appendix 6.1) revealed
that there were more similarities between geographical groups than contextual location. Some
of the regions (particularly the C6a-Gata, Sierra de MontSnchez and Guadiana zones)
demonstrated close affinities amongst the depictions within each group. Other regions,
particularly at Torrej6n del Rubfo and in the Zdjar valley, indicated little uniformity in the
representations.
Thus, these analyses show that the stelae may have functioned in different ways in various
contexts and in different regions. In the COa-Gata, Sierra de Montdnchez and Guadiana
regions, the representations on the these stelae may have acted as a non-verbal form of
communication, offering information about the identity of a particular group, and distinguishing it from neighbouring groups. In the other areas, the stelae may also have been
used to convey a symbolic language, but in this case the local accents were more pronounced,
possibly emphasising the identity of a number of social groups competing for resources.
6.12 Conclusions
This chapter has attempted to study the Later Bronze Age stelae from a contextual perspective,
divorced from the dry and mundane typological arguments of recent decades. By developing an
understanding of the ways in which the stelae depictions articulated with the surrounding
landscape, we can begin to appreciate the reasons for their erection. They were created at a
276
time of increasing socio-cultural interaction in western Iberia; related to the intensification of Atlantic Bronze Age and Mediterranean exchange networks. During this time, routes through
the landscape became increasingly relevant, as did their control and access to them. Yet the
question as to why they were erected in certain regions of the south-west only still remains
unanswered. The terrestrial and fluvial routes that were consolidated in the Later Bronze Age
traversed a much wider expanse of western Iberia, yet stelae were not used to demarcate nodal locations in other regions. Part of the answer may relate to the patterns of settlement and
economy that were in operation in some of the south-westem zones during this time. The
archaeological evidence for Later Bronze Age settlement activities in the Guadiana, Zdjar and Tagus basins suggests that some of the social groups in these regions were still following a
predominantly pastoral and transhumant lifestyle (see Chapter Four). Without permanent
settlements, a different way of constructing territory, determining boundaries, routes and
ownership had to be embarked upon (see Ingold 1986: 154; Casmir 1992b: 155-157; Bradley
1991a; 1997a). The erection of the stelae may indicate that these regions were being
conceptualised differently during the Later Bronze Age, and were being converted from
landscapes into consolidated territories.
The stelae as a group do appear to conforrn to a particular symbolic language that focuses upon
warfare and the image of the warrior. The stelae have frequently been employed in this way to
support the idea of a male dominated patriarchal society, where social power revolved around
men and their activities, such as hunting and warfare (Almagro Gorbea 1977; Bendala Gdlan
1977; 1987; Varela Gomes and Pinho Monteiro 1977; Vdzquez Varela and Cano Pan 1988:
284-285; Barcel6 1989; Celestino Pdrez 1990; Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn 1991). The identity of
such warrior status has been seen to be represented by and constructed around alcohol and feasting (Sherratt 1987; 1991; 1994b), riding and wheeled vehicles (Piggott 1983; Sherratt
198 1; 1983), specialised weapons and body ornamentation and grooming or "masculine beauty"
(Treheme 1995: 105-106).
Certainly the dominance of weapons and weapon representations seen on the south-western
stelae in the Iberian Peninsula might confirm this international style of a warrior elite ideology
and the existence of male elites who laid claim to the landscape (Galdn 1993; Vdzquez Varela
and Cano Pan 1988; Sorensen 1998). Many of these stelae portray representations of male
figures surrounded by exotic prestige goods that emphasise self-identity and groorning (fibula,
rnirror, comb, tweezers), riding (wheeled vehicles pulled by horses) and warfare (generally a
standardised set of sword, spear and shield, but often also with bow and affow and dagger)
(Figure 6.18.1 - 6.18.4).
277
However, this chapter has attempted to demonstrate that the warrior ideology should not be
read at face value as indicating the presence of male warrior elites or chiefs in a hierarchical
society. The emphasis on warfare and a warrior elite is symbolic imagery; it is ideology not
reality. It may be better interpreted as a compliance by different social groups to use specific
symbolic conventions in a form of peer-polity interaction (Renfrew and Cherry 1986;
Bertilsson 1989). This may imply a form of integration over parts of the south-west whereby
regional groups reinforced their belonging to the same socio-political sphere, through adopting
a common warrior language (similar basic representations), albeit with regional dialects (subtle
variations in the way they are depicted).
This idea does not presuppose that all the stelae functioned in the same way, within similar
social or territorial systems. The contextual, regional and element analysis of the stelae has
demonstrated that they may well have performed a number of roles. The different elements
represented and the different ways in which the stelae articulated with the surrounding landscape indicates a more complex situation than hitherto realised. Some of the stelae acted as
territorial markers for a largely pastoral population competing over control of important
resources. Others were used to denote terrestrial and fluvial routes through the landscape.
Some examples were undoubtedly used to mark out, or perhaps symbolically protect, important
mineral and agricultural resources. Many of the stelae were also used to emphasise group
affiliation and promote regional identity within transhumant pastoral societies; undertaking this
role in the absence of strongly consolidated permanent settlement patterns. It is hoped that this
chapter has begun to unravel some of the messages of stelae symbolism by placing these silent
stones back into their geographical contexts to let them speak.
278
Chapter Seven
The East in the Wesi and the West in the East: Contact and Interaction between the Mediterranean and the Iberian Peninsula
"Trade plays a powerful explanatory role in most accounts of European
prehistory ... but the significance of trade needs to be argued not assumed" (Wolf
1993: 211).
"The transformations that occurred around the beginning of the first millennium BC
resultedfirom a theater of encounters between several different alien Mediterranean states
and a variety of indigenous societies that become entangled in diverse forms of interaction
with complex cultural and social ramifications" (Dietler 1997. - 270).
"The permeability of societies to imported ideas is by no means uniform" (Megaw
and Megaw 1993: 223).
7.1 Introduction This chapter intends to bring all the separate themes studied in this research together, and offer
a different understanding of relationships between western Iberia and the Mediterranean in the
Later Bronze Age. In spite of Iberia's strategic position at the confluence of diverse spheres of
interaction, scant attention has been paid to the extent and intensity of communication between
Portugal and western Spain and other eastern and southern regions prior to the Phoenician
colonisation.
The Phoenician colonisation of southern Iberia is considered to be one of the most significant
events in Spanish and Portuguese Protohistory. The Phoenicians have been hailed as the
precipitators of all important social and economic changes witnessed in the Iberian
archaeological record at the transition to the Early Iron Age. The primary aim of this Chapter is
to consider the Phoenician colonisation of Iberia from a new diachronic frame of reference. In
the past, the majority of theses written on this topic have been undertaken from a temporally
and geographically biased perspective. In effect the Phoenician colonisation has been studied
out of context. Most authors have focused upon the Orientalising phenomenon in Iberia from
the moment the first colonies were founded on Iberian shores. They have tended to concentrate
upon the Phoenician impact in a small geographical zone known as Tartessos, in south-west
Iberia. Most academics have also paid more attention to the colonies than to the complex interaction between them and the native Iberian communities. This chapter incorporates the
279
indigenous Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age developments into the otherwise biased
Phoenician equation. Without an understanding of these or an appreciation of the long-distance
exchange and communication between the Peninsula and other parts of Europe and the
Mediterranean prior to ca. 750BC, we cannot hope to fully understand subsequent colonial
developments.
The Iberian Peninsula was famous in history for some of the most important explorations to
other parts of the globe. Once situated at the western edge of the known world, from the 15th
century onwards Portuguese and Spanish explorers opened up new trade and communication
routes and circum-navigated the globe. It was the Peninsula, and Portugal in particular, that
established extensive overseas trading networks that linked up with Angola, Mozambique, India
and the Americas. Henry the Navigator of Portugal set up a school of navigation in Sagres in
1419. Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain and discovered the Americas in 1492; Vasco da
Gama sailed round the Cape of Good Hope in 1497 and discovered the route to India;
Ferdinand Magellan undertook many expeditions to India and Africa between 1505 and 1519,
reaching the East Indies and crossing the Pacific. It was primarily the Peninsula's strategic
position at the cross-roads of continents and at the end of the world that encouraged its
extensive historic tradition in long distance exploration and trade. There is now substantial
evidence to suggest that western Iberia was also involved in long-distance interaction with other
parts of the world in later prehistory. The relationship between Iberia and the Mediterranean in
the Later Bronze Age has been insubstantially studied and this will be the focus of this chapter.
Our understanding of the Phoenician colonisation in Iberia is subject to one further inherent
bias that relates to the theoretical models applied to trade and exchange in general. Most
studies have been approached from diffusionist or centre-periphery perspectives, that
concentrate upon cores, the producers, and the elites rather than peripheries, the receivers or the
general populace of a given society. It is time to realise that the Phoenician colonisation and
the trade that it precipitated need not have been exploitative or based primarily upon objects of desire; factors which core-periphery models tend to advocate. This chapter will explore the
possibilities that such interaction was symbiotic and associated with a general process of
acculturation that was more concerned with an exchange of information than prestige goods.
7.2 Introduction to Trade
Trade and exchange are frequently considered to be prime movers in social and econon-dc
change. The processes of the Phoenician colonisation is no exception, since the Phoenicians
have frequently been perceived as the main agents of subsequent social, economic, political and
even ideological changes in Iberia at the transition to the Early Iron Age. Past studies of east-
280
west interaction have tended to focus upon a unidirectional flow of traffic and knowledge from
the eastern to western Mediterranean. In accordance with the core-periphery models of the
Bronze Age (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; Cunliffe 1993; Frank 1993 etc. ), the Iberian Peninsula
has always been painted as a peripheral or even marginal region, dependent upon and
dominated by the centres of Assyria, the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean. The colonial
experience has been drawn from the perspective that the Phoenicians offered certain benefits to
the barbarian Iberian societies, through conferring all the advantages of civilisation, and thus
encouraging them to become more dynamic within subsequent Mediterranean historical
development. In other words the colonial experience caused a direct and fundamental
transfon-nation upon a receptive and passive Iberian society (pace Cabrera Bonet 1998: 192-
193). "The natural evolution of Late Bronze Age communities living in south-west Iberia
seems to have been effected by a strong stimulus, such as only external catalysts can bring"
(Gamito 1989: 145).
The "myth" surrounding the Phoenician colonisation has only begun to be challenged. In
general it has been accepted that the Phoenician influence was felt deeply in the heart of
Tartessian society, and affected not only the indigenous economy (metallurgy, pottery, diet,
craft specialisation, novel technologies), but also Iberian society (architecture, settlement
patterns, emergence of urbanism, social stratification). For example, Almagro Gorbea (1983;
1990) held that the Phoenician colonisation transformed all aspects of the indigenous culture
"affecting not only the material culture, aesthetics and technology, but also the economy
society, politics, religion and ideology; in consequence completely modifying the whole
internal structure of the culture affected" (1990: 88).
We now have good data for understanding the extent of the Phoenician colonisation, the types
of artefacts and the products exchanged, and even the carriers and the purposes for which the
imported items were used. The actual processes of the interaction, and the consequences of
such trade, however, still rest largely on assumption and not established fact. The role of the
indigenous societies within such interaction still remains unclear, and it is necessary to redress
this by introducing a perspective from the so-called periphery.
7.3 Theoretical perspectives of the Phoenician interaction
Cultural contact has been recognised as an important archaeological theme for over a century.
The majority of studies dedicated to prehistoric exchange and interaction has concentrated upon
contact between separate cultural complexes. This is because such interaction tends to be
easily recognised in the archaeological record, without the need for scientific techniques, and,
moreover, because it is generally perceived to be more significant culturally. Early
281
interpretations of such interaction rested upon assumptions that it resulted directly from
influxes of foreign populations, including invasions and migrations (e. g. Siret 1913; Bosch
Gimpera 1939; Childe 1957).
There have been many shifts in the approach to the study of prehistoric interchange in the last
fifty years or so. Although archaeologists have followed a general move away from these
outmoded outlooks, the concept of diffusionism has not yet been finally eradicated. This is
partly because the late 1970s onwards saw a rise in the popularity in the use of World System
(Wallerstein 1974) and centre-periphery models (e. g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987b; Kohl 1987;
Rowlands et al. 1987; Champion 1989; Sherratt 1991; 1993a; 1993b; Cunliffe 1993). Implicit
in these theories is the notion of a centre that is more advanced or civilised in comparison to
surrounding regions. The core would export manufactured goods to, and import raw materials
from, the peripheral regions, implying a bond of dependency (see Figure 7.5).
It is through the core-periphery and prestige goods models that trade has frequently been
employed to explain the emergence of complex stratified societies (e. g. Flannery 1968 for the
Olmec state; Rathje 1973 for the Maya; Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978 for Iron Age central
Europe; Frankenstein 1979 and 1994 for Iron Age Iberia). Many of the general works
concerning transitions from the European Bronze to Iron Ages have argued that change resulted
from fluctuations in the nature of centre and periphery relations (e. g. Pauli 1985; Wells 1980;
1984; Collis 1984; Brun 1987; Kristiansen 1987a; Cunliffe 1988). Particular emphasis has
been placed upon the transition from the European Bronze to Iron Ages, being hailed as the
period that represented the important transition from reciprocal "gift-giving" societies to more
structured complex market economies (e. g. Renfrew (ed. ) 1973; Cunliffe 1978; Frankenstein
and Rowlands 1978; Wells 1980; 1984; 1985; Godsen 1989).
To some extent, the view of Iberia as a periphery in prehistory has been encouraged by her
geographical position, situated at the edge of the Mediterranean sea, and hence spatially
marginal to Mediterranean systems. In the Iberian core-periphery models, the explanation
adopted has been that the Phoenician traders stimulated a new interest for consumer demand
amongst the Tartessian elites, who were believed to have controlled the indigenous means of
production (Cunliffe 1993; Frankenstein 1979; 1994; Cabrera Bonet 1994). The demand
placed upon these new products was believed to have created new ties of dependence upon the
Phoenician colonies, and this maintained the reproduction of trade. The control of exotic goods by the local elite was seen to confer social prestige and encourage the development of a more
structured hierarchy, since they furthered their own social positions through such a
monopolisation (e. g. Sherratt and Sherratt 1991). Thus the commercial system was generally
282
seen as exploitative and unbalanced, with the local aristocracy continually encouraging further
demand and consumption in the Tartessian hinterland in order to expand its own surplus
production (Aubet 1987; 1988; 1993). This has resulted in the colonial experience being
understood from a narrow and incomplete viewpoint; primarily from the perspective of the
Phoenicians, where the Tartessian elites acted as "middle men" between the colonial markets
and the Tartessian periphery (e. g. Aubet 1987: 32-34).
The major downfall of the application of the prestige goods model in the Iberian context is that
it does not correlate well with the Iberian archaeological evidence. Mediterranean imports of high and exotic value (such as the large bronze Vix krater that is one example used in the
French model - see Wells 1985; Brun 1991) are poorly represented, and did not appear to play
an important part in a prestigious exchange network between native chiefs and colonists.
Furthermore, evidence for elites are difficult to discern from the archaeological record in
western Iberia. This does not imply that they were absent, but if there is little evidence to
confirm their presence, then perhaps this is an important issue to address with respect to
exchange mechanisms. With the single exception of the eleventh to tenth century BC tholos
tomb of Roga do Casal do Meio in Sesimbra (Spindler et al. 1973-1974), there are no
exceptionally rich Later Bronze Age or Early Iron Age burials, or even any obviously
differentiated burial evidence (Schubart 1974; 1975; Amo 1974; Bel6n et al. 1991). This
differs from the situation in central Europe where from the Hallstatt B period (tenth century
BC) onwards there are a number of burials that are characterised by exceptionally "rich" grave
goods, which sometimes include wheeled vehicles (e. g. Pare 1985; Wells 1985; 1988; 1990;
Winghart 1989). Like central Europe, exotic prestige goods were entering into western Iberia
well before IOOOBC. Yet, perhaps unlike central Europe, rather than belonging to individual
elites, they may have been associated with the community as a whole (e. g. see Dubuisson
1978).
It is possible that archaeologists have over-exaggerated the effect of Phoenician imports and
exchanges. It is also feasible that they have over-played the supposedly fundamental role
played by the Phoenicians in the transformation of Iberian societies, and focused primarily
upon economic considerations. This chapter explores the importance of different levels of
trade, and a recognition of exchange in a social, political and ideological sense (e. g. Appardurai
(ed) 1986; Helms 1988). The subsequent sections will provide evidence that challenges the
belief that the colonial experience was the primary external catalyst that changed an otherwise
stagnated indigenous world. This does not deny that the Phoenician were part of the
subsequent transformations, but they were not the sole contributors.
283
The peer-polity interaction model (Renfrew and Cherry 1986) was introduced in order to
provide an alternative framework for explaining cultural change without having to resort to
diffusionist or core-periphery approaches. It involves "the full range of interchanges taking
place (including imitation and emulation, competition, warfare and exchange of material goods
and information) between autonomous (i. e. self-governing and hence politically independent)
socio-political units situated close or beside each other within a single geographical region"
(Renfrew 1986: 1). It is through utilising this model, without evoking centres, peripheries or
margins, that I feel we will come closer to understanding the relationships between Iberia and
the Mediterranean in later prehistory.
7.4.1 Pre-Colonial interaction between Iberia and the Mediterranean
The subject of pre-Phoenician contact with the far west is still a poorly understood subject,
worthy of further investigation. The obscurity that surrounds this topic results from three main
factors. Firstly, much of the evidence pertaining to such interaction has been generated or
recognised only in recent decades. Secondly, the nature of the evidence is often ambiguous,
and has been subject to varied and conflicting interpretations. Thirdly, and not surprisingly, the
evidence for early stages of east -west contact is more qualitative than quantitative in nature.
Until the 1980s, the idea of pre-colonial activity in the Iberian Peninsula was largely
discredited. Hawkes stated that "anything supposedly brought to south Spain or Portugal
before the Phoenicians or Greeks..... is either not so early or else (like the few Syrio-Egyptian
scarabs) could have been brought by the Greeks as well. Any exception to this - unless some
great surprise awaits is - will be a rarity. " (1957: 179).
The recognition and understanding of trade and interaction between Iberia and the
Mediterranean during the later second n-dllennium BC hinges upon a number of assumptions.
Firstly, it rests upon the premise that it was technically possible for such contact to occur, in
spite of the dearth for Later Bronze Age ships. Secondly, it implies that long-distance
interaction was important. Thirdly it infers that tangible impacts of such exchange can be
recognised in the archaeological record.
Notions of eastern influence in the western Bronze Age have become unpopular in recent years
through publications like Renfrew's (1968) "Wessex without Mycenae" and Watkins' (1976)
"Wessex without Cyprus". Harding's (1984) book "The Myceneans and Europe" dismissed
east-west links almost completely. The last two decades, however, have witnessed an increased
accumulation of evidence that does attest to pre-colonial relations between the Mediterranean
and Iberia, and that by around 120OBC, these contacts became well established (Rufz-Gdlvez
1986; Martfn de ]a Cruz 1987b; Burgess 1991; Lo Schiavo 1991). Interpretations of this
284
evidence have often advocated that it was the Myceneans, Cypriots and Sardinians who set up
these routes of contact at the end of the second millennium BC (e. g. Garbini 1966; Moscati
1968; Alvar 1981: 66-98; 1988; Niemeyer 1984; Mederos Martin 1996).
One reason for this is the assumption that Iberian Bronze Age communities had poorly developed nautical skills in comparison with their central Mediterranean counterparts (Frankenstein 1979; Alvar 1981: 190; Rufz-Gdlvez 1980: 6; 1984a: 512; 1986; Coffyn 1985:
159). Yet, Iberia has a very long coastline and it would seem unlikely that the communities living along it would not have developed at least a basic competence in sea-faring. Furthermore, we know that western Iberian populations were actively involved in commerce
with the Atlantic regions of north-west Europe after ca. 130OBC (see Chapter Five). If Atlantic
sea-routes had been established and were being successfully navigated by Iberian communities
in the Later Bronze Age, as the metalwork evidence would imply, it makes sense that eastern
routes were also being cultivated by Peninsular sailors. For one thing, the relatively calm
Mediterranean sea is far easier to navigate than the dangerous and unpredictable waters of the
Atlantic. Only the Straits of Gibraltar form a potential threat to eastem-bound sea journeys,
since the powerful eastward currents flowing into the Atlantic make this area precarious
(McGrail 1993: 201). Avienus described a Later Bronze Age coastal route from the Atlantic to
the Mediterranean in his Ora Maritima (4th century AD), implying that during this time, ships
sailed from the Gulf of Cddiz through the Straits of Gibraltar and on to Marseilles and
Carthage.
Another facet of evidence that supports the idea of Iberian pre-colonial eastern navigation
comes from boat depictions in south-west Iberian rock art that have been dated to the Later
Bronze Age (Alvar 1981: 170-175; Almagro Gorbea 1988: 389; Alonso Romero 1993: 265-
274). Over twenty boat representations are known from the rock shelters of Laja Alta in Cddiz
(Almagro Gorbea 1988: 390-191), Pilas in Castlliejo (Dams 1984: 4), Puerto de los Ladrofies,
in Malaga (Dams 1984: 5-6) and Las Zorrilos in Cddiz (Topper 1975: 25). Although they are
only iconographic representations, they depict boats with large sails, prominent bows and oars.
Such vessels would be suitable for long-distance sailing, and they can be paralleled with
Bronze Age representations of sea-going ships from the Aegean (Pdrez Rojas 1980; 1986: 77-
79; Hoz 1986: 73), Skyros, in the Cyclades and Enkomi in Cyprus (Harding 1990: 141-142).
7.4.2 Classical sources
The textual sources offer tantalising hints about the possibility of pre-colonial interaction
between Iberia and the Mediterranean. Although the classical references cannot be accepted as
historically accurate, they mention a region called Tarshish, which several authors have argued
285
to be Cddiz, situated at the heart of the ancient kingdom of Tartessos (Elat 1982; Alvar 1988:
434). The bible states that the boats of Tarshish were very specialised in the transport of
precious stones (Tdckholm 1965: 143-147). Certainly the settlement of Cddiz (or Gadir) was
founded at least two centuries earlier than the rest of the Phoenician colonies. Unfortunately,
from the historically references, we can neither refute nor confirm that the identity of the
biblical Tarshish was Tartessos.
The historical sources also refer to ancient maritime relations. Norax, the mythical founder of
Nora, was said to have travelled from Tartessos to Sardinia, according to the writers Pausanias
(10.17.1-7) and Solinus (4.1-2). They both associate the Tartessians with the Atlantic ocean,
which may thus refer to the south-western coast of the Iberian Peninsula. Again, this evidence
can only hint at the possibility that the indigenous populations of Iberia were capable of long-
distance sailing trips, and also therefore potentially carrying out long-distance exchange.
7.4.3 Archaeological evidence for pre-colonial interaction
The evidence documented for pre-colonial activity in the Iberian Peninsula reads rather like an
exclusive auction list for Sotheby's. Many of the objects argued to date earlier than the actual Phoenician colonisation have a sumptuary or prestigious character. However, they tend to be
listed in publications with little interpretation of what their presence may actually tell us (e. g. Bldzquez 1975; Almagro Gorbea 1983; Schauer 1983; Niemeyer 1984; Aubet 1985; Alvar
1988). They include a cylinder seal from VdIez Mdlaga, an Egyptian scarab from Lixus, a gold
pin from Cddiz, and two amphorae from Setefilla. The amphorae came from a context that was
radiocarbon dated between the fourteenth and twelfth centuries BC (Aubet et al. 1983: 48).
The gold beaten bowls from Berzocana have also been argued to have an eastern influence,
although not necessarily production, and dated between the fourteenth and twelfth centuries BC
(Schauer 1983: 175; Almagro-Gorbea 1983). Two bronze statues that came from Huelva, were dated by Niemeyer (1984: 11) to around 100013C. Furthermore the Ria de Huelva deposit
(eleventh to tenth centuries cal. BQ contained objects - including a conical helmet - that were Mediterranean in character.
The recent discovery of wheel made Mycenean pottery in Iberia has provided much needed
evidence for pre-colonial interaction. Two sherds of Mycenean pottery were discovered by
Martin de la Cruz during his 1985 excavations at Llanete de Los Moros, in Montoro (Martfn de
]a Cruz 1987a; 1989; Martfn de la Cruz and Perlines 1993). Both sherds came from Later
Bronze Age contexts that were radiocarbon and cross-dated to between the end of the
fourteenth and beginning of the twelfth centuries cal. BC (Martfn de la Cruz 1987: 62; Martfn
de la Cruz and Perlines; 1993: 337). Although the sherds were too small to allow exact
286
identification, they were provisionally classified as belonging to a krater (Podzuweit 1990: 58)
and a goblet (Almagro Gorbea and Fontes 1997: 345) or foot-ring cup (Martfn de la Cruz and
Perlines 1993: 337) respectively (Figure 7.1.2). These vessel types can be dated between
Mycenean HIA2 and 11113, with a chronological horizon between 1300 and 1250 BC (Vagnetti
1982: 40). The Mycenean origin of these sherds has been confirmed by neutron activation
analysis, and was traced to the north-east of Mycenae in the Argolid (Mommsen et aL 1990).
Martfn de la Cruz (1987a: 63) suggested that the vessels probably reached Andalucfa following
the route via southern Italy, since this was the route assumed to be used later by the Phoenicians
(Aubet 1987: 164). It is more probable, however, that they travelled along the "island" route
via Sardinia (Ridgway 1988; 1992; Podzuweit 1990: 53) primarily because other aspects of the
archaeological evidence that will be expanded upon below, implies that Sardinia and the Iberian
Peninsula were entering into a close relationship during this time.
The discovery of these Mycenean sherds at Montoro was important in itself, but it also
precipitated renewed interest in other wheel made vessels that came from Later Bronze Age
contexts in the Peninsula. Rather like Roger Bannister running the four minute mile and
shattering the belief that such a feat was impossible, the authentic wheel made sherds from
Llanete de los Moros destroyed the conviction that Mycenean activity strayed no further west
than Sicily (Catling 1964, Ferrarese Ceruti 1979; 1987; Marazzi et al. 1986; Vagnetti and Lo
Schiavo 1989: 232). In the light of the Montoro discovery, a wheel-made globular narrow-
necked footring base jar from Coria del Rfo was re-examined (BeMn 1993: 42, Figure 4). The
fabric paste of this vessel was much finer than Phoenician pottery, and the brown-painted wavy
decoration on a cream slip was also distinct (Almagro Gorbea and Fontes 1997: Figure 2)
(Figure 7.1.3). The vessel demonstrates strong parallels with Palestinian and Cypriot piriforne
jars (Amiran 1970: 179; Karageorghis 1965: 203), and this type is also known in south Italian
and Sardinian contexts. The dates assigned to these parallels - Mycenean IMA/HIB or
fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC - imply that the Coria del Rfo vessel was also a pre-colonial
import.
Martfn de ]a Cruz and Perlines (1993) have undertaken a re-examination of undecorated wheel-
made pottery coming from well stratified Later Bronze Age contexts. These included a number
of precocious wheel turned sherds from the assemblages of Gatas in Almerfa, Cuesto del Negro
and Purullena in Granada, and Carmona, in Seville, that had been glossed over in the original
publications, or else interpreted as Phoenician imports. All of these pieces were described as having very fine clay pastes that were fired in an oxidising atmosphere. They all had a smooth, frequently slipped finish, and the petrographic and chemical analyses demonstrated that all the
sherds had similar clay source "fingerprints". Furthermore, all the sherds had been fired at
287
extremely high temperatures of between 650 and 800*C, suggesting closed kiln conditions. At
present 50 sherds have been recognised and analysed, and over 25 of these are large enough to
determine vessel shape. Vessel support stands constituted over 50% of the vessel types (13
sherds), while amphorae formed 44% (11 sherds) and globular bowls only four percent. The
wheel-made sherds that came from Cuesto del Negro were originally interpreted as Phoenician
imports (Molina and Pareja 1975), but included a complete amphora (Molina and Pareja 1975:
Figure 102; Almagro Gorbea and Fontes 1997: Figure 4), that was associated with Cogotas I
pottery in a horizon that that was radiocarbon dated between 1427 and 1334 cal. BC (Alonso et
aL 1978: 173). .
It is likely that these new discoveries are just the tip of a large iceberg, since several more
Mycenean sherds have been detected recently, although they still remain unpublished. One
example is a wheel-made stand from Carmona, which was originally ascribed to the seventh
century BC (Pellicer and Amores 1985: Figure 57v), although it was found in a pre-colonial
Later Bronze Age horizon in association with Cogotas I and pattern burnished pottery (Martfn
de la Cruz and Perlines 1993: 339,341). ,A recent discovery is an undecorated Mycenean
wheel-made sherd from the site of Coria del Rubfo (Escacena u. p. ).
An important observation in this context relates to the hour-glass shaped Mycenean vessel
support stands (Figure 7.1.1), since they appear to continue in fashion into the Orientalising
period (Gasull 1982). Examples come from sites like Setefilla, Trayamar, La Joya and
Almontej and they have all been attributed a colonial origin (Schubart and Niemeyer 1976: 214-
216; Almagro Gorbea 1977: 122; Aubet 1984; 1985). Many of these demonstrate close
similarities with the earlier Mycenean forms, and petrographic analysis of these sherds may
indicate an earlier chronology. Stands of this type are also known from several Cogotas I
assemblages (GonzAlez 1940; Almagro Basch 1952a), and the Villena hoard also contained
stands that may have acted as supports for the gold vessels (Soler 1965).
A reanalysis of Later Bronze Age fibulae from the Iberian Peninsula also provides enlightening
evidence concerning pre-colonial interaction with the east. Elbow-shaped fibulae are known to
have a long and established tradition in the eastern Mediterranean, and the first examples
discovered came from Cypriot and Sicilian contexts (e. g. Myres 1914: 143; Blinkerberg 1926:
247-248). Thus, when examples of this brooch type began to crop up in Iberian contexts, they
were naturally assumed to have been eastern in origin (Alinagro Basch 1958: 199; 1966: 184;
Coles 1962: 159; Bldzquez 1975b; Almagro Gorbea 1977: 524-525,543; Molina Gonzdlez
1978: 215; Schauer 1983). It was only later that archaeologists realised that there was also an
Iberian Huelva version of the elbow-shaped fibula (Rufz-Gdlvez 1984a; 1986: 29; 1993: 60;
288
Coffyn 1985: 152-156; BUcholz 1986; Alvar 1988: 434; Burgess 1991: 137; Coffyn and Sfon
1993: 310; Mederos Martfn 1996; 1999). The recent metallurgical analysis of the Huelva
deposit (Rufz-Gdlvez 1995a) confirmed the Spanish production of this fibula tradition.
Several authors have recently argued that many of the elbow-shaped fibulae from eastern
contexts were Spanish rather than Cypriot in type. These include Cypriot examples from
Kourion (Cesnola 1903; Myres 1914: 143), Kition (BUcholz 1986) and grave 523 from
Amathus (Karageorghis 1987; 719-723). Bfichholz's revision of elbow-shaped fibulae,
contended that the Huelva type should be considered the earliest form of this tradition, dating
between 1200 and 90OBC (1986: 229-231). This conclusion was based upon typological
development, with the Huelva fibula being considered the simplest. Blinkenberg (1926: 248-
253) argued that the latest and most evolved forms of the elbow fibulae come from the east (his
types XIH-14 and XIII-15), with examples from Kourion, Kition and Amathus in Cyprus, as
well as Lindos, Kameiros and Egina. Coffyn and Sfon (1993: 310; Map 5) have expanded upon
this proposal and advocated that the distribution of evolved Huelva fibulae are also known from
the Levant:, at sites like Megiddo, Tell es-Mutesellim, Samaria and Gezer. Typological
arguments, by themselves, do not provide concrete proof of influence travelling from the west
to the east. Not surprisingly, Lo Schiavo has offered a counter argument (1991: 220; 1993:
501) asserting that the Cypriot type was earliest, and that the Huelva types were local but
derived, imitating the Cypriot and Sicilian zeal.
There is some good evidence, that does not simply rely on typological developments, that
would support Blinkenberg's and Bacholz's argument. The recent publication of radiocarbon
dates from sites containing elbow-shaped fibulae, demonstrate their precocious development in
the Iberian Peninsula. At La Requejada, an elbow-shaped fibula was securely dated to ca. 1150
cal. BC (Delibes and Femindez Manzano 1991: 208). Radiocarbon dates from contexts
associated with such fibulae from Rfa de Huelva (Alonso et al. 1978: 173; Rufz-Gdlvez 1995a),
Sdn Romdn de la Homija (Delibes 1978), Cerro de la Mora (Carrasco et al. 1987b: 243-244)
and Cerro de la Miel (GonzAlez et al. 1986: 1201) have been calibrated between 1250 and 950
cal, BC. Although there are few radiocarbon dates available for those fibulae from eastern
contexts, they have been consistently dated to a later period. The example from Megiddo was
dated between 1000 and 90OBC (Lourd 1948; Wightman 1985: 126-128; Kempsinki 1989: 10),
while that from Amathus has been dated to around IOOOBC (Karageorghis and Lo Schiavo
1989: 16). Interestingly, tomb 523 from Amathus also offers proof of western interaction with
the east, rather than the other way around. Included amongst the grave goods was an
articulated spit of undisputed Atlantic and possibly Portuguese origin, implying that the fibula
may also have been of Iberian derivation.
289
Other evidence for pre-colonial interaction of a ritual nature comes from bronze tripod vessel
supports, frequently interpreted as incense bumers, which are found throughout the
Mediterranean in the Later Bronze Age (Macnamara et al. 1984; Lo Schiavo et al. 1985: 36-42;
Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1989: 227-231; Figures 28.5 and 28.6). Examples dating between
1200 and 1050BC are known from Cyprus, Crete, Greece, Sardinia, Italy and the Iberian
Peninsula. The three miniature wheeled vehicle supports from Nossa Senhora da Guia, in
Bai6es, dated between 1150 and 1050BC (Silva et al. 1984: 85; 1985-1986) have recently been
interpreted as incense burners (Mederos Martfn and Harrison 1996: 237-238). The eight bronze
bowls associated with these stands were all perforated [one had 27 incised triangles while
another had 16 (Kalb 1980: 30,45)] (Figure 7.2). Mederos Martfn and Harrison (1996: 239)
have suggested that these lateral perforations may have functioned as lateral ventilation for the
burning of incense. If indeed these vessels and support stands were employed in this way they
imply links with the Mediterranean, where ritual burning of myrrh and other products was
frequently associated with ceremonial banquets. Several wheeled incense burners are known
from ritual contexts in Sardinia, including S'Arcu'e is Forris in Nuoro (Vagnetti and Lo
Schiavo 1989: 228-230, Figure 28.5a-c), Grotta Pirosu su Benatzu in Cagliari (Lilliu 1973: 283-
313), and Samugheo in Nuoro (Lo Schiavo et al. 1985: 42). The evidence of bronze tripods
and support stands from the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck (Bass 1967: 108) serves to highlight the
commercial value of incense during the later Bronze Age.
The Mycenean imports hint at a strong association with ritual feasting equipment; indicating
parallels with the drinking kit known from Mycenean Crete (Furumark 1941: 67; Sanders 1978:
112). The introduction of this prestige style of drinking in Iberia was at least four centuries
earlier than the adoption of the wine kit from the Phoenician colonies (Almagro, Gorbea 1974a;
Mohen 1977; G6mez de Soto 1991; Delibes et al. 1991; Rufz-Gdlvez 1992a: 233; 1993: 49).
The communal feasting tradition of the Later Bronze Age appears to be an amalgamation of
both Oriental and Atlantic traditions as the deposits of Villena in Alicante (Soler 1965),
Cachouga in Alentejo (Lucas and G6mez 1993), El Berrueco, in Salamanca (G6mez de Soto
1993), Berzocana, in Cdceres (Almagro Gorbea 1977: 243), Alvafazere in Leiria (Coffyn 1985)
and Senhora da Guia in Bai6es (Kalb 1979a; 1980; Silva 1986: 7) demonstrate. These deposits
attest to the introduction of novel feasting equipment and practices, through flesh hooks,
cauldrons, articulated spits, beaten gold drinking cups and miniature wheeled vehicles (Figure
7.6.1-7 and 41). This adoption adoption of exotic feasting and drinking shows a fusion of two
separate traditions. On one hand there is the Mediterranean tradition with an emphasis upon
new drinking elements (beaten bowls and cups, and later at the transition to the Iron Age it
incorporates fine ware carinated drinking cups and Phoenician amphorae), and, on the other
290
there is the Atlantic tradition which stresses certain feasting elements, particularly associated
with the cooking of meat (Maxwell-Hyslop 1949; Gerloff 1986; Almagro Gorbea 1992a; 1995;
G6mez de Soto 199 1; 1993). Ethnoarchaeological studies of eating and drinking practices have
demonstrated that social and political status can be achieved by the adoption of exotic feasting
customs (Goody 1982), the ostentatious consumption of food and drink (G6mez de Soto 1993;
Sherratt 1986; 1987; 1991), or through the communal offering of alcoholic beverages by elites (Dietler 1990: 364-368). Thus, it would appear that the bringing together of feasting elements from both Atlantic and Oriental worlds added an extra dimension to the importance of their
adoption.
The south-western stelae (Chapter Six) also illustrate evidence concerning the precocious
nature of pre-colonial interaction and the importance of an ideology that revolves around the
juxtapositioning of Mediterranean and Atlantic prestige symbols. The chronological demarcation of these stelae has been argued in the previous chapter and need not be repeated, but in general they have been consistently dated between the eleventh and eighth centuries BC.
Some authors have argued that because the stelae only provide depictions of Mediterranean
objects, and not the actual objects themselves, they do not offer concrete evidence for pre-
colonial east-west exchange (e. g. Celestino Pdrez 1985; 1990; Bldzquez 1986; BarceI6 1989).
This argument, however, can be easily quashed. Although the Rfa de Huelva deposit contained
a Mediterranean conical helmet, it should not matter that archaeologists have not found
material evidence for the other objects of eastern inspiration depicted in Later Bronze Age
contexts. Even if wheeled vehicles, combs, mirrors, V-notched shields, or stringed musical instruments were once present, it is likely that most would have vanished from the
archaeological record, owing to their organic nature. The fact that they were incised upon the
stelae by indigenous Later Bronze Age populations indicates that these people had knowledge
of these exotic objects, even if not direct access to them. Although the stelae representations
are to some degree stylistic, the objects of eastern inspiration are accurately executed. Furthermore, the very fact that these objects were depicted implies that Mediterranean exotics formed a relevant and valued component of stelae symbolism and ideology.
The zenith of Mycenean expansion in other parts of the central and eastern Mediterranean was
between 1425 and 120OBC (Tin6 and Vagnetti 1967; Vagnetti 1982: 40; 1992: 106; Jones
1987; La Rosa 1989). During this time, Mycenean ceramics were exported on a large scale into
southern Italy (Von Hase 1987), Sicily (Marazzi et al. 1986) and Sardinia (Ferrarese-Ceruti et
aL 1987; Ridgway 1988). Tbus, perhaps it is time to incorporate southern Iberia into our
understanding of this period of international interaction in the central and western
Mediterranean. Although the evidence collated so far does not suggest direct Mycenean
291
influence, it is feasible to propose that Mycenean products were indirectly imported into Iberia
through connections with Sardinia. This sheds a new light upon the nature of eastern and
western interaction around the turn of the millennium. It implies that Iberia was already well
connected with other parts of the central Mediterranean long before the Phoenicians landed on her coastline, and other evidence also implies that she was an active participator in the
exchange of new material culture, information and ideologies, rather than simply a passive
receptor.
The recent realisation that Atlantic Iberian objects found their way to Mediterranean contexts, has provided a whole new perspective on the nature of this pre-colonial east-west interaction.
Lo Schiavo (1991: 214-219) has published a detailed catalogue of all Iberian imported and imitated metal objects found in the central Mediterranean. The majority come from Sardinian
hoards and nuraghic sanctuaries, such as Monte Sa Idda, Sarroch and Monte Arrubiu in Cagliari
and Nurra, Flumenelongu and Bonnaro in Sassari; pistilliforme swords and Porto de M6s
daggers predominate. In contrast, the smaller number of Iberian Atlantic metal finds identified
in Italy and Sicily are principally heeled axes (Peroni 1961: 16-18; Bernab6 Brea 1965; Di
Stefano 1984: 94-100; Albanese Procelli 1986-1987: 46). Articulated spits of Alvaidzere type
(Coffyn 1985; G6mez de Soto 1991) show a wide distribution throughout the central Mediterranean, including tomb 523 from Amathus, Cyprus (Karageorghis and Lo Schiavo
1989), and the deposits of Monte Sa Idda (Taramelli 1921) and Grotte Pirosu (Lo Schiavo
1991: 216) in Sardinia. Although their origin has been the subject of considerable debate, the
general consensus in recent years has been that they are of Atlantic, probably central Portuguese, derivation (Lo Schiavo 1991: 214; G6mez de Soto 1993: 194). Furthermore,
metallurgical analysis of the ingot-axes from the Late Bronze Age deposits of Can' Mariano
Gallet and La Sabina in Formentera, also in Sardinia, have provenanced them to the metal
workshops of Pefia Negra in Alicante (Gonzdlez Prats 1993: 38-39). Atlantic Vdnat type
swords found beyond their normal distribution in Almerfa in south-east Spain, at sites like Saint
Nazaire de Tabemas (Almagro Basch 1940) and Herrerfas (Siret 1913), could be interpreted as
evidence of return journeys from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean by Iberian sailors.
Giardino has also compiled an exhaustive list of the metalwork from parts of the central and
western Mediterranean (1995). He has argued that many Iberian Later Bronze Age metal types,
including looped socketed axes, double looped socketed palstaves, articulated spits, leaf-shaped
and Carp's Tongue swords and Huelva type elbow fibulae, demonstrate an interesting
distribution pattern in parts of the central Mediterranean. Most of these types are notably
absent from both continental Italy and Sicily, but are concentrated in Sardinia, and, to a lesser
extent, Cyprus (Giardino 1995: 341). Although the distribution maps of metal types are to
292
some extent biased by archaeological recovery, they demonstrate a real mosaic of differential
uptake and interaction, highlighting specific linkages between the Atlantic and Mediterranean
networks. For example the single looped triangular palstave is present in Ireland, Portugal and
Sardinia but not England, France. Spain, Italy or Sicily (Figure 7.10).
7.4.4 Relations between Sardinia and Iberia during the Later Bronze Age
Sardinia appears to have had an important role in relations between the east and west Mediterranean in the Later Bronze Age. Interaction between Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula
stem back to at least the Chalcolithic, when similarities in Beaker pottery shapes and decoration, copper daggers, arrowheads and other elements of the material culture have been
well documented (e. g. Ferrarese Ceruti 1981; Guilane 1992). Strategically placed in the central Mediterranean, it is hardly surprising that Sardinia was intimately associated with both west
and east Mediterranean trade routes. Giardino stated that "Sardinia ... represents a sort of
natural stepping stone to what was considered the far west in ancient times" (1992: 304).
The evidence from Sardinian and Italian hoards cited above suggests that from ca. 120OBC
until 80013C, this island functioned both as a stopping station along the maritime routes to and
from the west, as well as a centre for importation, reproduction and imitation of Atlantic
bronzes that were transmitted to the Italian mainland and Sicily. The apogee of the relations
between Iberia and Sardinia appears to have been during the late eleventh to tenth centuries BC
(Lo Schiavo 1991: 214), since many hoards from Sardinia, Italy and Sicily contain Iberian
forms, including leaf shaped and pistilliforme swords, lateral looped socketed palstaves and
single looped socketed axes. The predominance of these metal types in Sardinian hoards, as indicated in table 7.1 below, highlights the importance of this island's role in transporting the
Atlantic metalwork to Mediterranean markets (Giardino 1992: 308; Ridgway and Ridgway
1992: 362).
293
Table 7.1: Imported or Imitated Iberian Late Bronze Age metal objects in Sardinia
Site name Site type Objects found Nurra, Sassari Uncertain Flat axe with lateral
loops Flumenelongu, Hoard Axe Alghero, Sassari Tula, Sassari Founders Monte da Idda
hoard dagger, axe Funtana Janna, Hoard Porto de M6s dagger Bonnanaro, Sassari Orob, Siniscola, Hoard Pistilliforme sword, Nuoro Huelva sword, S6questre, Siniscola Hoard Pistillforme sword Orune, Nouro Nuraghic Pistilliforme sword
sanctuary Oran!, Nuoro Nuraghic Pistilliforme sword
sanctuary Sarule, Nouro Hoard Rocanes type sickle Bol6tana, Nouro Hoard Pistilliforme sword Oristano Unknown Chisel Ogliastra, Nouro Isolated Pistilliforme sword
deposit Sanctuary of Abini, Nuraghic Monte Sa Idda type Teti, Nouro sanctuary sword, axes, Rocanes
type sickle Forraxi Nioi Nuragus, Hoard Monte Sa Idda sword, Nuoro axe, sickle, razor Andrea Frius, Cagliari Nuraghic Axe, Huelva sword
sanctuary Grotte Pirosu, Cave Porto do M6s dagger, Santandi, Cagliari sanctuary lance, articulated spit,
razor, double resort fibula
Monte Arrubiu, Hoard Axe Sarroch, Cagliari 66thi a-, Burial Pistilliforme sword Domusdemaria. Cagliari Monte Sa Idda, Hoard Monte Sa Idda sword, Decimpotzu, Cagliari Huelva sword, Monte
Sa Idda dagger, articulated spit, Vdnat sword, axe, lance, sickle
The evidence suggests the emergence of specific relations between western Iberia and Sardinia
(Rufz-Gdlvez 1984a: 292-296; 1986: 11). Although evidence of contact has focused upon the
metallurgical arena, there are other points of similarity between the two regions, although they have generally been ignored. With the exception of Giardino (1992: 308-309), archaeologists
294
have neglected the stylistic parallels in the pottery traditions. Geometric pattern burnished
pottery is well documented from Sardinian nuraghi, including Villanovaforru, Barumini,
Sardara, Settimo S. Pietro, Ossi and Bidistilli-Fonni (Lo Schiavo 1981: Figures 342-345; Lilliu
1982: Figure 102; Badas 1987: Plate IV-V; Ferrarese Ceruti et al. 1987: 432). Two other
points of similarity between Iberian and Sardinian pattern burnished pottery traditions may indicate that these shared pottery styles are not merely coincidental. Firstly, the pottery also dates from the Later Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (twelfth to seventh centuries BC),
overlapping with the period of Iberian pattern burnished wares. Secondly, in Sardinia, the
decoration appears on vessel forms that include medium and high carinated bowls, round bellied jars and jugs, thus exhibiting affinities with the south-west Iberian vessel shapes. Thus
the comparability in ceramic traditions between both regions may confirm the close links
between Sardinia and Iberia during this period.
The pre-colonial exchanges between Cyprus, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and western Iberia do not
support the definition of a core-periphery system. Core-periphery theories imply the notion of a
"technology gap" between the centre and the margin (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978;
Sherratt 1993a; 1993b: 3-4; 1994a). The evidence cited above convincingly demonstrates a
more balanced exchange system, with finished goods and exotic technologies moving in both
directions. It is possible that eastern technology was coming from Cyprus, Italy and Sicily to
Iberia, with Atlantic objects and technology travelling in the other direction via the
intermediary of Sardinia. Rather than assuming that there was only one protagonist of the
exchange, the diverse origin and range of goods reflect the existence of both central Mediterranean and Iberian groups actively participating in the commerce (e. g. Garrido Roiz
1979: 42; Aubet 19823 817-819; Tusa 1983: 511; Rufz-Gdlvez 1986: 22). It is difficult to
understand fully the nature of these early contacts, their regularity and the purposes for which
they were carried out. It would seem likely, however, that they were undertaken as part of
reconnaissance missions that involved the setting up of new routes of communication and
exchange between the Atlantic and Mediterranean worlds that were to become much more intensive during the Phoenician colonisation of southern Iberia (Aubet 1987).
Thus, we should not simply interpret these pre-colonial encounters as "trade before the flag"
enterprises, whereby eastern merchants sought out new terrain before deciding to colonise;
certainly the Phoenicians themselves do not appear to have been involved in such interaction.
The transformations taking place in the Mediterranean during the late thirteenth and early twelfth centuries BC included a rupture in Mycenean trading networks (Sandars 1978; Webb
and Frankel 1994). This severely affected other parts of the eastern Mediterranean and involved a complete re-orientation of Cypriot commercial ties after ca. 1200.1150BC
295
(Karageorghis 1975; Karageorghis and Muhly 1984; Todd and South 1992). Links between
Cyprus and the far east were totally ruptured, as evidence by the demise of quantities of
imported Cypriot ceramics (particularly White painted ware) at Levantine ports like Sidon level
IX (Stem 1993: 331-332) and Tyre (Astrom 1991). Whether this collapse of Mycenean and
Cypriot trading mechanisms with the east can be attributed to the Sea Peoples, one thing is
certain. The wave of disruption affected the whole political map of the east Mediterranean and
its ripples were felt strongly across the Levant. It is possible the new routes to the west
Mediterranean were intensified after ca. 1150BC in order to ameliorate this crisis. The mineral
wealth of Sardinia and Iberia could remedy the problems associated with the collapse of the
Cypriot copper networks (Mederos Martfn 1996: 111). Thus the demise of Mycenean long-
distance trade in the twelfth century BC may not have been unfortunate news for other parts of
the central and western Mediterranean.
7.5 Early Phoenician contact In the pre-colonial period, there appears to be only negligible evidence for initial Phoenician
contact (Aubet 1986: 14-16). There is a complete absence of Phoenician (specifically Tyrian)
ceramics or any other Phoenician import in the west prior to the eighth century BC (ca. 7ýý
76013Q. Obviously the absence of Tyrian pottery need not imply a total absence of Phoenicians. In general, however, archaeologists advocate that there is no evidence of Phoenician activity horizons with Phoenician imports prior to the actual colonisation (Bldzquez
1975b; Aubet 1982b; 1986; 1993: 172-174; Niemeyer 1982; Pellicer 1982; Alvar 1988; Gan-dto
1988; 1989).
It is important, however, to be more critical of the evidence upon which such conclusions have
been established. Several of the Phoenician colonies and indigenous settlements have not been
sufficiently excavated. In several cases, only small trenches were cut through large sites (e. g.
Sdn Bartolom6 de Almonte, Puerto IX, Castillo de Dofia Blanca), or excavation failed to reach
the natural soil horizons (e. g. Pinos Puente, Monte Berrueco, Gadir), and therefore lack
complete stratigraphies. Furthermore, most of the chronologies of the indigenous settlements in
the hinterland do not rest upon radiocarbon sequences, but rather upon the identification of type
fossils - notably Phoenician imports. Since the assumption that no Phoenician import can be
dated earlier than 780-76OBC, the argument becomes a circular one. It is also important to note
that the earliest evidence of Phoenician interaction would undoubtedly be qualitative rather
than quantitative in nature, associated with the likelihood that the first Phoenician settlements
would be ephemeral or, at best, semi-permanent, and hence difficult to detect archaeologically.
Tantalising glimpses of early Phoenician interaction have recently been proposed by
Femdndez-Miranda who argued that the wall dated to the late ninth century BC at Cabezo de
296
San Pedro was built in accordance with Phoenician design and tradition (1985: 236). Two
radiocarbon dates from the earliest Phoenician horizon at Morro de Mezquitilla, Malaga, have
been calibrated between 980 and 870 cal. BC (Schubart 1986: 72; Mederos Martfn 1996).
Alvar (1988: 429) has proposed that the Phoenicians must have entered into some sort of
contact with the indigenous inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula from at least the ninth century BC, and we should not ignore the real probability of interaction between the Phoenicians and
the far west prior to their actual colonisation.
7.6 The First Phoenician settlements Recently several archaeologists have contentiously re-proposed that CAdiz (ancient Gadir) was founded around 100013C, concurring with historical sources (e. g. Alvar 1981; 1988: 430-432;
Wagner 1988; 1993; Aubet 1988: 288). The reason given for the early date is that it overlapped
with the time when the demand for silver in Assyria was at its height. The confirmation of such
an early chronology has not yet come from archaeological evidence, and thus must remain an
assumption until re-investigation of this site may prove otherwise. With this controversial
exception, the first Phoenician colonies to be founded were in the eighth century BC. The
earliest were Toscanos (mid-eighth century BC -Schubart 1982: 106-107), Chorreras (750-
70OBC - Aubet 1979: 818); Morro de Mezquitilla (780-75OBC - Schubart 1986: 89). In the
second half of the eighth century BC or beginning of the seventh century BC the settlements of Sexi in Granada (Aubet 1986), and Guadarranque and Guadalhorce in Malaga, were settled (Molina Fajardo 1985: 195-198). The Phoenician expansion shows a notable increase in the
seventh century BC, with the appearance of many new colonies along the Spanish coast to the
east of Gibraltar and towards Almerfa, and into North Africa (Figure 7.3).
There are many factors that have been put forward to explain the Phoenician colonisation of
southern Iberia. Reasons include climatic fluctuations resulting in agricultural deficits and
changes in the infrastructure of long-distance trade. The role played by Assyria, however, was
undoubtedly the decisive factor. The Phoenician westwards expansion was to a large extent
governed by their search for new sources of raw materials in response to the tax demands
imposed by Assyria (Aubet 1993: 50-56). The lists of tribute paid by Tyre to Assyria
demonstrate that the fundamental system of payment used was metal - primarily silver, but also
iron, tin and lead (Ezekiel 27: 1-26). The procurement and trading of metals that the
Phoenicians prided themselves upon included importing them from Cyprus, Sardinia and of
course Iberia. Iberia was certainly noted for her richness in minerals in antiquity, including
gold, copper, tin and most importantly, silver, and classical sources emphasise such wealth. Both Herodotus and Diodorus hyperbolise the mineral richness that Iberia has to offer. "Having spoken of Iberia, it seems appropriate to mention its silver mines, since this is the
297
richest country in that metal" (Diodorus 5: 35.4-5). Herodotus (4: 152) makes a reference to
Samian Colaios' voyage to Tartessos where he obtained 60 talents (or two thousand
kilogran-unes) of silver ore, which were then smelted into silver anchors in order to exploit fully
the carrying capacity of the ships.
The propoganada of the classical accounts neatly supports the core-periphery models proposed
by many archaeologists - they provide the view that the superior Phoenicians were granted the
right of transit through the silver rich Iberian territories in exchange for prestige baubles for the
ignorant barbarian natives. The classical works also defend that the exploitation of silver in
Iberia was initiated by the Phoenicians. "The natives did not know how to exploit silver. Yet
once the Phoenicians heard of the affair, they bought the silver in exchange for objects of
negligible value" (Diodorus 5: 35.45).
Although these historical sources have been archaeologically proven to be largely inaccurate
about the Phoenician colonisation, a result of the extensive time-lapse between the event and
the writing, this particular statement has survived without heavy criticism even in some recent
articles (e. g. Wagner 1986,1995: 112; Frankenstein 1994: 42). This may be because it has
been used as supporting evidence to back up the traditional culture history arguments
concerning the exploitation of the native communities at the hands of the Phoenicians.
7.7 Indigenous Later Bronze Age developments
There is now substantial evidence to propose that intensive silver exploitation and production
occurred long before the arrival of the Phoenicians and that the indigenous populations were
well aware of the value of this precious metal. Furthermore, the recent inventory of metallurgy
and mineral exploitation in the Later Bronze Age west Mediterranean, produced by Claudio
Giardino (1995: 312-314) has documented precocious evidence for silver mines. At least
twenty large Bronze Age mines are now known, thus firmly demonstrating that the exploitation
of silver was well underway long before the Phoenician colonisation. These include the Later
Bronze Age mines of La Solana (Belalcdzar) and the Rfo Tinto complex (Blanco and
Rothenberg 198 1; Rothenberg et al. 1989: 62-65; Giardino 1995: 314-5).
Evidence for silver smelting is also now well documented at several Later Bronze Age
settlements. Large quantities of silver slag came from the lower levels of the settlement of
Corta del Lago, in Huelva, and were dated between the twelfth and tenth centuries BC (Blanco
and Rothenberg 1981; Rufz Mata 1989). The tenth century necropolis of La Parrita, Nerva,
also in Huelva, produced a large volume of silver grave goods (Pdrez and Frias 1989). The
Later Bronze Age settlement of San Bartolom6 de Almonte has provided some of the clearest
evidence for domestic silver production between the tenth and eighth centuries BC (Rufz Mata
298
and Ferndndez Jurado 1986; Ferndndez Jurado 1989: 159). One of the storage pits associated
with the round houses contained over a hundred fragments of metal moulds, and copious
quantities of silver slag. Although the corresponding round house had been completely cleared
of metallurgical remains, soil analysis indicated that a silver metal foundry was situated in the
centre of the dwelling.
The settlement of Cerro Salom6n, in Huelva was an indigenous settlement with rectangular
walled houses that was situated 40m west of an ancient silver mine (Rufz Mata 1989).
Although dated slightly later to the late eighth to seventh century BC, excavations revealed that
the interiors of the domestic structures were littered with silver slag as well as imported
Phoenician amphorae and fine grey ware (Blanco et aL 1970). The earliest horizon at this site
consisted of round houses made of wattle and daub, and Barcel6 (1995: 571) has argued that
they were later replaced with rectangular structures when the mineral production was
intensified. Yet the silver working at this site was never intensified beyond the domestic level.
Furthermore, the absence of fortifications at this site appear to imply a lack of territorial
competition for the control of the mineral resources which surrounded it. The settlement of
Quebrantahuesos is situated on the side of the same hill as Cerro Salom6n, and is contemporary
with it (Pellicer 1983). Excavation at this site also revealed silver production within the
houses; again indicating a simple non-specialised domestic economy. Furthermore, the
settlement of Pefla Negra in Alicante, has provided detailed information pertaining to the
organisation of silver metal production between the ninth and eighth centuries BC (Gonzdlez
Prats 1990; 1992).
The indigenous methods of silver production are now better known, thanks to the
archaeometallurgical analyses undertaken by Blanco and Rothenberg (1981; 1984), Rufz Mata
(1989) and Perea (1995; 1996; 1998). Later Bronze Age hoards such as Villena, in Alicante,
and Berzocana, contain, amongst other objects, fine silver vessels, torques and bracelets.
Although demonstrating eastern influence in their style and decoration, metallurgical analysis
has proven them to be of indigenous manufacture (Armbruster 1993; Armbruster and Perea
1994). Furthermore, silver analysis undertaken by Rovira Llor6ns (1995) has determined that
complex silver working technologies, including cupellation, were not introduced by the
Phoenicians. Since the native form of silver often contains high levels of lead, (4-8%),
cupellation is an important process for removing these impurities. However, Rovira Llor6ns
(1995: 477-479) concluded that cupellation began in the twelfth century BC, if not earlier, since
the analysis of the fifteenth century BC silver spiral from Cueva de la Luna, in Jdrez, contained
99% silver, I% copper and no lead (Rovira Llorens 1987).
299
The evidence that we have at present argues against a territorial specialisation of the
exploitation and manufacture of silver in the Later Bronze and Early Iron Ages. There do not
appear to have been specific centres dedicated to silver extraction, manufacture or distribution,
or organisation of silver production above a supra-domestic level. Although the Phoenician
colonisation intensified Iberian silver exploitation, it did not initiate it and it would seem
unlikely that the indigenous populations would be so willing to surrender their rights to a
mineral that they valued highly and utilised extensively. By the later eighth century BC, silver
production becomes more specialised. Minerals from the Huelva and Rfo Tinto mines were
transported along the Guadalquivir and Tinto rivers to be processed at sites like Sdn Bartolom6,
Carambolo and Tejada la Vieja and then transferred to Huelva, where it was incorporated into
Atlantic exchange mechanisms (Rufz Mata 1981; Femdndez Jyrado 1989: 164; Rufz Mata and
Femdndez Jurado 1986). Silver processed at sites that include Tejada la Vieja, Lebrija and
Mesas de Asta is believed to have reached Cddiz, where it would have been incorporated into
Mediterranean trading networks (Blanco and Rothenberg 1981; Femdndez Jurado 1985a;
1985b).
7.8 Geographic location of the Phoenician colonies The Phoenician settlements established along the Mediterranean coast of Andalucfa all
followed a similar pattern in their situations (Figure 7.3). They were generally founded upon
small promontories or coastal elevations, that were directly associated with the sea on one side
and a navigable river on the other (e. g. see Aubet 1975: 79; Schubart 1982: 184). These
strategic positions conferred on them the ability to dominate sea routes both to the
Mediterranean and Atlantic and river arteries into the Iberian interior. However, the mountain
systems of the Sierra Bermeja, Sierra Real, Serranfa de Ronda and Sierra de Alpujata
immediately surrounding many of these colonies, may have presented some difficulties with
accessing the immediate hinterland (Gasull 1986: 194).
With the exception of the colony of CAdiz, which was situated to the west of the Straits of the
Gibraltar, all of the other Phoenician settlements were located along the Andalucfan coast. In
particular, there was a major concentration of settlements in the region of Malaga. Thus only
Cddiz was oriented towards the Atlantic, and all the others were aligned along the
Mediterranean coastline. It may be relevant that no other Phoenician settlements were
established along the Atlantic coastline.
Until recently it was assumed that the reason for this was that the Atlantic coastline remained
densely populated in the Later Bronze Age (the kingdom of Tartessos) while the Mediterranean
one was only sparsely inhabited, thus offering few barriers to incoming Phoenician colonists
300
(e. g. Schubart 1982; Escacena 1986; Aubet 1986; 1993; Femdndez-Miranda 1987: 854-856;
Barce16 1995). Traditionally Phoenician settlements were believed to have been established on
virgin soil or else in territories that had been unoccupied since the Chalcolithic (Gasull 1986:
196). "When the Phoenicians reached the southern Iberian coasts, and in particular when they
landed at Cadiz, they encountered an interior heartland that was sparsely settled and a coastal
strip that was completely uninhabited. " (Escacena 1986: 49-50).
This situation would support the ease and speed with which the colonies were apparently founded, implying that the Phoenicians were able to claim the southern Iberian coastline as
their own, hoist their flag and begin trading without any obstacles. The dearth of indigenous
populations in these regions would offer one explanation as to why the Phoenicians were able
to settle in Iberia and exploit the metalliferous zones so successfully. Yet, on closer inspection,
new data does not support such a simple conclusion. One of the initial problems was the
archaeological bias in these regions, particularly in the lower Guadalquivir, which, until
recently, remained poorly investigated (see Chapter Four). Systematic surveys from the late
1980s onwards have revealed a considerable number of settlements of the Later Bronze Age not
only in the immediate hinterland of the colonies, but along the supposedly uninhabited
coastline itself, and most significantly, beneath the Phoenician settlements themselves
(Femdndez Jurado 1989; Rufz Mata 1993). These indigenous settlements include Sierra de Sdn
Cristobdl (Bendala 1986; Rufz Mata 1993), Cabezo de San Pedro (Bldzquez et al. 1979; Rufz-
Mata 1980; Beldn et al. 1982), Tejada la Vieja (Femdndez Jurado 1987), Pefialosa (Ferndndez
Jurado et al. 1990), Ronda la Vieja (Aguayo et al. 1986; Carrilero 1992: 136) Los Alcores
(Arteaga 1985), Los Saladares (Arteaga and Serna 1979-1980; Arteaga 1982), Pefia de los
Enamadores (Arribas 1976), Los Bafios de la Mala (Aubet 1986), Monte Berrueco (Escacena
and Frutos 1985), Cerro de la Encina (Arribas et al. 1974), Cerro de los Infantes (Molina et al. 1986), El Llano de la. Virgen (Bendala 1986), Cuesto del Negro (Molina 1983), Cerro de la
Miel (Carrasco et al. 1987) and Cerro de la Mora (Carrasco et al. 1987; 1988). At least four of
the Phoenician colonies - Castillo de Dofia Blanca (Charnorro 1987), Puerto IX (Ferndndez
Jurado 1989), Toscanos (Niemeyer 1982) and Chorreras (Aubet 1974,1985) - do not appear to
have been founded ex novo as traditionally assumed, but were superimposed upon indigenous
Later Bronze Age settlements. Thus the cultural vacuum can now be dismissed as an artificial
production of previous archaeological research. This new evidence completely contradicts
earlier statements and demonstrates that the Phoenicians must have found an intensively
inhabited territory on their arrival in southern Iberia (see Figure 7.4 and contrast with Figure
7.3).
301
7.9 Interaction between Phoenicians and indigenous populations Castillo de Dofla Blanca is particularly relevant in this discussion, since it is one of the hill
settlements in Cddiz that is considered to be the central coordinating colony of the whole Phoenician enterprise. Recent investigation by Rufz Mata (1993: 42-45) has demonstrated the
presence of a large Later Bronze Age settlement (known as Sdn Crist6bal) about 500m. to the
east of the Dofia Blanca. This settlement was roughly five hectares in size; a settlement
therefore which could have sustained a population of around one thousand inhabitants. It was a
complex settlement, with a planned layout, and remained unfortified until late in the seventh
century BC. The proximity of the two sites and the presence of indigenous Later Bronze Age
hand made pottery in the earliest horizons at Castillo de Dofia Blanca and Phoenician wheel-
made wares in the lowest levels of Sdn Crist6bal suggests interaction between the two
settlements. The fact that both settlements remained undefended until the latter stages of their
occupation also implies a peaceful co-existence between the Phoenician and indigenous
inhabitants.
Thus the recent discovery of indigenous Late Bronze Age settlements along the southern
Iberian coastline implies a different strategy of Phoenician expansion and tactics in these
regions. It demonstrates that the Phoenicians could not simply have landed in Spain without
encountering the indigenoýs populations, potentially as barriers to their colonisation.
Furthermore silver, gold and copper resources were already being exploited and valued by the
indigenous groups. In this argument, it is unlikely that the southern and western Iberian social
groups would be so ready or willing to allow their metal resources or territory to be exploited at
their expense, unless there was something to be gained in return. This situation is quite
different from traditional explanations of Phoenician expansion in the far west and for the first
time compels us to consider how these apparently concordant relations between the natives and
the colonisers could have been established and maintained.
On the other hand, the available evidence demonstrates that the establishment of the Phoenician
colonies was extremely successful. It is also important to note that, with one exception, none of
the Phoenician colonies were defended, and only Gadir had any walling around its perimeter.
Without fear from attack, and with no archaeological evidence for any insurrection or warfare
at any of these sites, the suggestion is that the arrangement made between the Phoenicians and
the natives was a peaceful one, and that it remained so. It is interesting that the Phoenician
settlement was not met with strong resistance on the part of the natives. It is my proposal that
this would not have been the case unless some sort of pre-existing balanced agreement had been
established between the two societies. It is into this context that the significance and desirable
302
qualities of wine should be addressed, not only as an economic, but as an important social and
political vehicle.
The evidence discussed in the previous four chapters relating to Later Bronze Age ceramics,
settlements, bronze metallurgy and stelae has amply demonstrated that the societies of western Iberia were more developed and complex than has hitherto been appreciated -a stark contrast to
the stagnated and retarded culture that Savory described in 1968. In particular, the collated data
has gone some way to evince the complexity and intensity of regional and long distance
communication and exchange that was underway many centuries before the Phoenician
colonisation. We can now state with certainty that complex well developed cultural systems had emerged long before the tenth century BC in southern Iberia, and the regions of Huelva and
the lower Guadalquivir had extensive communication links with Portugal, Extremadura, the
Meseta and the Atlantic sea-board (e. g. see Rufz-Gdlvez 1991; Rufz-Gdlvez and Galdn 1991;
Aubet 1994). This is an important point since many archaeologists still maintain that it was the Phoenician colonisation that initiated socio-econon-dc complexity within the west Iberian
societies, and it was also the impact of colonial exchange that resulted in a notable increase in
the volume, frequency and diversity of indigenous transactions (Aubet et al. 1983; Wagner
1986; 1988; Femdndez-Miranda 1986; Barce16 1992; 1995). It would seem that all of these
elements once attributed to Phoenician colonisation were already in place in Later Bronze Age
Iberia. This means that the societies that the Phoenicians encountered in the eighth century BC
were not culturally backward, or inferior, as the core-periphery models of dominance and
subordination would suggest. It is thus the time to perceive the interaction between the
colonies and natives in equal and balanced terms.
7.10 The Introduction of wine "It was in this cup that the woman, as beautiful as the goddess, mixed them their drink out of Pramnian wine, over which she grated goat's cheese on a bronze grater and sprinkled white barley " (Iliad X1,628-643, translated by M. Hammond 1987: 209).
Although the significance of exotic alcoholic beverages has been considered in great detail with
respect to other parts of later prehistoric Europe and the Mediterranean (e. g. see Dietler 1990a;
1990b; 1992; 1995; 1996; 1997; Ridgway 1997: 338-339), the introduction of wine into Iberia
has received scant attention. Yet the reasons behind its adoption and the ramifications of wine drinking in the far west may provide a fresh approach to studying the colonial process, without
relying on traditional World System and Prestige Goods theories. Dietler's research in Early
Iron Age Mediterranean France has successfully demonstrated that the initial phase of the
303
colonial interaction was specifically focused upon exotic practices related to the consumption
of wine.
The vine is an autochthonous plant in the Mediterranean ecosystem. Grape pips have been
identified from archaeological sites in the Iberian Peninsula dating from the Mesolithic
onwards (Walker 1985; 1989; Rivera and Walker 1991), but these have all been of the wild
grape variety (vitis silvestrius). Precocious evidence for domesticated grapes or vitis vitifera
comes from the Later Bronze Age settlement of Fuente Alamo, in Almerfa (Schubart et al. 1989), but substantial documentation for their presence does not appear until the late eighth and
early seventh centuries BC in the southern Iberian Peninsula. (Guerrero 1995: 75-77). Since it
only domesticated grapes are suitable for wine-making., because of the much higher volume of
sugar that they contain, it is not unreasonable to suggest that wine was introduced by the
Phoenicians, in association with Phoenician amphorae, cups and other pottery vessels. Indeed
wine drinking paraphernalia forms the dominant component of early Phoenician imports known
from both indigenous and colonial sites.
It is interesting that the social and political importance of the Phoenician amphorae in the
Iberian Peninsula has not yet been realised, despite their ubiquity on so many "Orientalising
sites". This may partly be explained by archaeologists employing amphorae as a typological
tool, and concentrating on their use as a chronological marker within stratigraphic sequences.
The presence of Phoenician amphorae has been recognised in the earliest levels of most of the
Phoenician colonies. Large quantities of amphorae, far outweighing the consumption needs of
the communities themselves, were recovered from the excavations of both Toscanos and Castillo de Doha Blanca. Over five thousand grape pips were discovered at Castillo de Dofia
Blanca, which were carbon dated to 70OBC (Rufz Mata 1986). Thus, the evidence from the Phoenician communities themselves suggests exterior demand for wine production.
7.11 Expansion of Phoenician settlement and Influence
Moreover, in the seventh century BC, the Phoenician influence shows an impressive
geographical expansion, indicated by the dispersion of amphorae, towards Extremadura, the
lower Guadalquivir (the "hinterland') and along the coastland and interior of Atlantic Portugal
(Figure 7.7). During this time, the shape of the amphorae changed dramatically, transforming
towards much wider and deeper containers with an increased liquid capacity. These
modifications thus appear to coincide with the consumption of wine on a much larger scale in
the Peninsula, and the increase in cups and associated drinking paraphenalia. This "flooding"
of the archaeological record with amphorae in the seventh century BC implies a certain "democratisation" in the consumption of wine.
304
7.12 The consumption of wine Recent investigations at Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sites, particularly in Portugal,
have produced significant quantities of Phoenician amphorae. These Orientalising sites were
preferentially located on hilltops that dominated the surrounding landscape. They were also strategically placed overlooking the mouths of large important rivers like the Tagus, Mondego,
and Sado, that had easy penetration to the interior. Although the majority had naturally defensive positions, they all show a concern for artificial defence. For example the settlement
of Rocha Branca had at least 6 bastions and a 5m thick walled circuit. Recent research at these
sites such as Alcdcer do Sal (Silva et al. 1980-1981; Amaro 1993), Alcdqova de Santarem
(Arruda 1983; Mayet and Silva 1993), Santa Olaia (Silva 1986) and Rocha Branca (Varela Gomes and BeirAo 1986; Varela Gomes 1993; Cardoso 1993), now demonstrate a notable Orientalising presence in the seventh century BC. Not only are Phoenician amphorae
represented, but they are found in contexts associated with Phoenician inspired fine grey and
red slip ware carinated cups, vessels that are almost exclusively related to the serving and drinking of wine. The wide geographic dispersion of these amphorae, which when analysed at Santardm and Conimbriga (Correia pers. comm. ), have been found to contain grape residue, and the quantities that are found must be seen as significant.
A graphic analysis demonstrates the significance of the quantities of drinking related ceramics
that have been excavated (see Figure 7.8). For example at the site of Cerro da Rocha Branca,
amphorae constituted 5.9% of the assemblage, while fine grey ware formed 5% and red slip
carinated cups made up 14%. At Alcdcer do Sal the seventh century assemblage was made up
of 11.2% amphorae, 5.2% fine grey, and 9.1% red slip, while at Santardm the following
compositions were noted; 6% amphorae, 12% fine grey and 12% red slip. The rather high
percentages of this one aspect of the pottery assemblages which includes all the other domestic
and utilitarian wares emphasises the possibilty of a popular and widespread drinking custom,
and a heavy demand for wine. Although breakage factors of pottery, particularly the large
amphorae, should be considered in interpreting these ratios, this is still a significant quantity.
There has not been much investigation into the nature of this wine production, but the results of
petrographic analysis undertaken on the assemblages of Conimbriga and Alcdcer do Sal
indicate that the amphorae and fine grey wares were regionally produced, but that that there
were several different sources of clay production (Correia 1993: 238-240). This may imply that
at least the containers of the liquid were being produced more locally by the seventh century
BC, and were not directly imported from the colonies in the south. We should not infer from
this that the contents themselves were also being locally produced. It would make sense that
bulky wine goods being transported over long distances would have been carried by the most
305
efficient means - i. e. light non-breakable skins or barrels. - only to be tranferred to pottery
vessels on reaching their final destination. Sites like Alcdcer do Sal and Rocha Branca are near
the coast and situated overlooking major river arteries (Sado and Arade respectively- Figure
7.4). and may have functioned as "transhipment points", where the wine was redistributed (e. g.
see Roman 1986; Cunliffe 1988; Laubenheimer 1990 with respect to the Roman wine trade in
Europe).
An important aspect of the introduction of wine that has been insufficiently researched relates
to the control and production of the wine, and the potentially restricted nature of wine
consumption. Although the initial introduction of wine in Iberia was a Phoenician import,
(Aubet 1986: 231-233; Cabrera Bonet 1991; 1994), there is now good archaeological evidence
to propose that this monopoly did not last long. The evidence discussed below implies that not
only the manufacture of the wine-associated containers, but also the knowledge that went with
the technology of wine production, was quickly adopted by the indigenous societies. It was
perhaps the imparting of this technological knowledge that was the most significant aspect of
the bargaining process between the natives and the colonists.
The recent excavation of Alt de Benamaquia, Alicante, (Bellard 1994) has provided evidence
that suggests wine was being manufactured indigenously from the seventh century BC onwards. Thousands of indigenous grape pips were found at this site in levels associated with a
significant quantity of amphorae. Furthermore, the architecture of the site has produced four
peculiar structures containing residues of grape pulp, that are believed to be wine presses. The
site of Aldovesta in the Ebro (Mascorti et aL 1991) appears to have been an establishment
exclusively devoted to the manufacture of wine and amphorae. It consisted of a large
depository stacked with Vuillemot RI amphorae and an associated wine production area. in
fact Phoenician amphorae accounted for over 57% of the ceramics recovered from this site (Rufz Mata 1995: 174) (Figure 7.9.1). The settlement of Cancho Roano in Badajoz (Berrocal
Rangel 1992,1994b) also testifies to the indigenous production of wine in the late seventh
century BC, demonstrated by the 150 amphorae found at this site which are estimated to have
held over 5 thousand litres of liquid, far exceeding the needs of the local population (Figure
7.9.2). This evidence demonstrates that the supply of wine was not kept under Phoenician
control, as traditionally believed with the knowledge concerning its technological production a
carefully guarded secret (Cabrera Bonet 1991; Aubet 1993).
Yet the question that still remains to be answered is why should elements of foreign drinking
practices be adopted at all, and why should the introduction and consumption of wine be so
significant? We know from Sherratt (1986) and Walker (1989) that alcohol was already a
306
known practice and the brewing of beer and mead in western Europe is known to have been a long and established practice at least from the Chalcolithic. The evidence does not suggest that
wine was imposed, but deliberately adopted, and hence must be seen as having some advantage
over the indigenous forms of alcohol in the economical, political or social aspects of life. Wine
is an important substance that has many uses, including painkilling and analgesic properties. More significantly, perhaps, wine is less perishable than beer or mead. As a result of its much longer shelf life, it could be stored, amassed and transported over large distances. The
recognition by the indigenous communities that wine could be accumulated to a much greater
extent than beer may have instilled it with power. Wine could be used as a tool of manipulation by certain members of society that could be changed later indirectly into labour or social credit
and prestige
7.13 Anthropological Analogy
It is here that by turning to anthropological analogies that the relevance of wine, particularly
with respect to its social importance may be revealed. Alcohol is probably the most widely
used psychoactive or consciousness-altering agent in societies throughout the world, and
anthropological studies confirm this (Horton 1943; Mandelbaum 1965; Heath 1976; 1987a;
1987b; Marshall 1979; Douglas 1987; Vencl 1994). Furthermore, predominantly used as a social or ritual substance, it is deeply embedded within the socio-cultural fabric of the societies
which use it. In studying drinking behaviour, it is obvious that there is much cultural diversity
of drinking patterns, and drinking practices may even vary significantly from one individual to
the next. However, there are some general observations that can be made.
The drinking of alcohol is primarily a social act, and promotes social cohesiveness and solidarity through facilitating social interaction at informal social gatherings. The significance
of public houses or cocktail parties as western societies' foci for group socialisation, aptly demonstrates this. Within this context, offering alcohol to friends may have been an instrument
for notching up social credit within a community, and if this is taken further, may even enter into the sphere of competitive manipulation for social prestige and power. Hospitality, through
establishing a binding relationship between the host and the guest, is part of a reciprocal
obligation, which must be repaid or else forms a situation of superiority and inferiority (Mauss
1969). One of the most extreme examples of this manipulation is the well-known potlach. Thus, drink may well be one of the prime movers in reinforcing institutionalised status differentiation within a society. Although there is little direct evidence to suggest that it was
employed as such in the Iberian communities, there is evidence of increased stratification in
both the burial and settlement record at this time.
307
Alcohol can also play a large part within the economic domain of small societies, perhaps most importantly as a mobiliser of labour through work-party feasts (Dietler 1990). In the absence of
money economies, one of the more successful ways of pooling labour for a large communal
undertaking, is the widespread institution of the work-party feast where the workers are
rewarded by a large food or drink feast at the end of the day. Dietler (1990: 370-371) explores this idea and demonstrates how alcohol may be relevant in less centralised societies in
establishing personal power and leadership. One example that fits this context is the Chagga of Tanzania, whereby the chief would frequently hold parties at his house where beer would be
distributed, and this generosity would be returned in the assurance that he always had a ready
supply of warriors (his guests) willing to fight for him.
It is thus through a combination of all or a number of the roles mentioned above intertwining
the social, political, and economic spheres that may have given wine its potent significance and heavy representation in the archaeological record of Iberia. Whether any of these uses of wine
were applied by the indigenous populations in Iberia cannot yet be ascertained, but they must be taken into consideration for one thing is certain. The speed with which wine was diffused
throughout the Peninsula, and the significant presence that it has in the ceramic repertoires at
this time goes beyond the simple emulation of foreign practices or the adoption of a new form
of alcohol purely on matters of taste. The popularity of the "wine" custom, almost suggesting a
craze at some indigenous sites, may imply that once the monopoly over the Phoenician
manufacture of the alcohol and its exchange bad been broken, the indigenous societies (or
certain sectors of it) were able to realise its full potential as a powerful instrument in
manipulating certain aspects of the social and economic structure, and perhaps also as a useful
way to increase stratification and more efficiently organise the populations who participated in
the wine consumption. One element of note, although it cannot be correlated directly, is that
the sites that I have analysed in Portugal with significant evidence of wine drinking, also demonstrate a much greater preoccupation with artificial defence and fortification than others
which do not (statistically 100% of the sites with evidence of wine consumption as opposed to
only 65% of other Early Iron Age sites). Again a conjecture, but wine may have been an important element in the organisation of communal labour within the settlements involved, and furthermore may have acted as an instrument that created more efficient and controlled military
resources.
7.14 Conclusions
The evidence presented in this chapter demonstrates that the traditional idea of the Phoenician
colonisation model must be reassessed. Recently Aubet has accurately summed up the main
problem with research into Phoenician colonial activity in Iberia. "The role played by the
308
Phoenicians in the far west has rarely been studied objectively" (1993: 2). This chapter has
attempted a more objective analysis through: I a) tracing earlier interaction between Iberia and the Mediterranean from the Later Bronze Age
onwards. This highlighted networks of communication and exchange that may have set the
stage for the later colonial encounter.
b) widening the focus on the colonisation process to include interaction with indigenous
settlements; not only those in the immediate hinterland of the colonies, but throughout
western Iberia. This stressed the extent and intensity of inter-regional interaction between
the Phoenicians and the native populations.
C) expanding the narrow perimeters of traditional models used to explain the pre-Phoenician
exchange and Phoenician colonisation. This accentuated the social, political and ideological
importance of such interaction, and demonstrated that contact was not simply for economic
gain.
The increased evidence for Later Bronze Age interaction between the east and the far west
convincingly illustrates that Iberia was not a peripheral backwater in the Later Bronze Age, but
an active participator and contributor in the initiation and development of exchange between
both Mediterranean and Atlantic Bronze systems. Much of the Later Bronze Age evidence for
western Iberia discussed in this and earlier chapters demonstrates that complex and intensive
exchange and social systems were already well underway prior to Phoenician involvement. The
Peninsula was already actively interacting with the east several centuries before the
colonisation, from at least 130OBC, if not before. Thus it was not the Phoenicians who
incorporated Iberia into Mediterranean trade routes and launched her on to the international
stage.
The myth that it was the colonial enterprise that initiated the dynamism in Iberian societies at
the beginning of the Iron Age is thus wide of the mark, as is the belief that the relationship was
a simple one of dominance and subordination and technical and economic dependency (pace
Carrilero 1992; Wagner 1995). The importance assigned to the supply and demand of prestige
goods has been employed for too long to explain the emergence of increasingly hierarchical and
complex societies in the Early Iron Age. Archaeologists have over-exaggerated the importance
that the Phoenicians played in single-handedly creating the "Tartessian" cultural complex at the
expense of the indigenous populations.
Rather than the traditional explanation that the Phoenicians landed, hoisted their flag and began
their practice of "unfair trading", at the expense of the indigenous communities, it may now be
309
postulated that a certain degree of compromise was necessary. In this context the bargaining
instrument of wine may be an important factor in the colonisation process, along with its
ramifications on the indigenous societies. The present reanalysis of the evidence indicates that
the interaction between the Phoenicians and Iberians was mutualistic, rather than parasitic. In
fact the Phoenician colonisation in Iberia may have been possible only because the Iberian
societies were sufficiently developed and complex to participate in such interaction and
therefore guarantee its success.
310
0" 1-
Chapter Eight: Conclusions The Later Bronze Age in western Iberia: Myth or Reality?
8.1 Introduction: The Bit in the Middle
The objective of this thesis was to adopt a diachronic perspective to identify the nature of the
typo-chronological, social, cultural, economic and ideological developments which characterise
the Later Bronze Age of western Iberia (ca. 1600-700 cal. BQ. The problem was simple. Evidence for the traditional Middle Bronze Age in these regions was archaeologically invisible,
and no logical or convincing arguments had been evinced for the apparent dearth of settlements during this period. The solution was more difficult and required a critical investigation of
existing typo-chronological frameworks for the Bronze Age, and a new methodological framework for understanding the Later Bronze Age in these regions.
There was evidence in the archaeological record that did not support the idea that societies had
become involuted, stagnated or "retarded" and remained so until after the turn of the first
millennium BC. Firstly there was the Later Bronze Age bronze and gold metal deposits from
western Iberian regions. These provided evidence of sophisticated metal working industries
and their distribution patterns implied long distance exchange. The level of technological
knowledge and the complexities of the interaction involved in the production, manufacture and
exchange of these bronze weapons and tools and gold ornaments is not reconcilable with a
stagnated and regressive society. Furthen-nore, the fact that large quantities of bronze and gold
were consumed in various ways in the archaeological record presupposes surpluses and a
measure of economic success within those societies.
Other evidence contradicted the idea that western Iberia had been subject to mass
environmental crisis and abandonment. If these regions had become depopulated throughout
much of the Bronze Age, then why did people continue to bury their dead in cist cemeteries in
central and southern Portugal and south-west Spain? It seemed unlikely that Bronze Age social
groups would travel several hundred kilometres in order to inter their deceased. If we had
evidence for the houses of the dead then where were the houses of the living?
As stated in the Introduction, the absence of Later Bronze Age evidence is not simply a result
of the lack of archaeological investigation in western Iberia. There have now been a number of
recent systematic field-work programmes in many parts of central and southern Portugal and
311
south-west Spain (see Chapter Four). It is more to do with the way we have been looking at the
archaeological evidence, and the way we have been moulding it into pre-conceived models.
8.2 Conclusions from new methodology
Thus the first objective was to challenge the previous assumptions. The reappraisals of the
burial, ceramic and settlement evidence in Chapters Two, Three and Four removed the flawed
schemes and insubstantial arguments; frameworks and perspectives that had kept this Later
Bronze Age period archaeologically hidden from view. The detailed ceramic analysis
undertaken in Chapters Three and Four highlighted one over-riding feature, that of continuity in
material culture throughout much of the Bronze Age. The realisation that Beaker style
ceramics continue in use until the later second millennium cal. BC allowed the identification of
many Later Bronze Age settlements, previously allocated to earlier chronologies, where good
supporting evidence and radiocarbon dates were available. The other important observation
made concerned the earlier appearance of many supposedly "Late" Bronze Age diagnostic
pottery types (such as pattern burnished, Cogotas I and Bai6es-Santa Luzia traditions). Again,
with the support of stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon chronologies, many settlements that
had previously been dated between the ninth and seventh centuries BC were pushed back
considerably in time. This detailed ceramic analysis has begun to close the gap between the
Chalcolithic and Late Bronze Age, and has allowed a recognition of over 160 settlement sites in
western Iberia that potentially date to this once invisible period.
8.3 Interpretations of the evidence: new theoretical considerations It is always more interesting to interpret data and put forward new theories for relevant discussion. Such interpretation cannot be undertaken until the evidence has been defined
clearly and set in place through more accurate typological sequences and chronological frameworks. Until this research was embarked upon, the traditional typo-chronological frameworks and hence the whole nature of the evidence for the Later Bronze Age rested upon ill-defined and shaky grounds. This explains why much of this thesis was concerned with the
mundane but necessary task of ceramic classification from burial and settlement assemblages. It is only once this was achieved that it was possible to move on to re-interpret the traditional
explanations and offer new interpretations.
The wide-ranging and slightly eclectic approach that this research undertook was relevant and
necessary for a number of reasons. The investigation of burial, settlement, ceramic, stelae and
metal work evidence was combined with an exploration into the nature of trade and exchange
312
mechanisms, and interaction within the different regions of western Iberia. The inter-
relationships between all these facets of the evidence have hitherto remained undetected
because they have been studied in isolation. It is only by bringing the strands together that we
can start to make fuller sense of the Later Bronze Age of western Iberia, and its relationship
with other parts of Europe.
The reappraisal of the Atlantic Bronze Age in Chapter Five was complemented by a study of
the stelae in Chapter Six and pre-Phoenician interaction in Chapter Seven. The new interpretations put forward concerning these different but related themes drew upon the
conclusions made in Chapter Four concerning Later Bronze Age settlement structures.
Exchange and deposition of metalwork resulted from complex and sophisticated networks of
communication that were linked to movement through the landscape, different economic
practices and the creation of new territorial boundaries (highlighted by the stelae). The stelae
and bronze deposits transcended purely econonic concerns into political, ritual and ideological
practices.
The regional and contextual analyses of the bronze and gold objects and the warrior and diadem
stelae have revealed strong links between their locations and those of important raw materials
and routes in the landscape. Rather than treating all of these elements separately, it would
appear that their deposition and positioning within the landscape may be read on one level as
part of a complex but complementary symbolic system. While a large number of bronze
deposits, in particular weapons, were consigned to fluvial contexts, the majority of gold deposits were situated along important land routes, thus complementing the riverine routes.
Another facet of this complementary and contrasting system may be envisaged in the different
ways in which the stelae and the metalwork functioned. On one hand the bronze and gold
objects disappeared from sight into rivers and bogs or under the ground, and appear to have
gained significance and power through principles of secrecy and concealment. In contrast, the
stelae are highly visible and permanent in the landscape, and overtly depict prestige weapons
and ornaments. These different ways of structuring the landscape may be seen as conflicting,
or parts of different ritual languages, but they may also represent two complementary aspects of
the Atlantic Bronze Age system. The majority of weapon deposits are located near the coastal
zone, in river estuaries or along navigable fluvial routes. River mouths and harbours, and
points along important rivers may have been the places of international interaction, and as such,
needed to remain politically neutral (e. g. Polanyi 1957; Rufz-Gdlvez 1984; 1986; 1995b: 26;
313
Aubet 1987: 256-315). Hostility may have been deliberately dissolved or neutralised through
alliances that may have been marked by the deposition of swords in water (a physical and
symbolic act to reduce or destroy the power of the weapon). In contrast, the majority of the
stelae lie in the interior heartland of the Peninsula, in close association with the main deposits
of raw materials, and agricultural and pastoral lands. Perhaps the ostentatious portrayal of
prestige, power and, with respect to some of the warrior stelae, hostility, that these monoliths
depict, symbolically and aggressively protected and controlled mines and natural resources, as
well as points in the landscape. It is only through a combined analysis that the complexity of
the different social, economic and ideological practices accentuated by stelae and metal deposits can be appreciated.
An important concern that this research encountered was the deficiency of adequate models for
understanding the Later Bronze Age in western Iberia. There has been little theoretical
discussion of social and economic changes during this time. There are some obvious reasons
for this. Firstly, Portuguese archaeologists have begun to address theoretical matters only
relatively recently, and most archaeological investigation until the early 1990s stopped at the
descriptive and analytical stage. Secondly, much of the evidence presented in this thesis
accentuated underlying notions of continuity with respect to the material culture (particularly
the ceramics), burial traditions and in some cases, settlement patterns. Archaeologists are more
comfortable when discussing notions of change and development, and the idea of endurance of
ancestral traditions has been equated with stagnation and regression within society.
However, the research demonstrated that the breaks once advocated between the Chalcolithic
and the "Early" and "Middle" Bronze Ages, and again between the "Middle" and "Late"
Bronze Ages are not as clear cut as once thought. Traditional arguments have assumed that the
occupation of the fortified hillforts, such as Zambujal, Leceia and Vila Nova de Sdo Pedro,
ceases abruptly at the beginning of the Earlier Bronze Age and this was followed by a displacement of societies towards nomadic and devolved lifestyles. The return to hillforts and
more permanent occupation began only during the first millennium BC. The evidence
presented in this thesis allows us to argue that these assumptions must be challenged since they
cloud and simplify the nature of the evidence. Even the most recent article published on the
Later Bronze Age to Iron Age transition (Alvarez Sanchfs 2000: 65) continues to uphold this
myth by maintaining that it is only after lOOOBC that fortified settlements indicating stable
occupation develop in western Iberia.
314
The archaeological reality is not so straightforward, and the complexities identified in
settlement patterns throughout western Iberia make it difficult to interpret the evidence under broad generalising frameworks. Chapter Four outlined the variety of Later Bronze Age
settlement types and patterns. Some of the hilltop sites and hillforts appear to demonstrate
continuity in settlement throughout much of the Earlier and Later Bronze Age. Others show a
re-use of Chalcolithic and Earlier Bronze Age fortified settlements, implying more intermittent
or sporadic occupation. There is evidence of new forms of settlement that include open sites in
valleys or near the coast, rock shelters and cave sites. Again, some of these show stable and
continuous occupation, while others may have been inhabited on a more seasonal basis.
Thus on one hand, there is evidence that would support the idea of a way of life more directed
towards transhumance and pastoral activities, although unfortunately there is not yet sufficient
palaeo-environmental, palaeo-zoological and palaeo-botanical evidence from Later Bronze Age
sites to support this hypothesis with certainty. On the other hand, there is also evidence of more permanently occupied Later Bronze Age settlements. It is important not to overly
generalise these developments, but understand that the situation is complicated, with the
presence of both permanent and semi-sedentary settlement in all of the regions discussed.
However, the settlement data collated in Chapter Four can allow some general patterns to be discerned. Pastoral economies associated with semi-sedentary communities moving around the landscape, were focused predominantly in parts of Extremadura, as well as in some areas of the Meseta, southern Portugal and the south-west. Continuously occupied settlements are better
represented in northern and north-central Portugal, but also in other parts of the Meseta.
It is now possible to begin to propose some models for understanding this period. During the
Bronze Age we witness a fragmentation of Chalcolithic social, economic and territorial
systems, although this is not as sharp and sudden as traditionally believed. This dissolution is
indicated through the decrease in hillforts and hilltop settlements in some areas, as well as the
marked decrease in pottery decoration. To some extent, the Chalcolithic settlements and
material culture, offer evidence for more obvious demarcation or differentiation of social
groups and limits of territorial boundaries, compared with the Bronze Age, through prestige
goods and decorated highly stylised pottery, and clearly fortified settlements (e. g. see Lillios
1991; 1997). In some areas, the Bronze Age settlements and material culture indicate
increasing ambiguity in overt territorial demarcations and social groups. In the south-west of
the Iberian Peninsula, there is a transference of territorial boundaries on to permanent markers in the landscape - the stelae - and throughout western Iberia, new networks of social interaction
315
and exchange are highlighted through complex metal deposition. Thus, in many areas the
transformation of territories revolve around movement and communication rather than
stationary situations and settled landscapes.
Obviously one model is too general and over-simPlifies the nature of the archaeological
evidence. There are many complex social and economic patterns in western Iberia at this time.
It would appear that in north and north-central Portugal pottery decoration is more relevant and
perhaps imbued with different social meaning in the Later Bronze Age. It is also in these
regions where we witness the deposition of bronze objects within settlements, while in other
regions they are consumed in complex ways in specific locales throughout the landscape.
There may be a correlation between pottery decoration, bronze settlement deposition and
permanently occupied settlements in the north-west, which indicate a differently structured
territorial system.
In other areas we see the continuity in material culture associated with more ephemeral forms
of settlement. So how do we explain the over-riding theme of continuity? Some important
socio-economic transformations took place during the Bronze Age, and in many regions these
were associated with a shift towards more dispersed and semi-sedentary settlement patterns. Although the data is limited, some of these changes were undoubtedly related to economic
transitions from agricultural to more pastoral modes of production. Perhaps one way of making
this dislocation from permanent to more mobile and ephemeral forms of settlement less
traumatic was through retaining links with the past. While economic and social aspects of life
changed, the dislocations were smoothed over through preserving connections with ancestral traditions. We can see this with respect to the conservatism in much of the material culture - particularly ceramics and lithics. The links are also highlighted in the burial sphere, with
continuity and re-use in megalithic and communal burial traditions. Thus, the continuity and
endurance of 'earlier traditions need not be seen in terms of stagnated and devolved societies. We need to read these models of continuity and conservatism in other ways. If breaks and dislocation with previous settlement patterns and economies was being made in some areas then
perhaps the success of these new lifestyles was partly guaranteed through retaining some
essence of the past. Thus while social structures change, ancestral cultural traditions are
preserved.
316
8.4 Final Conclusions: Later Bronze Age Iberia and Europe
The evidence collated and presented in this thesis allows more integrated interpretations of the
Later Bronze Age in western Iberia. It has provided evidence of a continuously inhabited
landscape throughout this time; a landscape that was previously depicted as depopulated. It has
shown that continuity of ancestral traditions may have been vital in the successful reproduction
of these societies as they underwent significant social and economic transformations. The
evidence implies a certain degree of steady growth and development, rather than retrogression
and stagnation, throughout the Bronze Age The analysis of the stelae, bronze deposits and
ceramics highlighted the complex networks of interaction in existence during the Later Bronze
Age. They provide evidence for long distance communication as well as demonstrating the increasing concern over the demarcation, ownership and control of routes in the landscape,
through complex ritual and ideological systems. All of this hints at sophisticated and
potentially stratified societies; far removed from the stagnated and devolved nomadic groups
once advocated for this period.
The investigation has also demonstrated that we can no longer accept that these societies were
brought out of their decline only by external catalysts from other parts of Europe and the
Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age. The evidence discussed in Chapters Five and
Seven has allowed new explanations to be put forward concerning the Atlantic Bronze Age,
pre-Phoenician interaction and Phoenician colonisation. Western Iberia can no longer be
depicted as a passive and exploited margin within wider core-periphery systems. The evidence
has clearly indicated that many regions of Spain and Portugal were actively involved in
exchange and interaction with other parts of Europe and the Mediterranean during the Later
Bronze Age. By removing previous erroneous assumptions, we can address the relationships
between Iberia and the rest of Europe in more balanced terms. It is vital to incorporate these
new interpretations of western Iberia into a wider framework, since they will have a significant
impact upon expanding our understanding of the Later prehistory in western Europe and the
central Mediterranean as a whole.
8.5 Future Research in western Iberia
The conclusions drawn from this PhD research have provided the incentive for the author to
embark upon a detailed survey project in the southern Alentejo, Portugal. The proposed three
year project will begin in September 2000 in the Sines and Odemira river basins. The
particular study area was chosen for a number of reasons, including the dearth of detailed field
investigation in the area, in spite of the wealth of prehistoric burial and settlement sites, and the
317
opportunity to compare and contrast settlement developments between coastal and inland areas. The proposed project will follow a systematic methodology of field-walking and topographical
survey and will contextualise each site in relation to the surrounding landscape as well as other
sites of the same period. The systematic field reconnaissance will also focus upon river valleys
and channels where low-lying sites buried by alluvium may be detected. Previous
archaeological survey in Portugal has tended to focus upon the most obvious locations for
prehistoric settlement, such as hill tops or coastal plains (see Chapter Four), thus promoting the
invisibility of many periods and types of sites; in particular small low-lying undefended Bronze
Age settlements. This proposed survey should help to dispel further the lacuna for the
traditional "Middle" Bronze Age and provide new evidence for Later Bronze Age settlements beyond that of hillforts.
318
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acosta, P. 1968 La Pintura Rupestre Esquemdtica en Espaha. Salamanca.
Agourdis, Christos 1997 Sea routes and Navigation in the third millennium Aegean. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 16 (March): 1 -24.
Aguayo de Hoyos, P. 1986 La transicion de la Edad del Cobre a la Edad del Bronce en la provincia de Granada. Homenaje a Luis Siret
(1934-1984) : 262-270.
Aguayo de Hoyos, P., M. Carrilero, C. Flores, and F. Pino de la Torre 1986 El yacimicnto pre e protohist6rico de Acinipo (Ronda, Malaga): un ejcmplo dc cabaftas del Broncc Final y su
cvoluci6n. ArqueologlaEspacial 9: 35-58.
Aguayo de Hoyos, P., M. Carrilero, C. Flores, and M". Pino de la Torre 1986 Del Bronce Final a la Epoca Ibdrica. El yacimiento pre- y protohist6rico de Acinipo (Ronda, Malaga): un ejemplo
de Cabaflas del Bronce Final y su evoluci6n. Arqueologia Espacial 9: 33-58.
Aguilcra, I., J. Paz, J. A. Perez Casa, and J. 1. Royo 1984 Dos fechas de C- 14 para la Protohistoria de la ciudad de Zaragoza. El hibitat del Bronce Final de Gavin-Sepulcro.
Arqueologia Aragonesa 4
Aira Rodriguez, M. J. , and J. M. Vdzquez Varela 1985 Nuevos datos palinol6gicos sobre la agricultura, prehist6rica en Galicia (Espafta). TrabalhosdeAntropologiae
Etnologia 25 (2-4): 241-252.
Aitken, M. J., Zimmerman, D. W., Fleming, S. J. 1968 Thermoluminesccricc dating of prehistoric pottery. Nature 219: 442-443.
AlarcAo, J. 1992 A evolugAo da cultura castreja. Conimbriga XXXI: 39-7 1.
Alarqon Rubio, NP. J. 1983 Panorama actual de la cerdmica con tdcnica bruftida en Andalucia Occidental. Boletin de la Asociaci6n de Amigos
de laArqueologia 17: 70-80.
Albanese Procetti, R. M. 1986-1987 Un ripostiglio di bronzi di Nota Antica. Atti e Hemoria Noto Antica 17-18: 45-72.
Albanese Procetti, R. M. 1989 Tripodi geometrici dal ripostiglio di bronzi del Mendolito di Adrano. Milanges de Itcole Franfaise de Rome
Anfiqlhi 101 (2)(2): 643-677.
Albeda, F., and J. Mancebo DAvalos 1991 Nuevos elementos de carros Orientalizantes en la Alta Andalucia. Algunas precisiones en torno a su funci6n,
significado y distribuci6n. Cuadernos de Prehistoria da Untversidade de Madrid 18: 113-148.
Aldenderfer, M. S., and FLY, Blaschficld 1978 Cluster Analysis and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 48 (3): 502-505.
Alfonso dos Santo, L. A., and J. J. Riqaud de Sousa 1979 Joubreia, Nova estagAo Arqucologia do tipo Penha. CongresoNacionaideArqueologiaXV, Lugo 1977: 347-354.
Alfonso FernAndez, J. 1981 Distribuclon geogrAfica y caracterlstica de los suelos espaholes. Estudios de Geografla. Homenaje a AI(redo
Florisdn : 19-27.
Alker, 11. R. Jr., and B. M. Russet 1964 On Measuring Inequality. Behavioral Science 9: 207-218.
Allan, J. C. 1965 A Mineraqfto ern Portugal na Antiguidade. Boletim de Minas 2: 1.
Allison, P. D. 1978 Measures of Inequality. American Sociological Review 43: 865-879.
Almagro Basch, A 1939 La cerdmica excisa de la Primera Edad del Hierro de la Peninsula lberica. Ampurias 1: 138-158.
Almago Basch, M. 1940 El hallazgo de la Ria de Huelva en el Ocidente de Europa. Ampurlas 11: 10-65.
Almagro Basch, M. 1952a Espafta Protohist6rica. In Hist6ria de Espaha, I, edited by I- Pidal, pp. 141-240. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid.
Almagro Basch, A 1952b La invasi6n cdltica en Espaha. in Historia de Espaha, ll, edited by R. Pidal, pp. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid.
Almagro Basch, M. 1958 Dep6sito de la Rfa de Huelva. Inventiria Arqueologica 1-4
Almagro Basch, M. 1960 Inventaria Archaeologica: FspaRa, fase. 5. Instituto Espahol de Prehistoria, Madrid.
Almagro Basch, M. 1961 La Sequencia Cultural de la Peninsula Ibdrica del Neolitico al Bronce Final. Boletin del Seminario de Estudios de
ArteyArqueologia, Madrid XXVII: 45-59-
Almagro Basch, M. 1962a Una nueva estela grabada extremefia. Valor cultural y cronol6gico de estos monumcntos. Homenaje aA
Telesforo de Aranzadf. Munibe XIV: 285-296.
Almagro Basch, M. 1962b InventariaArqueol6gica Espaha. fasc. 6, E7-1 0, Madrid.
Almagro Basch, M. 1963 Estela sepulcral grabada de la Granja de Cdspedes en Badajoz. Hemorias de los MuseosArqueol6gicos
Provinciales (1958-1961) 19-20: 11.
Almagro Basch, M. 1966 Las Estelas decoradas del suroeste Peninsular. Bibliotcca Prachistorica Ilispana, Madrid.
Almagro Basch, M. 1969 Dc Orfcbreria Celtica: El Dep6sito dc Bcrzocana y un brazalcte del Museo Arqueol6gico Nacional. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 26: 275-296.
Almagro Basch, M. 1970 Dos nuevas estelas decoradas en Andalucia Occidental. X7 Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Afdridal968)
: 315-331.
Almagro Basch, M. 1972 Los fdoles y la estela decorada de Hemdn Pdrez (CAceres) y el idolo estela de Tabuyo del Monte (Ldon). Trabajos
de Prehistoria 29: 83-124.
Almagro Basch, M. 1974 Nucvas estelas decoradas de la Peninsula lbdrica. Miscelanea Arqueol6gica 1: 5-39.
Almago Basch, M. 1975 Dep6sito de bronces de la Ria de Huelva. Espalsa-Calpe, Madrid.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1970 Las fechas C-14 para la Prehistorfa y la Arqueologia peninsular. Trabajos de Prehistorld 27: 9-43.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1972 C-14,1972. NuevasfechasparalaPrehistoriaylaArqueologiadelaPenfnsulalbdrica. TrabajosdePrehistoria
33: 307-328.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1973 Los idoles del Bronce I Hispahico. Biblioteca Prehistoria Hispana, Madrid.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1974a Los tesores de Sagrajas y Berzocana y los torques de oro macizo del Occidente Peninsular. Actas do JJP
CongressoNacionaldeArqueologia 1: 259-282.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1974b Orfebreria del Bronce Final en la Penfnsula lbdrica - El Tesoro de Abfa de la Obispalfa, la orfebrerfa tipo Villena
yloscuencosdeAxtroki. TrabajosdePrehistoriaXY. XI: 39-100.
Almagro, Gorbea, M. 1974c C 14- 1974. Cinquenta nuevas fechas para la Prehistorla y Arqueologia Peninsular. Trabajos de Prehistoria
31: 279-292.
Almagro, Gorbea, M. 1974d Los tesores de Sagrajas y Berzocana y los torques de oro macizo del Ocidente peninsular. Actas do III
Congresso Nacional de . 4rqueologia; Porto : 259-282.
Almagro, Gorbea, M. 1974e Los asadores de la bronce del suroeste peninsular. Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos LXXVII (1): 351 -
395.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1975 C-14NuevasfechasparalaPrehistorfayArqueologfaPenfnsular. TrabajosdePrehistoria32: 167-175.
Almagro, Gorbea, M. 1976 C-14 1976. Nuevas fechas para la Prehistorfa y Arqueologfa de la Peninsula lbdrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria
33: 167-176.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1977 El Bronce Finaly el Periodo Orientalizzante en Fxtremadura. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
(Bibliotheca Praehist6rica Hispana n" XIV), Madrid.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1978 Las Dataciones de C14 para el bronce final y lacdad del hierro y su problemdtica. C'. 14yPrehistoriadela
Peninsula lbirica - reuni6n. Serie Universitaria Fundaci6n Juan March 77 : 101-109.
Almagro Gorbca, M. 1978 Las datacionesparael Bronce Final y laEdad del Hierroy suproblemAtica. CUyPrehistorla de la Peninsula
lberica - reuni6n (Sirie Universitaria Fundaci6n Juan March 77) : 101-109.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1983 Colonizzacione e Acculturazione nella Peninsola lberica. Forme di contatto e processi di transformazione nella
societa antiche : 429-63.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1986 Bronce Final y Had del Hicrro (la formaci6n de etnias y culturas prerromanas). In Historia de Espaila Vol 1.
Prehistoria, edited by F. Jordi Cerda, pp. 277-288. Editorial Gredos, Madrid.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1988a Rcpresentaciones de barcos en el arte rupestre de la Peninsula Wrica. Aportaci6n a la navcgaci6n precolonial
desde el MediterrAneo Oriental. I Congreso Internacionale "El Estrecho de Gibraltar" (Ceuta 1987) : 389-398.
Almagro, Gorbea, M., Davila, F. 1988b Estructura y reconstrucci6n de la cabafia'Ecce I lomo 86/6'. bpacio, Tiempoy Forma Sdrie 1. Prehistoria: 361 -
374.
Almagro Gorbea, M 1989 Arqueologia e Historia Antigua: El processo Proto-orientalizante y el inicio de los contactos de Tartessos con el
LevantemediterrAneo. Dtudios sobre la Antigfiedad en Homenaje alprofesor Santiago Montero Diaz. AnejosdeGerion 11: 277-288.
Almagro Gorbea, M 1990 El periodo orientalizante en Extremadura. La cultura tartdsicay &tremadura (Cuadernos Emeritenses 2) : 85.
126.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1991 El Mundo Orientalizante en la Peninsula lbdrica. Aportaci6n a la navegacion precolonial desde el Mediterrineo.
in Att! del 11 Congresso Internazionale diStudi Fenici e Punici, ll, edited by pp. 573-599. Consiglio Nazionale della Richerche, Rome.
Almagro Gorbea, M 1992a Los intercarnbiosculturalesentreArag6ny el Litoral Mediterrdneodurante elBronce Final. InArag6nyLitoral
Mediterr6neo: Intercambios Culturales durante la Prehistoria, edited by P. U. Miranda, pp. 633-658. Instituci6n Fernando el Cat6lico, Zaragoza.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1993a Les St6les anthropomorphesde laPdninsulelb6rique. In Les Reprdsentacions Humaines du Njolithique aLWge
du Fer. Actes du 115e Congris National des Socijtjs Savantes, Avignon 1990, edited by J. Briard and A. Duval, pp. 123-139. CTHS, Paris.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1993b Las estelas antropornorfas de la Penfnsula Ibdrica. Tipologfa, dispersi6n, cronologia y signif icado. In Les
representaciones humaines du Neolithique atd lAge du Fer. Actes du 115e Congrk National des Socigtds Savantes, Avignon 1990, edited by J. Briard and A. Duval, pp. 140-146. CTHS, Paris.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1993c La introducci6n del hierro en la Peninsula lbdrica. Contactos precoloniales en la Periodo Proto-orientalizante.
Complutum, Madrid 4: 81-94.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1995 Ireland and Spain in the Bronze Age. In Ireland in the Bronze Age. Proceedings ofthe Dublin Conference (April
1995), edited by J. Waddell and E. Shee Twohig, pp. 136-148. The Stationary Office, Dublin.
Almagro Gorbea, M. 1997 Cronologfa da Idade do Bronze na Peninsula lbdrica. Zephyrus 56: 187-202
Almagro Gorbea, M., and J. E. Benito L6pez 1993 Laprospecci6n arqueol6gica del valle del Tajuna. Complutum4: 297-310.
Almagro Gorbea, M., and A. F. Davila 1989 Ecce Homo. Una caýbafla de la primera Edad del Hierro. Revista de Arqueologia 98: 30-38.
Almagro Gorbea, M., and D. Ferndndez Galliano 1980 Excavaciones en el cerro Ecce Homo (Alcali de Henares). Arqueologia 2
Almagro Gorbea, M., and F. Fontes 1997 The Introduction of wheel-made pottery in the Iberian Peninsula: Myceneans or pre-Oricntalising contacts?
oxfordiournal ofArchaeology 16 (3): 345-362.
Almagro Gorbea, M., and A. M. Martin Bravo 1994 Medellin 199 1. - La ladera Norte del Cerro del Castillo. In Oppida en la Peninsula Ibirica. Complutum Extra 4,
edited by M. Almagro Gorbea and A. M. Martin Bravo, pp. 77-127. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Almagro Gorbea, M., and J. L. Sinchcz Abal 1978 La cstela decorada de Zarza de MontAnchez (CAceres). Trabajos de Prehistoria 35: 417-23.
Almeida, J. 1945 Roteiro dos Monumentos Militares Portugu6ses. Lisbon.
Alonso, J., V. Cabrera, T. Chapa, and M. Femdndez Miranda 1978 Indice de fechas arqueol6gicasde C-14 paraEspaftay Portugal. C]4yPrehistoriadelaPenisulalbirica
Fundaci6n Juan March, Madrid: 155-182.
Alonso Romero, F. 1993 Los Testemonios mds antiguas de los medios e navegaci6n entre el Mediterrdneo y el atidntico: Las embarcaciones
de juncos en el arte rupestre de la Peninsula Ibdrica. Mediterrdneo 2(April): 265-274.
Alvar, J. 1980 El comercio del estafto addritico durante el periodo orientalizante. Memorias de Historla Antigua IV: 4349.
Alvar, J. 1981 La navegaci6n prerromana en la Peninsula Ibirica: Colonizadores e indigenas. Phl), Universidad Complutense
de Madrid.
Alvar, J.
1982 Aportaciones el estudio del Tarshish biblico. Revista di Studi Fenict 10: 211-230.
Alvar, J. 1988 La precolonizacfon y el trffico maritimo fenicfo por el Estrecho. Congreso Internacional sobre el Estrecho de
Gibraltar 1: 429-443.
Alvar, J. 1990 El contacto intercultural en los procesos de cambio. Geri6n 8: 11-27.
Alvardo GonzAlo, M. dc, and A. GonzAlcz Cordcro 1991 Pinturas y grabados rupestres de la provincia de Cdccres. Estado de la Investigaci6n. Extremadura Arqueol6gica
11: 139-156.
Alvares Nuflcz, A. 1986 Castro de Penalba; Campo Lamelro (Pontevedra). Campaha de 1983. Arqueoloxia-Memorias 4, Galicia.
Alvares Sanchfs, J. R. 1990 Los verracos del Valle del Amblds (Avila): Del andlisis espacial a la interpretacfon socioecon6mica. Trabajosde
Prehistoria 47: 201-233.
Alvares Sanchfs, J. R. 2000 The Iron Age inwestern Spain (80OBC-AD50): an overview. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 19 (1): 65-90.
Alvarez Garcia, A. 1987 El yacimiento protohist6rico de Palermo, cn Caspe (Zaragoza). aproximacfon a la secuencia cultural Bronce Final/
Hierro en el valle medio del Ebro. Arqueologia Aragonesa 1985: 75-92.
Alvarez Rojas, A., and J. Gil Montes 1988 Aproximacion de las vfas dc comunicacfon en el primer milenio antes de Cristo en Extremadura. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 45: 305-16.
Alvaro Bobadilla, E. 1988 Nuevos Grupos de Arte Rupestre en la Meseta Norte. Arqueologia 18: 105-109.
Alves Dias, M-M 1986a Monte da Santa Justa, Serpa. InformaqJoArqueol6gica 6: 33.
Alves Dias, M. M. 1986b A Necr6pole Protohist6rica da Herdade da Favela Nova. Informaqjo Arqueol6gica 6: 32-33.
Amaro, C. 1993 Vestigios materiales orientalizantes do claustro da Sd de Lisboa. Estudos Orientais (Os Fenicios no Territ6rio
portugues) IV: 183-192.
Amiran, R. 1970 Ancient Pottery ofthe Holy Land. Jerusalem.
Arno, NP. del 1973 Cerimica de retfcula bruffida en Medellin. Actad del X71 Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Jadn 1971).
Zaragoza : 375-388.
Arno, NP. del 1974 Enterramientos en cistas de la provincia de Huelva. Huelva, Prehistoria y Antignedad : 109-220.
Amo, NP. del 1975a Nuevas aportaciones para el estudio de la Edad del Bronce en el Suroeste Peninsular: los cnterramientos en cista
de la provincia de Huelva. Actas delAW Congreso, Nacional de Arqueologla (Huelva, 1973) : 433-454.
Arno, ". del 1975b Enterramientos en cistaen laprovinciade Huelva. In Huelva. PrehistoriayAntiguedad, edited by M. Almagro
Basch, pp. 85-146. Madrid.
Amo, NP. del 1978 El Castahuelo, Un poblado cdltico en la provincia de I luelva. Huelva Arqueol6gica IV: 299-340.
Amo, M'. del 1983 Un molde para lafabricadon de espadas del Bronce Final hallado en Ronda. Homenaje al Professor Martin
Almagro Basch 2: 81-94.
Amo, NP. del 1993 Formas y Ritos funerarios en las necropolis de cistas del suroeste Peninsular. Spal 2: 169-182.
Amo, M. del, and M. Belen 1981 Estudio de un corte estratigrdfico en el Cabezo de San Pedro. Huelva Arqueoldgica 5: 23-76.
Amores Carredano, F. 1985 Ensayo de Periodizaclon del Bronce Reciente en Andalucia Occidental (tesis Doctoral inidita). Doctoral, Seville.
Amores Carredano, F., and J. M. Rodriguez Hidalgo 1984-1985 Cogotas en Carmona y Panorama General sobre este Fen6meno en Andalucia Occidental. Mainake Vj-
VII: 73-90.
Amores Carredano, F., and I. R. Ternifto 1984 La Implantaci6n durante el Bronce Final y el Periodo Orientalizante en el region de Carmona. Arqueologia
Espacial. - Coloquio sobre distribucion y relaciones entre los asentamientos del Bronce Final a Epoca lbirica 4: 97-114.
Anati, E. 1968 Arte rupestre nelle Regioni occidentali della Peninsola Wrica. Edizione del Centro, Capo di Ponte.
Anati, E. 1977 Methods ofRecording andAnalysing Rock Engravings. Edizione del Centro, Capo du Ponte.
Anderson, J. M., and M. Sheridan Lea 1994 Portugal 1001 Sites. An Archaeological and Historical Guide. London.
Anderson, R. L. 1989 Art in Small-Scale Societies. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Andrade, I- Freire de. 1971 Os monumentos Megaliticos do Monte das Pereiras e Cabeqade Moinhos, Mafra. ComunicaV&s dos Servivos
Geol6gicos de Portugal 55: 503-511.
Andreski, S. 1971 Military organisation and society. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Antunes, M. T. 1992 Povoados do Bronze Final da Beira Baixa - Alegrios, Moreirinha e Monte do Frade: elementos arqueozool6gicos.
Conimbriga XXXI: 31-39. Aberg, N. 1921 La Civilisation enjolithique dans la Pininsule Ibirique. Vilhelm Ekmans Universitetsfond, Uppsala.
Appaduari, A 1986 Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In The social life ofthings, edited by A. Appaduari, pp. 3-63.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Appeldniz, J. M., and S. Doingo Mefla 1987 Estudios sobre Atapuerca (2). Los materiales de duperficle del santuario de la Galeria de Silex. Cuadcmos de
Arqueologia de la Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.
Appeldniz, J. M., and J. L. Uribarri 1976 Estudio sobre Atapuerca (Burgos) (1). El Santuario de la Galeria de Silex. Cuadernos de Arqueologfa de la
Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.
Ardrey, R. 1970 The Social Contact. Atheneum, New York.
Armbruster, B. 1993 Instruments rotatifs dans l'ofrevreric de rage du Bronze de la P6ninsule lb6rique. Nouvelics connaiscances sur la
technique des bracelets du type Villena-Estremoz. Actas de P Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Oporto : 265-279.
Armbruster, B. 1995 Nueva luz sobre la tecnologfa de lajoya de Sintra (Lisboa): una obra de la orfebreria del Bronce Final compuesta
de los tipos Sagrajas/ Berzocana y Villena/ Estremoz. Trabajos de Prehistoria 52: 125-144.
Armbruster, B., and A. Perea 1994 Tecnologia. de herramientas rotativas durante el Bronze Final Atldntico. El dep6sito de Villena. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 51 (2): 69-87.
Arnaud, J. M. 1979 Cor6a do Frade. Fortificaglo do Bronze Final dos arredores de tvora. Escavaq6es de 1971/1972. Madrider
Mitteflungen 20: 56-100.
Amaud, J. M. 1992 Nota sobre uma necr6pole do Bronze 11 do Sudoeste dos arredores de Ervidel (AIjustrel). Vipasca 1: 9-17.
Arnaud, J. M. 1995 Cor0a do Frade: Uma FortificaqAo do Bronze Final dos Arredores cle tvora. In A Idade do Bronze em Portugal,
Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 43-45. Instituto Portuguds de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic theo? y and culturalprocess. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Arnold, D. E. 1991 Ethnoarchaeology and the investigation of ceramic production and "change: Can we go beyond cautionary tales?
in The Ceramic Legacy ofAnna 0. Shepard, edited by R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange, pp. 321-345. University of Colorado, Colorado.
Arnold, D. E. 1993 Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Arnold, P. J. 1991 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organisation. A Mexican case study in ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Affibas, A. 1967 La Edad del Bronce en la Peninsula lberica. Las Ralces de Espaila, Madrid LE. A. A. : 85-108.
Arribas, A. 1976 Los bases actuales para el estudio del Neolitico y la Edad del Bronce en el Sureste de la Peninsula lbdrica.
Cuadernos de Prehistoric; de la Universidad de Granada 1: 139-155.
Arribas, A. 1978 Nuevas aportaciones al inicio de la mctal6rgia en la Peninsula lbdrica. El poblado de Los Castillejos de Montefrfo
(Granada). Proceedings ofthe FifthAllantic Colloquium : 7-32.
Arribas, A., and F. Molina 1987 New Bell Beaker discoveries in the south-east Iberian Peninsula. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean,
British Archaeological Reports International Series 33 I. edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 129-146. BAR, Oxford.
Arribas, A., E. Pareja, F. Molina, 0. Arteaga, and F. Molina Fajardo 1974 &cavaciones en elpoblado de la Edad del Bronce "Cerro de la Encina". Monachil (Granada). (El Corte
estratigr6fico no. 3). Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en Espafta 81, Madrid.
Arribas, A., and G. Trfs 1961 Uninteresante'hallazgocen-ado'enelyacimientodeUllastret. 4rchivoEspa; loldeArqueologia34: 1840.
Arruda, A. M. 1983-1984 AlcAqova de Santardm. Relat6rio dos trabalhos arqueol6gicos de 1984. ClioArqueologla 1: 217-225.
Arruda, A. M. 1987 Castelo de Castro Marim, Faro. InformaVioArqueol6gia 8: 32-34.
Arruda, A. M. 1993 0 Corqo, a kylix e Dionysos. Revista da Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa 2: 17-22.
Arruda, A. M. 1993 A ocupaqAo da Idade do Ferro da Alcfiqova de Santardrn no contexto da expansAo fenfcia para a fachada atldntica
peninsular. Estudos Orientais IV (0s Fenicios no Territ6rio Portugu6s) : 193-214.
Arteaga, 0. 1976-1978 Problernitica general de la iberizaci6n en Andalucia Oriental y Sudeste de la Pen1sula lbdrica. Ampurias 38-
40: 23-60.
Arteaga, 0. 1981 Problemas de la Protohistorla de la Peninsula lbdrica. Boletin de la Asociacion Espahold de Amigos de la
Arqueologia 14(December). 4-17.
Arteaga, 0. 1982 Los Saladares-80. Nuevas directrices para el estudio del horizonte protoibdrico cn el Levante Meridional y
Sudeste de la Peninsula. Huelva Arqueol6gica VI: 131-183.
Arteaga, 0. 1985 Perspectivas espacio-temporales de la colonizaci6n fenicia Occidental. Ensayo de aproximacfon. In lberos. Actas
de las lJornadas sobre el Mundo Ibirico, edited by A. Ruiz Rodrfguez and M. Molinos, pp. 205-228. Publicaciones de la Consejerf a de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucf a, Jadn.
Arteaga, 0. 1992 Tribalizaci6n, jerarquizaci6n y estado en cl territorio de El Argar. Spal I(Publicaciones de la Universidad): 9-32.
Arteaga, 0., and F. Molina 1977 AnotacionesalproblemadelascerdmicasexcisasPeninsulares. A7VCongressoNacionalde, 4rqueologia (Vitoria
1975) : 565-586.
Arteaga, 0., F. Nocete, A. Recuerda, and A. M. Roos 1986 Excavaciones sistemiticas en el Cerro de El Albacete (Porcuna, Men). . 4nuario. 4rqueol6gico de, 4ndalucia
11: 395-400.
Arteaga, 0., and M. R. Serna 1979 Las primeras fases del poblado de Los Saladares (Orihuela, Alicante). Una contribuci6n al estudio del Bronce
Final en la Peninsula Ibdrica. 4mpurias 41: 65-13 7.
Asqucrino, M. D. 1979 'Fondos de cabafta! del Cerro de Cervera (Mejorada del Campo, Madrid). Trabajos de Prehistoria 36: 119-150.
Asquerino, ". D., and V. Cabrera 1980 Prospecciones en Mejorada del Campo (Madrid). Noticario, 4rqueol6gico Hispdnico 9: 133-212.
Astrom, P. 1992 Continuity, Discontinuity, Catastrophe, Nucleation: Some Remarks on Terminology. In The Crisis Years: The
Twel(th Century BC, edited by W. Award and M. J. Joukowsky, pp. 27-30. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa.
Astr6m, P. 1991 Canaanite Jars from Hala Sultan Tekke. In Bronze, 4ge trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. Gale, pp. 149.
15 1. Jonsered, Oxford.
Atkinson, A. B. 1970 On the Measurement of Inequality. Journal ofEconomic Theory 2: 244-263.
Aubet, "E. 1974 Excavaciones en Las Chofferas, Mezquitilla, Milaga. Pyrenae 10: 79-109.
Aubet, ". E. 1975 La Necr6polis de Setefilla en Lora del Rio (Sevilla). El Týmulo A. CSIC, Barcelona.
Aubet, M' E. 1980 Nuevos hallazgos en la necr6polis de Setefilla. Mainake 2: 87-115.
Aubet, M. E. 1982a Los enterramientos ba o t(Imulo de Setefilla (Seville). Huelva Arquel4gica 6: 49-70. j
Aube% NP E. 1982b Una cultura protohist6rica a la baixa Andalucia: Tartessos. LWvenqa 55: 15-19.
Aubet, NP. E. 1983 Aspectos de la colonizaci6n Fenfcia en Andalucia durante el siglo VIII AC. Atti del 10 Congresso Internazionale
di Studi Fenici e Punici. Rome, 1979 111: 815-824.
Aubet, ". E. 1984 La aristocracia tartdsica durante el periodo oriental izante. Gpus3
Aubct, M! E. 1985 Los fenicios en Espafta: Estado de la cuesti6n y perspectivas. Aula Orientalis 3: 9-38.
Aubet, M! E. 1986 Horizonte cultural protohistorico: Tartessos. Revista de Arqueologia Extra 1: 58-73.
Aubet, NP. E. 1987 Tiroy las coloniasfenicias de Occidente. Bellaterra, Barcelona.
Aubet, NP. E. 1988 Spagna. IFenici, Milan: 226-242.
Aubet, M! E. 1993 The Phoenicians and the West. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Aubet, NP. E. 1995 Aproximaci6n a la estructura demogr6fica y social tartdsica. Tartessos 25 ahos despuis (1968-1993). Actas del
Congreso Comemorativo del VSymposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular : 135-156.
Aubct, NP. E., and V. Lull 1990 Las Edades del Cobre y del Bronce. Ed. Plancta., Barcelona.
Aubet, " E., C. Maas Lindemann, and H. Schubart 1975 Chorreras. Eine Phonizische Niederlassung Ostlich der Algarrobo Mundung. Madrider Mittedungen 16: 137-178.
Aubet, W. E., C. Maas-Lindenann, and H. Schubart 1979 Chorreras. Un establecimiento fenicio al Este de la desembocadura del Algarrobo. Noticario Arqueol6gico
Hisp6nico VI: 89-138.
Aubet, NP E., and M. R. Sema 1981 Una sepultura de la Edad del Bronce en la Mesa de Setef ilia (Lora del Rio, Sevilla). MadriderMitteilungen
38: 225-251.
Aubet, NP. E., NP. R. Serna, J. L. Escacena, and M. Ruiz 1983 La Mesa de Setefilla. Lora del Rio (Sevilla). Campaflade 1979. MinisteriodeCultura, Madrid.
Audouze, F., and 0. Buchenschutz 1989 Villes, Villages et Campagnes de I 'Europe Celtique. I fachette, Paris.
Avery, M. 1976 Hillforts of the British Isles: A studcnVs Introduction. In Ildtforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and
Ireland, edited by D. W. Harding, pp. 1-58. RKP, London.
Avery, M. 1986 'Stoning the Fire' at hillfort entrances in southern Britain. World Archaeology 18 (2): 216-230.
Ayala, M. M. 1986 La cultura de El Argar en Murcia. Datos actuales. Un avance para su estudio. Homenaft a Luis Siret (Cuevas do
Almanzora 1984) : 329-340.
Ayala, M-Mý and F. Navara Hervas 1988 Un yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce en Ontur (Albacete). I Congreso de Castilla-La Mancha Tomo 111. Pueblos
y Culturas prehistoricas y protohistoricas: 21-30.
Ayala, M. M., and D. Rivera 1987 Las habas como ajuar funerarfo cn la cultura argirica. Actas del Congreso Internacional de Religiones
Prehist6ricas, Salamanca
Badas, U. 1987 Genna Maria-Villanovaforru (Cagliari). I vani 10/18. Nouvi apporti allo studio delle abitazioni a corte centrale.
La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il secondo e ilprimero millennio aC, Attl del 11 Convegno di studi "Un millennia di rela: ionifra la Sardegna ei Paesi del Mediterraneo" (Selargius-Cagliari, 1986) : 133-146.
Balado Pachon, A. 1987 La secucncia protohist6rica del yacimiento de Almenara de Adaja (Valladolid). BoletindelSeminariodeArtey
Arqueologia 53: 169-177.
Balado Pachon, A. 1989 Excavaciones enAlmenara de Adaja., Elpoblamientoprehist6rico. Diputaci6n Provincial de Valladolid,
Valladolid.
Balbin Behrmann, F- 1978 El Bronce Mddio Peninsular y la cronologia radiocarb6nica. In Cl4yPrehistoria de la Peninsula lb&ica, edited
by pp. 95-100. Fundaci6n Jaen March, Madrid.
Baldomcro Navarro, A., and J. E. Ferrer Palma 1984 Las necrop6lis de cistas de la provincia de Mdlaga. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada
9: 175-193.
Baldc, W. 1984 The Ecology of Ancient Tupi Warfare. In Warfare, Culture and Environment, edited by R. B. Ferguson, pp. 241 -
265. Academic Press, New York.
Bankoff, H. A., N. Meyer, and M. Stefanovich 1996 Handmade Burnished Ware and the Late Bronze Age of the Balkans. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology
9: 193-209.
Baptista, A. M. 1985 A estAtua-menhirdaErmida(Ponte de Barca, Portugal). OArque6logoPortugues3: 7-44.
Baquedano Beltran, I. 1987a Inicios del Bronce Final cn la Cuenca Media del Guadalquivir: el Lianete de los Moros (Montoro, Cdrdoba).
Trabajos de Prehistoria 44: 223-250.
Baqucdano Beltran, M. I. 1987b El yacimiento argdrico de El Oficlo, Cuevas (Almeria). Trabajos de Prehistorld 44: 201-222.
Baquedano Beltran, &P. I., and F. Blanco 1994 El Espinillo, un yacimiento importante de la Edad del Bronce en Madrid. Revista de Arqueologia Aflo XV, No.
155(March): 12-13.
Barcel6, J. A. 1988 Introducci6n al razonamiento estadistico aplicado a la Arqueologfa: un andlisis de las estelas antropomorfas de ]a
Peninsula Ibdrica. TrabajosdePrehistoria45: 51-85.
Barcel6, J. A. 1989 Las estelas decoradas del Sudoeste de la Peninsula Ibdrica. In Tartessos. Arqueologia Protohist6rica del Baja
Guadalquivir, edited by M. E. Aubet, pp. 189-208. Ausa Sabadell, Barcelona.
Barcel6, LA. 1990 La Arqueologia y el cstudio de los ritos funcrArios: mdtodos matemiticos de anAlisis. Zephyrus 43
Barcel6, J. A. 1991 El Bronce del Sudoeste y la cronologfa de las estelas alentejanas. Arqueologia 21: 15-24.
Barcel6, LA. 1992 Una interpretacion socio-econ6mica del Bronce Final en el Sudoeste de la Peninsula Ibdrica. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 49: 257-275.
Barcel6, J. A. 1995 Sociedad y economfa en el Bronce Final Tartdsico. Tartessos 25 agos despugs (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso
Comemorativo del VSymposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular
Barker, G. 1985 Prehistoricfarming in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Barley, N. 1994 Smashing Pots. Feats oftlayfrom Africa. British Museum Press, London.
Barnett, W. K. 1995 Putting the Pot before the Horse: Earliest ceramics and Neolithic transit in the western Mediterranean. In The
Emergence ofPottery., Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 79-88. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Barnett, W. K., and J. W. Hoopes 1995 The Emergence ofPottery. - Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington.
Barrett, J. 1987 Contextual Archaeology. Antiquity 61: 468-73.
BarreM J. 1990 The monumentality of death: the character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in southern Britain. World
Archaeology 22: 179-189.
Barrett, J. C. and I- Bradley 1980b The Ploughshare and the sword. In The British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. i-vii.
B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports British Series N" 83, Oxford.
Barrett J. C. 1989a Food, gender and metal: questions of social production. In The Bronze-Iron Age Transition in Europe, edited by
M. L. Stig-Sorensen and R. Thomas, pp. 304-320. BAR (British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 483, Volume 11), Oxford.
Barrett, J. C. 1989b Time and tradition: the ritual of everyday life. In Bronze Age Studies: Transactions ofthe British-Scandanavian
Calloquim in Stockholm, May 10th-lith, Vol 5, edited by H. A. Nordstr6m and A. Knape, pp. 113-126. Stockholm Historika Museum Studie, Stockholm.
Barrett, J. C. 1991 Review of Richard Bradley 1990, The Passage of Arms; an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and
votive deposits. Antiquity 65: 743-744.
Barrett, J. C. 1994 Fragmentsfrom Antiquity. An Archaeology ofSocial Life in Britain, 2900-120OBC. Blackwell, Oxford.
Barrett, J. C., R. Bradley, and M. Green 1991 Landscape, Monuments and Society; the Prehistory ofthe Cranborne Chase. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Barrett J. C. , and S. P. Needham 1988 Production, circulation and exchange: problems in the interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework. In Me
archaeology ofcontext in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: recent trends series. Volume 3, edited by J. C. Barrett and I. A. Kinnes, pp. 127-140. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Barril, M. 1985 Cerknica de la Edad del Bronce en trcs yacimentos de la provincia de Huesca. Bolskan 2: 35-76.
Barros, L., J. L. Cardoso, and A. Sabrosa 1993 Fenfcios na margern Sul do Tejo. Economia e integraqAo cultural do povoado do Almaraz - Almada. btudos
Orientals (0s Fenicios no Territ6rio Portugu9s) IV: 143-18 1.
Barros, L. V. B., and P. E. Santo 1991 Quinta do PcrccveJo - Almada. Uma intervenqao de emergdncia. Actas das IVJornadas Arqueol6gicas, Lisbon
: 333-343.
Barrosco, J. M., P. J. Jimdnez Sanz, Alcolea GonzAlez. J. J., and C. Diez 1990 Aproximacfon al estudio de la Edad del Bronce en el Alto TaJufla: La Covatilla (Guadalajara). In La Edaddel
Bronce en Castilla-la Mancha, edited by M. FemAndez Miranda, pp. 389-402. Diputacion Provincial de Toledo, Toledo.
Bartel, B. 1982 A historical view of ethnological and archaeological analyses of mortuary analysis. Journal ofAnthropological
Archaeology I
Barth, F. 1967 On the Study of Social Change. American Anthropology 69: 661-670.
Bass, G. F. 1967 Cape Gelidonya. A Bronze Age shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Bass, G. F. 1986 The Bronze Age shipwreck (Kas). 1984 campaign. American Journal ofArchaeoloSy 93: 1-29.
Bass, G. F. 1991 Evidence of trade from Bronze Age shipwrecks. In Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N. H. Gale,
pp. 69-82. Jonsered, Sweden.
Bastian, T. 1961 Trace Element and Metallographic Studies of Prehistoric Copper Artifacts in North America: A Review. In Lake
Superior Copper and the Indians, 17, edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 151-189. Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Batista, J. 1982 Subsfdios para a Carta Arqueol6gica do Concelho de Penamacor atd do domfnio romano. I Coldquio de
Arqueologia e Hist6ria do Concelho de Penamacor 1: 73-79.
Baynet, Don V. S. 1976 Una Placa Sepulcral de IaEdad del Bronce de las Proximades de Badajoz. VCongresodeestudios&tremefios
1: 49-55.
Beer, F. 1975 Peace Against War: The Ecology ofInternational Violence. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
Beirlo, Caetano Mello, M. 1973 Cinco aspectos da Idade do Bronze e de sua transigao para a Idade do Ferro. Actas day 11*Jornadas
Arqueol6gicas, Lisbon 1: 193-222.
BeirAo, Caetano Mello, M. 1986 Une Civilisation Protohistorique du Sud du Portugal (Premier Age du Fer). De Boccard, Paris.
BeirAo, Caetano Mello, M., and V. Correia 1991 Novos dados arqucol6gicos sobre a drea de Femao Vaz. Homenaje aJ AP. Bldzquez (Madr&4 Universidad
Complutense) : 123-140.
Belarte Franco, NP. C. 1993 Arquitectura domdstica al Bronze final. Pyrenae 24: 115-140.
Belda, A. 1963 Un nuevo Campo de Urnas al Sur del Tajo. Ampurias 25: 198-20 1.
Beldn, M 1977 Los origenes de Huelva Excavaciones en los cabezos de San Pedroy la Esperanza. Huelva.
Beldn, M. 1991 ApuntesparaunaHist6riade laArqueologfaAndaluza: Francisco M. Tubino (1833-1888). BoletindelMuseo
Arqueol6gico Nacional 9: 25-37.
Beldn, M., and J. L. Escacena 1992a Las comunidadcs prerromanas de la Baja Andalucia. In Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula Wrica (Complutum 2-
3), edited by A. Almagro Gorbea and G. Ruiz Zapatero, pp. 65-87. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Beldn, M., and J-L- Escacena 1992b Las comunidades prerromanos de Andalucia Occidental. In Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula Wrica (Complutum
2-3), edited by M. Almagro Gorbea and R. Ruiz Zapatero, pp. 65-87. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Beldn, M., and J. L. Escacena 1995 Acerca del horizonte de la Rla de Huelva. Consideraciones sobre el final de la Edad del Bronce en el Suroeste
IWrico. In Ritos de PasoyPuntos de Paso. La Ria de Huelva en el Mundo del Bronce Final Europeo, edited by M. Rufz- Galvez, pp. Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
Beldn, M., J. L. Escacena, and NP. 1. l3ozzino 1991C El Mundo funerario del Bronce Final en la fachada Atl6ntica de la Penfnsula lbdrica. Analisis de la
documentaci6n. Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 225-256.
Beldn, M., J. L. Escacena, C. L6pez Roa, and A. Rodero 1996 Fenfcios en el Atidntico. Excavaciones espaholes en Lixus. Los conjuntos'C. Montalb6n'y 'Carta Basflica.
Complutun; Extra (Homenaje al Prof Manuel Ferndndez Miranda) 6 (1): 339-357.
Beldn, M., and M. FernAndez Miranda 1982 Secuencia cultural de poblamiento en la actual ciudad de Huelva durante los siglos IX-VI aC. Huelva
Arqueol6gica VI: 21-37.
Beldn, M., and J. Pereira 1985 Cerdmicas atorno con decoraci6n pintadaen Andalucia. Huelva Arqueol6gica 8: 307-360.
Bellard, V. G. 1994 Naviosy navegants en las rutas de Baleares durante la Prehistoria. Palma.
Bellido, A. 1982 Notas sobre el Calcolitico y el Bronce en el base de las marismas de la margen izquierda del Guadalquivir. Gades
9: 71-90.
Bellido, A. 1990 La Peninsula Wrica en los comienzos de su hist6ria. Colegio Universitarlo. Edicioncs; Istmo, Madrid.
Bellido, A. G. 1942 Fenicios y cartagineses en Occidente. Madrid.
Bellido, A. G. 1945 Espaila y los espaholes hacia dos mil aflos, seg4n la geografla de Strabon. Editorial Espasa Calpe, Madrid.
Bellido, A. G. 1952 Pequenos invasiones y transmigraciones intemas. 4ctas das H" Congreso, 4rqueologia Nacional (Madrid 1951)
: 5-46.
Bellido, A. G. 1975 El mundo de las colonizaciones. In Historld de Espaila, edited by R. Mendridez Pidal, pp. 581-680. Editorial
Espasa Calpe, Madrid.
Bellwood, P. 1971 Fortifications and Economy in Prehistoric New Zealand. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 37: 56-95.
BelWn Lloris, F. 1976-78 Enterramientos infantiles en el poblado ibdrico de la Romana (La Puebla de Ilijar, Teruel). Ampurias 38-
40: 307-315.
BeltrAn Lloris, M. 1973 Las pinturas rupestres esquernAticas del Castillo de MonfragUe en Torrej6n el Rubio (CAccres). Estudios de
Arqueologia Cacerefla 1: 59-85.
Beltran Lloris, M. 1987 El comercio del viflo antiguo en el Valle del Ebro. In El vin a Mritiquitat, edited by M. BeltrAn Lloris, pp. 51-74.
Badalona.
Belti1n Lloris, M., and C. Alcrudo 1973 Noticfa, de dos nuevas estelas decoradas del Museo de CAceres. Estudlos 11: 81-93.
Beltr-An Martinez, A. 1995 Algunas consideraciones sobre el arte rupestre del noroeste de la Peninsula y las relaciones Atlanticas. Actas del
XXII Congreso Nacional Arqueologia, Vigo 1: 19-24.
Benavente, J. A. 1985 Un fragmento de cerknico de Cogotas I procedente del Cabezo del Cuervo (Alcaftiz, Teruel). BajoArag6n
Prehistoria VI: 241-243.
Bendala Galin, M. 1977 Notas sobre las estelas decoradas peninsular y los orfgenes de Tartessos. Habis 8: 177-205.
Bendala Galin, M. 1980 Las mds antiguas navegaciones griegas a Espafta y el origen de Tartessos. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologla
52: 33-58.
Bendala Galin, M 1983 En torno al instrumento musical de la estela de Luna (Zaragoza). Homenaje al ProfesorAlmagro Basch
(Ministerio de Cultura) 11: 141-146.
Bendala Galin, M. 1986 La Baja Andalucfa durante el Bronce Final. Homenaje a Luis Siret 1: 530-536.
Bendala Galin, M 1987 Reflexiones sobre los escudos de las estelas tartdsicas. Boletin de la Assoclaci6n Espafiola de Amigos de la
Arqueologia 27: 12-17.
Bendala Galin, M. 1989 La gdnesis de la estructura urbana en la Espafta Antigua. CuadernosdePrehistoriayArqueologladela
UniversidadAutonoma 16: 127-147.
Bendala Galin, M. 1990 Tartessos a la luz de los datos arqueol6gicos y literarios. In Tartessosy Fxtremadura, Il, edited by C. E. N. 2, pp.
Cuadernos Emeritenses, Mdrida.
Bendala Galin, M. 1997 A Thorny Problem: was there Contact between the Peoples of the Sea and Tartessos? In Encounters and
Transformations. The Archaeology oflberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 89-94. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Bendala Galin, M., V. Hurtado, and F. Amores 1979-1980 Tres mievas estelas de guerreros en la provincia de C6rdoba. Habis 10-11: 381-390.
Bendala Galin, M., I. R. Termin6, and Pariete de Ldon 1994 Un nueva estela de guerrero tartdsica de la provincfa de C6rdoba (Alcorrucon). In Homenaje a Josi Maria
Bhizquez, Il, edited by J. Mangas and J. Alvar, pp. 59-70. Ediciones Cidsicas, Madrid.
Bender, B. 1989 The Roots of Inequality. In Domination and Resistance, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley, pp. 83 -
95. Unwin Hyman, New York.
Benet, N. 1990 Un vaso pintado y tres dataciones de C-14 proccdcntes del Cerro de San Pelayo, Martinamor, Salamanca.
Numantia 111: 77-94.
Bentley, G. R. 1991 A Bioarchaeological Reconstruction of the Social and Kinship Systems at Early Bronze Age Bab adh-Dhra!,
Jordan. In Between Bands andStates, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp. 5-34. Southern Illinois University Occasional Paper No. 9, Carbondale.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., Zelditch, M. 1985 Introduction: Expectation States Theory. In Status, Rewards, and Influence, edited by J. Berger and M. Z. Jr., pp.
1.72. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bernabeu, J. 1984 El vaso campaniforme en el Pat's Valenciano. SIP, Valencia.
Bernabeu, J., 1. GuitarL and J. L. Pascual 1987 El Pais Valenciano entre el final del Neolitico y la Edad del Bronce. In El origen de la metalurgia en la Peninsula
lbdrica, 11, edited by J. Gil-Albert, pp. 1- 15. S. I. P., Madrid.
Bernabeu, J., 1. Guitart, and L. I. Pascual 1989 Reflexiones entorno al patr6n de asentarnients en el Pafs Valenciano entre el Neolitico y la Edad del Bronce.
Saguntum 22: 99-123.
Bernaldo de Quiros, 1. 1993 La Had del Bronce. In Introducci6n a la Arqueologia en el Cation del Dural6n, edited by D. Conte Bragado and
1. Bernaldo de Quiros, pp. 59-83. Disptaci6n Provincial de Sdgovia, Sdgovia.
Bernarb6 Brea, L. 1965 Leggenda e Archeologia nella protohistora siciliana. Kokalos 10-11: 5-22.
BernArdez, R. M., and Rivera Nuflz 1990 La cebada y la vid, la cerveza y el viflo en la Espafla del primer milenfo a. C. Yerdolay, Revista del Museo de
Murcia 2: 67-70.
Berrocal Range], L. 1992 Los Pueblos cilticos del Suroeste de la Peninsula Wrica. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Berrocal-Rangel, L. 1985 Una nueva aportacfon de las estelas y escritura prerromana del suroeste peninsular. Boletin de la Asociaclon
F, spaola de Amigos de la Arqueologia 20: 30-33.
Berrocal-Rangel, L. 1987a La losa. de Capote (Higuera la Real, Badajoz). ArchivoEspa; loldeArqueologia60: l96-205.
Berrocal-Rangel, L. 1987b El Antropomorfo de Bodonal (Badajoz): Ensayo de Interpretaefon de ]as Estelas-Guijarro y sus Relaciones
Atlanticas. Arqueologia 16(Decembcr): 83-94.
Berrocal-Rangel, L. 1994a El Altar Prerromano de Capote. Ensayo Arqueoleogico de un ritual Ciltico en el Suroeste Peninsular.
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid.
Berrocal-Rangel, L. 1994b El Oppidurn de Badajoz. In Complutum Fxtra 4, edited by M. Almagro Gorbea and A. M. Martin Bravo, pp. 143 -
184. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Bertilisson, U. 1989 Rock-carvings, ideology and society in the Bronze Age of western Sweden. In BronzeAge Studies 6, edited by
I LA. Nordstr6m and A. Knape, pp. 101 -109. Museum of National Antiquities, Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm.
Best, J. G. P., and N. M. W. De Vries 1982 Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean. In Congress ofMediterraneanPre-andProto-History, edited
by J. G. P. Best and N. M. W. De Vries, pp. 35-67. H. Frankfort Foundation, Amsterdam, 19-23 November 1980.
Bettencourt, A. M. S. 1988 A Freguesia de Turquel (Alcobaqa). Aiguns dados arqucol6gicos. Conimbriga XXVII: 153-188.
Bettcncourt, A. M. S. 1989 Novas achados meidlicos do Bronze Final na bacia do mddio Civado.
Bettencourtý A. M. S. 1992 0 Povoado da Sola, Braga: Notfcia preliminar das Escavaq8es de 1991-1992. Cadernos de Arqueologia 8-9(Serfe
11): 97-118.
Bettencourt, A. M. S. 1994 A transigao do Bronze Final-Ferro Inicial no povoado de S. Juliao - Vita Verde: a1gumas considerag6es.
TrabalhosdeAntropologiaeEtnologia Actas do I Congresso deArqueologta Peninsular IV34 (3-4): 167-190.
Betencourt, A. M. S. 1995 0 Povoado de S. Julido (Vila-Verde, Braga). In A Jdade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited by
AAVv, pp. 40-42. Instituto Portugues de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Bettencourt, A. M. S. 1998 0 conceito de Bronze AtlAntico na Penfnsula lbdrica. In Fxiste uma Jdade do Bronze Alldntico?, Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 10, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 18-36. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Biehl, P. F. 1996 Symbolic communication systems. Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 4: 153-176.
Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 1988 The 'Mycenean Connection'and its impact in Central Mediterranean societies. DialoghidiArcheolog! a6(I): 23-
51.
Bietti SestierL A. M. 1992 7he Iron Age community of0steria dell'Osa: A study ofsocio-political development In Central Tyrrhenian Italy.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bikai, P. M. 1976 Tyre: Report ofthe excavations 1973-1974. Michigan.
Bikai, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster.
Binford, L. I- 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28 (2): 217-225.
Binford, L. R. 1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions ofMortuary
Practices, edited by J. A. Brown, pp. 6-29. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, no. 25, New York.
Binford, L. R. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal ofAnthropological. 4rchaeology 1: 1-3 1.
Binford, L. R. 1982 Meaning, Inference and the Material Record. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange, edited by C. Renfrew and S.
Shennan, pp. 160-163. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuit ofthe Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, London.
Binford, L. I- 1989 Styles of Style. Journal of. Anthropological Archaeology 8: 51-67.
Bintliff, J. 1991 The Annales School and Archaeology. Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Birmingham, J. 1963 The Development of the fibula in Cyprus and the Levant. Palestine Fxploration Quarterly 95: 80-112.
Bishko, Ch. J. ý 1965 El castellano, hombre de llanura. La explotaci6n en Area fronteriza de La Mancha y Extremadura durante la Edad
Media. Homenaje aJ Ficens Vives (Barcelona) 1: 201-218.
Bisi, A. M. 1983 Vespansionefenicia in Spagna. Rome.
Blance, B. 1961 Early Bronze Age Colonists in Iberia. Antiquity 35: 192-202.
Blance, B.
. 1964 The Argaric Bronze Age in Iberia. Revista de Guimardes 74: 129-142.
Blance, B. 1971 Die Anfdnge der Metallurgie aufder Iberischen Halbinsel. 116misch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Berlin.
Blanchet, J. 1984 Les premiers metallurgistes en Picardie et dans le Nord de la France. Hemoires de la Societj Prihistorique
FranCaise 17: 65-78.
Blanco Freijeiro, A.
1957 Origen y relaciones de la orfebreria castrefla 1,11 and Ill. Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 12: 5-28(l); 137 - 157(11); 267-301(111).
Blanco Freijeiro, A. 1982 Historia de Sevilla. La CiudadAntigua. Publicaciones de la Universidad, Sevilla.
Blanco Freijeiro, A. 1983 Atcgua. NoticarioArqueol6gico Hispdnico 15: 93-136.
Blanco Freijeiro, A., J. Utzon, and D. Ruiz Mata 1970 Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Cerro Salom6n, Riotinto, Huelva. Filosfla y Letras, Madrid.
Blanco Freijeiro, A., and J. M. Luz6n 1969 Pre-Roman silver miners at Rfotinto. Antiquity 43: 124-13 1.
Blanco Freijeiro, A., J. M. Luz6n, and D. Ruiz Mata 1969 Panorkna tartdsico en Andalucia occidental. VSymposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular : 119-162.
Blanco Freijeiro, A., and B. Rothenberg 1981 Exploracion Arqueometalgrgia de Huelva. Labor y Rio Tinto Minera, Huelva.
Bias Cortina, M. A. 1975 Un probable dep6sito del Bronce Final en Pruneda (Asturia). Sautuola 1: 12-145.
Bias Cortina, M. A. 1983 La prehistoria reciente de Asturias. Conseda de Educaci6n y Cultura, Oviedo.
Bias Cortina, M. A. 1989 La Minerfa Prehistorica del cobre en las montaftas Astur-Leonesas. In Minerlay Metalurgia en lasAntiguas
Civilizaciones Mediterraneas y Europeas, Leditcd by C. Domcrguc, pp. 143-155. Paris.
Blas Cortina, M. A.. and J. Femdndez Manzano 1992 Asturias y Cantabria en el I er Milenio antes de Cristo. In Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula Wrica. (Complutum 2.
3), edited by M. Almagro Gorbea and G. Ruiz Zapatero, pp. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Blasco Bosqued, M'. C. 1980-81 Rcf1exiones sobre la cerAmica pintada del Bronce Final y la Primera Edad del Hierro, en la Peninsula Ibdrica.
Cuadernos de PrehistodayArqueologia de la UniversidadAut6noma de Madrid 7-8: 75-92.
Blasco Bosqued, NP. C. 1982a 'El Negralejo': un nuevo yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce en Madrid. AnuariodePrehistortayArqueologia
Afadrilerias 3: 99-135.
Blasco Bosqued, Nf. C. 1982b Consideraciones sobreel Horizonte Cogotasy aigunos paralelostranspirenaicos. XColloquiInternacional
dArqueologia de Puigcerdd : 169-180.
Blasco Bosqued, NP. C. 1987a El Bronce Medio y Final. Arqueologla Madrilefia Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, 130 ahos de
Arqueologia en Madrid 3: 82-107.
Blasco Bosqued, N! ". C. 1987b Un ejeniplar de fibula de codo "ad occhio" en el Valle del Manzanares. BoletindelaAssociaci6n&paPiolade
Amigos de la Arqueologia 23: 191-269.
Blasco Bosqued, N?. C. 1988 Paralelos culturales entre el Alto Tajo y el Nordeste Peninsular durante el Bronce Final 111. VIIC Colloqui
Internacional dArqueologia PuigqerdX PuigVerda 1986: 139-145.
Blasco Bosqued, M". C. 1992 Etnogdnesis de la Meseta Sur. In Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula Ib&ica (Complutum 2-3), edited by M.
Almagro Gorbca and G. Rufz Zapatero, pp. 281-297. Editorial Complutensc, Madrid.
Blasco Bosqued, W. C. 1994b Origen y desarollo del horizonte Cogotas I en el Alto Tajo. I *Congresso deArqueologia Peninsular -Aclas vol.
IV S. p, 4. F, IV: 151-165.
Blasco Bosqued, M'. C. 1997 Manifestaciones funerias de la Edad del Bronce en la Meseta. Saguntum 30: 173-190.
Blasco Bosqued, M. C., F. J. Baena, M. A. Milldn, and E. Espaha 1993 El Hierro Antiguo en el Alto Tajo. Madrider Mitteilungen 34: 48-70.
Blasco Bosqued, NP. C., J. Calle, and NP L. Sinchez-Capilla 1991 Enteffamientos del Horizonte Protocogotas en el valle del Manzanares. CuadernosdePrehistoriayArqueologiiz
UniversidadA ut6noma de Madrid 18: 55-112.
Blasco Bosqued, NP. C. , P. Lucas, and A. Alonso 1983 Nuevo yacimiento prehist6rico en la provincia de Madrid: El Cerro de Sdn Antonio. Actas del AVII Congreso
Nocional de Arqueologia (Lograho) : 267-268.
Blasco Bosqued, M'. C., R. Lucas, and A. Alonso 1991 Excavaciones cn el poblado de la Primera Edad del Hierro del Cerro de San Antonio (Madrid). Arqueologia,
Paleoetnologia y Etnografla 2: 7-189.
Blasco Bosqued, M. C., M'. Luz Sdnchez, D. Caprile, and J. Calle 1988 Dep6sito votivo en un yacimiento dc la Edad del Bronce cn el Valle del Manzanarcs (Peraics del Rio, Madrid).
Cuadernos de Prehistoria yArqueologia de la Universidad de Madrid 11- 12: 11-23.
Blasco Bosqued, W. C. , 1. Rubio, A. Morales, and R. Jimdnez 1983 Un nuevoyacimiento del Bronce Madrfleflo: El Negralejo (Rivas-Vaciarnadrid, Madrid). AroticarloArqueol6gico
llisp6nico 17: 43-190.
Blasco, F., and M. Ortiz 1991 Trabajos arqueol6gicos en "Huerta Montero". Almendralejo, Badajoz. Extremadura Arqueol6gica [Actas das I
jornadas de Prehistoria y Arqueologla en Extremadura (1986-1990)]
Blau, P. M. 1977 Inequality and Heterogeneity A Primitive Theory ofSocial Structure. The Free Press, New York.
Bldzquez, J. M. 1975a Ctistulo. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
Bldzquez, J. M. 1975b Tartessos y el origen de la colonizacionfenicia en Occidente. Salamanca.
BWAuez, J. M.
1983 Las liras de las estelas hispanas de finales de la Edad del Bronce. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologla 56: 213-228.
BlAzquez, J. M. 1984 castulo , capital of the mining district of Oretania. In Papers in Iberian Archaeology 11, edited by T. F. C. Blagg,
F-F. Jones, and S. J. Keay, pp. 396-428. BAR. British Archaeological Reports International Series 193, Oxford.
Bld7Auez, J-M- 1986 La estela de Monte Blanco, Olivenza (Badajoz) y el origen fenicio de los escudos y de los carros representados en
las losas de finales de la Edad del Broncc en la Peninsula lbdrica. Archivo Espafiol de Arqueologia 56: 213-228.
Bldzquez, J. M. 1990 Panorama general del desarrollo hist6rico de la cultura tartdsica desde finales de la Edad del Bronce, sigio VIlla. C.
hasta los orfgenes de las culturas turdetana e ibdrica. Los influjos fenicios. Rivista di Studi Fenicl 19 (1): 19-33.
BlAzquez, J. M., and M. Garcia-Gelabert 1987 La necr6polis de "El Estacar de Robarinas", CAstulo. Tipologla de los enterramientos. Archivo de Prehistorla
Levantina 17
BlAzquez, J. M., M. Garcia-Gelabert, and J. Arenas 1987 La Edad del Bronce en CAstulo. Resultado de una prospecci6n. Trabajos de Prehistoria 44: 289-301.
Bldzquez, j. M., M. Garcia-Gelabert, and F. Lopez-Pardo 1984 Evoluci6n del patr6n de asentarniento en CAstulo. Fases iniciales. Arqueologia Espacial 4: 47-63.
Bldzquez, J. M., J. M. Luzon, F. Gomez, and K. Klaus 1970 Huelva Arqueol6gica. Las cerdmicas del Cabezo de San Pedro. Huelva Arqueol6gica, Huelva.
BlAzquez, J. M., D. Rufz-Mata, J. Remensal, J. L. Ramirez, and K.. Clauss 1979 Fxcavaciones en Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva). Campaha de 1977. Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en Espafta 102,
Madrid.
Bldzquez, J. M., and J. Valiente 1980 Cerianicas grafitadas del poblado de la Muela de Cdstulo (Linares, Jaen). Trabajos de Prehistoria 37: 399-418.
Bldzquez, J. M., and J. Valiente Malla 1977 Prospecci6nde un Poblado del Bronce Final en Cistulo. AciasdasXVCongresoNacionaldeArqueologia (Lugo
1977) : 309-328.
Bldzquez, J. M., and J. Valiente Malla 1979 Prospeccfon de unPoblado del Bronce Final enCast6lo. CongresoNacionaldeArqueologiaXY, Lugo 1977 : 239-
261.
Blinkenberg, C. 1926 Fibules Grecques et Orientales. Bianco Lunos, Copenhagen.
Blitz, J. H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58 (1): 80-96.
Bloch, M. 1971 placing the Dead- Tombs, Ancestral Villages, and Kinship Organisation in Madagascar. Seminar, London.
Bloch, M. 1981 Tombs and States. In Mortality and Immortality. TheAnthropology and Archaeology ofDeath, edited by S. C.
I jumphreys and H. King, pp. 137-147. Academic Press, London.
Bloch, M. 1982 Death, Women and Power. In Death andthe Regeneration ofLi/e, edited by M. Bloch and J. Parry, pp. 211-230.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bloch, M. 1993 La Mort et la Conception de la Personne. Terrain, Carnets du Patrimoine Ethnologlque 20: 7-20.
Bloch, M., and J. Parry 1982b Introduction: Death and the Regeneration of Life. In Death and the Regeneration oftife, edited by M. Bloch and
j. parry, pp. 1-44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Boast R. 1995 Fine pots, pure pots, Beaker pots. In Unbaked urns ofrudely shape: Essaysfor Ian Longworth, edited by 1. Kinnes
and G. Vamdell, pp. 69-80. Oxbow Press, Oxford.
Bodley, J. H. 1994 Cultural Anthropology. - Tribes, States and the Global System. Mayfield Publishing Company, California.
Bochm, C. 1993 Egalitarian Behaviour and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy. Current Anthropology 34: 227-254.
Bocssneck, J. 1969 Restos 6seos de animales del Cerro de la Virgen (Orce) y del Cerro del Real (Galera), Granada. Notlairio
Arqueol6gico Hisp6nico 10-11: 172-189.
Bonsor, G. 1899 Les colonies agricoles priromaines de la vallde du Bdtis. Revue Archiologique 2
Bonzani, F-M. 1992 Territorial Boundaries, Buffer Zones and Sociopolitical Complexity: A Case Study of the Nuraghi on Sardinia. In
Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R-11. Tykot and T. K. Andrews, pp. 210-220. Sheffield Academic Press, Shefficid.
Borja, F. , and F. Diaz del Olmo
1994 Paleogeografla fluvial del SW AndaIuz. Fases del aluvionamiento reciente y paisajes hist6ricos. In Arqueologla en el entorno del Baja Guadiana. Actas del I Encuentro de Arqueologia del Suroeste de la Peninsula lbdrica (Huelva, Marzo 1993), edited by J. Campos, J. A. Perez, and F. Gomez, pp. Huelva, Junta de Andalucia.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1920 La arqueologlaprerromana de Hispahica. Barcelona.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1927 Las relaciones de los paraleles atldnticos y la Peninsula lbdrica en el eneolftico y en la Edad del Bronce.
investigaci6n y Progresso 7: 49-50.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1928 Problcmas de la colonizaci6n fenicia de Espafia y del Mediterrdneo occidental. Revista de Occidente 60: 5-45.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1932 La Edad del Bronce en la Peninsula lbdrica. Investigaci6n y Progreso 6: 56-108.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1939 Two Celtic waves in Spain. Proceedings of the British Academy 26, London.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1954 La Edad del Bronce en la Peninsula lbdrica. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologia 27: 45-92.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1971 Tiposy cronologid del vaso campaniforme. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologfa 44, Madrid.
Bosch Gimpera, P. 1974 Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula lbirica. Akadenische Druck, Graz.
Boulding, K. 1962 Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. Harper and Row, New York.
Bourdieu, P. 1977 Outline ofa Theory ofPractice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. 1990 The Logic ofPractice. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bouscaras, A. 1971 L'dpave des bronzes de Rochdiongue. Archgologia 39: 15-26.
Bowden, M., McOmish, D. 1987 The required barrier. Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 84-97.
Bowden, M., McOmish, D. 1989 Little boxes: More about hillforts. Scottish Archaeological Review 6: 12-16.
Bradley, R. 1980 Subsistence, exchange and technology: a social framework for the Bronze Age in southern England ca. 1400 -
700bc. In Settlement andSoclety in the British Later Bronze Age, edited by J. C. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 57-75. BAR. British Archaeological Reports, British Series N* 83, Oxford.
Bradley, R. 1981a Economic growth and social change: two examples from prehistoric Europe. In Economic Archaeology.
Towards an integration ofecological and social approaches, edited by E. A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp. 231-237. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports, International Series N* 98, Oxford.
Bradley, R. 1981b From ritual to romance: ceremonial enclosures and hillforts. In llilYbrt Studies, edited by G. Guilbert, pp. 20-27.
The University Press, Leicester.
Bradley, R. 1982 The Destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Alan 17: 108-122.
Bradley, R. 1984 The Social Foundations ofPrehistoric Britain. themes and variations in the archaeology oftower. Longman,
London.
Bradley, PL 1985a Exchange and Social Distance. The Structure of bronze artefact distributions. Man (N. S. ) 20 (4): 692-704.
Bradley, R. 1985b Consumptiom Change and the Archaeological Record. The Archaeology ofDeliberate Deposits. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Bradley, R. 1987a A comparative study of the hoarding in the Late Bronze Age and the Viking economies. In Theoretical
Approaches to Artefacts, Settlements andSociety, edited by G. Burenhult, A. Carlsson, A. Ilycristrand, and T. Sjovold, pp. BAR. British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford.
Bradley, R. 1987b Stages in the Chronological development of hoards and votive deposits. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society
53:?
Bradley, R. 1988a Hoarding, Recycling and Consumption of prehistoric metalwork: Technological change in western Europe.
WorldArchaeoloýy 20 (2): 249-260.
Bradley, R. 1988b Status, wealth and the chronological ordering of cemeteries. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 54: 327-329.
Bradley, R. 1989 The Role of Bronze Age metalwork in Scandinavia and the British Isles. In Bronze Age Studies 6, edited by H. A.
Nordstrl5m and A. Knape, pp. 11-20. Museum of National Antiquities, Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm.
Bradley, R. 1990 The Passage ofArms. An archaeological analysis ofprehistoric hoards and votive deposits. I st. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Bradley, I- 1991a Rock Art and the perception of the Landscape. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 (1): 77-101.
Bradley, R. 1991b The patterns of change in British prehistory. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and IdeoloSy, edited by T. K. Earle,
pp. 44-70. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bradley, R. 1991C Ritual, time and history. WorldArchaeology Chronologies, 23 (2) A. J. Gowlett (ed. ): 209-219.
Bradley, Rý 1993 Altering the Eartli The Origins ofMonuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland, Edinburgh.
Bradley, I- 1995a After MacWhite: Irish Rock Art in its International Context. In Ireland in the Bronze Age, edited by J. Waddell
and E. S. Twohig, pp. 90-96. Proceedings of the Dublin Conferemce, Dublin.
Bradley, I- 1995b Rock carvings and decorated monuments in the British Isles. In Perceiving rock art. social andpolitical
perspectives, edited by K. Helskog and B. Olsen, pp. 107-129. Institute for Comparative Research in I luman cu . 1ture, Oslo.
Bradley, R. 1997a Rock art and the prehistory ofAllantic Europe: Signing the Land Routledge, London.
Bradley, R. 1997b The significance ofmonuments: On the shaping ofhuman experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe.
Routledge, London.
Bradley, I- 1997c Working the land: imagining the landscape. Archaeological Dialogues 4(May): 3948.
Bradley, R. 1998 Daggers drawn: depictions of Bronze Age weapons in Atlantic Europe. In The Archaeology ofRock-Art, edited by
C. Chippindale and P. Taqon, pp. 130-145. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bradley, I- 2000 An Archaeology offatural Places. Routledge, London.
Bradley, R., F. Criado Boado, and I- Fibregas Valarce 1995 Rock art and the Prehistoric landscape of Galicia. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 61: 341-370.
Bradley, R., and K Gordon 1988 Human skulls from the river Thames, their dating and significance. Antiquity 62: 503-509.
Braithwaite, M. 1982 Decoration as ritual symbol: a theoretical proposal and an ethnographic study in southern Sudan. In Symbolic and
Structural Archaeology, edited by 1. Hodder, pp. 80-88. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Braithwaite, M. 1984 Ritual and Prestige in the Prehistory of Wessex c. 2200-1400 BC: A New Dimension to the Archaeological
Evidence. In Ideology, Power andPrehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 93-110. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brandao, D. P. 1963 Achado da 'dpoca do Bronze' de Vila Cova de Perrinho (Vale de Cambra). Lucernalll: 114-118.
Brandao, D. P. 1970 Achados de cobre e de bronze na regiao de Leiria. OArqueol6goPortugugsIV(sýrie3): 324-326.
Brandheim, D. 1998 Aigumas consideraciones acerca de la espada de Guadalajara. LUn excepcional d6posito dcsarticulado del Bronce
Medio? Trabajos de Prehistoria 55 (2)(2): 177-184.
Braudel, F. 1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World In the Age ofPhilip Il. University of California Press, Berkely.
Braun, D. P. 1983 PotsasTools. In Archaeological Hammers and theories: Studies in Archaeology, edited by S. A. Moore and A. S.
Keene, pp. 107-134. Academic Press, New York.
Braun, D. P. 1991 Why Decorate a pot? Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 10: 360-397.
Brcuil, H. 1917 Stations chellennes de la province de CAdiz. Institut Franýaise dAnthropologie 2: 67-79.
Brcuil, H. 1933-1935 Les Peintures Rupestres Schematiques de la Peninsule lbirique. Lagny, Paris.
Brew, J-0. 1946 Archaeology ofthe, 41kali Ridge, southeastern Utah. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Mass.
Briard, J. 1965 Les dipots britons et IAge du Bronze Atlantique. Universitd de Rennes, Rennes.
Briard, J. 1976 L'jge du Bronze en Europe barbare: Des migalithes aux Celtes. I lespdridcs, Toulouse.
Briard, J. 1979 VAge du Bronze. In Protohistoire de la Bretagne, edited by P. R. Giot, J. Briard, and L. Pape, pp. 29-213. Oudst
France Universitd, Rennes.
Briard, J. 1985 The BronzeAge in Barbarian Europe (2000-800 av J-Q. Errance, Paris.
Briard, J. 1987 Syst6ms prd-mondtaires en Europe Protohistorique: fiction ou realitd? In Rythmes de la Producti6n Monitaire de
lAntiquitd a nosjours, edited by R. Depreyrotý pp. 731-743. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Briard, J. 1989 La culte des eaux A I'fige du bronze en Amorique. In Lhomme et 1eau au temps de laprehistoire, edited by pp.
53-66. Editions du comitd des travaux historiques et scientifiques, Paris.
Briard, J. 1998 Flux e Reflux du Bronze Atlantique: Vus d'Amorique. In Existe uma Idade do Bronze, 4t1Jnt1co?, Trabalhos de
Arqueologia I O, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 114-124. Instituto Portugu8s de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Brodie, N. 1994 The Neolithic-Bronze, 4ge transition in Brilaim .4 critcical review ofsome archaeological and craniological
concepts. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports British Series N' 238, Oxford.
Brodie, N. 1997 New Perspectives on the Bell-Beaker culture. OxfordJournal of, 4rchaeology 16 (3): 297-314.
Brown, J. A. 1981 The Search for Rank in Prehistoric Burials. In The, 4rchaeology ofDeath, edited by R. Chapman, 1. Kinncs, and
K. Randsborg, pp. 25-37. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brumfiel, E. K., Earle, T. K. 1987b Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction. In Specialization, &change, and Complex
Societies, edited by E. K. Brumfiel and TK Earle, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brumfiel, E. M. 1989 Factional Competition in Complex Society. In Domination andResistence, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and
C. Tilley, pp. 127-139. Academic Press, New York.
Brun, P. 1987 Princes et Princesses de la Celtique. Lapremier. 4ge du Fer (840-450 av. J-Q. Errance, Paris.
Brun, P. 1991 Le Bronze Atlantique et ses subdivisions culturelles: essai de d6finition. In L ý4ge du Bronze A 11antique. Actesdu
Premier Colloque duParcArchiologique de Beynac, 1, edited by C. Chevillot and A. Coffyn, pp. 11-24. Association des Musdes Sardlais, Beynac.
Brun, P 1993 East-west relations in the Paris Basin during the Late Bronze Age. In Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe,
edited by C. Scarre and F. Healey, pp. 171-182. Oxbow, Oxford.
Brun, P. 1998 Le complexe culturel Atlantique: entre la cristal et la fumde. In Eviste uma Idade do Bronze AtIdnilco?, I O, edited
by s. O. Jorge, pp. 40-5 1. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Brunet, C. T., P. L. Garcia, and NP. I. Martinez Navarrete 1979 El Poblado de la Edad del Bronce de El Recueno: Nuevos hallazgos de Cervera de Llano (Cuenca). 4rqueologla
Conquense IV: All.
Bubner, T. 1979 Cerfimica de importa; Ao na Estremadura Portuguesa. Elhnos 8: 31-85.
Bubner, T. 1987 The Bell Beaker folk of the Iberian Peninsula. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean: Definition,
interpretations, theory and new site data. The Oxford Conference 1986, edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 637. 682. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series No 33 1, Oxford.
Brichholz, H. G. 1981 Agaische Bronzezeit. Wissenschaftliche Buchesellschaft Darmstadt.
Bachholz, H. G. 1986 Ein kyprischer Fibeltypus und seine ausartige Vebreitung. In CYprus between the Orient and Occident (Nicosia
1985), edited by V. Karageorghis, pp. 233-244. Department of Antiquities in Nicosia, Nicosia.
Budd, P., Taylor, T. 1995 The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making.
WorldArchaeolosy: Symbolic Aspects ofEarly Technologies 27 (1): 133-143.
Bueno, P. 1983 Excaviones en el povoado de Ategua. Noticario Arqueoldgico Hispeinico 20: 27-34.
Bueno Ramirez, P 1983a Estelas Antropomorfas en la Peninsula lbdrica. VI Congreso de Estudios Fwremefios Arqueologia : 9-14.
Bueno Ramirez, P. 1983b EstAtuas-menhir y armas en el norte de la Peninsula lbdrica. Zephyrus 36: 153-157.
Bueno Ramirez, P. 1984 Estelas-menhir y estelas antropomorfas extremeflas en Extremadura. Revista de Estudios Fxtremeilos 40 (3): 605 -
618,
Bueno Ramirez, P. 1987 El grupo Hurdes-Gata en las estelas antropomorfas extremeflas. XVIII Congresso Nacional de Arqueologla (Islas
Canarias) : 449457.
Bueno Ramirez, P 1987 El grupo Hurdes-Gata en las estelas antropomorfas extremeflas. XVIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Islas
Can6rias, 1985) : 449-457.
Bucno Ramirez, P. 1990 Statues-Menhirs et SWes Anthropomorphes de la Pdninsule lbdrique. Lý4nthrqpologie 94: 85-110.
Bueno Ramirez, P 1991 Estatua-s-menhir y estelas antropomorfas en la Peninsula lbdrica. La situacion cultural de los ejemplares
salmantinos. In Del Paleolitico a la Historia, edited by M. Santonja, pp. 81-97. Junta de Castilla y Le6n y Museo de Salamanca, Salamanca.
Bueno Ramirez, P., and A. Gonacz Cordcro 1994 Nuevos datos para la contextualizacift arqueol6gica de estdtuas-menhirs y estelas antropomorfas en Extremadura.
Actas das Primeras Congreso do Peninsular 1: 95-103.
Bucno Ramirez, P., and F. Pifton Varela 1985 La Estela de Monte Blanco (Olivenza, Badajoz). Homenaje a Jes4s Cdnovas Pesini : 3743.
Bueno Ramirez, P., F. Pifl6n Varela, J. J. Rodriguez, and F. Gutidrrez 1984 Tres nuevas estelas del Suroeste. Revista de Estudios Extremehos 40 (3): 477483.
Buero, M. S. 1984 Los motivos naturalistas en la cerdmica pintada del Bronce Final del Suroeste Peninsular. flabis 15: 345-365.
Buero, M. S. 1987 El Bronce Final y las cerknicas tipo Carambolo. Revista de Arqueologia 70: 3547.
Buero, M. S. 1987 El Bronce Final y las cdramicas tipo Carambolo. Revista de Arqueologla 70: 3547.
Buero, M. S. 1987-88 La cerdmica decorada a la Almagra del Bronce Final Meridional. Ilabis 18-19: 485-513.
Buikstra, J., P. Castro Martinez, I- Chapman, P. Gonzilez Marcdn, L. Iloshower, V. Lull, I- Mic6, I- Risch, M. Ruiz, and MI. E. Sanahuja Yll
1995 Approaches to Class Inequalities in the later prehistory of south-east Iberia. In The Origins ofcomplex societies in Late prehistoric Iberia, edited by Y, Lillios, pp. 153-168. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Buikstra, J., P. V. Castro Martinez, R. W. Chapman, P. Gon2Alez Marcdn, V. Lull, M. Picazo, R. Risch, and M. E. Sanahuja Yll 1991 Proyecto Gatas: Fase 11. Anuario Arqueoldgico de Andalucia 1989
Buikstra, j., P. V. Castro Martinez, R. W. Chapman, P. GonzAlez Marcdn, V. Lull, M. Picazo, R. Risch, and M. E. Sanahuja Yll 1992 La necr6polis de Gatas. Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia 1990
Bunneus-Bruxelles, G. 1986 Le role de Gad6s dans l'implantacion phdnicienne en Espagnc. In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Wrica, 1, editcd
by M' E. Aubet and G. d. O. Lete, pp. 127-138. Sabadell, Barcelona.
Burgess, C. 1987 Fieldwork in the tvora District, Alentejo, Portugal, 1986-1988: A preliminary reporL Northern Archaeology
8: 35-105.
Burgess, C. 1991 The East and the West: Mediterranean Influence in the Atlantic world in the Later Bronze Age, c. 1500-70013C. In
Lý4ge du Bronze Atlantique. Actes du Premier Colloque du Parc Archdologique de Beynac, edited by C. Chevillot and A. Coffyn, pp. 2445. Association des Musdes du Sardlais, Beynac.
Burgess, C. 1992 Discontinuity and Dislocation in later prehistoric settlement: some evidence from Atlantic Europe. In L habitat et
l'occupation du soli I'jge du Bronze en Europe, edited by C. Mordant and A. Richard, pp. 2140. Editions du comitd des travaux. historiques et scientiflques, Paris.
Burgess, C., and D. Coombs 1979a Bronze Age Hoards. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports British Series N* 76, Oxford.
Burgess, C., and D. Coombs 1979b Preface. In Bronze Age Hoards, edited by C. Burgess and D. Coombs, pp. i-vii. B. A. R. British Archaeological
Reports British Series N* 76, Oxford.
Burgess, C., C. Gibson, V. Correia, and I. B. M. Ralston 1999 Hillforts, Oppida and Vitrification in Central Portugal. In Feschrift to Keith Blood, edited by S. Briggs,
Newcastle.
Burgess, C., and S. Shennan 1976 The Beaker phenomenon: some suggestions. In Settlement and economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC,
edited by C. Burgess and I- Miket, pp. 309-33 1. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports N* 33, Oxford.
Burillo, F., N. Juste, P. Perales, J Picazo, E. Rufz, and A. Sancho 1984 Un Estudio sincr6nico y diacr6nico del poblamiento y el territorio: El proyecto interdisciplinar de Mom de
Rubiclos (Teruel). Arqueologla Fspacial 1: 87-205.
Burillo, F., and J. Picazo 1991 Informe de la excavaci6n arqueol6goca realizada en el poblado de La Hoya Quemada (Mora de Rubielos, Teruel).
Campafta de 1986. ArqueologidAragonesa 1986-1987: 101-108.
Burnham, B. C., Kingsbury, J. 1979 Space, Hierarchy andSociety. B. A. R. British Archaeolgical Reports International Series No 59, Oxford.
Butler, J. J. 1987 Bronze Age Connections: France and the Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 29: 9-34.
Caballerro, J., F. Porres, and A Salaza 1989-1990 El campo de fosas de'El Cogete (LaTorre, Avila). Numantia4: 93-110.
Cabral, J. M. P. 1981 DeterminaqAo da proveniencia de cerdmicas. Arqueologia 4: 74-82.
Cabral, J. M. P., M. A. Gouveia, A. M. AlarqAo, and J. Alarýao 1983 Neutron activation analysis of fine grey pottery from Confmbriga, Santa Olaia and Taverde, Portugal. Journal of
Archaeological Science 10: 61-70.
Cabrd Aguil6 J. 1923 Lýsas sepulcrales del suroeste de la Peninsula, pertcnecientes a la Edad del Broncc, con bajorelieves y grabados de
armas. Coleccionismo M
Cabrd Aguil6, J. 1929 Cerdmica de la segunda mitad de la dpoca del Bronce cn ]a Penfnsula lbdrica. Actas y Memorias de la Sociedad
Espaola de Antropologla, Etnologlay Prehistorld VIII: 200-245.
Cabrd Aguil6 J. 1930 Eýcavaciones de las Cogotas, Cardeflosa (Avila). El castro, Memorias de la Junta Superior de Fxcavacionesy
Antigaedades, 110, Madrid
Cabrd Aguil6, J. 1942 El thymaterion cdltica de Calaceitc. Archivo Fspaflol deArqueologia 15: 181-198.
Cabrera Brunet, T., P. L. Garcia, and ". I. Martinez Navarrete 1979 El Poblado de la Edad del Bronce de El Recueno: Nuevos hallazgos de Cervera de Llano (Cuenca). Arqueologia
Conquense IV: All.
Cabrera, P. 1981 La cerAmica pintada de Huelva. Huelva Arqueol6gica V: 317-335.
Cabrera, P. 1991 El comercio foco en Huelva: cronologfay fisonomia. Huelva Arqueoldgica XII: 43-100.
Cabrera, P. 1994 Comdrcio Internacional Mediterrdneo en el siglo VIII a. C. Archivo F-vpa; ia Arqueologia (AEspA) 67: 15-30.
Cabrera, P. 1998 Greek trade in Ibcria: The extent of Interaction. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 17 (2): 191-206.
Calado, M. 1993 A Idade do Bronze. In Hist6ria de Portugal 1, edited by J. Medina, pp. 327-353. Ediclube, Amadora.
Calderon, T., A. Arribas, A. Millan, and C. Blasco 1988 Servicio de Dataci6n absoluta por termoluminiscencia y Analftica de Cerdmicas Arqueol6gicas de la Universidad
Aut6noma de Madrid. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueologia de la UniversidadAut6noma de Madrid 15: 385-397.
Calderon, T., E. Sibefla, and J Ferndndez Jurado 1987 Datacfon absoluta por Termoluminiscencia de materiales arqueol6gicos, procedentes de Tejada la Vieja (Escacena
del Campo) y Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva). Huelva Arqueoldgica IX: 265-281.
Caldwell, J. R. 1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. R. Caldwell and PLL. Hall, pp. 133-143.
Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Callejoc, F., Blanco Freijeiroa, A. 1960 El tesor de Berzocana. Zephyrus 11: 25-298.
Calo, V., and J. Sierra 1983 Os origenes do castrexo no Bronze Final. in Estudos de cultura castrexa e de Historia Antiga de Galicia, edited
by G. Pereira, pp. 19-85. Estudos de cultura, Santiago.
Campos Carrasco, J. M., and F. Borja Barrera 1990 Prospecci6n arqueol6gica superficial en el litoral y prelitoral entre el Guadiana y el Guadalquivir. Anuarto
Arqueol6gico de Andalucia II(Actividades Sistematicas): 70-83.
Campos, J. M. 1985 El origen de Sevilla. El corte SI-85/6. Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia 11: 173-178.
Campos, J. M., M. Vera, and M. T. Moreno 1988 Protohistoria de la Ciudad de Sevilla. El Corte estratigrifico San Isidoro 85-86. In Monogrqlflas de Arqueologia
Andoluza 1, edited by pp. Consejeria de Cultura, de la Junta de Andalucia, Andalucia.
Cancian, F. 1976 Social Stratification. Annual Review ofAnthropology 5: 227-248.
Caninas, J. U/P CerAmicas de engobe bruflido do Monte de Sao Martinho. Preservaftlo afto 1 (2)
Cano Pan, J., and J. M. Vazquez Varela 1988 Portecelo, unyacimientodelaEdaddclBronce. TrabalhosdeAntropologiaeEtnolog! aXXVIll(I-2): 181.187.
Capel Molina, J. J. 1977 Aplicaci6n de mdtodos analiticos al estudio de los sedimentos del yacimiento del Cerro de la Encina (Monachil,
Granada). Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 2: 321-347.
Capel Molina, JJ. 1981 Los climas de Espafia. Barcelona.
Capel Molina, J. J., and R. Delgado 1978 Aplicaci6n de mdtodos 6pticos al estudio de cerdmicas arqueol6gicas. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la
Universidadde Granada 3: 343-356.
Capel Molina, J. J., J. Linares Gonzdlez, and F. Huertas 1979 Mdtodos analfticosaplicadosaceriinicasde laEdad del Bronce. CuadernosdePrehistoriadelaUniversidadde
Granada 4: 345-360.
Carbajo, M. A. M., J. C. Misiego Tejeda, F. J. Pdrez Rodriguez, J FemAndez Gimenez M.,, F. J. Sanz Garcfa, and G. J. Contreras 1993 Documento funearfo del Bronce Medio en la Submeseta Norte: "Carrelasvegas" (Santilla de Campos, Palencf a).
Boletin de Seminario de Evtudios deArte y Arqueologia LIX: 69-89.
Carballo Arceo, LX, and R. I'Abregas Valcarce 1991 Dataciones de Carbono 14 para castros del noroeste peninsular. Archivo EspaRol deArqueologia 64: 244-264.
Cardoso, G., and J. d'Encamagao 1990 Uma sondagem de emergencia no Casal do Geraldo (Estoril-Cascais). Arquivo de Cascais. Boletim Cultural de
Cascais 9: 45-62.
Cardoso, J. L. 1986 Tapada da Ajuda, Lisboa. InformaqJoArqueoldgica 6: 54-56.
Cardoso, J. L. 1987 No EstuAfio do Tajo, do Palaeolitico & Idade do Ferro. InArqueologia do Vale do Tajo, edited by C. Silva T. and
F. Barata, pp. 69-8 1. IPPC-DA. Instituto Portugues do Patrimo6nio Cultural e FundaqAo Calouste Galbenkian, Lisbon.
Cardoso, J. L. 1990 A presenqa oriental no povoamento da Idade do Ferro na rcgiao ribeirinha do estuArio do Tejo. In Fitudos
Orientais, I, edited by pp. 119-134. Instituto Oriental da Faculdade de CiEncias Socias e Humanos da U. N. L.,
Cardoso, J. L. 1993 Contribuiqdo para o conhecimento de alimentagAo em contexto fenfcio. Estudos Orientais IV: Os Fenicios no
Tcrrit6rio Portuguds: 109-126.
Cardoso, J1. 1994 Do Paleolitico ao Romano. InvestigaqAo Arqueol6gicas na Area de Lisboa. Os ultimos 10 aftos: 1984-1993. . 41-
Maden 3: 59-74.
Cardoso, J. L. 1995a 0 povoado do Bronze Final da Tapada da Ajuda. In A Made do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited
by S. O. Jorge, pp. 48-49. Instituto Portugu8s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Cardoso, J. L. 1995b Os povoados do Bronze Final a Norte do estuarfo de Tejo. In A Made do Bronze em Portugal., Discursos de
Poder, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 126-127. Instituto Portuguds de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Cardoso, J. L. 1995c 0 Bronze Final ea Made do Ferro na Regilo de Lisboa: Um Ensaio. Conimbriga 34: 33-74.
Cardoso, J. L. , and J. R. Carreira 1991 0 Esp6lio Arqueol6gico do Algar de Jolo Ramos ou Gruta das Redondas, Turquel, Alcobaqa. Actas das IV
jornadasArqueoldgicas. AssociaVdo dos, 4rqueol6gos Portugueses : 277-286.
Cardoso, J. L., and J. R. Carreira 1993 Le Bronze Final et le d6but de I'Age du Fer dans la r6gion riveraine de 1'estuaire du Tage. kfediterrdneo
2(April): 193-206.
Cardoso, J. L., J. Roque, F. Peixoto, and F. Freitas 1981 Descoberta dejazida do Bronze na Tapada da Ajuda. SjtubalArqueol6gica VVVIII. 1 17-138.
Cardoso, J. L.. J. C. Senna-Martincz, and A. C. Varcla 1998 Aspectos da economia alimentar do Bronce Pleno da Beira Alta: a fauna de grandcs mamiferos das Sala 2e 20 do
Buraco da Moura de SAo Romlo (Seia). Trabalhos de Arqueologia da F_4H 34: 253-261.
Cardozo, M. 1946 Carrito votivo de bronce del Museo de Guimaraes (Portugal). Archivo Espahol de Arqueologla 19: 1-28.
Cardozo, M. 1957 Das origens e tecnica do trabalho do ouro. Revista de Guimardes 67: 243-264.
Cardozo, M. 1959 Jolharialusitania. Conimbriga 1: 13-27.
Cardozo, M. 1968 Novo achado do Bronze na cstaqlo arqueol6gica de Penha (GuimarAes). Revista de Guimardes LXXVIII: 34.
Cardozo, M. 1970 Die vorgeschichtliche Hofensiedlung von Penha bei Guimaraes (Portugal). Madrider Hitteilungen 11: 90-95.
Cardozo, M. 1971 A estaqAo prd-hist6rica da Serra da Penha (Guimardes). ActasdoII*CongressoNacionaldeArqueologial: 239-
259.
Carman, J. 1997 Introduction: Approaches to violence. In Material Harm. Archaeological Studies of War and Violence, cditcd by
J. Carman, pp. 1-23. Cruithne Press, Glasgow.
Carneiro, AL 1990 Contribuglo para o estudo do Calcolftico e do Bronze Inicfal da regiAo de Sintra. Actas das IVJornadas
Arqueoldgicas. Associaqjo dos Arque6logosPortugueses : 227-236.
Carneiro, R. L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733-778.
Carneiro, R. L. 1981 The chiefdom: precursor of the state. In The transition to statehood in the New JVorld, edited by G. D. Jones and
P. R_ Kautz, pp. 37-79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Carneiro, R-L. 1990 Chiefdom-Level Warfare as Exemplified in Fiji and the Cauca Valley. In The Anthropology of War, edited by J.
Ilaas, pp. 190-211. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Caro Baroia, J. 1981 Los pueblos de Fspaila. 3rd. Istmo, Madrid.
Caro Bellido, A. 1982 Notas sobre el Calcolftico y el Bronce cn el borde de las marismas de la margen izquirda del Guadalquivir. Gades
9: 71-90.
Caro Bellido, A. 1989 Consideraciones sobre el Bronce Antiguo y Pleno en el Bajo Guadalquivir. In Tartessos. Arqueologia
protohist6rica del Bajo Guadalquivir, edited by M. E. Aubet, pp. 85-120. Ausa, Sabadel I, Barcelona.
Caro Bellido, A., P. Acosta, and J. L Escacena 1986 Informe sobre la prospeccf on arqueol6gica con sondeo estratigrifico en el solar de la calle Alcazaba (Lebrija.
Sevilla). Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia 198611111: 168-174.
Carrasco, J. L. 1985 Estragrafla de la Had del Bronce en el Monte Berrueco (Medina Sidonia, Cidiz). Noticario Arqueoldgico
Hisp6nico 24: 7-94.
Carrasco, J. L., and J. A. Pachon 1986 La Edad del Bronce en la Provincia. de Jadn. Homenaft a Luis Siret (Sevilla) : 361-377.
Carrasco, J. L., LA. Pachon, and M. Pastor 1987b Memoria preliminar sobre la campana de excavaciones 1987 en el Cerro de la Mora, Moraleda. de Zafayona
(Granada). AnuaricArqueol6gicode Andalucia 1987/11: 242-248.
Carrasco, J. L., J. A. Pachon, M. Pastor, and 1. Lara 1980 Hallazgos del Bronce Final on la provincia de Jadn. La necr6polis de Cerro Alcald, Torres (Jadn). Cuadernos de
Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 5: 221-23 6.
Carrasco, J. L., J. A. Pachon, M. Pastor, and M. S. Navarrete 1985 Memoria preliminar de la campafla de excavaciones de 1985 en el Cerro de ]a Mora (Moraleda do Zafayona,
Granada). AnuarioArqueol6gico deAndalucia 1985111 : 267-271.
Carrasco, J. L., M. Pastor, and J. A. Pachon 1981 Cerro de la Mora. Moraleda de Zafayona (Granada). El corte 4. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de
Granada 6: 307-354.
Carrasco, J. L., M. Pastor, and J. A. Pachon 1982 Cerro de la Mora I (Moraleda de Zafayona, Granada). Excavaciones de 1979. Noticario Arqueol6gico Hispdnico
13: 7-164.
Carrasco, J. L., M. Pastor, and J. A. Pachon 1987a Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Cerro do ]a Mora (Moraleda de Zafayona, Granada). Anuario, Arqueoldgico de
Andalucia 1986171: 353-359.
Carrasco Rus, J., M. Pastor, and J. A. Pachon 1987 Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Cerro do la Mora (Moraleda do Zafayona, Granada). Anuario Arqueoldgico, de
Andalucia 198611111: 353-359.
Carrasco Rus, J. L., LA. Pachon, and C. Anibal 1986 CerAinicas pintadas del Bronce, Final procedentes de Jadn y C6rdoba. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad
de Granada 11: 199-235.
Carrasco Rus, J. L., J. A. Pachon, and M. Pastor 1985a Nuevos hallazgos on el conjunto arqueo]6gico del Cerro de la Mora. LaesPada do lengua do carpay la fibula do
codo del Cerro de laMiel (MoraledadeZafkyonaý Granada). CuadernosdePrehistoriadela Universidadde Granada 10
Carrasco Rus, J. L., J. A. Pachon, M. Pastor, and 1. Lara 1980 Hallazgos del Bronce Final en la provincia de Jadn. La necr6polis de Cerro Alcali, Torres (Jatn). Cuadernos de
Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 5: 221-236.
Carrasco Rus, J. L., M. Pastor, and J. A. Pachon 1981 Cerro de la Mora, Moraleda de Zafayona. Resultadospreliminaresdela2llcampailadeexcavaciones(1981). El
corte W. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 6: 307-354.
Carreira, J. M. R. 1994 A Prd-Hist6ria rcccnte do Abrigo Grande das Bocas (Rfo Maior). Trabalhos de Arqueologia do F-4Af 2: 47-144.
Carreira, J. M-F- 1995 A Ndcropole do Bronze do Sudoeste da Herdade do Vale de Carvalho (Alcdccr do Sal). Vipasca 4: 61.68.
Carreira, J. R. 1990-1992 As ocupagacs das Idades do Bronze e do Ferro dasgrutas do Poco Velho (Cascais). OArqueol6go
portuguis 8-IO(Sdrie IV): 229-245.
Carriazo, J. de M. 1969 ElCeffodelCarambolo. VSymposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular, Barcelona : 311-340.
Carriazo, J de M 1973 TariessosyElCarambolo. Investigationes arqueol6gicas sobre la Protohistoria de la Baja Andalucia. Ministerio
de Educacfon y Ciencia, Madrid.
Carriazo, J. de M., and K. Raddatz 1960 Primicias de un corte estratigrifico en Carmona. Archivo Hispalense XXXIII: 332-369.
Carriazo, J. do M., and K. Raddatz 1961 Ergebnisse einer ersten stratigraphischen Untersuchung in Carmona. Madrider Mitteilungen 2: 71-106.
Carrier, I 1995 Gifis and Commodities. Routledge, London.
Carrilero, M. 1983 La Cerimica Campaniforme en la Provincia de Granada. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidadde Granada
8: 175-197.
Carrilero, M. 1992 El proceso de transformacion de ]as sociedades indfgenas en la periferia tartdsica. In La ColonL-aci6nfenicia en el
sur de la Peninsula lbirica. 100 ailos de Investigac! 6n, edited by M. E. Aubet, pp. 117-142. Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, Almeria.
Carrilero, M., and G. Martinez 1985 El yacimiento de Guta (Castro del Rio, C6rdoba)y laprehistorfa reciente de la Campifla cordobesa. Cuadernosde
la Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 10: 18 7-223.
Carrilero, M., G. Martinez, and J. Martinez 1982 El yacimicnto de Moralcs (Castro del Rio, C6rdoba). La cultura de silos en Andalucia occidental. Cuadernosde
la Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 7: 171-207.
Cartailhac, E. 1886 Les ages prihistoriques de LEspagne et Portugal. C. Reinwald, Paris.
Carvalho, A. 1979 Breves referdncias sobre jazigos aurfferos portugu8ses. Boletim de Minas 16 (3-4): 139-150,
Casado, M. P., and J. A. Hemdndez 1979 Materiales del Bronce Final de la Cueva de Los Lagos (Logroilo). Caesaraugusta 47-48: 97-122.
Case, H. 1995 Beakers: losing a stereotype. In Unbaked urns ofrudely shape: Essaysfor Ian Longworth, edited by 1. Kinnes and
0. VamdelI, pp. 55-67. Oxbow Press, Oxford.
Casmir, M. 1992a The Dimensions of Territoriality: An Introduction. In Mobility and Territoriality. Social and spatial boundaries
amongforagers, f4hers, pastoralists andperipatetics, edited by M. Casimir and A. Rao, pp. 1-26. Berg, Oxford.
Casmir, M. 1992b The determinants of rights to pasture: territorial organisation and ecological constraints. In Mobility and
Territoriality, edited by M. Casimir and A. Rao, pp. 153-203. Berg, Oxford.
Casson, L. 1971 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient world London
Castro, Delibes de, and FemAndez Monzano 1990 Relaciones entre Cogotas Iy el Bronce Final Atidntico en la Meseta Espaffola. InLWgeduBronceAflantique,
edited by C. Chevillot and A. Coffyn, pp. 203-212. Association des Musdes du Sardlais, Beynac.
Castro Martinez, P. V. 1992 La Pininsula Ibirica entre 1600-900 antes de nuestra era. Tesis Doctoral, Universitat Aut6noma de Barcelona.
Castro Martinez, P. V. 1993-1994 De la Edad del Bronce a la Edad de Ilierro en el Sur de Catalufla: Un periodo de Transici6n. Pyrenae 23: 23 -
49.
Castro Martinez, P. V. 1994 La Sociedad de los Campos de Urnas en el nordeste de la Peninsula 1bgrica. B. A. R. British Archaeological
Reports International Series N* 594, Oxford.
Castro Martinez, P. V., V. Lull, and R. Mic6 1996 Cronologia de la Prehistoria Reciente de la Peninsula Wrica y Baleares (c. 2800-900 cal. ANE). Tempus
Reparatum. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 652, Oxford.
Castro Martinez, P. V., P. V. Mic6, and ". E. Sanahuja Yll 1995 Genealogfa y cronologia de la'Cultura de Cogotas 1'. El estilo cerdmico y el grupo de Cogotas I en su contcxto
arqueol6gico. Bolefin del Seminario de Estudios deArteyArqueologia LXI: 51-118.
Castro Nufles, J. de 1957 Un importante hallazgo del Bronce en Portugal. Zephyrus VIII: 135-145.
Castro Nufles, J. de 1960 Aprop6sitodaesteladeMeimdo. RevistadeGuimaragsLXX: 86-108.
Catling. H. W. 1986 The date of the Cape Gelidonya ship and Cypriot Bronzework. Review ofthe Department ofAntiquities ofCyprus
(RD. A. C): 68-71.
Catling, J. 1964 Cypriot Bronze work in the Mediterranean World. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Celestino Pdrez, S. 1985 Los carros de las cstelas decoradas del Suroeste. Homenaft a Jesus Cinovas Pesini : 45-55.
Celestino Pdrez, S. 1990 Las estelas decoradas del suroeste peninsular. La Cultura Tartesicay Extremadura. Cuadernos Emeritos, Mirida
2: 45-62.
Celestino Pdrez, S. 1991 El yacimiento de Cancho Roano. Campahas 1986- 1990. ExtremaduraArqueoldgica 11: 185-197.
Celestino Pdrez, S. 1995 El vifto en tpoca Prerromana en Andalucfa Occidental. In Arqueologia del Vfflo - los origens del Who en
occidente, edited by D. Ruiz Mata, pp. 159-212. Jerez de la Frontera.
Celestino Pdrcz, S., J. J. Enriquez Navascues, and A. Rodriguez Diaz 1992 Paleoetnologfa del Area extremena. In Paleoetnologia de la Peninsula Ibirica. Complutum 2-3, Compluturn
Volume 2-3, edited by M. Almagro-Gorbea and G. Ruiz Zapatero, pp. 313-337. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Cerdeflo, M". L. 1986-1987 Una fecha de C-14 para los Campos de Umas de la Meseta Oriental. Zephyrus 39-40: 113-117.
Cerdeflo, M". L., and R. Garcia Huerta 1982 Avarice de la estratigrafla protohist6rico de La Coronilla (Molina de Arag6n, Guadalajara). Noticario
Arqueoldgico Hispdnico 14: 255-299.
Cerdeflo, M'. L., A. Mendez, R. Cristobal, F. Moreno, and J. Ferreiro 1980 El yacimicnto de la Edad del Bronce de "La Torrecilla! '. Notic6rio Arqueol6g! co Hispeinico 9: 217-242.
Cesnola, L. P. di 1903 A descriptive Atlas ofthe Cesnola collection of Cypriot antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt.
metropolitan Museum of Art, Boston-New York.
Chamorro, J. G. 1987 Survey of archaeological research on Tartessos. American Journal ofArchaeology 91: 197-232.
Champion, T. 1979 The Iron Age. In Introduction to British Prehistory, edited by J. Megaw and D. Simpson, pp. 344-501. The
University Press, Leicester.
Champion, T. 1982 Fortification, Ranking and Subsistence. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange, edited by C. Renfrew and S.
Shennan, pp. 61-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Champion, T., Gamble, C., Shcnnan, S., Whittle, A. 1984 Prehistoric Europe. Academic Press, London.
Champion, T. 1987 The European Iron Age: Assessing the state of the art. Scottish Archaeological Review 4: 98-107.
Chang, C. 1992 The ethnoarchaeology of pastoral land use in the Grevena Province of Greece. In Space, Time and the
Archaeological Landscape, edited by J. Rossinger and L. Wandsnider, pp. 65-90. Plenum Press, New York.
Chang, C., and H. A. Koster 1986 Beyond bones: toward an archaeology of pastoralism. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9,
edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 97-158. Academic Press, New York.
Chang, C., and H. A. Koster 1994 Pastoralists at the Periphery: Herders in a Capitalist World. University of Arizona, Tuscon.
Chang, C., and PA- Tourtellottc 1993 Ethnoarchaeological survey of pastoral transhumancc sites in the Grevena region, Greece. Journal offield
Archaeology 20: 249-264.
Chapa Bruneý T., Lopes Garcfa, P., Martfnez Navarrete, NP L. 1979 Nuevos hallazgos de la Edad del Bronce en Cervera del Llano (Cuenca). Arqueologia Conquense IV, Cuenca
Chapa Brunet, T. 1997 Models of Interaction between Punic Colonies and native Iberians: The Funermy Evidence. In Encounters and
Transformations. The Archaeology ofIberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prodos-Torreira, pp. 141-150. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Chapman, J., Shiel, F- 1993 Social Change and Land Use in Prehistoric Dalmatia. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 58: 61-104.
Chapman, J., and H. Hammerow 1997 Migrations andInvasions in Archaeological Fxplanation. Archaeopress. British Archaeological Reports
International Series N' 664, Oxford.
Chapman, I- 1979 Transhumance and Megalithic Tombs in Iberia. Antiquity 53.150-152.
Chapman, R. 1981 Archaeological Theory and communal burial in prehistoric Europe. In Pattern ofthe Past. Studies in Honour of
David Clarke, edited by 1. Hodder, pp. 387-411. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chapman, R. 1981 b The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the "Problem" of Megalithic Tombs in Prehistoric Europe. In 77te
Archaeology ofDeath, edited by R. Chapman, 1. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, pp. 71-8 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chapman, R. 1982 Autonomy, Ranking and Resources in Iberian Prehistory. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange. Aspects ofthe
Archaeolosy ofEarly European Societies, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Sherman, pp. 46-5 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chapman, R. 1985 The Later Prehistory of Western Mediterranean Europe: Recent Advances. Advances in WorldArchaeologp
4: 115-187.
Chapman, F- 1987 'Once upon a time in the west' : some observations on Beaker studies. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western
Mediterranean, edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 61-79. B. A. R. British Archaeological Rcports International Series N1 33 1, Oxford.
Chapman, P- 1990 Emerging Complexity: The Later Prehistory ofSouth-East Spain, Iberia; and the West Mediterranean. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Chapman, P- 1995 Ten Years After-Megaliths, Mortuary Practices, and the Territorial Model. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary
Analysis, edited by L. A. Beck, pp. 29-5 1. Plenum Press, New York.
Chapman, I-, and A. Grant 1997 Prehistoric Subsistence and Monuments in Mallorca. In Encounters and Transformations. The Archaeology Of
Iberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 69-88. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffleld.
Chase-Dunn, C. 1986 Rise and Demise: The Transformation of World-Systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Chaves, F., and M! L. de la Bandera 1981 La Cerdmica de Boquique'aparecida en el yacimiento de Montemolin (Marchena, Seville). Habis 12: 375-382.
Chaves, F., and MI L. de la Bandera 1982 Estela decorada de Montcmolin (Marchena, Sevilla). Archivo Espahol de Arqueologia 55: 137-147.
Chaves, F., and M! L. de la Bandera 1984 Avance sobre elyacimiento arqueoldgico de Montemolin (Marchena, Sevilla). B. A. R. British Archaeological
Reports International Series N" 193, Oxford.
Chaves, F., and NP L. de la Bandera 1985 Excavaciones en el yachniento arqueol6gico de Montemolin (Marchena, Sevilla). AnuirioArqueol6gico de
Andalucia 198541: 369-375.
Chernela, J. M. 1992 Social Meaning and Material Transaction: The Wanano-Tukano of Brazil and Columbia. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 11: 111-124.
Chernokien, R. 1988 Les armes mitalliques dans I'ariprolohistorique de Poccident Miditerranien. Editions du CNRS, Paris.
Cherry, J. 1978 Generalisation and the archaeology of the state. In Ranking, Resource andFxchange, edited by C. Renfrew and S.
Sherman, pp. 61-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cherry, J. F. 1988 Pastoralism and the role of animals in the pre. and protohistoric economies of the Aegean. In Pastoral Economies
in Classical Antiquity, edited by C. R. Whittaker, pp. 6-34. Cambridge Philological Society, Cambridge.
Chester, D., and P. James 1991 Holocene alluviation in the Algarve, southern Portugal: anthropogenic causes. Journal ofArchaeological Science
18 (1): 73-88.
Childc, V. G. 1925 The Dawn ofEuropean Civilisation. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Childe, V. G. 1930 The Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Childe, V. G. 1936 Man Makes Himsey. * Paperback cd. 195 1. New American Library, Mentor Books, New York.
Childe, V. G. 1942 What Happened in History. Paperback ed. 1964. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Childe, V. G. 1957 The Dawn ofEuropean Civilisation. 6th edition. Routledge and Kegan Paul (2nd edition), London.
Childe, V. G. 1972 The Urban Revolution. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M. P. Leone, pp. 43-5 1. Southern Illinois
University Press, Carbondale.
Childs, W. R. 1978 Anglo-Castilian trade in the Later Middle Ages. Gregg Press, Famborough, Hants.
Clark, J. E., Blake, M. 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica.
in Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and M. Fox, pp. 17-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clarke, D. L. 1968 Analytical ArchaeoloSy. Methuen, London.
Clarke, D-V-. T. G. Cowie, and A. Foxon 1985 Symbols ofPower at the time ofStonehenge. IJMSO for National Muscurns of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Coelho, A., and M. Varela G6mes 1991 Protohistoria de Portugal. Universidade Aberta, Lisbon.
Coflyn, A. 1976 LAge du Bronze du Musie de F Tavares Proenqa Jýnior. Museu de Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco.
Coflyn, A. 1979 La cerarnique excisde dans l'ouest de la France. sa diffusion en Espagne. AVCongresoNacionalde. 4rqueologia,
Lugo 1977
Coflyn, A- 1983 Le fin de IAge du Bronze dans le centre-Portugal. OArque6logo Portuguis I(Sdrie IV): 169-196.
Coflyn, A. 1985 Le Bronze FinalAtlantique dans la Pininsule Ibirique. Publicaciones du Centre Pierre Paris, De Boccard, Paris.
Coffyn, A. 1998 Une entitd contestde: le Bronze AtlAntique. In Existe uma Made do Bronze Atldntico?, Trabalhos de Arqueologia
I O, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 166-179. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Coffyn, A., J. G6mes, and J-P. Mohen 1981 Lapogie du bronze atlantique. Le Wpot de Vinat. Ed. Picard, Paris.
Cofryn, A., and H. Sion 1993 Les relations atlintiques mdditeffandenes. Eldments pour une rdvision chronologique du Bronze Final atlAntique.
Mediterrdneo 2: 285-3 10.
Cogbill. S. 1982 The Bronze Age exhumed. Scottish Archaeological Review 1 (2): 78-90.
Coldstream, J. N. 1993 Mixed marriages at the frontiers of the early Greek world. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 12 (0: 89-107.
Cole, D., and 1. Chaikin 1990 An Iron Hand upon thepeople: the Law against thepotlach on the Northeast coast. Douglas and McIntyre,
Vancouver.
Coles, J. M. 1962 European Bronze Age shields. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 28: 156-190.
Coles, J. M., and A. F. Harding 1979 The Bronze Age in Europe. An Introduction to the Prehistory ofEurope c. 2000- 70OBC. Methuen, London.
Collis, J. 1981 A Theoretical study of hillforts. In Hilt(ort Studies, edited by G. Guilbert, pp. 66-77. The University Press,
Leicester.
Collis, J. 1982 Gradual growth and sudden change - Urbanisation in Temperate Europe. In Ranking, Resource and achange.
Aspects ofthe Archaeology ofEarly European Society, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 71-76. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Collis, J. 1984 The European Iron Age. Batsford, London.
Conkey, M. 1989 The use of diversity in stylistic analysis. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R. Leonard and G.
Jones, pp. 118-129. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Consuerga, S., 1. Montero, and S. Rovira 1991 Estudi arqueometall6rgie del Dip6sit de Llavorsf. In El Dio6sit de Bronzes de Llavorsi. Pallars Sobira, edited by
J. Gallart, pp. 187-200. Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.
Contreras Cortes, F. 1982 Una Aproximacion a la Urbanistica del Bronce Final en la Alta Andalucia - El Cerro de Cabuzuelos (Ubeda, Jadn).
CuadernosdePrehistoriadela Universidadde Granada 7: 307-330.
Contreras Cortds, F. 1995 Peflalosa. Un Proyecto de investigaci6n de IaEdad del Bronce en el Alto Guadalquivir. I*Congressode
Arqueologia Peninsular -Actas V(Porto) : 143-157.
Contreras Cortds, F., J. Camar, S. Moya, and P- Sdnchez 1990 Primer avance metod6logico del estudio de la material del poblado de Pefialosa (Baflos de la Encina, Jadn).
AnuarioArqueol6gico de, 4ndalucia II(Actividades Sistematicas): 281-290.
Contreras Cortds, F., C. Pdrez Bareas, LA. Umara Serrano, and R. Lizoano Prestel 1996 Enterramientos y diferenci6n social 11. La problemAtica de la Edad del Bronce en el Alto Guadalquivir. Trabajos
de Prehistoria 53: 91-108.
Contreras Cortes, F., Carrion, F., Jabaloy, E. 1983 Un horno do alfarcro protohist6rico on El Cerro de los Infantes (Pinos Puente). XVI Congreso Nacional de
Arqueologia (Murcia-Cartagen, % 1982)
Contreras Cortes , F., F. Nocete, and M. Sinchez R6iz 1985 AnAlisis hist6rico do las comunidades de la Edad del Bronce do la Depresi6n de Linares-Baildn y estribaciones
meridionales de Sierra Morena. Sondeo en el Cerro de la Plaza de Armas de Sevilleja (Espeluy, Jadn). Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia, 1985111: 141-149.
Coombs, D. 1975 Bronze Age weapon hoards in Britain. Archaeologia AtIdntica l(l): 49-8 1.
Coombs, D. 1988 The Late Bronze Age hoard from Clos de la Blanche Pierre, St Lawrence, Jersey, Channel Isles. OxfordJournal
ofArchaeology 7 (3): 313-342.
Coombs, D. 1998 "Hello Sailor" - Some Reflections on the Atlantic Bronze Age. In Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atldnfico?,
Trabalhos do Arqueologia 10, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 150-156. Instituto Portuguds de Arqucologia, Lisbon.
Cordy, R. H. 1981 A study ofprehistoric and social change: the development ofcomplex societies in the Hawaiian islands. Academic
Press, New York.
Corrda, A. A. Mendes 1924 Ensaio sobre a Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Revista de Estudos Hist6ricas 1-2: 24-82.
Correia, J. M. 1905 Antiguidades do concelho do Sabugal. OArque6logo Portugugs 10: 199-207.
Correia, S. H. 1980 Povoados Calcolfticos da Estremadura Portuguesa - Tentativa de Abordagem Econ6mica. Arqueologia 2: 24-29.
Correia, V. 11. 1993 Os materiais prd-romanos de Conimbriga ea presenga fenicia no Baixo Mondego. Estudos Orientais IV: Os
Fenicios no Territ6rio Portuguds: 229-284.
Correia, V-11. 1995 The Iron Age in south and central Portugal and the Emergence of Urban Centres. In Social Complexity and the
Development of Towns in Iberia (from the Copper Age to the second century AD), 86, edited by B. Cunliffe and S. J. Keay, pp. 237-262. Proceedings of the British Academy, London.
Cortez, F. R. 1945-1946 Ponteira em ouro dum punhal visig6tica de Vila Nova de Paiva. Ampurlas 7-8: 351-354.
Coser, L. 1956 The Functions qfSoclal Conflict. The Free Press, New York.
Cowgill, George L. 1989 The Concept of Diversity in Archaeological Theory. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by
R. D. L. a. G. T. Jones, pp. 131-141. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Criado Boado, F. 1993 Visibilidadelnterprctaci6n del registro arqueol6gico. TrabajosdePrehistoria58: 39-56.
Criado Boado, F., and R. Fabrcgas Valarce 1989 The megalithic phenomenon of northwest Spain: main trends. Antiquity 63: 682-696.
Criado Boado, F., and I- Fibregas Valcarce 1994 Regional patterning among the megaliths of Galicia (NW Spain). OxfordJournal ofArchaeoloýy 13: 3347.
Cruz, D. J. 1998 Exprcssbcs funerArias e cultais no Norte da Beira Alta (V-11 mildnios a. C. ). Actas da Coloquio "A PrJ-Hist6r1a na
Beira Interior" (Estudos Prd-Hist6rlcas 6) : 149-166.
Cruz, D. J., and L. Oosterbeck 1985 A Gruta do Cadaval: elementos para a Prd-Hist6ria do Vale do NabAo (Tomar). Boletim Cultural e Informativo da
C, imara Municipal de Tomar 1: 61-76.
Cuadrado, E. 1963 Precedentesyprotolipos de laftbula anular anular hispinica. Trabajos del Scminhio de Historfa Primitiva del
Hombre, Madrid.
Culican, W. 1968 Quelques apercus sur les ateliers Phdniciens. Syria 45: 275-293.
Cumberpatch, C., Hill, J. D. 1993 Volviendo apensarlaEdad del Hierro. TrabajosdePrehistoria50: l27-137.
Cunliffe, B. 1978 Iron Age communities in Britain. From the sixth century BC until the Roman conquest (second edition). Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London.
Cunliffe, B. 1988 Greeks, Romans and Barbarians: Spheres ofInteraction. Batsford, London.
Cunliffe, B. 1990 Before Hillforts. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 9: 323-336.
Cunliffe, B. 1992 Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology II (March): 69-83.
Cunliffe, B. 1993 Core-periphery relationships. Iberia and the Mediterranean. In Core andPeriphery in the Hellenistic world,
edited by P. Bilde, J. Hannestad, and K. Randsborg, pp. 53-85. Studies in Hellenistic Civilisation 4, Oxford.
Cunliffe, B., and M" C. FernAndez Castro 1988 Torreparedones (Castro del Rfo-Baena, C6rdoba). Informe preliminar, campafta 1987: prospecci6n arqueol6gica
con sondeo estratigrdfico. Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia 1987, Actividades Sistemeiticas 11: 226-234.
Curado, F. P. 1984 Uma nova estela do Bronze Final na Beira Alta (Baraqal, Sabugal. Guarda). Arqueologia 9: 81-85.
Curado, F. P. 1986 Mais uma estela do Bronze Final na Beira Alta (176ios, Sabugal - Guarda). Arqueologia 14: 103-109.
D'Arbois de Jubainville, J. 1981 El ciclo mitolýgico irlandis y la mitologia ciltica. Visi6n libros, Barcelona.
Daggett, R. 1987 Toward the Development of the State on the North Central Coast of Peru. In The Origins and Development ofthe
Andean State. edited by J. Haas, S. Pozorski, and T. Pozorski, pp. 70-82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dalton, G. 1975 Karl Polyani's Analysis of Long-distance Trade and his Wider Paradigm. In Ancient Civilization and Trade,
edited by J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 63-132. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Dams, L.
1984 Ships and boats in the prehistoric rock-art of southern Spain. In Papers in Iberian Archaeology, edited by T. F. C. Blagg, pp. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports Interriational Series N* 193, Oxford.
Daniel, G. 1971 The Idea ofPrehistory. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Darvill, T. 1987 Prehistoric Britain. B. T. Batsford, London.
Daveau, S. 1980 Espaqo e tempo. EvoluqAo do ambiente geogrSfico de Portugal ao longo dos tempos prd-hist6ricos. Clio 2: 12-37.
Daveau, S., P. Birot, and 0. Ribeiro 1985 Les Bassins de Lousa et dArgand. Volume I- Le Bassin Sidimentaire. Centro de Estudos GeogrMicos, Lisbon.
David, Nicholas 1992 The Archaeology of Ideology: Mortuary Practices in the Central Mandara Highlands, North Cameroon. Ms. on
file, Dept. of Archaeology, University of Calgary,
David, N., J. Sterner, and K. Garva 1988 Why Pots are Decorated. CurrentAnthropology 29 (3): 365-390.
Davidson, 1. 1980 Transhumance, Spain and Ethnoarchaeology. Antiquity 54: 144-147.
Davis, W. 1988 Rock art and Archaeopsychology. CurrentAnthropology 29 (1, February): 184-186.
De Marinis, R. 1988 Nouvelles dorindes sur le commerce entre le monde Mdditerrandcn et l'Italie septrionale du Vile au Ve si&le J. C.
In Les Princes Celtes et la Miditerranje, edited by P. Brun, pp. De Boccard, Paris.
Deamos, M. B. 1997 Religious Aspects of Phoenician-Punic Colonization in the Iberian Peninsula: the Stelae from Villaricos, Almeria.
In Encounters and Transformations. The Archaeology oflberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 121-134. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Ddchelette, J. 1908 Essai sur la chronologie prdhistorique de la pdninsule ibdrique. Revue Archgologique 12: 219-265.
Delibes de Castro, G. 1978 Una inhumaci6n triple de la facies Cogotas I en San Romdn de Horniia. Trabajos de Prehistoria 35: 225-250.
Delibes de Castro, G. 1981 Una interesante fibula del Bronce Final del Cerro del Berrueco. Revista de Guimaraes 91
Delibes de Castro, G. 1987a El significado del campaniforme de Ciempozuelos. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean. The Oxford
International Conference., edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports international series N'33 1, Oxford.
Delibes de Castro, G. 1987b Sobre los enterramientos del grupo campaniforme de Ciempozuelos: diversidad y tradici6n. El origen de la
metalurgia en la Peninsula lbirica I Fundacl6n Ortega y GassetOvideo: 37-51.
Delibes de Castro, G. 1987c LEI Significado del Campaniforme de Ciempozuelos? In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean, edited by
W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 23-24. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports Interriational Series NO 33 1, Oxford.
Delibes dc Castro, G., M. Diaz-Andreu, D. ". Ferndndez Posse, C. Martin, 1. Montero, 1. Muffoz, and A. Ruiz 1996 Poblarniento y desarrollo cultural en la cuenca de Vera durante la Prdhistoria Recidnte. Complutum Extra 6 (1):
Homenaje al Prof Manuel Ferndndez Miranda : 153-170.
Del ibes de Castro, G., and J. FemAndcz Manzano 1979 Un espada de lengua carpa procedente del Bierzo. Trabajos de Prehistoria 36: 439450.
Delibes de Castro, G., and J. Femindez Manzano 1986-1987 Aproximaci6n a la cronologfa del grupo Cogotas 1. Zephyrus 39-40: 17-30.
Delibes de Castro, G., and J. Fernindez Manzano 1988 Armas y Utensilos de Bronze en la Prehistorfa de las Islas Baleares. Studia Archaeologica 78(Valladolid)
Delibes de Castro, G., and J. FernAndez Manzano 1991 Relaciones entre Cogotas Iy el Bronce Final AtlAntico en la Meseta Espaftola. In LAge du Bronce Atlantique.
Actes du Premier Colloque du Parc Archiologique de Beynac, edited by C. Chevillot and A. Cofryn, pp. 203-212. Association des Musdes Sardlais, Beynac.
Delibes de Castro, G., J. FemAndez Manzano, and J. 1. I IcrrAn Martinez 1994 El dep6sito del Bronce Final de Pico Cuemo, Sotoscueva (Burgos): sobre la cronologfa y distribuci6n de las
hachas planas con anillas de la Submeseta Norte. B. LF. G209(2): 239-277.
Delibes de Castro, G., J. FemAndez Manzano, NP. L. Ramirez, J. C. Misiego, and G. J. Marco 1995 El ft-Ansito Bronce Final-Primer Hierro en el Duero medio. Nuevas excavaiones en el Soto de Medinilla
(Valladolid). Verdolay (Homenaje a, 4naW. Mufioz, 4milibia) 7: 145-158.
Dclibes de Castro, G., J. Femdndez Manzano, and J. A. Rodriguez Marcos 1990 Ccrknicas de la plenitud Cogotas 1: el yacimiento de SAn Roman de la Ilomija (Valladolid). Boletin del
Seminario de Arte y Arqueologia LVI: 64-105.
Delibcs de Castro, G., and M. Fem6ndez-Miranda 1981 El castro de'La Plazade Cogeces del Monte (Valladolid). Reflexiones sobre el origen de la fase Cogotas 1.
Boletin del Seminario de, 4rte y, 4rqueologia 47: 51-68.
Delibes de Castro, G. and M. Femdndez-Miranda 1987 Sobre la supuesta dualidad Megalitismo/ Campaniforme en la Meseta superior. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western
Afediterranean, edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 180-206. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N" 33 1, Oxford.
Delibes de Castro, G., J. 1. Herrdn Martinez, J. de Santiago Pardo, and J. del vat Recio 1995 Evidence for social complexity in the Copper Age of the Northern Meseta. In The Origins ofComplex Societies in
Late Prehistoric Iberia, edited by K. Lillios, pp. 44-63. Intemaltional Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 8, Michigan.
Delibes de Castro, G., and T. Manzafles 1979 La espada pistilliforme del Bronce Final de Veguellfna de Orbigo (Ldon). Boletin del Semindrio de Estudios de
ArteyArqueologia XLV: 158-168.
Delibcs de Castro, G., J. Rodriguez, and M. Santonja 1991 Cuatro hallazgos de oro de la Edad del Bronce. Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 203-213.
Delibes de Castro, G. , and J. del Val Recio 1990 Prehistoria reciente zamorana: del Megalitismo at Bronce. Primer Congreso de Historia del Zamora (Zamora
Instituto de estudos Zamoranos "Florian del Ocampo"q 11, Prehistoria e Ilistoria Antigua: 53-99.
Desborough, V. R. 1964 The Last Myceneans and their Successors. Thames and Hudson, London.
Di Stefano, G. 1984 Casteflucio (Rigosa), Piccola Guida delta stazioni preistorische degli Iblei. Palermo 1984: 94-100.
Di Stefano, G., and C. Giardino 1990-1991 Ragusa, Castellucio, ripostiglio di bronzi. ]Vottizie degli scavi di antichita 9 (1-2): 489-546.
Dias, A. D., and A. Viana 1953 Mais trds dolmens da regiAo de Elvas (Portugal). Zephyrus 4: 227-240.
Dias, M. M., and L. Coelho 1972 Cer5micas de duas sepulturas so Bronze Final da Herdade da Marchica Nova (Ourique). 0 Arque6logo Portuguis
6 (sdrie 3): 193-206.
Diaz, A. R, J. J. Enriquez Navascues, and I. P. Soldevilla 1995 El Poblado protohist6rico de Aliseda (CAceres): materiales de superficie y perspectivas. Saguntum 29: 43-56.
Diaz, J. 1923 Objetos de bronze en la rfa de Huelva. Sociedad Espahold de Antropologia 2: 37-40.
Didz-Andreu, M. 1993 Las sociedades complejas del calcolftico y edad del bronce en la Peninsula lbdrica. Actas do I Congresso
Peninsular de Arqueologia. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, Porto 33 (1-2): 245-263.
Didz-Andreu, M. Year La Edad del Bronce en el Noroeste de la Meseta sur. Actas del Simposio: la Edad del Bronce en Castilla-La
Mancha, Toledo.
Didz-Andreu, M. 1995 Complex scoieties in Copper and Bronze Age Iberia: A reappraisal. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 14: 23-39.
Diaz-Andreu, M. 1988 El andlisis discriminante en la clasificadon tipol6gica: Aplicacion a las bachas de tal6n de la Peninsula lbdrica.
Boletin del Seminario deArte yArqueologla 54: 25-64.
Dfaz-Andreu, M. 1989 Sobre fronteras y limites. El caso del sector Noreste de la Submeseta Sur durante la Edad del Bronce. In
Arqueologia Espacial. Fronteras, edited by pp. 19-35. Teruel.
Diaz-Andreu, M. 1991 La Edad del Bronce en el Noreste de la Sub-Meseta Sur., UnAnallsis sobre el Inicio de la Complejidad Social.
Doctoral, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Diaz-Andrcu, M. 1993 Las sociedades compleja del Calcolftico y Edad del Bronce. I'CongressodeArqueologla Peninsula (Porto).
Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnografia 1: 245-263.
Diaz-Andreu, M. 1995a Late Prehistoric Social change in Later Prehistory in the southern Plateau of the Iberian Peninsula. In The
origins ofComplex Societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia, edited by K. Lillios, pp. 97-120. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Diego Conte, B., and I. Bemaldo de Quiros 1993 Cerimicado Bronze Tardio de Sdgovia. Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia 11: 59-65.
Diefler, M. 1989 Greeks, Etruscans and thirsty barbarians: Early Iron Age interaction in the Rh6ne basin of France. In Centre and
periphery., Comparative Studies in Archaeology, edited by C. Champion, pp. 127-14 1. Unwin I lyman, London.
Dietler, M. 1990a Driven by drink: The role of drinking in the political economy and the case of Early Iron Age France. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 9: 352406.
Dietler, M. I 990b Fxchange, consumption and colonial interaction in the Rhdne basin ofFrance. A study ofEarly Iron Age
political economy. Doctoral, University of California, Berkeley.
Dietler, M. 1992 Commerce du vin et contacts culturels. In Marseille grecque et la Gaule, edited by M. Bats, G. Bertucchi, G.
Cong6s, and H. Trdziny, pp. 4014 10. ADAM Editions Lattes, Marseilles.
Dietler, M. 1994 Quenching Celtic thirst. Archaeology 47: 4448.
Dietler, M. 1995 The cup of Gyptis: rethinking the colonial encounter in early Iron-Age western Europe and the relevance of world.
systems models. Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 3 (2): 89-111.
Dietler, M. 1996 Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: Food, power and status in prehistoric Europe. In Food
and the status quest. An interdisciplinwyperspective, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Shiefenhovel, pp. 87-125. Bcrghahn Books, Oxford.
Dictler, M. 1997 The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial Encounters, Entanglements and their transformations. Journal of
WorldPrehistory 11 (3, Scptember): 269-358.
Dictler, M., and I. Hcrbich 1998 Habitus, techniques, style: An integrated approach to the social understanding of material culture and boundaries.
In The Archaeology ofSocial boundaries, edited by M. Stark, pp. 213-245. Smithsonian, Washington D. C.
Divale, W., Harris, M. 1976 Population, Warfare, and the male supremacist complex. American Anthropologist 78: 521-538.
Dixon, P. 1981 Crickley Hill. CurrentArchaeology 76: 145-146.
Dobres, M. A. 1995 Gender and prehistoric technology: on the social agency of technical strategies. World Archaeology. Symbolic
Aspects ofEarly Technologies 27 (June): 25-49.
Domergue, C. 1987 Catalogue des mines et desfinderies antiques de la Pininsule Ibirique. Publicaciones de la Casa de Velazq6ez,
Boccard, Madrid.
Domergue, C. 1990 Les Mines de la Pininsule 1bgrique dans 1ý4ntiquiti Romaine. Ecole Frangaise, Rome.
Dominguez de la Concha, M. C., P. Cabrera Bonet, and E. J. FemAndez Jurado 1988 Cerro de la Cabeza (Santiponce, Sevilla). NoticarioArqueol6gico ffispdnico 30: 121-186.
Douglas, M. 1966 Purity and Danger. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Douglas, M. T. 1973 Natural Symbols: E%plorations in Cosmology. 2nd. Barrie and Jenkins, London.
Drews, R. 1993 The End ofthe Bronze Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Dubuisson, R. 1978 Le roi indo-curopden et la synthýse des trois functions. Annales Economie, Soclites et Civilisations 4: 21-34.
Duke, J. A. 1987 Handbook oflegumes oftorld economical importance.
Dumont, L. 1977 From Mandeville to Marx. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Earle, T. K. 1977 A reappraisal of redistribution: complex Hawaiian chiefdoms. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. K.
Earle and J-Ericson, pp. Academic Press, New York.
Earle, T. K. 1990 Style and Iconography as Legitimation in Complex Chiefdoms. In The Uses ofStyle in Archaeology, edited by M.
Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 73-8 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Earle, T. K., and R. W. Preucel 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. CurrentAnthropology28: 501-538.
Eco, U. 1989 Foucault's Pendulum. Secker and Warburg, London.
Eco, U. 1995 The Island of the Day Before.
Ehrenberg, M. 1989 The interpretation of regional variability in British and Irish Bronze Age metalwork. In Bronze Age studies 6
(Transactions ofthe British-Scandinavian Colloquium), edited by H. A. Nordstrom and A. Knape, pp. 77-88. Museum of National Antiquities, Statens Historiska Museum. Stockholm.
Eiroa, JJ 1973 Noticia de un yacirniento de la Had del Bronce en Algeagordillo, Avila. XII Congresso Nacional do Arqueologia
(Jain 1971): 233-240.
Eiroa, J. J. 1975 Nuevos hallazgos en ]a cueva del Asno (Soria). Caesaraugusta 5: 39-40.
Eiroa, J. J. 1979 Dos fechas C14 para la Edad del Bronce (Cueva del Asno) en el Alta Duero. Saguntum 14: 39-57.
Eiroa, JJ. 1980 La Cueva del Asno, Los Ribanes (Soria). Campahas de 1976-1977. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
Eleýre, Ch. 1990 Les secrets de lor antique. CTHS, Paris.
Elias, N. 1978 The Civilising Process. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Ellison, A. 1981 Towards a socioeconomic model for the Middle Bronze Age in southern England. In The Pattern ofthe Past,
edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 413-438. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Encarnacion, J-M-9 Salvatierra, V. 1980 El poblamicnto durantc cl cobrc y bronce en el rio Galera. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de Universidad de Granada
5: 119-155.
Enrfquez Navascues, J. J. 1982a Dos nuevos estelas de guerreros en el Museo Arqueol6gico Provincial de Badajoz. Museos 1: 65-68.
Enrfquez Navascues, J. J. 1982b UmanuevaesteladeguerreroytresasadoresdebronceprocedentesdeOrellanalaVieja(Badajoz). Museos2: 9-
13.
Enriquez Navascues, J. J. 1988 AigunascerlunicasdecoradasdecastillodeAlange(Badajoz)- Homenaje a Samuel de los Santos : 34-56.
Enrfquez Navascues, J. J. 1990a El Bronce Final extremefloy su relacion con la culturatartdsica. CuadernosEmeritenses2. LaCulturaTartdsica
y Extremadura: 63-84.
Enriquez Navascues, J. J. 1990b Sobre a1gunos poblados del Bronce Final de la Provincia de Badajoz. Norba 10: 41-57.
End quez Navascues, J. J. 1991 Apuntas sobre cl tesoro del Bronce Final Ilarnado de Valdeobispo. Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 215-224.
Earfquez Navascues, J. J., E. Celestino Pdrez, and R. Rodriguez Dfaz 1992 Las comunidades prerromanos de Extremadura. In Paleoetnologla de la Peninsula Ibirica, edited by M. Almagro
Gorbea and R. Zapatero, pp. 320-341. Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
Enrfquez Navascucs, J. J., and S. Celestino Pdrez 1981-1982 La estela de Capilla (Badajoz). Pyrenae 17-18: 203-209.
Enriquez Navascues, J. J., and S. Celestino P6rez 1984 Nuevas estelas decoradas en la cuenca del Guadiana. TrabajosdePrehistoria4l: 237-250.
Enriqucz Navascues, J. J., and C. Domfngucz de la Concha 1984 Yacimientos pre y protohist6ricos de Badajoz y sus alrededores. Revista de Estudios Extremeflos 40 (3): 565-582.
Enriquez Navascues, JJ, and V. Hurtado 1986 Historfa de la Baja Extremadura 1. Las orfgens al final de laEdad Media. PrehistoriayProtohistoriadeBadajoz
1: 1-85.
Escacena Carrasco, J. L. 1982 Antiguas vias de comunicaciones en el Bajo Guadalquivir. Gades 9-10: 129-153.
Escacena Carrasco, J. L. 1985 Gadir. Auld Orientalis 3: 39-58.
Escaccna Carrasco, J. L. 1986 Gadir e CAdiz. In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula lbirica, l, editcd by M" E. Aubet and G. d. O. Lete, pp. 39-58.
Sabadell, Barcelona.
Escaccna Carrasco, J. L. 1993 La Muerte de Tartessos. Evidencias en el Registro poblacional. Spal 2: 182-218.
Escaccna Carrasco, J. L. 1995 La etapa precolonial de Tartessos. Reflexiones sobre el 'Bronze' que nunca existi6. ActasdelICongreso
Conmemoritivo del VSymposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular. Jjrez : 179-214.
Escacena Carrasco, U., and M. Bdlen 1991 Sobre la Cronologfa del Horizonte Fundacional de los Asentamientos Tartdsico. Museo de Huelva Cuadernos del
Suroeste 11: 9-42.
Escacena Carrasco, U., and N. Berriatua 1985 El Berrueco de Medina Sidonia (Cddiz). Testimonias de una probable expansi6n argdrica hacia el Oeste.
Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 10: 225-242.
Escacena Carrasco, U., and G. de Frutos 1981-1982 Enterramientos de la Edad del Bronce del Cerro del Berrueco (Medina Sidonia, CAdiz). Pyrenae 17-18: 165.
190.
Escacena Carrasco, U., and G. de Frutos 1985 Estratigrafla de la Edad del Bronce en el Monte Berrueco (Medina Sidonia, CAdiz). Noticario Arqueol6gico
Hispinico 24: 7-91.
Esparza Arroyo, A. 1990 Sobre el ritual funerdrio de Cogotas 1. Boletin del Semin6ric de Arte y Arqueologia 56: 106-143.
Esteban Orteaga, J. 1984 Enterramientos en cistas del Bronce Final en el S. O. Cacerefto y paralelismos con el S. O. peninsular. Norba 5: 46.
67.
Esteve Guerrero, M. 1950 Excavaciones de Asta Regia (Mesas de Asta, Jdrez). Informes y Memorias de la Comisaria General de
acavaciones Arqueol6gicas, Madrid 22
Estevc Guerrero, M. 1962 acavaciones de Asta Regia (Mesas de Asta 1949-1950 and 1955-1956). Publicaciones de Centro Estudios
idrczanos 19, Jdrez.
Etienne, R. 1985 Preface. In Le Bronze Final Atlantique, edited by A. Coffyn, pp. De Boccard, Paris.
Evans, C. 1988 Acts of Enclosure: a consideration of concentrically-organised causewayed enclosures. In The Archaeology of
Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, edited by J. C. Barrett and I. Kinnes, pp. 85-96. The Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, Sheffield.
Evans, J. 1930 The Sword bearers. Antiquity 4: 157-172.
Fabian Garcia, J. F. 1986-1987 El Bronce Final y la Edad del Hierro cn el Cerro del Berrueco (Avilaý Salamanca). Zephyrus 39-40: 273-287.
Fabian Garcfa, J. F. 1993 La secuencia cultural durante la Prehist6ria Recfente en el sur de la Meseta Norte espaftola. I*Congressode
Arqueologia Peninsular (Porto). Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologla e Etnologia 1: 145-178.
Fabian, J. 1983 Time and the Other. Columbia University Press, New York.
Fabfan, J. F. 1993 La secuencia cultural durante la Prehistoria reciente en el sur de la Meseta Norte EspaAola. Primero Congreso de
Arqueologia Peninsular. Actas I Trabalhos de Antopologia e Etnologia 33 (1-2): 145-178.
Fabian, J. F. 1995 El aspectofunerario durante el Calcoliticoy los inicios de la Edad del Bronce en la Meseta Norte. Editorial
Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca.
FabiAo, C. 1992 0 Passado Proto-hist6rico e Romano. In Hist6ria de Portugal, I, edited by J. Mattoso, pp. 79-119. Cfrculo de
Leitores, Lisboa.
Fabido, C., and A. Guerra 1988-1989 A IV campanha de cscavagOcs no Cabeqo do Crasto de S. -79 RomAo (Seia). Portugalia (Nova Sirie) 9.
10: 73-79.
Fabrdgas, R., and M. Rufz-GAIvez Priego 1997 El noroeste de la Penfnsula Ibdrica en la Iller y 11 milenfos. Propuesta para una sintesis. Saguntum 30: 191-209.
F6bregas Valcarce, R-, and R. Bradley 1995 El silencio de las fuentcs: pricticas fitnerias en la Edad del Bronce del Noroeste y su contexto europeu.
Complutum 6: 153-166.
Fabregas Valcarce, R., and M. Rufz-Gdlvcz 1997 EINoroestedelaPenfnsulalbdricaenelllleryIloMilenios: Propuestaparaunasfntcsis. Saguntum30: 191-216.
Fallcrs, L. A. 1973 Inequality. Social Stratification Reconsidered. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Farinha Santos, M., J. Soares, and C. T. Silva 1975 A necr6pole da Idade do Bronze da Provenqa (Sines, Portugal). Nota preliminar. Actas da X111* Congreso
Aracional de Arqueologia, Huelva 1973 : 417-432.
FatAs, G. 1975 Una estela de guerrero con escudo escotado en "V", aparecida en las Cinco Villas dc Arag6n. Pyrenae 11: 165-
169.
Feinman, G. M. 1995 ne Emergence of Inequality. In The Foundations ofSocial Inequality, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman,
pp. 255-279. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Ferguson, J. 1991 The Cultural Topography of Wealth: Commodity Paths and the Structure of Property in Rural Lesotho. American
Anthropologist 94 (1): 55-73.
Femdndez, A. 1995 0 cambio social nos enterramientos do NO de finais do IV a 11 millenio a. C. Primero Congresso de Arqueologia
Peninsular, Porto 35 (2)(2): 211-236.
Femdndez Castro, M". C. 1988 Arqueologia protohist6rica de la Peninsula Wrica (siglos Xa V711a. C. ). Alianza Editorial, Madrid.
Femindez Castro, NP. C. 1995 Iberia in Prehistory. Blackwells, Oxford.
Femdndez Chicarro, C. 1961 Una estela del tipo de la Solana de Cabanas, hallada en la provincia de Sevilla. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologia
34: 163-165.
Ferndndez del Campo, C. P. 1994 El yacimiento, de Angosta de los Mancebos: nueva contribuci6n al conocimiento de la Edad del Bronce madrilefia.
Estudios de Prehistoria y Arqueologia Madrileflas 8: 91-97.
FernAndez Gomes, F., J. A. Sierra Femdndez, and T. L6pez FernAndez; 1986-1987 Evoluci6nycronologfade El Raso (Candeleda, Avila). Zephyrus39-40: 265-271.
FernAndez Gomez, F., I- Chasco, and D. Oliva Alonso 1979 Excavaciones en el Cerro Macareno. La Rinconada (Sevilla). Cortes E-F-G, campaila 1974. Noticario
Arqueol6gico Hispdnico 7: 11-94.
FernAndez Gomez, F., and D. Oliva Alonso 1986 Valencina de la Concepci6n (Sevilla). Excavaciones de urgencia. Revista de Arqueologia 58: 19-33.
Femdndcz Gomez, F., and D. Ruiz Mata 1978 El tholos de la Cabeza del cerro de la Cabeza en Valencinade ]a Concepci6n (Sevilla). TrabajosdePrehistoria
35: 193-224.
Femdndez Gomez, F., D. Ruiz Mata, and F. Sancha 1976 Los enterramientos en cistas de Cortijo de Chichina (Sanlucar la Major, Sevilla). Trabajos de Prehistoria 53: 351 -
386.
Femdndez Gomez, F., and JA. Sierra Femdndez 1985 Un fondo de cabafta campaniformc de la Universidad Laboral dc Sevilla. Noticario Arqueol6gico Hispdnico 22: 8-
26.
FernAndez Jurado, J. 1985a La influencfa fenfcia en Huelva. Aula Orientais 4
Femdndez Jurado, J. 1985b Tejada, la Vicja: una ciudad protohist6rica. Revista de Huelva 79
Femdndcz Jurado, J. 1986 Influencas fenicias cn la regi6n de Huelva. In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Wrica, I, edited by M! E. Aubet and
GAD. Lete, pp. 211-225. Sabadell, Barcelona.
Femdndez Jurado, J. 1987a TqJada, la Vieja: una ciudad protohist6rica (Campatia dc 1987). AnuarioArqueol6gico deAndalucia
II(Actividades Sistematicas): 291-293.
FernAndez Jurado, J. 1987b TejadalaVieja. Huelva Arqueol6gica VIII: 45-123.
FernAndez Jurado, J. 1988-1989 Tartessos y Huelva. Huelva Arqueol6g! ca IX(I luelva): 1-345.
Femdndez Jurado, J. 1989 La metal6rgia de la plata en dpoca tartdsica. Mfnerfa y Metal4rgia en IaAntiguas Civilisaciones Meditterdneas y
Europas : 157-166.
Femdndez Jurado, J., and C. Garcia Sanz 1989 Arquitectura, y urbanismo tartdsico. Revista de Huelva 79: 8: 145-162.
Fembdez Jurado, J., C. Garcia Sanz, and P. Rufete 1990 Prospecci6n con sondeo en Pefialosa (Escacena, Huelva). Anuario Arqueoldgico de Andalucia 1990/11: 185-190.
Femdndez Jurado, J., and D. Ruiz Mata 1985 La metalfirgia de la plata en dpoca tartessica en Huelva. Pyrenae 21: 23-44.
Femdndez Manzano, J. 1984 Armas y 4tiles met6licos del Bronce Final en la Meseta Norte. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.
Ferndndez Manzano, J. 1986 El Bronce Final en la Meseta norte espailola: El utililaje meldlico. Junta de Castilla y Lc6n, Soria.
Femdndez Manzano, J., F. P. Maflanes, and F. Ramos 1982 Dep6sito de puntas de bronze hallado en Bembride, Uon. Trabajos de Prehistoria 39: 349-368.
Ferndndez Martinez, V. M. 1985 La seiaci6n automitica en Arqueologfa. Introducci6n, historica y aplicaciones. Trabajos de Prehistoria 42: 9-49.
Ferndndez Miranda, M. 1975a El Castillo de San Pedro y problemas del poblamiento de la actual ciudad de Huelva durante el primer milenfo.
Avance de su estudio. In Huelva, PrehistoriayAntigriedad, edited by pp. 221-234. Editorial Nacional, Madrid.
Ferndndez Miranda, M. 1975b Avance sobre los trabajos real izados en el Castillo de San Pedro en I luelva. XIIICongresoNacionalde
Arqueologia, Huelva 1973 : 587-592.
Femdndez Miranda, M. 1983 Extremadura y Andalucia Occidental en Epoca Tartdssica. V1 Congreso de Estudios Extremehos Arqueologia
: 3347.
Ferndndez Miranda, M. 1984-1985 Elementos de filiadon Campaniforme en las Islas Baleares. Cuadernos de PrehistorlayArqueologia I I-
12: 25-36.
Femdndez Miranda, M. 1985 Relaciones Mediterrdneas entre el cuarto y el segundo milenio. XVIII CongresoXacional de Arqueologia. (Islas
Canarias*
Femdndez Miranda, M. 1986a La estela de las Herencias (Toledo). Estudios en homenaje al Dr. Antonio Beltrdn Martinez (Zaragoza): 463476.
Ferndndez Miranda, M. 1986b Huelva: Ciudad del los Tartcssos. In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Wrica, ll, edited by NP E. Aubet and GAD.
Lete, pp. 246-267. Sabadell, Barcelona.
Fcmdndez Miranda, M. 1987 Rclaciones cntre la Peninsula lbdrica, Islas Baleares y Cerdefla durante el Bronce Medio y Final. Atti del 11
Congreso di Studi un millennio di relazions fra la Sardegna ei Paesi del Mediterraneo: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo fra il
seconda e il primo millennio a. C., Cagliari 1986.
Femdndez Miranda, M. 1997 Aspects of Talayotic Culture. In Encounters and Transformations. The Archaeology ofIberia in Transition,
edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 59-68. Sheff ield Academic Press, Sheff ield.
Femdndez Miranda, M., and I- Olmos 1986 Las ruedas do Toyay el origen del carro en la Peninsula Wrica. Museo Arqueol6gico Nacional, Madrid.
Fcmdndez Posse, NP. D. 1979 InforTnedelaprimeracampafia(1977)enlacuevadeArevalillodeCega(Sdgovia). NoticarioArqueol6gico
Hisp6nico 6: 53-87.
Fernindez Posse, NP. D. 1980 Los materiales de la Cueva del Aire (Patones. Madrid). Noticario Arqueol6gico Hispinico 10: 39-64.
Ferndndez Posse, NP. D. 1981 La Cueva del Arevalillo de Cega (S6govia). Noticario Arqueol6g1co ffispdnico 12: 44-84.
Ferndndez Posse, NP. D. 1982 Consideraciones sobre la tdcnica de Boquique. Trabajos de Prehistoria 39: 137-159.
Ferndndez Posse, NP. D. 1986 La cultura de Cogotas 1. In Actas del Congreso 'llomenaje a Luis Siret'(1934-1984, Cuevas del Almanzora, junio
de 1984, edited by pp. 475487. Madrid.
Femdndez Posse, M. D., and C. Martin 1991 a El Calcolitico y la Edad del Bronce en la Meseta. Bolefin de la Asociaci6n &pahola de Amigos de la
Arqueologia 30-31
Ferndndez Posse, NP. D., and C. Martin 1991 b El Calcolitico y la Edad del Bronce en la Meseta,. Veinte Ahos de Arqueologia en Espaha 2: 75-86.
FernAndez Posse, NP. D., and L Montero 1998 Una visi6n de la metalurgia atlAntica en el interior de la Peninsula Ibdrica. In Eriste uma Idade do Bronze
Athintico, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 10, cdited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 192-202. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
FernAndez Ruiz, J., J. E. Ferrer, and 1. Marques 1991-1992 El Llano de la Virgen, Coin (Milaga). Estudio de sus materiales. Mainake XIII-XIV: 5-27.
FernAndez Vega, A. M. 1980 Canteras de Zarzalejo (Madrid). Noticario Arqueol6gico Hispeinico 10: 115-135.
Ferrarese Ceruti, M. L. 1979 Cerainica micenea in Sardegna. Rivista di scienzepreistoriche 34 (1-2): 243-254.
Ferrarese Ccruti, M. L. 1981 Documenti miceni nella Sardegna. Ichnussa. La Sardegna dalle origini all'eta classica. Milan : 605-612.
Ferrarese Ceruti, M. L., F. Lo Schiavo, and L. Vagnetti 1987 Minoici, Micenei e Ciprioti in Sardegna nella Seconda MetA del 11 Millennio a. C. In Studies in Sardinian
Archaeology III: Sardinia and the Mycenean World, edited by M. S. Balmuth, pp. 7-34. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 3 87, Oxford.
Ferreira, E. 1988 Los caminosmedievalesde Galicia. anexo n*9 del BoletinAuriense
Figueiral, I. 1990 Le Nord-Ouest du Portugal et les Modifications de I'Ecosystýme du Bronze Final a I'Epoque Romaine, d'apres
A4ntracologia analyse des Sites Archaeologiques. Doctoral, Universitd Montpellier.
Figueiral, I., and F. Queiroga 1988 Castrio de Matos 1982-1986. Arqueologia 17: 137-150.
Figuerola, M. G. de 1982 Nueva estela decorada del tipo 11 en SAn Martin de Trevcjo (Cdceres). Zephyrus 34-35: 173-180.
Filip, J. 1972 Celtic Civilisation and its heritage. London.
Flanagan, J. G. 1988 The Cultural Construction of Equality on the New Guinea HighlandsFringe. In Rules, Decisions, and Inequality
in Egalitarian Societies, edited by J. G. Flanagan and S. Rayner, pp. 164-167. Gower, London.
Fleming, A. 1982 Social Boundaries and Land Boundaries. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange, edited by C. Renfrew and S.
Shennan, pp. 52-55. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Folgado, J. L. 1992-1993 Os machados de bronze da colecqAo do museu municipal Azuaga. ContribuqAo para a Paleometalurgia do
Bronze no Norte de Portugal. Portugalia (N. S. ) 13-14: 159-172.
Forty, A. 1986 Objects ofDesire. Tharnes and Hudson, London.
Fossati, A. 1991 VetA del Ferro nelle incisioni rupestri della Valcomonica. AA VV Imnagini di una aristocrazia dell'eta del Ferro
nell'arte rupestre Milan: 11-7 1.
Fossati, A. 1992 Alcune rappresentazioni di "oranti" schematici armati del Bronzo Finale nell'arte rupestre. Appunti 19: 45-50.
Fossat4 A. 1995 Vacqua, le armi e gli uccclli nell'arte rupestre camuna dell'eti del Ferro. NAB 2: 203-216.
Fox, J. W. 1994 Conclusions: Moictal Opposition, Segmentation, and Factionalism in New World Political Arenas. In Factional
Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. M. B. and and J. W. Fox, pp. 199-206. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Franco, M. L., and A. Viana 1948 Ccmitdrio da Idade do Bronze nos arredores de Faro. Trabalhos de Antropolgia e Etnologia 11: 299-305.
Frank, A. G. 1977 On so-called primitive accumulation. Dialectical Anthropology 2: 87-106.
Frank, A. G. 1993 Bronze Age world systems cycles. Current Anthropology 34 (4)(4): 383-429.
Frankel, D. 1988 Pottery production in prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus: Assessing the problem. Journal ofMediterranean
Archaeology 1: 27-55.
Frankenstein, S. 1979 The Phoenicians in the far west: a function of Neo-Assyrian imperialism. In Power and Propoganda, edited by M.
Larsen, pp. 278-286. Mesopotamia 7, Copenhagen.
Frankenstein, S. , and M. Rowlands 1978 The internal structure and regional context of Early Iron Age society in south-west Germany. Bulletin ofthe
Institute ofArchaeology, University of London 15: 73 -112.
Frankentein, S. 1994 Regional Development in the first millennium BC: the Phoenicians in Iberia. In Europe in the First Millennium
BC, edited by K Kristiansen and J. Jensen, pp. 41-44. Sheffield Monographs in Prehistory, Sheffield.
Fried, M. H. 1967 The Evolution ofPolitical Society. Random House, New York.
Fried, M. H. 1978 The State, the Chicken, and the Egg, or What Came First. In Origins ofthe First State: The Anthropology of
Political Evolution, edited by I- Cohen and E. R. Service, pp. 35-48. Institute for the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.
Friedman, J. 1975 Tribes, states and transformations. In MarxistAnalyses and Social Anthropology, edited by M. Bloch. pp. 23-35.
London.
Furindrick, V., and A. Harding 1980 Periodisation in the central European Bronze Age. Bulletin ofthe Institute ofLondon 17: 117-128.
Furumark, A. 1941 The Chronology ofMycenean Pottery. Stockholm.
Gaibar, C. 1974 Descubrimiento de la terraza. wflrmiense en la margen izquierda del rio Manzanares: aportaciones palcoclimaticAs.
Nuevos restos y testimonios del madrilefto hombre prehist6rico y protohist6rico. Estudios geol6gicos 30: 237-25 1.
GaIdn, B. 1980 Las mds antfguas navegaciones griegas aEspahay el origen deTartessos. ArchivoEspa; loldeArqueologia52: 33-
39.
GaIdn Domingo, E. 1993 Estelas, Paisaje y Territorio en el Bronce Final del Suroeste de la Peninsula Ibirica. Editional Complutense,
Madrid.
Galdn Domingo, E., and A. Martin Bravo 1991-1992 Megalitismo y zonas de paso en la cuenca extremena del Tajo. Zephyrus 44-45: 193-205.
GalAn Domingo, E., and M. Rufz-G; Uvez Priego 1997 Rutas ganadera transhumancf ay camiftos antiguo: el caso del Suroeste peninsular entre el Calcolftico y la Edad del
Hierro. In Aspectos del Pastoreo en la Peninsula Ibirica, edited by P. Crcssier and J. Gomes Pantoja, pp. Alianza, Madrid.
Galdn Domingo, E., and A. Termino 1994 El Noroeste de la Peninsula lbdrica en el contexto de la Prehistoria reciente de Europa Occidcntal. Actas deIA27I
Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Vigo, 1993) : 234-256.
Gale, N. H., and ZA. Stos-Gale 1988 Recent Evidence for a Possible Bronze Age Metal Trade between Sardinia and the Aegean. In Problems in Greek
Prehistory., Papers presented at the British School ofArchaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, edited by E. B. French and K. A. Wardle, pp. 349-384. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol.
Galili, E., N. ShmuelL and M. Artzy 1986 Bronze Age ship's cargo of copper and tin. The International Journal offautical Archaeology and Underwater
Fxploration 15 (1): 25-37.
Galvän Garcia, J. R., and V. Galvän Martinez 1987 Estudio Minera16gico de las Cdramicas procedentes de EI Llanete de los Moros, Montoro, C6rdoba. In EI Llanete
de los Moros, Montoro, Cördoba, edited by J. C. Martin de la Cruz, pp. 270-278. Excavaciones Arqucolögicas en Espatia 15 1, Madrid.
Gamito, T. J. 1986 Os espetos de broze do SW peninsular - sua interpretaq&o. Conimbriga 25: 2340.
Garnito, T. J. 1988 Social Complexity in south-west Iberia 800-30OBC., The case of Tartessos. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports
Intemational Series N* 439, Oxford.
Gamito, T. J. 1989 The wind of change blows from the east - the transition from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age in southwest Iberia and
the East Mediterranean. In The Bronze Age transition in Europe, edited by M. L. Sorensen and R. Thomas, pp. 137-172. B. A-F- British Archaeological Reports International Series N' 483, Oxford.
Gamito, T. J. 1990-1992 A cerdmicadereticulabrunidado castro dos Ratinhos (Moura). 0Arque6lqgop0rtuguis8-l0(Serie
IV): 277-297.
Garnito, T. J. 1993 Aspectos do desonvolvimento da, complexifagao social c ec6nomica do sudoeste Peninsular durante o primeiro
miltnio aC. Arqueologia e Hist6ria Sirie 10 111: 43-75.
GarbK G. 1966 1 Fcnici in Occidenti. Studi Etruschi 34: 111-132.
Garcd Pereira Maia, M. 1986 Neves 11 ea "facies" cultural de Neves-Corvo. Arquivo de Beja 2' side 3: 23-42.
Garcfa Alonso, J. L. 1996 Nombres griegos en -oussa, en el Mediterrineo Occidental. AnMisis lingefstico e hist6rico. Complutum 7: 105 -
124.
Garcfa de Figuerola, M. 1982 Nueva estela, decorada del tipo 11 en San Martin de Trevejo (CAceres). Zephyrus 34-35: 173-180.
Garcia Gelabert, M'. P., and J. W. Bldzqucz Martinez 1996 Relaci6n entre el proceso hist6rico: Tartessos, Colonizacion fenicia y ]a Alta Andalucfa. ComplutumExtra
(Homenaje al Prof Manuel Fern4ndez Miranda) 6 (1): 327-338.
Garcia Gclabert, M". P., and N. M. Molinero 1987 La Estdtica cerdmica en el Broncc Final. Revista de Arqueologia 20: 48-55.
Garcia Martin, A. 1990 Cafladas, codeletesy veredas. Junta de Castilla y Lion, Lion.
Garcia Sanchez, M., J. L. Carrasco, and A. Arias Jimenez 1976 Enterrmniento de IaEdad del Bronce de IaCuevade Frage en el Cerro Oscuro (Iznalloz, Granada). Cuadernosde
Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 1: 119-124.
Garcia Sanjudn, L. 1993 Registro funerarioy relaciones socialesen el S. O. (1500-1 100anc): indicadores estadisticos preliminares.
Arqueologia en el entorno del Bajo Guadalquivir, Universidad de Huelva : 209-23 8.
Garcia Sanjuk4 L. 1996 Un analisis de los origenes de la estratificaci6n social en la prehistoria del suroeste de la Peninsula Ibirica. La
Edaddel Bronce (c. 1700-1100ane121004300ANE). PhD Thesis, Universidad de Sevilla.
Garcia Sanjuin, L. 1999 Settlement patterns, economy and social orgarrisation in the southwest Iberian Bronze Age. Antiquity 73
(280): 337-352.
Garcia-Gelabert, P. 1989 LaEdaddelosmetales. Arqueologla de Castilla-La Mancha Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha : 71 -
92.
Garrido Pefla, I- 1997 Bell Beakers in the southern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula: Socioeconomic context and new data. Oxford
Journal ofArchaeology 16 (2)(2): 187-2 10.
Garrido Roiz, J. 1968 Excaviones en Huelva. El cabezo de la Esperanza. Excavaciones Arqueoldgicas en Espafla 63
Garrido Rofz, J. 1979 Mundo indfgena y orientalizante en la region del Tinto-Odiel. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologia 52: 3948.
Garrido Rofz, J. 1988 Influencias fordneas en el Circulo Fenicio del Atlintico: el complejo cultural de Huelva en el periodo
oricntalizante. Actas de Congresso Internacional "El Estrecho de Gibraltar" Ceuta : 399-406.
Garrido Rofz, J.. and E. M. Orta 1974 El Hierro 1. Estado actual de la investigaci6n en el Suroeste Peninsular. Huelva, Prehistoria y Antiguedad : 195-
211.
Gasco, J. 1994 Development and Decline in the Bronze Age of Southern France: Languedoc and Provence. In Development and
Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddat% pp. 99-128. J. R. Collis Publications, Sheff ield.
Gasull, J. 1986 ProblemAtica en tomo a la ubicacion de los asentarnientos fenicios en el sur de la Peninsula Ibdrica. Auld
Orientais 4: 193-202.
Gasull, P. 1982 Los soportes en el Bajo Guadalquivir. Intento de Clasificaci6n. Madrider Mitteilungen 23: 62-95.
Geanini, Aý 1991 Enterrarniento de la Edad del Bronce en ]a Presa del Rey. Arqueologia, Paleoetnologla y Etnografla 1: 13-30.
Geary, P. 1986 Sacred Commodities: The Circulation of Medieval Relics. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
perspective, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 169-191. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gebauer, A. B. 1995 Pottery production and the introduction of Agriculture in southern Scandinavia. In The Emergence ofPottery.
Technology and Innovation inAncient Societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 99-112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Gent, 11. 1983 Centralised storage in later prehistoric Britain. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 49: 263-286.
Genz, H. 1997 Northern slaves and the origins of Handmade Burnished Ware: A comment on Bankoff et aL QMA 9 [1996] 193.
209). Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 10: 109-111.
Gerloff, S. 1986 Bronze Age Class A Cauldrons. Typology, origins and chronology. Journal ofthe Royal Society of, 4ntiquaries
116: 84-115.
Giardino, C. 1992 Nuraghic Sardinia and the Mediterranean: Metallurgy and Maritime Traffic. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a
Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. T. Tykot and T. K. Andrews, pp. 304-317. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Giardino, C. a 1995 IlAfediterraneo0ccidentalefraA7VedVIIIsecoloaC CerchieMinerarieeMetallurgiche. TempusRepamtum.
British Archaeological Reports International Series N' 612, Oxford.
Gibson, A., and A. Woods 1990 Prehistoric Potteryfor theArchaeologist. Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Gibson, C. 1992 The Late Bronze. 4ge andEarly Iron, 4ge:, 4 Regional and Chronologicalframeworkfor central andsouthern
Portugal. Masters, University of Edinburgh.
Gibson, C. forthcoming Plain Sailing? The Iberian Peninsula at the cross-roads of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic in the Later
Bronze Age. In 4tlantic Europe, edited by B. Cunliffe and J. Henderson, Blackwell, Oxford.
Gibson, C. forthcoming The Ghost of a Hiatus? The Later Bronze Age of western Iberia. Actas do 30 Congeso do Peninsula
Jbirica (Vila Real 1999)
Gibson, C., V. Correia, C. Burgess, and S. Boardman 1998 Alto do Castelinho da Scrra (Montemor-o-Novo, tvora, Portugal). A preliminary report on the excavations at the
Late Bronze Age to Medieval site, 1990-1993. Journal ofIberian. 4rchaeology 1: 189-244.
Gibson, D. B., Geselowitz, H. N. 1988 Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe. Plenum Press, London.
Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution qfSociety outline ofthe theory ofstructuration. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gil, F. B., J. C. Senna-Martfnez, F. Guerra, A. I. Seruyo, and C. Fabiao 1989 Produ9bes metaldrgicos do Bronze Final do Cabego do Crasto de SAo Romao, Seia: Uma primeira andlise. Actay
do I0 Coloquio Arqueol6gico de Viseu, Viseu : 235-248.
Gil, J. 1, M. L. Mendndez, F. Reyes, and J. L. Reyes 1988 Excavaciones en el yacimiento del Bronce Medio del Cerro del Obispo, Castillo de Bayuela, Toledo. Actas del I
congreso de Historia de Castilla-La Mancha 111: 93- 100.
Gil Mascarell, M., and R. Enguix 1986 La cultura del Bronce Valenciano: Estado actual de la investigaci6n. Ilomenaje a Luis Siret (1934-1984) : 418.
424.
Gil Mascarell, M., and J. L. Pcfia Sanchdz 1994 Las fases de occupaci6n enel yacimiento de laMolad'Agrcs (Alicante). X; 7CongresoNacionaldeArqueolgja
(Murcia 1982) : 276-286.
Gil Mascarell, M., and A. Rodriguez Diaz 1986 Un enterramiento en cista en Villafranca de los Barros (Badajoz). Homenaje al Dr. Antonio Beltrdn Martinez
(Zaragoza): 339-343.
Gil Mascarell, M., A. Rodrfguez Diaz, and J. J. Enrfquez Navascuds 1986 Enterramientos en cista de la Edad del Bronce en la Baja Extremadura. Saguntum20: 9-41.
Gil Pullido, J., M. L. Menendez Robles, and J. L. Reyes Teller 1988 Excavaciones en elyacimiento del Bronce Medio del Cerro del Obispa. Madrid.
Gills, B. K., and A. G. Frank 1993 The World System. Five hundredyears orfive thousand? Routledge, London.
Gilman, A. 1976 Bronze Age Dynamics in Southeast Spain. DialecticalAnthropology 1: 307-319.
Gilman, A. 1981 The development of social stratification in Bronze Age Europe. CurrentAnthropology 22 (1): 1-23.
Gilman, A., Thomes, J. B. 1985 Land-use and Prehistory in South-east Spain. George, Allen & Unwin, London.
Gilman, A. 1987a Unequal Development in Copper Age Iberia. In Specializatiot; Exchange and Complex Societies, edited by E. M.
Brumfiel and T. K. Earle, pp. 22-29. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gilman, A. 1987b El AnMisis de Classe en la Prehistoria del Sureste. Trabajos de Prehistoria 44: 27-34.
Gilman, A. 1987c Regadioyconflictoensociedadesacýfalas. Boletin del Seminirio de Estudios deArteyArqueologia ?: 59-72.
Gilman, A. 1991 Trajectories towards social complexity in the later prehistory of the Mediterranean. In Chiefdoms, power,
economy and ideology, edited by T. K. Earle, pp. 146-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gilman, A. 1995a Prehistoric European Chiefdoms: Rethinking "Germanic" Societies. In Foundations ofSocial Inequality.,
Fundamental Issues in Archaeology, edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 235-250. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Gilman, A 1995b Recent trends in the Archaeology of Spain. In The Origins ofComplex Societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia,
edited by K. Lillios, pp. 1-6. International Monographs in Prehistory, Michigan.
Gilman, A., Femdndez-Miranda, M., Femdndez-Posse, M. D., Martin, C., 1997 Preliminary report on a Survey Program of the Bronze Age of Northern Albacete Province, Spain. In Encounters
and Transformations. TheArchaeology of1beria in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, G. A., and L. Prados-Torrcira, pp. 33-50. Sheff ield Archaeological Press, Sheffield.
Gimbutas, M. 1965 Bronze Age cultures ofCentral and Eastern Europe. La Ilaya, Mouton.
Godelier, M. 1977 Perspectives in MarxistAnthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Godelier, M. 1978 Infrastructure, Societies, and History. Current Anthropology 19: 763-771.
Godsen. C. 1985 Gifts and Kin in Early Iron Age Europe. Alan 20 (3): 475-493.
Godsen, C. 1989 Debt, production and prehistory. Journal ofAnthropolgical Archaeology 8: 355-387.
Gomes, M. V. 1974-1977 AsrochasdecoradasdaAlagoa(TondelaViscu). OArque6logoPortuguis7-9: 145-164.
Gomes, M. V. 1989 Das Origens A Romanizagao. In Hist6ria das Fortiftcaq6es Portugueses no Mundo, edited by pp. 9-26. Alfa,
S. A., Lisbon.
Gomes Ramos, P. 1996 Hachas y tortas de metal en la Peninsula Urica a finales de la Edad de Bronce. Arqueologla e Hist6ria de la
MinerjayMetal4rgia 2: 52-75.
G6mez Barrera, J. 1993 Manifestaciones de la. facies esquemAtica en cl centro y norte de la Penfnsula lbdrica. Espacio, Tiempoy Forma
5: 231-264.
G6mez Bellard, C., and P. Guerrin 1995 Los lagarcs del Alt de Benamiquia (Denia), en Jos infcios del viflo lbdrico. In . 4rqueologia del Viflo - los origens
del vifio en Occidente, edited by D. Rulz Mata, pp. 241-270. Universidad de Jdrez, Jdrez; de la Frontera.
G6mez Bellard, C, P. Guenin, E. Dfes, and G. Pdrez Jorda 1993 El vifto en los inicios de la. cultura, ibdrica. Revista de, 4rqueologia 142: 16-27.
G6mez de Soto, J. 1991 Le fondeur, le trafiquant et les cuisiniers. La broche d'Amathonte de Chypre et ]a chronologie absolue du Bronze
Final Atlantique. In Lý4ge du Bronze Atlantique. Actes du premier Colloque du Parc Archgologique de Beynac, edited by C. Chevillot and A. Coftyn, pp. 369-373. Association des Musdes du Sardlais, Beynac.
G6mez de Soto, J. 1993 Cooking for the Elite: Feasting equipment in the Late Bronze Age. In Trade and achange in Prehistoric Europe,
33, edited by C. Scarre and F. Healy, pp. 191-198. Oxbow Monographs, Oxford.
G6mez de Soto, J., and J-P. Pautreau 1998 Maisons, mythes, mort et metal en France Atlantique. In aiste uma Idade do Bronze Atldntico?, Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 10, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 125-138. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
G6mez, P. 1996 Andlisis de Escorias Fdrreas: nuevas aportaciones al conocimiento de ]a siderurgfa prerromana. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 53 (2): 145-155.
G6mez Ramos, P. 1993 Tipologiade lingotesde metal en los depositos del Bronce Final de laPenfnsulalbdrica. Cuadernosde
PrehistodayArqueologia de la UniversidadAutonoma de Madrid 20: 73-105.
G6mez Romero, M. 1961 La escritura bistuloturdctana. Revista de Arqueologla, Bibliotecay Museos LXIX (2): 879-948.
G6mez Toscano, F., G. Alvarez Garcfa, and F. Borja 1992 Ddposito funerkio del Bronce cn el Travertino do Aldjar (Huelva). Cuadernos del Suroeste 3: 43-56.
Gonqalves, A. H. 1981 A estaqAo prd-hist6rica do Monte Calvo (Bailo). Trabalhos do Instituto de, 4ntropolgia de Dr. Mendes Correa
Porto: 5-18.
Gongalves, A. H., and A. M. Arruda 1977 A cstagAo prd-hist6rica de Monte Calvo (Baiao). Noticia preliminar. 4rqueologia 3: 77-87.
Gonqalves, V. 1972 Uma Nova Necr6pole da Idade do Bronze: A gruta da Marmota. OArqueologoPortuguis6(sdrie3): 213-218.
Gonqalvcs, V. 1982 Cerro do Castelo de Santa Justa. Um povoado calcolitico fortif icado no Alto Algarve Oriental. Arqueologia 6: 42-
48.
Gonqalves, V. 1988-1989 A ocupaqfto prd-hist6rico do Monte Novo dos Albardeiros (Reguengos de Monsaraz). Portugalia N. S. 9-
10: 49-74.
Gongalves, V. S. 1987 0 povoado pr6-historico da Sala N" I (Pedr6gAo, Vidigueira): Notas sobre a campanha 1 (88). Portugalia VIII: 7-
16.
Gonýalvez, J. L. M. 1991 0 Povoado do Alto do Dafundo. Arqueologia 21: 24-26.
GonzAlez Cordero, A., and M. Alvarado Gonzalo 1989-1990 Nuevas estelas decoradas cn Extremadura - Valdctorres 11 y Salvatierra de Santiago. Revista de Ilistorla de
Universidade de Extremadura 10: 59-66.
GonzAlez Gomez, C. 1992 University of Granada Radiocarbon Dates VI. Radiocarbon 34 (1): 133-139.
GonzAlez Gomez, C. , J. D. L6pez GonzAlez, and M. Domingo Garcia 1982 University of Granada Radiocarbon Dates 1. Radiocarbon 24 (2): 217-22 1.
Gon7A]ez Gomez, C., and P. Sdnchez SAnchez 1991 University of Granada Radiocarbon Dates V. Radiocarbon 33 (3): 367-272.
GonzAlez Gomez, C. , P. Sdnchez SAnchez, and M. Domingo Garcia 1985 University of Granada Radiocarbon Dates II. Radiocarbon 27 (3): 610-615.
GonzAlez Gomez, C., P Sdnchez: S&nchez, and E.. Villafranca SAnchez 1986 University of Granada Radiocarbon Dates III. Radiocarbon 28 (3): 1200-1205.
GonzAlez Marion, P. 1989 El concepto dc frontera. Implicaciones teoricas de ]a nocion de tcrrit6rio politico. Arqueologia Espacial
13(Fronteras)
GonzAez Marcdn, P., V. Lull, and R. Risch 1992 Arqueologia de Europa, 2250-1200A. C Una introducclon a la 'edad del bronce". Sintesis, Madrid.
Gonzdlez Navarrete, J., and 0. Arteaga 1979 La necr6polis del Cerrillo Blanco y el poblado de Los Alcores (Porcuna, Jden). Noticarioilrqueol6gicoHispdnico
10: 183-217.
Gonzdlez Prats, A. 1978 Excavaciones en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce de les Planetes. Mas d'en Serrans, Benassal (Castell6n).
Cuadernois de Prehistoria y Arqueologia Castellonense 5: 207-24 1.
GonzAlez Prats, A. 1983a Estudio arqueol6gico delpoblamiento de anliguo de la Sierra de Crevillente. Universidade de Alicante, Alicante.
GonzAlez Pmts, A. 1983b La necrop6lis de crernaci6n del Bronce Final de Pena Negra de Crevillente. XVI Congreso Nacional de
Arqueologia : 285-292.
GonzAicz Prats, A. 1983c Pena Negra; Prehistoria y Protohistoria de la Sierra de Crevillente (Alicante). Revista de Arqueologia 28:?
GonzAlez Pmts, A. 1983d Pena Negra. Arqueologia en Alicante : 120-128.
Gonzdlez Prats, A. 1985a Los nuevos asentarnientos del final dc la Edad del Bronce: probldmatica cultural y cronol6gica. In Arqueologla
del Pais Valenciano: Panoramas y Perspectivas, edited by pp. 153-183. Universidad de Alicante, Alicante.
Gonzdlez Prats, A. 1985b Sobre unos elernentos materiales del cornercio fenicio en tierras del Sureste Peninsular. Lvcentvm 4: 101-134.
Gonzdlez; Prats, A. 1989a Ultimas aportaciones de las excavacioncs realizadas en la Pena Negra (1983-1987) el Bronce Final yI lierro
Antiguo del Sudcste y Pais Valenciano. XIX Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Caytell6n de la Plana, 1987) : 467475.
Gonzilez Prats, A. 1990 Nueva luz sobre laprolohistoria del sudeste. LaPefiaNegra. Universidad de Alicante, Alicante.
GonzAlez Prats, A. 1992 Una vivienda metal6rgica en la Pena Negra (Crevillente, Alicante). Aportaci6n al conocirniento del Bronce
AtWintico en la Peninsula lbdrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 49: 243-257.
GonzAlez Prats, A. 1993 La rnetal6rgia del Bronce Final en el Sudeste de la Peninsula lbdrica. In Hetaltirgia en la Peninsula lbdrica
durante el Primer Milenio a C. edited by A. Arana, M. Munoz, S. Rarnallo, and M. Ros, pp. 19-43. Univcrsidade de Murcia, Murcia.
Gonzdlez Prats, A., and M. Ruiz-GAlvez Priego 1989b La metalurgia de Pefla Negra en su contexto del Bronce Final del Occidente Europeo. XLY Congreso Nacional de
Arqueologia (Castell6n de la Plana 1987) : 367-376.
GonzAlez, P. S. 1940 Haflazgos arqueol6gicos en el Alto Yecla. Actas y Memorlas de la Sociedad Espahola de Antropolgia, Etnologia
yy Prehistoria 15: 103-124.
GonzAlez, P. V. 1996 La Isla de Malta en tpoca Fenklay Piinica. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 653,
Oxford.
Gonzd1ez Salas, S. 1940 Hallazgos arqueol6gicos en el Alto de Yecla. ActasyMemoriasdelaSociedadEspaholadeAntropologia,
Etnografla y Prehistoria XV
Gonzilez Wagner, C. 1995 Fenicios y aut6ctones en Tartessos. Consideraciones sobre las relaciones coloniales y la din; bnica de cambio cn el
suroeste de la Peninsula lbdrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 52: 109-126.
GonzAlez-Tablas, F. J. 1984-1985 Protocogotas Io el Bronce Medfo de la Meseta. Zephyrus 37-38: 267-276.
GonzAlez-Tablas, F. J., Arias, L., Benito, J. M. 1986 Estudio de la relaci6n relieve-sistema defensivo en los castro abulenses (fines de la Edad del Bronce-Edad del
Ifierro). Arqueolgia Espacial 9: 113-126.
GonzAlez-Tablas, F. J. 1989 Los niveles superiores de Sanchorreja. La primera Edad del Hierro en el borde meridional de la Messeta.
Trabajos de Prehistoria 46: 117-128.
Gonzdlcz-Tablas, F. J. 1991 Los Castillejos de Sanchorreja. Cogotas Iy Cogotas 11. Revista deArqueologia 122: 6-7.
Gonzdlez-Tablas, F. J., and M. A. Fano Martinez 1994 El fen6meno de la muerte en Cogotas 1: Una propuesta metodol6gica. Zephyrus XLVII: 93-103.
Goodenough, W. H. 1965 Rethinking'Status! and'Role': Toward a General Model of the Cultural Organization of Social Relationships. In
The Relevance ofModelsfor Social Anthropology, edited by M. Gluckman and F. Eggans, pp. 1-24. Frederick A. Praeger, New York.
Goody, J. 1982 Cooking, Cuisine and Class. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gould, R. 1982 To Have and Have Not: The Ecology of Sharing among Hunter-Gatherers. In Resource Managers: North
American andAustralian Hunter-Gatherers, edited by N. Williams and E. Hunn, pp. 69-91. Wcstview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Graslund, B. 1987 The birth ofprehistoric chronology. dating methods and dating systems in nineteenth century Scandinavian
archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Graves, M. W. 1994 Kalinga Social and Material culture boundaries: a case of spatial convergence. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology.
Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by W. A. Longacrc and J. M. Skibo, pp. 13-50. Smithsonian Institution press, Washington.
Graves-Brown, P. M. 1995 Fearful Symmetry. Wor/dArchaeology. SymbolicAspects ofEarly Technologies 27 (June): 88-99.
Gregory, C. 1980 Gifts to Men and Gifts to Gods: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in Contemporary Papua. Alan 15: 628-
652.
Gregory, C. 1982 Gifts and Commodities. Academic Press, London.
Guerra, A., C. FabiAo, and J. C. Scnna-Martfncz 1989 0 Cabego do Crasto de SAo Romlo, Seia. Alguns resultados preliminares das campanhas 1(1985) a3 (1987).
Actas do PCol6quio Arqueol6gico de Viseu : 189-234.
Guerrero Ayuso, V. M. 1995 El Vifto en la Protohistoria del MediterrAneo Occidental. In Arqueologia del Kilo. Los Origenes del viflo en
Occidente, edited by S. Celestino Pdrez, pp. 73-104. Universidad de Jdrez, Jdrez de la Frontera.
Guevera, I. L. de, M. Sinchez, M. Rodriguez, and M. Lazarich 1992 Materiales indditos de Setefilla (Lora del Rfo, Sevilla). Spal 1: 293-312.
Guilane, J. 1972 Lý4ge du Bronze en Languedoc Occidental. Klincksieck, Rousillon, Arfte.
Guilane, J. 1987 Le sud de la France, la Corse ct la circulation de bronzes de 1200 A 500 avant J. C. La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo
trailsecondoeilprimeromillennioaC Atti del I[Convegno di studi "Un millennia di relazionifra la Sardegna e1 Paest del Mediterraneo" (Selargius-Cagliari, 1986) : 443464.
Guilane, J. 1995 LaMerPartagge. La Miditerranje avant Ltcriture 7000 atd 2000 avJC. Hachette Livre, Departamednt de
Centre National de Livre, Hachette.
Gurenich, A-V. 1995 From Landscape to Individuality. Archaeological Dialogues 2 (1): 28-30.
Haas, J. 1982 The Evolution ofthe Prehistoric State. Columbia University Press, New York.
Hally, D. J. 1980 Use alteration ofpottery vessel surfaces., an important source ofevidencefor the identification oftesselfunction.
Paper presented at the 37th meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans.
Hammer, C. U., Clausen, H. B., Friedrich, W. L., Tauber, 11. 1987 The Minoan eruption of Santorini in Greece dated to 1645BC? Nature 328: 517-519.
Hammond 1987 The Iliad (Homer translatedfrom Latin). Penguin Classics, London.
Harbison, P. 1967 Mediterranean and Atlantic elements in the Early Bronze Age of northern Portugal and Galicia. Madrider
Mitteilungen 8: 100-122.
Hardin, F. M. A. 1977 Individual style in San Josd pottery painting: the role of deliberate choice. In The individual in prehistory, edited
by J. N. Hill and J. Gunn, pp. Academic Press, New York.
Hardin, F. M. A. 1978 The cognitive basis of productivity in a decorative art style: implications of an ethnographic study for
archaeologist's taxonomies. In Ethnoarchaeology: implications ofethnographyfor archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 75 - 101. Columbia University Press, New York.
Hardin, F. M. A. 1984 Models of Decoration. In The Many Dimensions ofPottery, edited by S. van der Leeuw and A. Pritchard, pp. 573 -
607. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Harding, A. F. 1976 Bronze Age Agricultural Implements in Bronze Age Europe. In Problems in economic and social Archaeology,
edited by G. Sicveking, H. Longworth, and K. E. Wilson, pp. 513-521. Duckworth, London.
Harding, A. F. 1983 The Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe, Advances and Prospects. In Advances in Wor/dArchaeology
Volume 2, edited by F. Wendorf and A. E. Close, pp. 1-50.
Harding, A. F. 1984a The Myceneans and Europe. Academic press, London.
Harding, A. F. 1984b Aspects of the social evoloution in the Bronze Age. In European Social Evolution. Archaeological
Perspectives, edited by J. Bintliff, pp. 135-146. Bradford University Press, Bradford.
Harding, A. F. 1989 Interpreting the evidence for agricultural change in Late Bronze Age Europe. In BronzeAge Studies 6, edited by
H. A. Nordstr8rn and A. Knape, pp. 173-181. Museum of National Antiquities, Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm.
Harding, A. F. 1990 The Wessex Connection: Developments and Perspectives. RdmIsch Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mitteilungen
15(Orientalisch-Agiiische Einflasse in der Europaischen Bronzezeit): 13 9-154.
Harding, A. F. 1994 Reformation in Barbarian Europe, 1300-60OBC. In Prehistoric Europe. An Illustrated History, edited by B.
Cunliffe, pp. 304-335. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Harding, A. F. 1999 Warfare: a defining characteristic of Bronze Age Europe? In Ancient warfare, edited by J. Carman and A.
Harding, pp. 157-174. Sutton, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Haro, J. de, Vela, F. 1988 Los yacirnientos del Calcolftico y del Bronce en el Noroeste de la, provincia de Ciudad Real. In I Congreso de
Historiade Castilla-La Mancha. Pueblos y Culturas prehist6ricas y protohist6ricas, edited by AAVV, pp. 271-282. Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La, Mancha, Toledo.
Hanis, M. 1979 Cultural Materialism. Random House, New York.
Harris, M. 1989 Cows, goats warriors and brujas. Cultural enigmas. Alianza, Madrid.
Harrison, R. J. 1974 Ireland and Spain in the Early Bronze Age. Journal ofthe Royal Society ofAntiquaries of1reland 104: 52-73.
Harrison, R. J. 1977 The Bell Beaker cultures ofSpain and Portugat. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Harrison, KJ. 1980 The Beaker Folk. Thames and Hudson, London.
Harrison, F-J. 1983 Notas sobre el empleo de la plata en la cultura Argar del SE Peninsular. In Homenaje al Professor Almagro
Basch, edited by pp. 17-21. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
I larrison, R. J. 1985 The "Policultivo ganadero" or the secondary products revolution in Spanish agriculture 5000-1 OOOBC.
Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 51: 75-102.
Harrison, P-J. 1988 Spain at the Dawn of1fistory: Iberians, Phoenicians and Greeks. Thames and I ludson, London.
I larrison, F-J. 1993 La intensificati6n econ6mia y la integraci6n del moda de vida pastoril durante la edad del bronce. Actas do 10
Congresso Peninsular de Arqueologia. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, Porto 33 (3-4): 293-299.
1 larrison, R. J. 1994 The Bronze Age in Northern and Northeastern Spain. In Development and Decline In the Mediterranean Bronze
Age, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart, pp. 73-98. Sheffield Archaeological Press, Sheffield.
Harrison, R. J., T. Bubncr, and A. Hibbs 1976 The Beaker pottery from El Acebuchal, Carmona (Prov. Sevilla). Madrider Mitleilungen 17: 79-14 1.
Harrison, RJ., and P. T. Craddock 1981 A study of the Bronze Age metalwork from the Iberian Peninsula in the British Museum. Ampurias 43: 113-179.
Harrison, P-J., and A. Gilman 1977 Trade in the Second and Third Millennia BC between the Maghreb and Iberia. InAncient Europe and the
Mediterraneam Studies Presented in honour ofHugh Hencken, edited by V. Markotic, pp. 90-104. Aris and Phillips, Warminster.
Harrison, F-L., and A. Gilman 1978 Trade in the Second and Thrid Millennium BC between the Maghreb and Iberia. In The Origins ofMetallurgy in
Atlantic Europe. Proceedings ofthe Fifih Atlantic Colloquium., edited by M. Ryan, pp. 91-104. Dublin.
Hastorf, C. A. 1990 One Path to the Heights: Negotiating Political Inequality in the Sausa of Peru. In The Evolution ofPolitical
Systems. Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by S. Upham, pp. 146-176. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hastorf, C. A. 1993 Agriculture and the Onset ofPolitical Inequality before the Inka. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hausman, C. F_ 1989 Metaphor andArt. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hawkes, C. 1952 Las relaciones en el bronce final entre la Penfnsula lbdrica y las Islas Britdnicas con respecto a Francia y la Europa
Central y MediterrAnea. Ampurias 14: 81-119.
Hawkes, C. 1971 The Sintra gold collar. The British Museum Quarterly 35 (1-4): 38-50.
Hayden, Brian 1992 Observing Prehistoric Women. In Exploring Gender Through Archaeology, edited by C. Claassen, pp. 3347.
Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Hayden, B. 1995 The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. In The Emergence oftottery., Technology and Innovation
in Ancient Societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 257-265. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Hays, K. A. 1993 When is a Symbol Archaeologically Meaningful? Meaning, function and prchistoric visual arts. In Archaeological
Theory. Who sets the Agenda?, edited by N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt., pp. 81-92. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heath, D. B. 1976 Anthropological perspectives on alcohol: an historical review. In Cross-cultural approaches to the study of
a1cohoL an interdisciplinary perspective, edited by M. EvereM J. Waddell, and D. B. Heath, pp. 41-101. Mouton, The Hague.
Heath, D. B. 1987a A decade of development in the anthropological study of alcohol use: 1780-1980. In Constructive Drinking.
perspectives on drink-from anthropology, edited by M. Douglas, pp. 16-69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heath, D. B. 1987b Anthropology and alcohol studies: current issues. Annual Review ofAnthropology 16: 99-120.
Iledeager, L. 1992 Iron Age societies: From tribe to state in northern Europe JOOBC-AD 700. Blackwell, Oxford.
Ileizer, R. 1966 Ancient Heavy Transport Methods, and Achievements. Science 153 (3): 821-830.
Helms, M. W. 1988 Ulysses'Sail. An ethnographic Odyssey ofPower, Knowledge and Geographical Distance. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Helms, M. W. 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Art, Trade and Power. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Hencken, H. 1955-1956 Fragmentos de cascos de Huelva. Ampurias 17-18: 224-228.
Hencken, H. 1956 Carp's Tongue swords in Spain, France and Italy. Zephyrus VII: 124-178.
Hencken, 11. 1957 The fibulae from Huelva. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 22: 213-215.
Herail, G. 1984 Giomorphologie et Gitologie de Por detritique. CNRS, Paris.
HemAndez Gimdnez, F. 1967 Los caminos de C6rdoba hacia el Noroeste en dpoca musulmana. Al-Andalus 32: 37-123 and 277-358.
11cmdridez, M., 11- Simon, and J. A. L6pez 1994 Aguaypoder. El cerro del Cuchillo (Almansa, Albacete). Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo.
Hernando, D. P., and J. C. Jimdnez Rodrigo 1996 Una nueva estcla de gueffero. La estatua-menhir-estela de guerrero de Talavera de la Reina. Revista de
Arqueologia 96(December): 36-43.
Hernando Gonzalo, A. 1993 Campesinos y Ritos Funeririos: el Desarollo de la Complejidad en el Mediterraneo Occidental (IV-11 milenios
A. C. ). 1* Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular (Porto). Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Einologia 33 (3-4): 91-98.
Hernando Gonzalo, A. 1997 The Developinnent of Cultural Complexity in the Western Mediterranean: A New Approach. In Encounters and
Transformations. TheArchaeology oflberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 51-58. Sheffield Academic Press, Shcff ield.
Hernando Gonzalo, A., and J. M. Vicent Garcia 1987 Una aproximacion cuantitativa at problcma de la intensificacion ccon6mica en el calcolitico del surocste de la
Peninsula lbdrica. In El origen de la metalurgia en la Peninsula Wrica. L, edited by M. Femdndez-Miranda, pp. 23-39. Ed. Complutense, Madrid.
Hernando Grande, A. 1976 Representad ones del escudo en la Peril nsula IWrica: escudos en cstelas. CuadernosdePrehistoriayArqueologia
de la UniversidadAut6noma de Madrid 3: 127-135.
Hernando Grande, A. 1990 Matcriales metdlicos de la Edad de Bronce en la Meseta: Annas. Fspacio, Tlempo y Forma 1 (3): 143-20 1.
Hernando Grande, A. 1992 Entorno a los ddpositos de la Edad del Bronce. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma Prehistoria y Arqueologla Sgrie I
5: 377-387.
Hernando Grande, A., and C. Galdn 1989 Annas mctdlicas en la motilla de Santa Marla del Retamar. Fspaclo, Tiempoy Forma. Prehistorla Sdrie 1
(2): 197-221.
Hernando Luna, R. 1989 Antiguas vfas de communicaci6n en la provincia de C6rdoba. Boletin de la RealAcademia de C6rdoba 116: 1 It - 115.
Hill, J. D. 1989 Rethinking the Iron Age. Scottish Archaeological Review 6: 16-24.
Hill, J. D. 1993 Can we recognise a different European past? Journal ofEuropean ArchaeoloSy 1: 57-75.
Hill, J. D., and C. G. Cumberpatch 1993 Volviendo a pensar Ia Edad del Hierro. Trabajos de Prehistoria 50: 127-137.
Hill, J. N. 1970 Broken K Pueblo: prehistoric social organisation in the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press,
Tuscon.
Hill, J. N., and J. Gunn 1977 The individual in prehistory. Academic Press, New York.
Hirth, K. 1978 Interregional trade and the formation of Gateway Communities. American Antiquity 43 (1): 34-45.
Hack, M. 1979 Excavaciones en el Castro de Sao Juzenda, concelho de Mirandela (Portugal). CongresoNacionaldeArqueologia
XV, Lugo 1977: 393-398.
Hack, M. 1980 Corte estratigrgico no castro de Sao Juzenda. Actas do I*Semin4rio de Arqueologia do Noroeste Peninsular 2: 55-
70.
Hodder, 1. 1979 Economic and social stress and material culture patterning. American Antiquity 44 (3): 446454.
Hodder, 1. 1982a Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies ofMaterial Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, 1. 1982c Sequences of structural change in the Dutch Neolithic. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by
I. Hodder, pp. 162-177. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, 1. 1985 Boundaries as Strategies: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In The Archaeology offrontiers and Boundaries, edited
by S. W. Green and S. M. Perlman, pp. 141-159. Academic Press, New York.
Hodder, 1. 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, 1 1990 Style as Historical Quality. In The Uses ofStyle in Archaeology, edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 44-5 1.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, 1 1991 Postprocessual Archaeology and the Current Debate. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Kfultiple
Ways ofKnowing the Past, edited by R. W. Preucel, pp. 30-41. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Hodder, 1. 1993 The narration and rhetoric of material culture sequences. World Archaeology 25: 268-282.
Hodder. I. 1995b Material Culture in Time. In Interpreting Archaeology, edited by Le. a. Hodder, pp. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hodges, R. 1982 the Evolution of Gatewat Communities: Their socio-economic interpretations. In Ranking, Resource and
Exchange edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 117-123. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hodson, F. R. 1977 Quantifying I Iallstatt: Some Initial Results. American Antiquity 42 (3): 394-412.
Hooper, B., and B. O'Connor 1976 A bronze spearhead and its shaft from the river Thames at Hammersmith. Archaeological Journal 133: 33-37.
Hoopes, J. W., and W. K. Barnett 1995 The Shape of Early Pottery Studies. In The Emergence ofPottery., Technology and Innovation in Ancient
Societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 1.10. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Horton, D. 1943 I'lie functions of alcohol in primitive societies: a cross-cultural study. Quarterly Journal ofStudies on Alcohol
4: 199-320.
Houston, J. M. 1964 The western Mediterranean world. Longmans, London.
Humphreys, S. C., and H. King 1981 Mortality and Immortality. The Anthropology andArchaeology ofDeath. Academic Press, London.
Hurtado P&ez, V. 1981 Las figuras humanas del yacimiento de La Pijotilla (Badajoz). Madrider Mitteilungen 22: 78-88.
Hurtado Pdrez, V. 1984 La excavaci6n do una sepultura circular de la Edad del Bronce on Guadajira (Badajoz). 116menaje a Cdnovas
Pesin! (Badajoz): 25-35.
Hurtado Pdrez, V. 1988 Excavaciones en el yacimiento de El Tmstej6n (Zufre, Huelva). Primera campafta, 1988. Informc preliminar.
Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia II(Actividades SistemAticas): 158-164.
Hurtado Pdrez, V. 1990 Manifestaciones rituales y rcligiosas en la Edad del Bronce. Zephyrus XLIII: 165-174.
Hurtado Pdrez, V. 1995 Informe do las excavaciones de urgencfa on "La Pijotilla". Campaha do 1990. FxtremaduraArqueol6gica 2: 45-
67.
Hurtado Pdrez. V., and F. Amores 1984 El tholos do las canteras y los cnterramientos del Bronce en la ndcropolis de El Gandul (AlcalA do Guadaira,
Sevilla). CuadernosdePrehistoriade la Universidadde Granada 9: 147-174.
Hurtado Pdrez, V. , and J. J. Enriquez Navascues 1991 Excavaciones en Palacio Quemado (Alange, Badajoz). Informe Preliminar. lJornadas de Prehistoriay
Arqueologia en Extremadura (1986-1990). Extremadura Arqueol6gica 11: 69-87.
Hurtado Pdrez, V., and L. Garda Sanjuan 1993 Areas funcionales en el poblado do la Edad del Bronco do El Trastej6n (Zufre, I luelva). Encuentro de
Arqueologia del Suroeste (Documento de Trabajo) Huelva: 183-214.
Huxley, A. 1983 (repr. 1994) Moshka: writings on Psychedelics and the Visionary Experience. Penguin, London.
Ib6hez Castro, A. 1987 Recuperaci6n de dos estelas decoradas. Revista de Arqueologia 80: 64-65.
Iglesias Gil, J1. 1980a Estela inddita hallada en El Viso (C6rdoba). Archivo Espahol de Arqueologia 53: 189-193.
Iglesias Gil, J-L 1980b Nueva estelaprocedente del Viso (C6rdoba). Zephyrus30-31: 254-256.
IGME 1972 Mapa do Cuivre de Extremadura. In edited by, pp. vol. general editor. Junta de Extremadura, Conserja de
Industria, Extremadura.
IGME 1972 Mapa do Estafto de Extremadura. In edited by, pp. vol. general editor. Junta de Extremadura, Conserja do
Industria, Extremadura.
IGME 1987 La Minerfa en Extremadura. In edited by, pp. vol. general editor. Junta de Extremadura, Conseria de Industria,
Extremadura.
Ingold, T. 1986 The appropriation ofnature. Essays on human ecology and social relations. Manchester University Press,
Manchester.
Irwin, G. J. 1978 Pots and entrep6ts: a study of settlement trade and the development of economic special isation in Papuan
prehistory. World, 4rchaeoloSy 9 (3) Landscape Archaeology: 299-319. Jaanusson, H., Jaanusson, V.
1988 Sea-salt as a Commodity of Barter in Bronze Age trade of Northern Europe. In Trade and Fxchange in Prehistory. Studies in Honour ofBerta Syernquist, 16, edited by B. Hardh, pp. 107-112. Acta Arqucologica Lundensia, Lund.
Jalhay, E. 1943 0 esconderijo do P6rto de Concelho (Magdo, Beira Alta). Broteira 38: 263-277.
Jalhay, E., and A. Pago 1948 Lisboa hd 4000 aAos. A estagao pri-hist6rica de Montes Claros (Monsanto). Lisboa e seu Termo, estudos e
documenlos 1: 51-58.
James, P. J., I. J. Thorpe, N. Kokkinos, and J. A Frankish 1987 Bronze to Iron Age Chronology in the Old World: Time for a Reassessment? In Studies in. 4ncient ChronoloSy,
edited by P. J. James and I. J. Thorpe, pp. London.
James, P. J., I. J. Thorpe, N. Kokkinos, R. Morkot, and J. A. Frankish 1991 Centuries ofDarkness. .4 challenge to the convenjýnal chronology ofOld WorldArchaeology. Jonathan Cape,
London.
Jankowiak, W., Bradburd, D. 1996 Using Drug Foods to Capture and Enhance Labor: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Current Anthropology 37
(5)(5): 717-720.
Janssen, C. R. 1981 A preliminary radiocarbon dated pollen sequence from the Serra da Estr6la, Portugal. Finisterra 16 (3): 299-309.
Janssen, C. R. 1985 Hist6ria da vegetagAo. In Livro-Guia da Pri-Reunijo. Glaciavio da Serra da Estr6la - Aspectos do Quaternirio
da OrlaVldnfica, edited by S. Daveau, pp. 66-72. G. T. P. E. Q., Lisbon.
Jansson, S. B. 1962 The Runes ofSweden. Methuen, London.
Jensend. 1982 The Prehistory ofDenmark Methuen, London.
Jimdnez do Gregorio, F. 1954 Tres puentes sobre cl Tajo en el Medievo. Hispania 14: 163-226.
Jimdnez Guijarro, J., and M. Diaz-Guadamino Uribe 1999 Los menhires decoradaos de "El Catial" (Alpedrete, Madrid). Arqueologia 24: 61-72.
Jimeno Martinez, A. 1978 Aportaci6n al Bronze Final y Primer Ferro. Los Tolmos (Caracena). RX U. S. 1: 55-66.
Jimeno Martinez, A. 1982a Los Tolmos de Caracena: Un yacimiento del Bronco Medfo Meseteflo. Revista de Arqueologia 3: 44-54.
Jimeno Martinez, A. 1982b Las fechas de C. 14 del yacimiento do los Tolmos de Caracena (Soria). TrabajosdePrehistoria39: 335-341.
Jimeno Martinez, A. 1984 Los Tolmos de Caracena (Soria). Campaflas de 1977,1978 y 1979. Nuevos bases para el estudio do la Edad del
Bronce en la zona del Alto Duero. In Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en Espafla 134, edited by pp. Madrid.
Jimeno Martinez, A., and J. J. Femdndez Moreno 1991 Los Tolmos de Caracena (Soria). Aportaci6n al Bronce Medio do ]a Meseta. &cavaciones Arqueol6gicas en
&pana 134(Madrid): 1-56.
Jimeno Martinez, A., and J. J. Fcmdndez Moreno 1991 Los Tolmos do Caracena (Soria). Campaflas 1981 y 1982. Aportaci6n al Bronce Medio de la Meseta
Fxcavaciones Arqueoldgicas en Espaila 134: 72-104.
Jimeno Martinez, A., and M. L. Revilla AndilIa 1986 Elhorizonte Campaniforinede"EIGuijar". Alma7an (Soria). Numantiall
Joffroy, I- 1979 VLv es ses trisors. Librairie Jules Tallandier, Paris.
Johnson, A. W., and T. Earle 1987 The Evolution ofHuman Societies: from Foraging to the Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Johnson, H. 1989 The Story of Wine. Mitchell Bcazley, London.
Johnstone, P. 1980 The Sea-Crafi ofPrehistory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Jones, G. T., and R. D.. Leonard 1989 The Concept of Diversity: An Introduction. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R. D. Leonard and
G. T. Jones, pp. 1-3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jones, R. E., and L. Vagnetti 1987 Toward the identification of local Mycenean pottery in Italy. In Problems in Greek Prehistory. BSA centenary
conference papers (Manchester 1986), edited by E. B. French and K. Wardle, pp. 335-348. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol.
Jorge, V. 0. 1990 Complexificaq1to das sociedades a sua inserqao numa vasta rede de intercambios. In Portugal. Das origens a
Romankavio, edited by V. 0. Jorge, J. P. Cunha Ribeiro, S. O. Jorge, A. Coelho, J. Alarefto, and J. Encamagao, pp. 213-225. Editorial Presenqa, Lisbon.
Jorge, S. 1996 Regional Diversity in the Iberian Bronze Age: On the Visibility and Opacity of the Archaeoogical Record.
Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia 36: 193-214.
Jorge, S. O. 1980a A estaqAo arqucol6gica do do Tapado da Caldeira (BaiAo). Portug6lia (X. S. ) 1: 29-55.
Jorge, S. O. 1980b A necr6pole do Tapada da Caldeira. Arqueologia 2: 36-44.
Jorge, S. 0 1981 Sondagens Arqueol6gicas na Estaqfto do Alto da Caldeira (BaiAo). Arqueologia 3(June): 67-76.
Jorge, S. 0 1983 DuasdatasdeCl4paraasepulturaldaestagiodoTapadodaCaldeira. Arqueologla&55-56.
Jorge, S. O. 1985 Datas de Carbono 14 para a Pr6-hist6ria reccnte do Norte de Portugal. Arqueologia 12(Dczcmbro): 154-184.
Jorge, S. O. 1986 Povoadas dapri-hist6ria recente da regido de Chaves- PPouca de Agular (Trds-os-Montes Ocidental). Doctoral,
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto.
Jorge, S. O. 1988a 0 Povoado da Bouqa do Frade no Quadro do Bronze Final do Norte de Portugal. Arqueologia 16 (June): 134.
136.
Jorge, S. O. 1988b Reflex6es sobre a prd-hist6ria recente do Norte de Portugal. TrabalhosdeAntropologiaeEinologia28(1-2): 85-
112.
Jorge, S. O. 1988c 0 Povoado da Bouqa do Frade (Baido) no quadro do Bronze Final do Norte de Portugal. G. E. A. P.. Porto.
Jorge, S. 0 1990 Desenvolvimicnto da hierarquizaqAo social e da mctalurgia. In Nova Hist6ria de Portugal, vol. 1. Portuga. Das
origensii Romanizacdo, edited by V. 0. Jorge, J. P. Cunha Ribeiro, S. O. Jorge, A. Coelho, J. Alarcao, and J. EncamaqAo. pp. 163-212. Editorial Presenqa, Lisboa.
Jorge, S. 0 1991b Datas de Carbono 14 para a Prd-Historia recente do Norte de Portugal. In Incurs5es na Pri-Historia, edited by
S. 0 Jorge and V. 0. Jorge, pp. Fundaglo Ant6nio de Almeida, Porto.
Jorge, S. O. 1999a Bronze Age stelae and menhirs of the Iberian Peninsula: Discourses of power. In Gods andHeroes ofthe
European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. ElUre, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhovel, and J. -P. Mohen, pp. 114-122. Thames and Hudson, London.
Jorge, S. O. 1999b Bronze Age Settlements and Territories in the Iberian Peninsula: New considerations. In Gods and Heroes ofthe
European Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. Elu&e, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhovel, and J. -P. Mohen, pp. 60-64. Thames and I ludson, London.
Jorge, V. 0. 1985 Novas dataq? Ses de radiocarbono para marnoas do concelho de Baiao. Arqueologia 11: 182-183.
Jorge, V. 0. 1988 Campo Arqueol6gico da Serra da Abobereira. Arqucologia do Concelho de Baiao. Resultados dc 10 aflos de
trabalho. Arqueologla 17: 5-26.
Jorge, V. 0- 1990 ComplexificagAo das sociedades c sua insergao numa vasta rede de intercambios. In Nova Hist6ria de Portugal,
vol. 1. Portugal Das origens6 RomanizaVio, edited by V. 0. Jorge, J. P. Cunha Ribeiro, S. O. Jorge, A. Coelho, J. Alarcao,
and J. EncamaqAo, pp. 213-251. Editorial Presenqa, Lisboa.
Jorge, V-0. 1995 Late Prehistoric funerary mounds in northern Portugal as indicators of social coplcxity. In The Origins ofcomplex
societies in late prehistoric Iberia, edited by K. Lillios, pp. 140-152. International Monographs in prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
jorge, V. O., F. Alonso, and G. Delibrias 1988 Novas datos de carbono 14 para mamoas da Serra da Abobeira. Arqueologia 18: 95-99.
Junquera, M. P. 1995 Un nuevo yacimiento del Bronce Final Tartdsico: EI Cortijo Vaina (Cädiz). Boletin de la Asoclacion F4panola de
Amigos de la Arqueologia 35: 123.135.
Jurado, J. F. 1988-1989 Tartessos y Huelva. Huelva Arqueologia X-XI:? all.
Kalb, Ph. 1974-1977 Uma data C- 14 para o Bronze Atläntico; Castro da Senhora da Guia, Daiöes. 0 Arqueolögo Portuguos 7-9:?
Kalb, Ph. 1978 Senhora da Guia, Baiöcs: die Ausgrabung 1977 auf einer Höhensiedlung der atlantischer Bronzczeit in Portugal.
Madrider Mitteilungen 19: 112-138.
Kalb, Ph. 1979a Excavaciones en el Castro Senhora da Guia, Baiöes, Säo Pedro do Sul. XVCongreso Nacional de Arqueologl'a
: 581-590.
Kalb, P. 1979b Contribucift para el estudio del Bronce Atläntico: Excavaciones en ei castro "Senhora da Guia" de Balbes
(concelhodeS. PedrodoSul). CronicadelXVCongresoArqueolögicoNacional. Lugo1977. Zaragoza: 581-590.
Kalb, Ph. 1980 Zur Atlantischen Bronzezeit in Portugal. Germania 58: 25-79.
Kalb, Ph. 1980-1981 Zur relativen chronologie Portigiesischer Megalithgräber. Madrider Mitteilungen 22: 35-77.
Kalb, Ph. 1992 Ausgrabungen in der regiao de Vale de Redrigo. Madrider Mitteilungen 32: 1-28.
Kalb, Ph. 1994 Reflex5es sobre a utilizaqAo de necr6poles megalfticas na Made do Bronze. Estudos Prihistoricas. 0
Megalitismo no Centro PortugaL Actas do Seminarlo (Mangualde November 1992) 11: 415-426.
Kalb, Ph. 1995a 0 Povoado de Nossa Senhora da Guia, Bai6es. In A Made do Bronze em PortugaL Discursos de Poder, edited
by S. O. Jorge, pp. 68-69. Instituto Portugu6s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Kalb, Ph. 1995b Fonte da Malga. InA Made do Bronze em PortugaL Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 87-88.
Instituto Portuguas de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Kalb, Ph. 1998 ProduqAo local e relaý6es a longa distfincia na Idade do Bronze Atldntico do Oeste da Peninsula lbdrica. In Existe
uma Made do Bronze Atldntico?, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 10, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 157-165. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Kalb, Ph., and M. H6ck 1979 Escavagoes nanecr6polc dc mamoas'Fonte daMalga! - Viseu, Portugal. Beira Alta 38 (3): 593-604.
Kalb, Ph., and M. H6ck 1980 Cabego da Bruxa, Alpiarýa (Distrikt Santarim). Vorbericht Über die Graubung im Januar und Februar 1979.
Portugälla X. & 2-3.61-69.
Kalb, Ph., and M. H6ck 1981-1982 Cabeqo da Bruxa, Alpiarqa (Distrito de Santardm). Portugalla 11-111: 61-69.
Kalb, Ph., and M. Hdck 1983 Alto do Castelo, Alpiarqa (Distrito de Santardm). Madrider Mitteflungen 19: 112-138.
Kalb, Ph., and M. Hdck 1985 CerdmicadeAlpiarqa. Catdlogo daFxposiqJo tempordria na Galeria dos Patudos,, 41plarga. Museo de Alpiarga,
Alpiarqa.
Kalb, Ph., and M. H6ck 1988a 0 povoamento prt-hist6rico dc Alpiarqa. . 4rqueolgia 17: 193-200.
Kalb, Ph., and M. HOck 1988b Escavaciones en Alto do Castelo, Alpiarqa. ConimbrigaXXVII: 189-201.
Kalb, Ph., and M. HOck 1995 Vale de Rodrigo. Projecto Interdisciplinar para a Investigaqfto do Megalitismo numa regi5o do sul de Portugal.
Primero Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Porto 35 (2): 195-210.
Karageorghis, V. 1965 Sur quelques formes de vases particuliUcs ilacdramique Chypro-Mycdnienne. Nouveaux Documents pour
lIttude du Bronze Recent a Chypre : 203-207.
Karageorghis, V. 1975 Kition. Mycenean andPhoenician discoveries in Cyprus. London.
Karageorghis, V. 1987 Chronolique des fouilles et ddcouvertes archdologiques i Chypre en 1986. Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellenique 111: 663-733.
Karageorghis, V. , and F. Lo Schiavo 1989 A West Mediterranean Obelos from Amathus. RivistadiStudiFeniciXVII: 15-31.
Keeley, L. 1996 War before Civilisation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kelly, R. L.
1991 Sedentisn-4 Sociopolitical Inequality, and Resource Fluctuations. In Between Bands and States, Occasional Paper No. 9, cdited by S. A. Gregg, pp. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale.
Kempinski, A. 1989 Megiddo. A City State and Royal Centre in north Israel. Verlag C. H. Beck, Munich.
Kertzer, D. 1. 1988 Ritual. Politics, and Power. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Kimmig, W. 1983 Die Heuneburg an der oberen Donau. Konrad Theiss, Stuutgart.
Kitchen, K. A. 1987 The basis of Egyptian chronology in relation to the Bronze Age. In High, Middle or Low? Acts ofan
International Chronology held at the University ofGothenburg 20th -22ndAugust 1987, edited by P. Astrom, pp. 37-55. Gothenburg.
Knaap, W. O., and C. R. Janssen 1991 Utrecht on the Rocks - Serra da Estr6la (Portugal). State University of Utrecht Utrecht.
Knapp, A. B. 1988 Ideology, Archaeology and Polity. Man 23 (1): 133-163.
Knapp, A. B. 1990 Ethnicity, Entrepreneurship and Exchange: Mediterranean Inter-Island Relations in the Late Bronze Age. Annual
of the British School at Athens 85: 115-153.
Knapp, A. B., J. Muhly, and P. Muhly 1988 To hoard is human: Late Bronze Age metal deposits in Cyprus and the Aegean. Report ofthe Department of
Antiquities ofCyprus 1988.1: 233-262.
Kohl, P. L. 1985 Symbolic Cognitive Archaeology: Anew loss of innocence. Dialectical Anthropology 9: 105-117.
Kohl, P. L. 1987 The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age world-system: a view from the north-eastem
frontier of the Ancient Near East. In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 55-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kolb, C. C. 1985 demographic estimates in archaeology: Contributions from ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican peasants. Current
Anthropology 26: 581-599.
Kopytoff, 1. 1987 The Internal African frontier. In The African Frontier. The Reproduction oftraditional societies, edited by 1.
Kopytoff, pp. 3-84. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Kossack, G. 1971 The construction of the felloe in Iron Age spoked wheels. In The European community In laterprehistory.
Studies in honour ofCF. C. Hawkes, edited by J. Boardman, M. A. Brown, and T. G. E. Powell, pp. 141-163. Thames and Hudson, London.
Kramer, C. 1979 Ethnoarchaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Kristiansen, K. 1981 Economic Models for Bronze Age Scandinavia: Towards an Integrated Approach. In Economic Archaeology,
edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp. 239-303. BAR International Series 96, Oxford.
Kristiansen, K. 1982 The formation of tribal systems in later European prehistory. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited
by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands, and B. Seagraves, pp. 241-280. Academic Press, New York.
Kristiansen, K. 1987a Centre and Periphery in Bronze Age Scandinavia. In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, edited by M.
Rowlands, M. L. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, pp. 74-85. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kristiansen, K. 1987b From Stone to Bronze: the evolution of social complexity in northern Europe, 2300-120013C. In Specialisation,
Exchange and complex societies, edited by E. Brunifiel and T. Earle, pp. 30-5 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kristiansen, K. 1989 Value, ranking and consumption in the Bronze Age. In Bronze Age studies 6, edited by H. A. Nordstrom and A.
Knape, pp. 21-24. Museum of National Antiquities, Stateris Historiska Museum, Stockholm.
Kristiansen, K. 1993 Value, ranking and consumption in the European Bronze Age. In Domination andResistance, edited by D. Miller
and C. Tilley, pp. Unwin and Hyman, London.
Kristiansen, K. 1994 The Emergence of the European World System in the Bronze Age: Divergence, Convergence and Social Evolution
during the First and Second Millennia BC in Europe. In Europe in the First Millennium BC, edited by K. Kristiansen and J. Jansen, pp. 7-30. Sheffield University Press, Sheffield.
Kristiansen, K. 1998 Concluding Statement. In Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atldntico?, Trabalhos de Arqueologia I O, edited by S. O.
Jorge, pp. 291-293. InstitutoPortuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Kristiansen, K. 1999 The emergence of warrior aristocracies in later European prehistory. In Ancient warfare, edited by J. Carman and
A. Harding, pp. 175-190. Sutton, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Kroeber, A. 1948 Anthropology. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich, New York.
Kohn, H. 1956 The Rock Pictures ofEurope. Sidgwick and Jackson, London.
Kunst M. 1987 Bell Beaker sherds in Zambujal. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean, edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C.
Kennard, pp. 591-610. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 33 1, Oxford.
Kunst, M. 1988 The Pottery of Casa da Moura and Abrigos de Bocas, Portugal. Arqueologia 18(Dccembcr): 75-83.
Kunst, M. 1995a A Idade do Bronze na Extremadura. In A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O.
Jorge, pp. 124-130. Instituto Portugu8s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Kunstý M. 1995b Central places and social complexity in the Iberian Copper Age. In The Origins ofcomplex societies in Late
Prehistoric Iberia, Archaeological series 8, edited by K. Lillios, pp. 32-43. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Kunst, M. 1995c Zylindrische Gef0c kerblattuerzierung und Glockenbecher in Zambujal (Portugal). Ein Bcitrag zur
Kupferzeitlichen keramikcronologie. Madrider Mitteflungen 36: 135-149.
La Rosa, V. 1989 Sopralluoghi e ricerche attorno a Milena, nella media valle del Platani. CronachediArcheologial8: 1-27.
Lagarce, J. 1988 The Intrusion of the Sea Peoples and their acculturation: a parallel between Palestinian and Ras Ibn data.
Proceedings ofthe I International Symposium on Palestinian Antiquities. Studies in the Ifistory and Archaeolom, ofPajestine (Aleppo) : 137-169.
Lanting, J. N., Mook, W. G., van der Waals, J. D. 1973 C14 Chronology and the Beaker Problem. Helenium 13: 38-58.
Lathrap, D. 1983 Recent Shipibo-Conibo ceramics and their implications for archaeological interpretation. In Structure and
Cognition in Art, edited by D. Washburn, pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Laubenheimer, F. 1990 Le temps des amphores en Gaule: vins, huiles et sauces. Errance, Paris.
Lautensach, H. 1967 Geografla de Espailay Portugal. Vicens Vives, Barcelona.
Lawson, A. 1983 TheArchaeology of Witton, North Walsham. Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Norfolk.
Layton, R. 1986 Political and territorial structure among hunter-gathcrers. Man (M. S. ) 21: 18-33.
Leeuwarden, W., and C. R. Janssen 1985 A preliminary palynological study of peat deposits near an oppidurn in the lower Tagus valley. Actas da ID
Reunijo do Quaterndrio lbirico, Lisbon 2: 225-236.
Leisncr, G., and V. Leisner 1943 Die Megalithgrdber der lberischen Halbinsel. - Der Suden. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Leisner, G., and V. Leisner 1951 Antas do concelho de Reguengos de Monsaraz. materias para o estudo da cultura megalitica em Portugal.
Instituto para a Alta Cultura, Lisbon.
Leisner, V. 1961 Innenverzierte Schalen der Kupferzeit auf Iberischen Halbinsel. Madrider Mitteilungen 2: 1145.
Leisner, V. 1965 Die Megalithgrdber der lberischen Halbinsek Die Westen 3. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Leisner, V., and 0. Da Veiga Ferreira 1963 Primeras datas de rAdiocarbon 14 para a cultura megalitica portugucsa. Revista de Guimardes 73: 358-366.
Leisner, V., and L. Ribeiro 1968 Die Dolmen von Carapito. HadriderMitteilungen9: 11-62.
Leisner, V, and H. Schubart 1966 Die kupferzeitliche Befestigung von Pedra da Ouro, Portugal. Madrider Mitteilungen 6: 947.
Leisner, V., and 11. Schubart 1966 Die Kupferzeitliche Befestigung von Pedra do Ouro. Madrider Mitteilungen 7: 9-60.
Leisner, V., G. Zbyskewski, and 0. da Veiga Ferreira 1969 Les monuments prehistoriques da Praia das Maqas et de Casainhos. Servigos Geologios de Portugal Mem6ria 16
Levy, J. 1982 Social and Ritual Organisation in Bronze Age Denmark*An Analysis ofRitual Hoard Finds. B. A. R. British
Archaeological Reports International Series NO 124, Oxford.
Lewis, G. 1980 Day ofShining Red An Essay on Understanding Ritual . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lewis Williams, J. D. 1991 Wrestling with Analogy: a methodological dilemma in Upper Palaeolithic research. Proceedings ofthe
Prehistoric Society 57 (1): 149-162.
Lewis Williams, J. D. 1995 Seeing and Constructing: The Making and Meaning of a southern African Rock Art motif. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 5 (1): 3-23.
Lewis Williams, J. D., and T. A. Dowson 1988 The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art. Current Anthropology 29 (2, April): 20 I.
245.
Lcwthwaite, J. 1986 Nuraghic Foundations: An Alternative Model of Development in Sardimian Prehistory. In Studies in Sardinian
Archaeology 11. Sardinia in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth, pp. 19-37. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Lillios, K. t 1991 Competition to Fission: The Copper-BronzeAge transition in the lowlands ofwest-central Portugal (3000-
I000BQ. Phl), Yale University.
Lillios, K. 1993a Regional settlement abandonment at the end of the Copper Age in the lowlands of west-central Portugal. In
Abandonment ofSettlements andRegions, edited by C. M. Cameron and S. A. Tomka, pp. 110-120. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lillios, K. 1993b Agroal and the Early Bronze Age of the Portuguese Lowlands. Trabalhosde. 4ntropologiaeEtnologia33(3-
4): 261-291.
Liflios, K. 1995 The Ilistiography of late Prehistoric Portugal. In The Origins ofComplex Societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia,
edited by K. Lillios, pp. 7-17? International Monographs in Prehistory, Michigan.
Lillios, K. 1997 Groundstone Tools, Competition, and Fission: The Transition from the Copper to the Bronze Age in the
Portuguese Lowlands. In Encounters and Transformations. The Archaeology of1beria in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 25-32. Sheffidd Academic Press, Sheffield.
Lilliu, G. 1973 Tripode bronzeo di tradizione cipriota dalla grotta Pirosusu Benatzu di Santadi (Cagliari). Fitudios dedicados al
Prof Luis Pericot. Barcelona : 283-313.
Lilliu, G. 1982 La Civilta nuragica. Sassari.
Lima, J. Fragosa de 1960 Castro de Ratinhos (Moura, Baixo Alentejo). Zephyrus 11: 233-237.
Lisboa, I. 1987a Observations concerning the Beaker phenomenon. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean, edited by
W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 25-26. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N" 33 1, Oxford.
Lisboa, I. 1987b The Tagus Beaker. Society, form and content. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean, edited by W. 1 1.
Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 611-636. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 33 1, Oxford.
Little, G. 1985 The technology of pottery manufacture in the Iron Age of north-west Portugal. Cadernos de Arqueologia 11
(2): 249-252.
Little, G. 1990 The technology of pottery production in Northwestern Portugal during the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age.
Cadernos de Arqueologia-Monografias, Braga IV (1): 34-56.
Livermore, 11. 1971 The Origins ofSpain and Portugal. Allen and Unwin, London.
Llanos, A. 1983 Desde el desarrolIo de la metalOrgia haste el poblado de La floya. In MuseoArquol6gico deAlava, edited by A.
Baldc6n, pp. 65-80. Museo de Alava, Vit6ria.
Llanos, A. 1991 a La Had del Hierro y sus precedentes, en Alava y Navarra. Munibe 42: 167-179.
Llanos, A. 1991 b Dos nuevos yacimicntos del Horizonte Cogotas 1, en Alava. El dep6sito en hoyo de "La Paul" y Cueva de Los
Goros. Cuadernosdesecci6n. PrehistoriayArqueologia4: 219-238.
LLanos, A., J. M. Apellaniz, J. A. Agorreta, and J. Fariflas 1975 El Castro de Castillo de Henayo (Alegrfa, Alava). Estudios de Arqueologla Alavesa 8: 87-89.
Lo Schiavo. F. 1981 Osservazioni sul problerna dei rapporti fra Sardegna ed Etruria in etA nuragica. L 'Etruria mineraria. Atlidelx7I
ConvegnAi Studi Etruschi e Italici (Firenze, Populonia Piombino, 1979). Firenze : 299-314.
Lo Schiavo, F. 1991 La Sardaigne et scs rdlations avec le Bronze Final Atlantique. In L4ge du Bronze Atlantique. Actes de Premier
Colloque du Pare ArcNologique de Beynac, edited by C. Chdvillot and A. Coffyn, pp. 213-226. Association des Musdes du Sardlais, Beynac.
Lo Schiavo, F. 1993 Ripostigli di bronzi della Sicilia nel Museo Archeologico di Siracusa: le fibule. In Ripostigli di bronzi della
Siciliana nel Museo Archeologico di Siracusa, edited by R. M. Albanese Procelli, pp. 237-25 1. Palermo.
Lo Schiavo, F., and I- D'Oriano 1993 La Sardegna sulle rotte de I'Occidente. La Magna Grecia e il lontano Occidente. Atti del XY1XConvegno d! Studi
sulla Magna Grecia (Taranto, 1989). Naples : 99-16 1.
Lo Schiavo, F., E. Macnamara, and L. Vagnetti 1985 Late Cypriot Imports to Italy and their Influence on Local bronze work. Papers ofthe British School ofRome
53: 1-71.
Lo Schiavo, F., and D. Ridgway 1986 la Sardegna e il Mediterraneo allo scorcio del II* Milenio. La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra el Secondo e il
Primero Milenio a C. 11: 391418.
Longacre, W. A. 1970 Archaeology as Anthropology. University of Arizona. Archaeological Papers of the University of Arizona 17,
Tuscon.
Longacre, W. A. 1981 Kalinga pottery: An ethnoarchaeological study. In Pattern ofthe Past. - Studies in honour ofDavidL Clarke,
edited by 1. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Longacre, WA. 1982 Kalinga Pottery: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Patterns ofthe Past, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N.
Hammond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Longacre, W. A. 1985 Pottery use-life among the Kalinga, northern Luzon. In Decodingprehistoric ceramics, edited by B. Nelson, pp.
334-346. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Longacre, W. A. 1991 b Ceramic ethnoarchaeology: a case study. In Ceramic ethnoarchaeolog)v, edited by W. A. Longacre, pp. I -10.
University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Longacre, W. A. 1995 Why did they invent pottery anyway? In The Emergence ofPottery. - Technology and Innovation inAncient
societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 277-280. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Longacre, W. A., and M. T. Stark 1991 Ethnoarchaeology at the top of the world: New ceraic studies among the Kalinga of the Luzon. Expedition 33: 4.
15.
L6pes, A. B. 1993 A Cerdmica do Castro da Senhora da Guia (BaMes). Tecnologia e Morfotipologia. Masters, Faculdade do Letras
da Universidade de Porto.
Lopds Astilleros, K. M. 1993 El poblamcnto desde el Calc6litico a la Primera Edad del Ilierro on cl valic medio del Rio Tajo. Compluturn
4: 321-336.
L6pes Cuevillas, F. 1951 Lasjoyas castrehas. Madrid.
L6pes Roa, C.
1977 La cerdmica con decoraci6n bruflida en el suroeste Peninsular. TrabajosdePrehistoria34: 341-370.
L6pes Roa, C. 1978 Las cerknicas alisadas con decoradon bruflida. Huelva Arqueol6gica 4: 145-180.
L6pez, M. P. 1991-1992 La Fase del Bronce Final en Aratispi (Cauche el Viejo, Antequera). Mainake XIII-XIV: 29-50.
L6pez Padilla, J. A. 1993 Ecos Mediterraneos en el Atldntico en la Edad del Bronce. Una singular pieza de marfil de la Illeta des Banyets
(El Campello, Alicante). Actas del AXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Vigo 1993) 2: 99-104.
L6pcz Palomo, L. A. 1978 Pequeno dep6sito de bronces en Rio Gdnil. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de Universidad de Granada 3: 233-244.
L6pez Palorno, L. A. 1981a Bronccs y platas tartessicos cn Alhanoz y su hinterland. Zephyrus 32-33: 245-262.
L6pcz Palomo, L. A. 1981b Alhanoz. Excavaciones de 1973-1978. XoticarioArqueoldgico Hispeinico 11: 33-187.
L6pez Palomo, L. A. 1982 El poblado de Alhonoz (Herrera, Sevilla). In Homenaft a Conchita Fernindez-Chicarro, edited by pp. 157-167.
Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
L6pez Palomo, L. A. 1983 De la Edad del Bronce al mundo ibdrico en la campifla del Gdnil. Actas del P Congreso de Historia de Andalucia,
C6rdoba: 67-133.
L6pez Palomo, L. A. 1987 Prospecci6n arqueol6gica con sondeo estratigrifico en el yacimiento de la Colina del Castillo de Monturque,
provinciadeC6rdoba. AnuarioArqueoldgico de Andalucia 1987111: 180-192.
L6pez Pardo, F. 1996 Los enclaves fenfcios en el Africa noroccidental: del modelo de las enclaves nAuticas aide colonizaci6n. Gerion
14: 251-284.
Lourd, G. 1948 Megiddo IL Seasons of 1935-1939. University of Chicago Oriental Institute publications 62, Chicago.
Lucas, W. R. 1987 LDondd estd la'Primera Edad del Hicrro'? Boletin Asociaci6n Espahola de Amigos de la Arqueologia
23(December): 40-52.
Lucas Pcllicer, NP. I- 1982 El thymaterion de Calaceite (Teruel). Boletin de la Ascoclaci6n Espa6la de Amigos de la Arqueologia 16: 20-28.
Lucas Pellicer, NP. R. 1989 El horizonte de Cogotas I en San Frutos de Durat6n (Burgomillido, Sdgovia). XIXCongresoNacionalde
Arqueologia, Zaragoza : 477-492.
Lucas Pellicer, M! I-, and P. Gomes Ramos 1993 Transportc Marftimo del Metal como Prima Materia durante el Bronze Final. CuPAUAM20: 107-131.
Lull, V. 1983 La"cultura"deElArgar. Unmodeloparaelestudiodelasformacionesecon6mico-socialesprehist6r! cas. Akal,
Madrid.
Lull, V., and J. Estdvez 1986 Propuesta metodol6gica para el estudio de las necrop6lis argiricas. In Romenaje a Luis Siret (1934-1984), edited
by pp. 441-452. Junta de Andalucia, Sevilla.
Lull, V., P. Gonzilez Marcdn, and R. Risch 1992 Arqueologlade Europa 2250-1200AC Una Introducclon a I'Edad del Bronce. Editorial Sintesis, Madrid.
Luz6n Nogue, J. M. 1962 Tartessos y la Rfa de Huelva. 2eplow 13: 25-67.
Luz6n Nogue, J. M., and D. Ruiz Mata 1973 Las raices de Cdrdoba Estratigrafla de la Colina de los Quemados. C. S. I. C., C6rdoba.
Maas-Lindemann, G. 1976 Westphonizischc Grtibfunde. In Trayamar. Fxcavaciones Arqueol6gicas en Espa; )a 90, edited by 11. Schubart
and H. G. Niemeyer, pp. 214-216.
Maas-Lindemann, G. 1982 Toscanos 3. GrAbungskampagne 1971 und die importdatierte westphlinikische Grabkeramik. Madrider
Forschungen 6
MacCormack. C. P. 1981 Exchange and Hierarchy. In Economic Archaeology, edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp. 159-166.13AR
International Series 96, Oxford.
Macnamara, E., D. Ridgway, and F. Ridgway 1984 The bronze hoardfrom S, Maria in Paulis, Sardinia. British Museum Occasional Paper 45, London.
MacSween, A. 1992 Orcadian Grooved Ware. In Yesselsfor the Ancestors: Essays on the Neolithic ofBritain and Ireland, edited by
N. Sharples and A. Sheridan, pp. 259-271. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
MacWhite, E. 1951 Fitudios sobre las relaciones athinticas de la Peninsula Hispdnia en la Edad del Bronce. Publicacioncs del
Semindrio de hist6ria primitiva del hombre, Madrid.
Madeira, J., J. L. Gonqalves, L. Raposo, and I- Parreira 1972 Achados da Idade do Bronze no Monte da Pena (Barro, Torres Vedras). Noticia prdvia. OArqueoligo Portugugs
VI(sdrie 111): 207-212.
Madoz, P. 1847 Diccionario Geogrifico-estadistico-hist6rico de Espalla y sus posesiones de Ultramar. Madrid.
Maia, M. P. 1984-1988 Povos do Sul de Portugal nas Fontes ClAsicos-C6nios. Arqueologia e Histdria Sirie 10 1/11: 73-79.
Maia, M. P. 1986a Neves 11 c a'facies'cultural de Ncves-Corvo. Arquivo de Beja 3 (r sdrie): 2342.
Maia, M. P. 1986b Arqueologia na drea mineira de Neves-Corvo. Trabalhos realizadas no trignio de 1982-1984. Somincor, Lisbon.
Maier, F. 1970 Die bemalte Spdtlatine-Keramik von Manching. Fritz Steiner, Wiesbaden.
Mainfort, R. C. Jr. 1985 Wealth, Space, and Status in a Historic Indian Cemetery. American Antiquity 50 (3): 555-579.
Makabe, Y. 1979 Prehistoric Dia In Japanese Archaeology 3,3, edited by H. Otusuka, M. Tozawa, and M. Sahara, pp. 231-253.
Yuhikaku, Tokyo.
Malmer, M. P. 1981 A chorological study ofEuropean rock-art. Kurgl vitterhets historic och antikvitets akaderniens handlingar,
Stockholm.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1949 Conccptoy periodizacion de laEdad del Bronce Peninsular. Ampuriasll: 191-195.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1954 Los pueblos de la Espafta Ultica. HEMP 1 (3)(3): 5-299.
Maluquer de Motes, J.
1956 La tdcnica de incrustaci6n de Boquique y la dualidad de tradiciones en la Meseta Norte durante el Edad del Ifierro. Zephyrus 8: 103-145.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1958a El Castro de los Castillejos en Sanchorreja. Salamanca.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1958b Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Cerro del Berreuco, Salamanca. Acta Salmanticensia XIV (1)
Maluquer de Motes, L 1963 Sobre la cerknica tartdssica con decoraci6n de reticula bruftida. Homenaje a P. Bosch Gimpera 1: 45-76.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1969 Introducci6nalproblcmadeTartessos. VSymposlum Internacionalde Prehistoria Peninsular. Tartessosysus
problemas (Jdrez de la Frontera): 1-6.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1970 Desarollo de la orfebreria prerromana cn la Penfnsula lbdrica. Pyrenae 6: 79-109.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1973 La Edad del Bronce en Occidente AtIdntico. InActas das Primeras Jornadas de MetodologiaAplicada de las
Ciencias Hist6ricas]. Prihistoria, edited by pp. 129-145. Santiago dc Compostela.
Maluquer de Motes, J. 1990 Problemitica general del hierro en Occidente. Zephyrus 39-40: 9-25.
Maluquer de Motes, J., S. Celestino Pdrez. F. Garcfa, and G. Munilla 1990 El santuarioprotohist6rico de Zalamea de la Serena, Badajoz (1983-1986). Sabadcll, Barcelona.
Maftanes, T. 1975 Una nuevo idolo de la Edad del Bronce y una nueva lanza de bronze del Museo diocesano de Vilafmnca del
Bierzo (Ldon). Trabajos de Prehistoria 32: 187-189.
Mandelbaum, D. 1965 Alcohol and Culture. Current Anthropology 6: 281-293.
Mann, M. 1986 The Sources ofSocial Power Volume 1: A history ofpowerfrom the beginning to A. D. 1760. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Manning, S. 1995 Before Daidalos: The Origins of Complex society and the genesis ofthe state on Crete. Doctoral, University of
Cambridge.
Manson, J-1. 1995 Starcevo pottery and Neolithic development in the Central Balkans. The Emergence ofPottery Tchnology and
Innovation in Ancient societies, edited by W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 65-78. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Manuel-Valdds, V. 1995 Cistas de la Edad del Bronce: El anilisis de fosfatos corno evidcncia de la inhurnaci6n. Complutum 6: 329-352.
Marazzi, M. 1976 Egeo e Occidente alla Fine del II Ullenio aC. Edizzione dell'Ateneo, Rome.
Marques, G. 1972 Arqueologia de Alpiarqa. As estgoes representadas no Museu do Instituto de Antropologia do Porto. Trabalhos
do Instituto de Antropologia Dr. Mendes CorrM: 45-66.
Marques, G., and G. M. Andrade 1974 Aspetos da proto-hist6ria do territ6rio portuguds I- Definiqao c distribuqao gcogrifica da cultura de Alpiarqa
(Idade do Ferro). Actas do III Congresso Nacional de Arqueologia, Porto : 125-148.
Marshall, Y., and A. Maas 1997 DashingDishes. WorldArchaeology. - Culture Contact and Colonialism 28 (3)(3): 275-290.
Martin Benito', J. 1., and M. C. Jiminez Gonz: Alez 1988-89 En tomo a una estructura constructiva en un'campos de hoyos'de la Edad del Bronce de la Meseta espaffola
(Forfoleda, Salamanca). 2ýohyrus 4143: 265-28 1.
Martin Bravo, A. M. 1994 Los castros del Occidente de ]a Provincfa de CAceres. In Complutum 4 Los Castros de Eviremadura, edited by M.
Almagro Gorbea and A. M. Martin Bravo, pp. 243-267. Univeridad Complutense, Madrid.
Martin, C., M. FemAndez-Miranda, M. D. Femdndez-Posse, and A. Gilman 1993 ne Bronze Age of La Mancha. Antiquity 67: 2345.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1978-9 Montoro: unnuevoyacimiento arqueol6gicoenel Guadalquivir. CuadernosdePrehistoriayArqueologt'a5-
6: 105-141.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1984 Problemas en torno de la definicfon del Bronce Tardio en la Baja Andalucia. CuadernosdePrehistoriay
Arqueologia 11-12: 205-216.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1986 Aproximacfon a la secuencia de lifibitat en Papa Uvas (Aljaraque, Huelva). Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en
Espaha 149
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1987a El Llanete de los Moros. Montoro (C6rdoba). Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en Espaha 151
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1987b jCerknicas Micdnicas en Andalucia? Revista de Arqueologia 78: 62-64.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1988 Mykenische Keramik aus Bronzezeitlichen Siedlungschichten von Montoro am Guadalquivir. Madrider
Mitteilungen 30: 77-91.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1989a Mykenische Keramic aus Bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen von Montoro am Guadalquivir. Madrider Mitteilungen
30: 77-91.
Martin de la Cruz, J-C. 1989b El Bronce en el Valle Medio del Guadalquivir. In Tartessos. Arqueologia Protohist6rica del Baja Guadalquivir,
edited by M. & Aubet, pp. 121-143. Ausa, Sabadell.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1991 ElCalcoliticoy laEdad del Bronce enAndalucfa. Bolet! nAsociaci6nEspaqoladeAmigosdelaArqueologia
30-31(Veinte aflos de Arqueologiaen Espafla: Homenaje a Don Emeterio Cuadrado Diaz): 55-74.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1992 La Pdninsula Ibdrica y el Mediterrdneo en el Segundo Milenio a. C. In El Afundokficinico, Cinco Siglos de la
Primera Civilizaci6n Europa 1600-1 100a. C., edited by pp. I 10- 114. Minusterio de Cultura, Museo Arqueologico Nacional, Madrid.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1994 Los primeros contactos entre Grecia y la Peninsula Wrica. La problemAtica planteada por los hallazgos de
Montoro (C6rdoba). In Arqueologla de la Magna Grecia, Sicilia y Peninsula lhirica. Actas del Encuentro Nacional celebrado en la Universidad de Urdoba (Marzo 1993), edited by D. Vazquerizo Oil, pp. II 1- 146. Universidad de C6rdoba, C6rdoba.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C. 1997 Types of fortification in Sites in Southern Italy and Spain during the Neolithic and Copper Ages. In Encounters
and Transformations. The Archaeology oflberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira. pp. 15-24. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C., and I. B. Beltrdn 1987 Cenimicas indditas del Bronce Final. Revista de Arqueologia 8 (72): 50-56.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C., and M. Perlines 1993 Lacer&micaatomo de los contextos culturales de finales del 11 milenio a. C. en Andalucia. ActasdelPrimero
Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Oporto 11: 335-345.
Martin de la Cruz, J. C., and S. R. Rodriguez 1991 Genesis y desarollo de la Had del Bronce en la Cuenca media del Guadalquivir: estudlo de materiales. Anuario
Arqueol6gico de Andalucia Il Actividades Sistematicas: l 13-115.
Martin de la Cruz, M. 1976 El corte F del Cerro Macarcno, La Rinconada (Sevilla). Cuadernos de PrehistoriayArqueologia 3: 9-32.
Martin, E. C. 1983 Materiales de superficie de ]a cueva del Conejarjunto a Cdeeres. In Homenaje al Prof M. Almagro Basch, edited
by pp. 37-43. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
Martin, J. B. 1984-1985 El grupo Cogotas 11 de Ceramicas con decoraci6n excisa: Analisis de su presencia en la necropolis de las
Erijuelas de San Andres. Cuadernos de PrehistoridyArqueologia 11-12: 185-195.
Martin, J. B., J. Romos, and F. Espejo 1991 Prospeccion en el Rio Tur6n. AnuarioArqueol6gico de Andalucia II(Actividades Sistematicas): 51-98.
Martin Valls, R., and G. Delibes dc Castro 1972 Nuevos yacimicntos dc la Primera Edad del Hierro en la Meseta Norte. Boletin de Estudios del Seminario de Arte
y Arqueologla 38: 5-54.
Martin Valls, I-, and G. Delibes de Castro 1975 Problcmas en tomo a la primera Had del Hierro en el sector Occidental de la Meseta Norte. XIII Congreso
Nacional de Arqueologia : 545-550.
Martin Valls, R., and G. Delibes de Castro 1976 SobrelacerknicadelafaseCogotasI. BoletinSeminariodeArteyArqueologia42: 5-18.
Martin Valls, R., and G. Delibes de Castro 1989 La cultura del vaso campaniforme en las campiflas meridionales del Duero. El enterramiento de Fuente Olmedo
(Valladolid). Monograflas del Museo Arqueol6gico de Valladolid, Valladolid.
Martinez, A. J., and F. M. Herndndez 1993 El poblamento de la Edad del Hicffo en el Alto Douro y ]as necr6polis de Numancia. Complutum 4: 147-156.
Martinez Navarrete, M. I. 1988 La Edad del Bronce en la Submeseta Suroriental. - un revisi6n critica. Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Madrid.
Martinez Navarrete, NP. I. 1989 Una revision critica de la prehistoria espa; 1ola: la Edad del Bronce como paradigma - Siglo XXI, Madrid.
Martinez Navarrete, NP. 1. 1993 Teorlay Prdclica de la Prehistoria: Perspectivas desde los Extremos de Europa. CSIC, Universidade de
Cantabria, Cantabria.
Martinez Navarrete, M. I., and A. Mdndez 1983 Arenero del Soto. Yacimiento de "fondos de cabafte del horizonte Cogotas 1. Estudios de Prehistoridy
Arqueologia Afadrilefias 2: 184-225.
Martinez Navarrete, NP I., and S. Valiente Canovas 1984 El Cerro del Castillo, La Parra de las Vegas (Cuenca). Noticario Arqueol6gico ffispdnico 16: 59-223.
Martinez Padilla, C., and M. Botella 1980 El Peflon de laReina(Albodoluy, Almeria). ExcavacionesArqueol6gicasenEspa; IaII2: 1.369.
Martinez, P. V., Lull, V., Mic6, I- 1996 Cronologia de la Prehistoria Reciente de la Peninsula Wrica y Baleares (c. 2800-900 cal ANE). B. A. R- British
Archaeological Reports International Series N* 652, Oxford.
Martinez, P. V. C. 1993 De la Edad del Bronce a la Edad del llierro en el Sur de Catalufla: Un periodo de Transicfon. Pyrenae 23: -.
Martinez, P. V. C., and P. Gonz Alez Moran 1989 El concepto de frontera: Implicaciones e teorias de la noci6n de territorio politico. Arqueologia Espacial
13(Fronteras): 7-18.
Martinez Santa 01alla, 1. 1938-1941 Esquemapaletnol6gico de la Peninsula Hispeinica. Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre, Madrid.
Martinez Santa Olalla, J. 1941 Escondrijo de la Edad del Bronce Atldntico de fluerta Arriba (Burgos). XVIIActas y Memorias de la Sociedad
Espahola de, 4ntropologia, Etnograflay Prehistoria : 127-164.
Martinez Santa 01alla, J. 1946 Fsquemapaleoetnol6gico de la Peninsula Hispdnica. Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Ilombre (second
edition), Madrid.
Martins, M. 1980 0 Castro do Barbudo, Vila Verde. Resultado das carnpanhas realizadas cntre 1981-1985. Cadernos de
Arqueologia-Monograflas 3
Martins, M. 1984 A citAnia de SAo Juliao, Vila Verde. Primeiras sondagens. Cadernos de Arqueologia, Braga 2"sirie 1: 11-27.
Martins, M. 1985a A ocupaqfto do Bronze Final da citAnia de Sgo Juliao, em Vila Verde. Caracterizaqfto e cronologia. Trabalhos de
Antropologia e Emologia 25 (2-4): 197-240.
Martins, M. 1985b Sondagens arqueol6gicas no castro do Monte PadrAo em Santo Tirso. Cadernos deArqueologla, Braga 21'sirie
2: 217-230.
Martins, M. 1986 Duas datas de C14 para o ocupaqAo do Bronze Final da citWa de Slo Julilo em Vila Verde. Arqueologia 13: 159-
160.
Martins, M. 1987 A CerAmica Pr6to-Hist6rico do Vale do Cdvado: Tentativa de Sistematizaqfto. Cadernos de Arqueologia 11
(4X4): 35-77.
Martins, M. 1988a A citAnia de SAo JuliAo, Vila Verde: mem6ria dos trabalhos realizados entre 1981-1985. Cadernos de
Arqueologia-Monograflas, Braga 2
Martins, M. 1988b Experiencias de arqueologfa-espacial no norte de Portugal. Arqueologia Espacial, Teruel 12: 141-155.
Martins, M. 1989 0 Castro do Barbudo, Vila Verde. Resultados das campanhas realizadas entre 1983 e 1985. Cadernos de
Arqueologia-Monograflas 3
Martins, M. 1990 Opovoamentoproto-hist6ricoeromanizaqaodabaciadocursomddiodoCAvado. CadernosdeArqueologia.
Monografias 5
Martins, M. 1998 As Economias da Idade do Bronze: a problemAtica do comdrcio e intercfimbio. Uma introduqfto ao terna. In
Existe uma Made do Bronze Atldntico?, Trabalhos de Arqueologfa I O, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 73.10 1. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Mascorti, M. T., J. G. Sanmartf, and J. Santacana 1991 Eljacimentprotohist6ric dAldovesta (Benifallet) i el comerfirftnici arcaic a la Catalunya meridional.
Tarragona.
Mata Almonte, E. 1991 Inforrne sobre la intervenci6n arqueo]6gica en el yacimiento de Los Algarbes (Tarifa, Cidiz). Campafta 1990.
Anuario Arqueol6gico de Andalucia III(Actividades de Urgencta): 83-93.
Mateus, J. E., and RE Queiroz 1994 Aspectos do desenvolvimento da hist6ria e da evolugao da vegetaglo do litoral norte alentejano durante o
Holocdnico. SeMbal Arqueol6gica 7: 124-156.
Mathers, C. 1984a Beyond the Grave: the context and wider implications of mortuary practices in south-cast Spain. In Papers in
Iberian, 4rchaeology, BAR Int. Series S 193, edited by T. F. C. Blagg, R. F. J. Jones, and S. J. Keay, pp. 1346. BAR, Oxford.
Mathers, C. 1984b "Linear Regression", inflation and prestige competition: second millennium transformations in southeast Spain.
in The Deya Conference ofPrehistory, I, edited by W. H. Waldren, R. W. Chapman, J. Lewthwaite, and R. C. Kennard, pp. 167- 196. BAR Int. Series S229, Oxford.
Mathers, C. 1994 Goodbye to All Tbat?: Contrasting Patterns of Change in the South-East Iberian Bronze Age c. 24/2200-600 BC.
in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by C. Mathers and S. Stoddart, pp. 21-72. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Mathews, W., C. A. I. French, T. Lawrence, D. F. Cutler, and M. K. Jones 1997 Microstratigraphic traces of site-formation and human activities. WbrldArchaeoloV 29: 281-308.
Matson, F. R. 1965 Ceramics and Man. Aldine, Chicago.
Matson, F. R. 1984 Ceramics and man reconsidered with some thoughts for the future. In The Many Dimensions ofpottery., Ceramics
in archaeology and anthropology, edited by S. Van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, pp. 27-35. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Maurandi, J. 1993 Un nuevo yacimiento del Bronce Final con cabanas de planta oval en Murcia. Actas del XA71 Congreso Nacional
de Arqueologia (Vigo 1993): 95-98.
Mauss, M. 1969 The Gift. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. 1949 Western Asiatic feasting implements. Iraq 11 (1): 90-129.
Maya, U., Pons, E. 1982 El Bronce Final. In LWqueologia a Catalunya avui, edited by pp. 77-79. Cieneralitat de Catalunya. Barcelona.
Maya, J. L., Petit, NP A. 1986 El grupo del Nordeste. Un nuevo conjunto de ccrdmicas con Boquique en la Peninsula Ibdrica. Anales de
PrehistorlayArqueologia 2: 49-71.
Maya, J. L. 1990a Primera Edad del Hierro. In Historia de Espaila (1). Desde la Prehistoria hasta la conquista romana, Ledited by
pp. 295-378. Planeta, Barcelona.
Maya, J. L. 1990b la Edad del Bronce y la Primera Edad del Hierro en Huesca. Bolskan 7: 159-196.
Maya, J1. I 990C tBronce Final o Primera Edad del Hierro? La Problemdtica en el area de la Depresion prelitoral. Lines 10: 31-43.
Mayer, E. F. 1977 Die Axte und Beile in Osterreich. Prahistorische Bronzefunde, Munich 9
Mayer, E. F. 1978 Bronzezeitliche Passfunde im Alpenraum. Jahreberischt des Institutsftr Vorgeschichle der Universitat Frankfurt
: 179-187.
Mayet, F., and C. T Silva 1986 Abul: umestabelecimentoOrientalizantedoSýcu]oVIIAC. SitubalArquel6gicaIX-X: 315-333.
Mayet, F., and C. T. Silva 1993 ApresenýafenicfanoBaixoSado. FstudosOrientaisIV: 127-142.
Maya, F., and C. T. Silva 1994 L'Establissement Ph6nicien d'Abul. Les Dossiers dArcheologie: Le Portugal 198(November): 22-25.
McGrail, S. 1983 Cross-Channel seamanship and navigation in the late first millennium BC. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 2: 299-
337.
McGrail, S. 1987 Ancient boats in North West Europe. Longman, London.
McGrail, S. 1993 Prehistoric seafaring in the Channel. In Trade and Evchange in Prehistoric Europe, edited by C. Scarre and F.
Healy, pp. 199-210. Oxbow, Oxford.
McGuire, P_ H. 1983 Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Heterogeneity. In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 91-142. Academic Press, New York.
McGuire, I- H. 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.
Medeiros, C. A. 1996 Do Mediterrfineo ao Atlintico: Diversidade GeogrAfica e Dindmicas do Territ6rio. In Mediterrdneos e Atldnticos:
Encontros de Civilizaq6es, edited by A. Carvalho, pp. 49-62. CamAra Municipal de Cascais, Cascais.
Mederos Martin, A. 1995 LRetorno al Pasado? Comercio o Difusi6n en los analisis de los sistcmas mundialcs antiguos. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 52 (2): 131-141.
Mederos Martin, A. 1996 La Conexi6n Levantino-Chipriota. Indicios de Comercio Atl6ntico con el MediterrAneo Oriental durante el
Bronce Final (I 150-95013Q. Trabajos de Prehistoria 53 (2): 95-115.
Mederos Martin, A. 1997 Cambio de rumbo interacci6n comercial entre el Bronce Final atldntico ibdrico y micdnico en el Mediterrando
Central. Trahajos de Prehistoria 54 (2): 113-134.
Mederos Martin, A. 1999 La mctamorfosis dc Villena. Comercfo de Oro, Estafto y Sal durante el Bronce Final I entre el Atldntico y
Meditcrrdneo (1625-1300 AC). Trabajos de Prehistoria 56 (2): 115-136.
Mederos Martin, A., and F-J. Harrison 1996 'Placer de Dioses'. Incensarios en soportes con rucdas del Bronce Final de la Peninsula lbdrica. Complutum atra
(Homenaje al Prof Fern6ndez Miranda) 6 (1): 237-253.
Megaw, J. V. S., and M. R. Megaw 1993 Cheshire cats, Mickey mice, the new Europe and ancient Celtic art. In Trade and achange in Prehistoric Europe.
edited by C. Scarre and F. Healy, pp. 219-232. Oxbow, Oxford.
Megaw, J. V. S., and D. D. A. Simpson 1979 Introduction to British Prehistory. Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Meijide, C. 1988 Las Espadas del Bronce Final en la Peninsula Wrica. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de
Compostela.
Meijide, C. 1994 Atlantic relations in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula during the Bronze Age. Spal 3: 197-223.
Meillassoux, C. 1981 Maidens, Meals and Money. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Melida, M.
1929 Arqueologia &pafiola. Ldbor, Barcelona.
Mellaart, J. 1979 Earliest Civilisations ofthe Near East. The earliest settlements oftestern Asia (from the ninth tofifth millennia
BQ. Thames and Hudson, London.
Mendes Correa, A. A. 1928 Umaleituradaslbdricas. TrabajosdaSociedadeportuguisadeAntropologiaeEtnograjia3: 15-32.
Mendes Pinto, M' C. 1987 0 povoado do Monte de Sao Martinho, Castelo Branco. Informaqjo Arqueol6gica 8: 20-23.
Mdndez, A., and F. Velasco 1984 La Muela de Alarilla. Un yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce en el valle medio del rfo Henares. Revista de
Arqueologia 37: 21-52.
Mdndez, A., and F. Velasco 1988 La Muela de Alarillo. I* Congreso de Historia de Castilla-La Mancha 111: 185-195.
Mdndez Femdndez, F. 1994 La Domesticaci6n. del Paisaje durante la Edad del Bronce Gallego. Trabajos de Prehistoria 51 (1): 77-94.
Mendozo, A., F. Molina, P. Aguayo, J. Carrasco, and T. Najera 1975 El poblado de Cerro de los Castellones (Labrorcillas, Granada). XIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia : 315-
322.
Mendozo, A., F. Molina Gonzalez, 0. Arteaga, and P. Aguayo 1981 Cerro de los Infantes (Pinos).
Mercer, R. 1980 Hambledon Hill -A Neolithic Landscape. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Mercer, R. 1990 Causewayed Enclosures. Shire Publications, Princes Risborough.
Meredith, C. 1998 An archaeometallurgical surveyfor Ancient tin mines andsmelting sites in Spain andPortugal. Archaeopress,
B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 714, Oxford.
Meseguer, J. S. 1984-1985 Anexeos IV: 'Un expertoen Economfa de ]a Edad del Bronce. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad
de Granada 11-12: 107-116.
Milisauskas, S. 1978 European Prehistory. Academic Press, New York.
Miller, D. 1982 Attefacts as Products of human categorisation processes. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by 1.
Hodder, pp. 17-25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Miller, D. 1985 Artefacts as Categories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Miller, D. 1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Blackwell, Oxford.
Miller, D., and C. Tilley 1984 Ideology, Power and Prehistory: an introduction. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C,
Tilley, pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mills, B. K., and A. G. Frank 1991 Five thousand years of World-Systems History: The Culmination of Accumulation. In Core-Periphery relations
inpre-Capitalist Worlds, edited by C. Chase-Dunn and T. D. Hall. pp. 67-112. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Mincria 1987 La Minerld en Extremadura. Conscrjerf a de Industria, Junta de Extremadura.
Misiego, C. C., F. J. Pdrez, F. Sanz, G. J. Marcos, and M. A. Martfn 1992 LaHuelga. Bronce Medio en la Meseta Norte. RevistadeArqueologiaXlll(136)(August): 18-25.
Mohen, J-P. 1977 LAge du Bronze dans la rigion de Paris. Editorial des Musdes Nationaux, Paris.
Molina Fajardo, F. 1985 Almuflecar a la luz de los nuevos hallazgos fenicios. Auld Orientalis 3: 193-216.
Molina GonzAIcz, F. 1977 La cultura del Bronce Final en el Sudeste de la Peninsula Ibirica. Granada.
Molina Gonzdlez, F. 1978 Dcfinici6n y Sistematizacfon del Bronce Tardio y Final en el Sureste de la Penfnsula lbdrica. Cuadernos de
Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 3: 159-232.
Molina Gon7Alcz, F. 1983 Prehistorta de Granada. Quijotc, Granada.
Molina GonzAlez, F. 1986 Laexpansi6nargdricahaciaelPafsValencianoatravdsdclaltiplanoJumillo-Yecla. Homenaie a Luis Siret (Junta
de Andaluc" Seville) : 405417.
Molina Gonz; Uez, F., and 0. Artcaga 1976 Problemdtcay diferenciaci6nengrupos de lacerdmica con decoraci6n cxcisaen laPcnfnsula lbdrica. Cuadernos
de Prehistorla de la Universidad de Granada 1: 175-214.
Molina Gonzilez, F., and E. Pareja 1975 Excavaciones cn la Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada). Campana de 1971. Excavaciones en F-vpana 86,
Madrid
Molina GonzAlez. F., F. Torre, T. Najera, P. Aguayo, and L. Saez 1979 Excavaciones en Ubeda La Vieja y Cabezuelos. XV Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Lugo 1977) : 287-29 1.
Molina GonzAlez, F., F. Torre, T. Najera, P. Aguayo, and L. Saez 1983 Nuevos aportaciones para el estudio del origen de la cultum ibdrica en el Alta Andalucfa. La campafta de 1980 en
el Cerro de los Infantes. XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Murcia-Cartageniz 1982) : 689-702.
Molinos, M., Risquez, C., Serrano, U., Montilla, S. 1994 Un Problema de Fronteras en la periferia de Tartessos. Las Calailas de Marmolejo (Jadn). Publ icacioncs de la
Univcrsidad, Jadn-
Mollat du Jourdin, M. 1993 Europe and the sea. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Mommsen, H., U. Diehl, D. Lambrecht, F. J. Panteburg, and 1. Weber 1990 Eine Mykenische Sherbe in Spanien: BestAtigungihrer Ilerkunft mit der Neutron-aktivierungsanalyse (NAA).
Prahistorische Zeitschrift 65: 59-6 1.
Mompean, U. M. 1992 Nuevas Aportaciones al Estudio de dos estelas decoradas halladas en la Cuenca Sur del Duero (Beim Alta,
Portugal). Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueologia 19: 67-93.
Monge Soares, A. 1994 0 Bronze do Sudoeste na margem esquerda do Guadiana. As necr6poles do Concelho de Serpa. Assoclaqdo dos
Arque6logos Portugu&es. VJornadas Arqueol6gicas (Lisboa 1993) : 54-89.
Monge Soares, A., Aranjo. M. F., and S. M. Peixito 1985 0 Castelo Velho de Safara: Vestfgios da Prdctica de Metalurgfa. Arqueologia I l(June): 87-94.
Monks, S. 1997 Conflict and Competition in Spanish Prehistory: The Role of Warfare in Societal Development from the Late
Fourth to Third Millennia BC. Journal ofMediterranean, 4rchaeology 10 (1): 3-32.
Monteagudo, L. 1977 Die Beile aufder Iberischen Halbinsel. Munich.
Monteiro, J. P. 1980 0 acamparnento do Bronze Final das Pontes de Marchil. In Descobertes Arqueol6gicas no Sul de Portugal, edited
by J. Cardoso, pp. 43-45. Universidade de Lisboa-Museu de Arqueologia e Etnografla de SeMbal, Set6bal.
Montelius, 0. 1903 Die typologische Methode. Die d1tere Kulturperioden im Orient und im Europa. Stockholm.
Montenegro Duque, A. 1970 Los pueblos del Mar en Espafta y la Nueva Revision do la Historia de Tartessos. Boletin del Seminario de Arte y
Arqueologia do Valladolid 36: 237-287.
Montcro Ruiz, I., Montcro, M. A. 1984 AnAlisis asistido por ordcnador de yacimientos arqueol6gicos. Boletin de la Asociaci6n Dpahola de Amigos de la
Arqueologia 20
Montero Ruiz, I. 1993 Bronze Age Metallurgy in south-east Spain. Antiquity 67: 46-57.
Montero Ruiz, 1. 1994 El origen de la metalurgia en el Sudeste de la Peninsula Ibirica. Instituto de Estudios Almcricnses, Almeria.
Montes Bemkdez, R., and D. Rivera Nuflez 1990 La ceba y la vid, la cervera y el vifto on la Espafla del primero milenfo a. C. Ferdolay 2: 67-69.
Mont6n, F. J. 1985 Nuevos materiales de laEdad del Bronco en laProvincia do Iluesca. XVIlCongresoNacionaide, 4rqueologia
(Logroho 1983): 307-315.
Morin, C. 1921 EJ Cerro Berrueco en los limites de Avila y Salamanca. Salamanca.
Morin, C. 1924 Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Cerro Berrueco. Memoria de Jornadas do Ethnografla y Arqueologia,
Salamanca.
Morena Mufloz, A. 1990 Arqueozoologfa te6rica: Usos y abusos reflejado en la interpretaci6n de las asociacones do fauna de yacimientos
antr6picos. Trabajos de Prehistoria 47: 251-290.
Morena Mufloz, J. R. 1993 El hdbitat Prehist6rico de "El Estanquillow, San Fernandell. Ayuntamiento do San Fernando, San Fernando.
Moreno Arag(Jez, A. , and J. Ramos Muftoz 1982-1984 Pefla de los Enamoradores. Un yacimiento de la Edad do Bronce en la Depression de Antequera. Alainake
ll-IV: 53-74.
Morris, Ian 1987 Burial andAncient Society. The Rise ofthe Greek City State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Morris, I. 1989 Circulation, Deposition and the formation of the Greek Iron Age. Man (7VS) 24: 502-519.
Moscati, S. 1968 The World ofthe Phoenicians. Cardinal, London.
Moss, D. 1979 Bandits and Boundaries in Sardinia. Man 14: 477-96.
Muckleroy, K. 1980 Two Bronze Age cargoes in British waters. Antiquity 54: 100-109.
Muckleroy, K. 1981 Middle Bronze Age trade between Britain and Europe. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 47: 275-297.
Municio, L., and M. Ruiz-GAlvez 1986 Un nuevo yacimiento Neolftico y do la Edad del Bronce on la Meseta Norte: Las cerdmicas decoradas de la cueva
delaNogaleda(Villaseca, Sdgovia). Numantiall: 143-157.
Munoz, A. M. 1982 La Edad del Bronce en el Sudeste de Espana. Programas y Ponencias del XVI Congreso, Nacional de Arqueologja
(Murcia-Cartagena 1982) 1: 11-27.
Munoz Cobo, J. 1976 Poblado con necr6polis del Bronce 11 Meditcrrdneo de Pefialosa, tdnnino de Banos de la Encina. Bolefin del
Instituto de Estudios Giennenses XC: 37-55.
Munoz, J. R., A. Saez, and V. Castafteda 1993 La Edad del Bronce de San Fernando: un Modelo de Formaci6n econ6mica-social Perifirico en la banda
Atl6nfica de Cadiz.
Munoz, K. 1993 El poblamiento desde al Calcolitico a la primera Edad del Hierro on el Valle medio del Rio Tajo. Complutum
4: 321-336.
Munoz Munoz, J. 1982 El clima de Madrid. Revista el Campo 3: 16-2 1.
Murdock, G. P., Provost, C. 1973 Measurement of Cultural Complexity. Ethnology 12 (4)(4): 379-392.
Murillo Redondo, J. F. 1987 Fondos de cabana de Vega de Santa Lucia, Palma del Rio (C6rdoba). AnuarioArqueol6gico deAndalucia 111: 147-
150.
Murillo Redondo, LF., and F. A. Araque 1987 Excavaci6n Arqueol6gica de Urgencia en La Saetilla, Palma del Rio (C6rdoba). AnuarioArqueol6gico de
Andalucia 111: 212-214.
Mylonas, G. E. 1977 Mycenean religio?; temples, altars and temenea. Ekdotike, Athens.
Myres, U. 1914 Handbook ofthe Cesnola Collection ofAntiquitiesfrom Cyprus. Metroplitan Museum of Art, New York.
Naicra, T., and F. Molina 1977 La Edad del Bronce en La Mancha: Excavaciones en las Motillas del Azuer y los Palacfos. Cuadernos de
Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 2: 251-300.
Najera, T., F. Molina, and P. Aguayo 1979 La Motilla del Azuer (Diamiel, Ciudad Real). Campafta do 1979. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de
Granada 4: 265-280.
Nakou, G. 1995 The Cutting Edge: A new look at Early Aegean Metallurgy. Journal ofUediterranean Archaeology 8 (2): 1.32.
Ndrdiz, C. 1993 El territorioy los caminos de Galicia. Xunta de Galicia y Colegio do I. C. C. P., Madrid.
Nascimiento, A., A. M. F. Carvalho, and F. S. Almeida 1993 A ocupaqfto do Bronze Final do Cabeqo do Cuqao (Viseu). Uma primera anilise. Actas das l*Jornadas
Arqueol6gicas da Beira Interior 1: 34-57.
Navarro Mederos, J. 1982 La explotaci6n do tcrritorio en la Peninsula lbdrica durante el Bronce Pleno. Aproximaci6n a su estudio. Tarbona
4: 29-94.
Needham, S. 1989 Selective deposition in the British Early Bronze Age. In Bronze Age Studies 6, edited by II. A. NordstrOrn and A.
Knape, pp. 45-62. Museum of National Antiquities, Statens Ilistoriska Museum, Stockholm.
Needham, S. 1993 Displacement and exchange in archaeological methodology. In Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, edited
by C. Scarre and F. Healy, pp. 161-169. Oxbow, Oxford.
Needham, S., and C. Burgess 1980 The Later Bronze Age in the Lower 11ames Valley: the metalwork evidence. In Settlement andSociety in the
British Later BronzeAge, edited by J. Barrett and R. Bradley, pp. 437469. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports British Series N* 83, Oxford.
Nelson, B. A. 1985 Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale.
Nicklin, K. 1971 Stability and innovation in pottery manufacture. WorldArchaeology 3 (1): 13-48.
Niemeyer, H. 1980 Toscaflos. Excavaciones de 1973 y 1976. Noticarlo Arqueoldgico Hispinico 6: 244-248.
Niemeyer, H. 1981 Anno octogesimo post Troiam ... Tyriaclassiscondidit? Hamburger Beitrdge zurArchdologie 8: 21-27.
Niemeyer, H. 1982 Die phOnizische niederlassung Toscanos: eine Zwischenbilanz. In Die ph6nizische im Westen, edited by 11.
Niemeyer, pp. 185-212. Philipp Zabcm (Madrider BeitrAger 8). Mainz,
Niemeyer, H. 1984 Die Ph6nizier und die Mittelmecrwelt im Zeitalter Homers. Jahrbuch des R6misch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums 31: 3-94.
Niemeyer, H. 1985 Cerro del Pefton. Campafta de 1984. Noticario Arqueoldgico Hispdnico 11: 130-135.
Niemeyer, H. G. 1986 El yacimiento fenicio de Toscanos: urbanistica y funci6n. In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula lb&ica, I, edited by NP
E. Aubet and G. d. O. Lete, pp. 109-126. Sabadell, Barcelona.
Nieto, G. 1985 LaPenfnsulalbdricaen el Il milenio antes de Cristo. In Historia General de EspatlayAmirica. Losorigenesde
Espaa. Volume 1,1.1, editedbyM. Rialp, pp. Madrid.
Nieto, G., and J. SAnchezMeseguer 1988 Bases para la sistematizaci6n del estudio de la Edad del Bronce de ]a Mancha. Primero Congreso de Historla de
Costilla-la-Mancha., pueblosy culturosprehist6ricasyprotohist6ricas 11: 221-227.
Nocete, F. 1984 Jefaturas y territorio: una visi6n critica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 9
Nocete, F. 1989 El Espacio de la Coerci6n. La Transici6n al estado en las Campihas del alto Guadalquivir (Espaha). 3000.
i5o0aC. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series 492, Oxford.
Nocete, F. 1990 Territ6riodeCoerci6n: elParadigmadelasJefaturas- Espicloy Organizaci6n Social Madrid, Univ.
Compultense: 57-90.
Nocete, F. 1994 Space as coercion: the transition to the state in the social formations of La Cwnpifla, Upper Guadalquivir Valley,
Spain ca. 1900-160013C. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 13
Noccte, F., A. Orihuela, and M. Pcfia 1994 Odiel. 3000-1000an. e. Un modelo de anilisis hist6rico para la contrastaci6n dcjcmquizaci6n social. Anuario
Arqueol6gico de Andalucia-, Sevilla Junta de Andalucia 1991: 256-278.
Northover, P. 1982a The Exploration of long-distance movement of bronze in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. Bulletin ofthe
University ofLondon Institute ofArchaeology 19: 45-72.
Northover, P. 1982b The metallurgy of the Wilburton hoards. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 1: 69-109.
Nuftes, J. C. 1957 Un importante hallazgo del Bronce en Portugal. Zephyrus VIII (1): 135-145.
Nuftes, J. C. 1958 Nuevos hallazgos del Bronce cn Portugal. Zephyrus 9 (2): 229-236.
Nuftes, J. C., and AN. Rodrigues 1957 Dos nuevas cspadas del Bronce Final de Portugal. Zephyrus 8 (2): 279-285.
Nuiles Ribeiro, F. 1965 0 Bronze Meridlonal Portugu9s. Beja.
Nuiftes Ribeiro, F. 1966-67 NoticUrio Arqueologfa Regional: A Necr6pole de Ervidel (Medaria). Arquivo de Beja 23-24: 385-389.
O'Connor, B. 1980 Cross-Channel relations in the Late BronzeAge. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 9,
Oxford.
O'Connor, T. P. 1991 Science, Evidential archaeology and the new scholasticism. Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 1.7.
O'Shea, J. 1981 Coping with scarcity: exchange and social storage. In Economic Archaeology: toward an integration ofecological
and social approaches, edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp. 167-183. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 96, Oxford.
Olausscn, B. 1988 Dots on a map: thoughts about the way archaeologists study prehistoric trade and exchange. In Trade and
Fxchange in Prehistory, edited by B. IlArdh, L. Larsson, D. Olousson, and R. Pctrd, pp. 15-24. Blauss Boktryckcri, Lund.
Oliva Alanso, D., and I. Chasco Vila 1976 Una estela funeraria con escudo de escotadura. en "U" en la provincia de Sevilla. Trabajos de Prehistoria 33: 387-
395.
Oliva Alanso, D., and R. Chasco Vila 1976 Una Estcla funeraria con escudo de escotadura en'V en la Provincfa de Sevilla. Trabajos de Prehistorld 53: 387-
395.
Oliva Alonso, D. 1983 Una nueva estela antropomorfa del Bronce Final cn la provincia de Sevilla. In Ilomenaje alprofessor marlin
Almagro Basch, ll, cdited by pp. 131-139. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
Oliveira, J. 1986 A estela decorada da Tapada da moita. Camara Municipal de Castelo de Vide, Portalegre.
Oliveira, J. 1995 A estela decorada da Tapada da Moita. in A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O.
Jorge, pp. 100- 10 1. Instituto Portugu8s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Oliveira Marques, A. H. 1968 Introdu9jo a Historia da agricultura de Portugal. Editorial Cosmos, Lisbon.
Ongil Valentin, M-1. 1983 La estela decorada de Almoharfn. Yettonia : 5-13.
Ongil Valentin, M. I. 1986-1987 Los poblados de ribero. AnAlisis territorial. Zephyrus XXXIX-XL: 321-328.
Orton, C., P. Tyres, and A. Vince 1993 Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Owens-Baird, DAnn 1993 The Importance offeasting and Maturation Events: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Ethnographic Literature on
Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Dept. of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
PAA 1996 Patrim6nio Arqueol6gico no Regolfo de Alqueva. Reports Relatorios 92. Quadro geral de ReferMcia. Repoto no
avanco de Barragem. Ernpresa de Desenvolvirniento e Infrastructuras do Alqueva, Alqueva.
Pago, A. 1941 As grutas do Pogo Velho ou de Cascais. Comunicaq6es dos Servigos Geol6gicos de Portugal 22: 45-84.
Pago, A. 1960 Metal6rgiadaCastelodoGiraido(tvora). MadriderForschungenIX: 477-483.
Pago, A. 1964 Povoado Pr&ffist6rico de Parede (Cascais). EdiqAo da CAmara Municipal de Cascais, Lisbon.
Pago, A. 1966 Castelo da Pedra de Oum Anais da Academia Portugu4sa de Hist6ria 16(Sdrie 11): 117-152.
Pap, A., and J. Bagao 1962 Sepulturas Argdricas da Folha das Palmeiras (MourAo). Publicaq6es do 26 Congresso Luso-bpanhol (Porto) : 24-
56.
Pago, A. , and J. Bagao 1964 Sepulturas Argdricas da Herdade da Queijeirinha (Mourao). Arquivo de Beja 20-21: 69-72.
Pago, A., and M. L. Bdrtholo 1954 Consideraqoes acerca da estagao arqueol6gica de Montes Claros e da sua cerAmica campaniforme. Brotiria
59: 200-203.
Pago, A., and M. L. Bkffiolo 1957 Nota acerca de aigumas cerfimicas da estagao eneolitica de Montes Claros (Monsanto). Publicagaes do Xxiij
Congresso Luso-bpanholpara Progresso da Cigncias (Coimbra 1956): 8-23.
Pago, A., F. Nuftes Ribeiro, and G. Leisner 1965 Subsidios para o estudo da cultura Argdrica no Alentejo. Arquivo de Beja 22: 149-162.
Pago, A., and F. J. Ventura 1961 Castelo do Giraldo (tvora). Trabalhos de 1960. Revista de Guimarags 71: 2749.
Pago, A., and A. Viana 1963-1964 EstaqAos Eneolitica de Torres Vedras. Boletim da Junta Distrital de Lisboa 11: 1-30.
Pader, E. J. 1982 Symbolism, Social Relations, and the Interpretation ofMortuary Remains. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports
International Series N* 130, Oxford.
Padilla, E. F., and M! 0. Rodriguez Ariza 1982 El yacimientoArqueol6gico de los Ballos (laMalA, Granada). CuadernosdePrehistoriadelaUniversidadde
Granada 7: 331-357.
Pais, J 1994 Restos de vegetais provenientes do interior de vasos e de cistas da necr6pole de Alfarrobeira. In A Necr6pole de
At(arrobeira (S. Bartolomeu de Messines) ea Idade do Bronze no concelho de Silves, edited by M. Varela Gomes, pp. CAmara Municipial, Silves.
Palol, P., and M. Wattenberg 1974 Alava y la Meseta Superior durante el Bronce Final y el Primer Ilierro. Estudios deArqueologia Alavesa 6: 83.
207.
Palol Salellas, P. 1969 Una espada de bronce hallada en Villaviudas, Palencia. Boletin del Seminario de Arte y Arqueologia 34-35: 295.
298.
Pare, C. F. C. 1985 'Flirstensitze, Celts and the Mediterranean world: Developments in the west f lallstatt culture in the sixth and fifth
centuries BC. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 57 (2)(2): 183-202.
Pare, C. F. C. 1992 Wagons and Wagon Graves ofthe Early Iron Age in Central Europe. Oxford University Commitee for
Archaeological Monographs, Oxford.
Pare, C. F. C. 1999 Wagon-graves of the Late Bronze Age. In Gods and Heroes ofthe European Bronze Age, edited by K.
Demakopoulou, C. Elu&e, J. Jensen, A. Jockenh6vel, and J. -P. Mohen, pp. 125-126. Thames and Hudson, London.
Parker Pearson, M. 1982 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Symbolic andStructural
Archaeology, edited by 1. Hodder, pp. 99-113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Parker Pearson, M. 1984 Economic and Ideological Change: Cyclical Growth in the Pre-State Societies of Jutland. In Ideology, Power and
Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 69-92. Cambridge University Ppess, Cambridge.
Parker Pearson, M., Richards, C. 1994 Architecture and Order. Approaches to Social Space. Routledge, London.
Parker Pearson, M. 1995 Contentious Landscapes. Archaeological Dialogues 2 (1): 25-28.
Parker Pearson, M. 1996 Food, fertility and front doors in the first millennium BC. In The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland Recent trends,
edited by T. C. Champion and J. R_ Collis, pp. 133-153. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Parrcira, R. 1971-1975 0 povoado da Idade do Bronze do Outciro do Circo (Beringel, Beia). Arquivo de Beia 28-32: 31-45.
Parreira, R. 1983 0 Cerro do Castelo de SAo Brýs (Scrpa). Relat6rio preliminar dos trabalhos arqueol6gicos de 1979 e 1980.0
Arque6logo Portugugs Sdrie IV (1): 149-168.
Parreira, R. 1990 ConsideragOes sobre os mildnios IV c III a. C. no Centro e Sul de Portugal. Estudos Orientais I(Prescnqas
Orientalizantes em Portugal da Prehist6ria ao periodo Romano): 2744.
Parreira, R. 1995 Aspectos da Idade do Bronze no Alentejo Interior. In A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited
by S. O. Jorge, pp. 131-134. Instituto Portugu8s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Parreira, R. 1998 As arquitecturas como factor de construqAo da paisagern na Idade do Bronze do Alentejo interior. In Existe uma
Idade do Bronze AtIdntico?, Trabalhos de Arqueologia I O, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 267-273. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Parreira, R., and A. M. Soares 1980 Zu einigen Bronzezcitlichen H6hensicdlungen in SOd Portugal. Madrider Mitteflungen 21: 109-130.
Patricio Curado, F. 1986 Mais uma Estela do Bronze Final na Beira Alta (176ios, Sabugal-Guarda). Arqueologia 4: 103-109.
Patton, M. 1991 Axes, men and women: symbolic dimensions of exchange in Armorica (north-west France). In Sacred and
Profane: Proceedings ofa Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, edited by P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates, and J. Toms, pp. 65-79. University of Oxford Press, Oxford.
Pauli, L 1985 Early Celtic Society: two centuries of wealth and turmoil in Central Europe. in Settlement and Society,, aspects of
west European prehistory in thefirst millennium BC, edited by T. Champion and J. V. S. Mcgaw, pp. 2344. Leicester University Press, Leicester.
Pauli, L 1991 Heilige Plfitze und Opferbrauche bei den Helvetiern und ihren Nachbum. Archdeologie der Schweiz 14 (1): 124 -
135.
Pavon Soldevilla, I. 1993 La Solana del Castillo deAlange: un yacimiento de la Edad del Bronce en la Cuenca Medfa del Guadiana. Spal
2.147-168.
Pavon Soldevilla, I. 1994 Aproximaci6n at estudio de la Edad del Bronce en la Cuenca Media del Guadiana: La Solana de Alange (1987).
Disputati6n Provincial, Cdceres.
Pavon Soldevilla, 1. 1995 La Edad del Bronce. Extremadura Arque6logica 4: 2-56.
Paynter, R. 1981 Social Complexity in Peripheries: Problems and Models. In Archaeological Approaches to the Study of
complexity, edited by S. V. d. Leeuw, pp. 118-141. Amsterdam.
Paynter, I- 1989 The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality. Annual Review ofAnthropology 18: 369-399.
Paynter, I-, McGuire, R. H. 1991 The Archaeology of Inequality: Material Culture, Domination and Resistance. In The ArchaeoloSy oflnequality,
edited by R. H. McGuire and R. Paynter, pp. 1-27. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Paz, J. R., and J. M. H. Cunaro 1990-1991 Nuevos hallazgos de la Edad de Bronce en Vigo: El dep6sito de hachas de Estea-Saians. Castrelos (Revista
do Museo Municipal de Le6n) 3-4: 65-83.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1969 A petrological study of certain Iron Age pottery from Western England. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society
34: 414-427.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1971 Roman amphorae in pre-Roman Britain. In The Iron Age and its Hill-Forts, edited by M. Jesson and J. D. Rill, pp.
161-188. University of Southampton Archaeological Society, Southampton.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman world., an ethnoarchaeological approach. Duckworth, London.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1984 Amphorae in Iron Age Britian: a reassessment. In Cross-Channel Trade between Gaul and Britain in the Pre-
Roman Iron Age, edited by S. Macready and F. H. Thompson, pp. 3742. Society of Antiquaries (Occasional Paper 4), London.
Peebles, C. S., and S. M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42 (3): 421-48.
Pellicer, M. 1976 Historiograflatartdsica. Habis 7: 361-374.
Pellicer, M. 1982 Hacia una periodizaci6n del Bronce Final en Andalucf a occidental. Huelva Arqueoldgica 4(iluelva). -41-47.
Pellicer, M. 1983 El yacimiento protohist6rico de Quebrantahuesos (Riotinto, lIuelva). NoticarioArqueologia Hispanico 15: 61-91.
Pellicer, M. 1986a El Cobre y el Bronce pleno en Andalucia Occidental. In Homenaje a Luis Siret (1934-1984), edited by AAVv,
pp. 245-249. Junta de Andalucfa, Sevilla.
Pelliccr, M. 1986b Sexi fenicia y p4nica. In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Wrica, 1, edited by NP E. Aubet and GAO. Lete, pp. 85.
107. Sabadell, Barcelona.
Pellicer, M.
1986c El Bronce Reciente e Inicios del Hierro en Andalucia Oriental. Habis 17: 433-475.
Pelliccr, M. 1989 El horizonte de Cogotas I en SAn Frutos de Durat6n (Sdgovia). XLX Congreso Nacional de Castell6n 1987
(Zaragoza 1989)
Pelliccr, M. 1992 Una vision sintdtica de la Prchistoria de Andalucia: Neolitico - Bronce Reciente. Spal 1: 99-106.
Pellicer, M., and F. Amores 1985 Protohistoria de Carmona. Los cortes estratigrdficos CA-80/A y CA-80/13. Noticario Arqueol6gico Hispdwco
22: 55-189.
Pellicer, M., L. Escacena, M. Carrasco, and M. Bendala Galan 1983 El Cerro Macareno. Excavaciones Arqueoldgicas en Espaha 124
Pelliccr, M., and W. Schale 1962 El Cerro del Real, Granada. Madrid.
Peffa Santos, A. 1985 Nueve bronzezcitliche Funde im Museo, Provincial de Pontevedra. Madrider Mitteilungen 26: 22-28.
Pefla Santos, A. 1987 El castro de Torroso (M6s, Pontevedra). Resumen de tres aflos de excavaciones. Trabalhos de Antropologia e
Emologia 27: 113-136.
Pefla Santos, A. 1992 El primeiro milenio a. C. en el drea Gallega: gdnesis y desarrollo del mundo castrefto a la luz de la arqueologia. In
Pateoetnol6gia de la Peninsula Wrica, Complutum 2-3, edited by M. Almagro Gorbea, pp. 373-398. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Penhallurick, PL 1986 Tin in Antiquity. Institute of Metals, London.
Perea, A. 1991 Orfebreria Preromana. -Arqueologla del Oro. Caja de Madrid, Madrid.
Perea, A. 1995 La metal&gia del oro en la fachada atidntica peninsular durante el Bronce Final: interacciones y tecnol6gicas. In
Ritos de Paso y Puntos de Paso. La Ria de Huelva en elMundo del Bronce Final Europeo. Complutum Extra 5, edited by M. Rufz-Gdlvez, pp. 69-78. Editorial Complutense, Madrid.
Perea, A. 1996 Propuesta te6rica para uma aproximaci6n global a ]a imagen Ibdrica: el ejemplo del cambio y la transisi6n
iconogrifica en metalisteria. In Al otro lado del espejo. Aproximaci6n a la imagen Wrica, edited by R. Olmos, pp. 61.7 1. Colecci6n Lynx, Madrid.
Perea, A. 1997 Phoenician Gold in the Western Mediterranean: Cddiz, Tharros and Carthage. In Encounters and
Transformations. The Archaeology ofIberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L Prados-Torreira, pp. 135-140. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Perea, A., and B. Armbruster 1998 Cambio tecnol6gico y contactos entre AtIdntico y Mediterrineo. El dep6sito de'El Carambolo!, Sevilla. Trabajos
de Prehistoria 55 (1)(1): 121-13 8.
Pereira, 1. 1990 Figueira da Foz, Santa Olaia. Estudos Orientais IK Os Fenicios no terriforia Portuguis : 285-304.
Pereira, 1. 1993-1994 Casais agrfcolas da Made do Ferro. Conimbriga 32-33: 75-85.
Pdrez Barea, C., F. Nocete, S. Moya Garda, A. Burgos, and M. Barragan 1990 Prospecci6nArqueol6gica sisternatica en la cuenca del rfo Jandula. Anuarlo Arqueol6gico de Andalucia
II(Actividades Sistematicas): 98-107.
Pdrez Bareas, C., F. Noccte Calvo, A. Burgos, and M. Barragan 1990 Prospecci6n arqueol6gica sisternatica en la cucnca del Rio Jandula. Anuario Arqueoldgico de Andalucia 11
(Actividades Sistematicas): 99-106.
Pdrez Bareas, C., L. P. Rafael, S. Maya Garcfa, and P. Casadop Millan 1990 Segunda campafta de prospecciones sistematicas en la Depressi6n Linares (Bailen). AnuarioArqueol6gico de
Andalucia II (Actividades Sistematicas): 86-95.
Pdrcz Macias, J. A. 1987 Dos cistas en San Salvador (Puerto Moral, Huelva). AnuarioArqueol6gico deAndalucia, Actividades de
Urgencia 111: 311-313.
Pdrez Macias, J. A. 1992 El yacimiento del Bronce Final de los Riscos del Castillo (Cabezas 116bias, Huelva). Cuadernos del Suroeste
3: 89-113.
Pdrez Macias, J. A. 1994 El yacimiento Calc6litico Y Edad del Bronce de Cerro del Brueco. Arqueologla en el torno del Bajo Guadalquivir,
Huelva 3: 119-148.
Pdrcz Macias, J. A. 1995 Poblados, centros metaldrgicos y actividades metaldrgicas del cintur6n ibdrico de piritas durante el Bronce Final.
Tartesso 25 ahos despuis. Congresop commemoritavo del r Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular, Jdrez de la Frontera: 236-252.
Pdrez Macias, LA., and C. Frias 1989 La ndcropolis de cistas de "La Parrita" (Nerva, Huelva) y los inicios de la metal6rgia dc la plata en las minas de
Rio Tinto. Cuadernos del Suroeste 1: 11-2 1.
ptrez Minguez, R. 1990 Vaso geminado de la Edad del Bronce procedente del Pla (Pego, Alicante). Cullaira 2: 13-20.
Peroni, R. 1961 Inventaria Archaeologica. Italia, Rome,
Peroni, R. 1970 Le spade nell'Italia confinentale. Prahistorische Bronzefunde, Manchen IV (1)(1)
Picazo Millan, J. V. 1991 La Edad del Bronce. Actas del XTI Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Zaragoza) : 39-6 1.
Piggott, S. 1959 A Late Bronze Age wine trade? Antiquity 33: 122-123.
Piggott, S. 1983 The Earliest Wheeled Transport., From the Atlantic coast to the Caspian Sea. Thames and I ludson, London.
Pina-Cabral, Joao de 1986 Sons ofAdam, Daughters ofEve: The Peasant Worldview ofthe Alto Minho. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Pingel, V. 1974 Bernerkungen zu den ritzverzieten Stelen und zur beginnenden Eisenzeit un Sadwesten der lberischen I lalbinsel.
Hamburger BeitrdgezurArchdologie 4: 1-19.
Pingel, V. 1993a Nueva estela de Almoroquia (CAceres). Norba 4: 211-215.
Pingel, V. 1993b Bemerkungen zu den ritzverzieten Stelen im Sadwestcn der Iberischen Halbinsel. Actas del VColoquio sabre
lenguasy culturasprerromanaos de la Peninsula Mirka (Salamanca November 1989) : 209-235.
Piflon Varela, F. 1987 La Edad del Cobre en el suroeste de la Penfnsula lbdrica: claves de la periodizaci6n de un proceso. In El origen de
la metalurgia en la Peninsula Jbirica, L, edited by M. FemAndez-Miranda, pp. 40-64. Caja de Madrid, Madrid.
Pinto, C. V., and R. Parreira 1978 Contribugao para o estudo do Bronze Final e Ferro Inicial a norte do estudrio do Tejo. Actas das IIIJornadas
Arqueol6gicas daAssociaqjo dosArque6logos Portugueses, Lisbon : 145-163.
Plog, F., and S. Upham 1983 The Analysis of Prehistoric Political Organization. In The Development ofPolitical Organization in Native North
America, edited by E. Tooker, pp. 199-213. The American Ethnological Society, Washington, D. C.
Plog, S. 1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A re-analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Afethod and Theory,
1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 143-182. Academic Press, New York.
Plog, S. 1980 Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Plog, S. 1990 Sociopolitical Implications of Stylistic Variation in the American Southwest. In The Uses ofStyle in Archaeology,
edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 61-72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
PolanyL K. 1957 The economy as instituted process. In Trade and Market in the early Empires, edited by K. Polanyi, C. Arcnsbcrg,
and H. Pearson, pp. 243-269. Free Press, New York.
Pollock, S. 1983 Style and Information: An Analysis of Susiana Ceramics. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 2: 354-90.
Popham, M. 1994 The Collapse of Aegean Civilisation at the end of the Late Bronze Age. In Prehistoric Europe. An Illustrated
History, edited by B. Cunliffe, pp. 277-303. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Port, J. R., Romero, A. C. 1993 El deposito de brazaletes de Saut Aleix(Lleida) y los ddpositos de objetos mdtalicos del Bronce Final en Cataluria.
Complutum 4: 69-80.
Powell, T. G. E. 1976 South-westem Peninsular Chariot Stelae. In To Illustrate the Monuments: Evsays on archaeologypresented to
Stuart Piggott, edited by J. V. S. Megaw, pp. 163-170. Thames and Hudson, London.
Poyoto Holgado, M. C. 1984-85 ObservacionesentomoalacronologfadelaceriinicaCampanifonneobtenidamediantcC-14. Cuadernosde
Prehistoria de la Universidadde Granada Homenaje al Prof Gratiniano Nieto 11-12: 93-105.
prados-Torrcira, L. 1997 Sanctuaries of the Iberian Peninsula: Sixth to First centuries BC. In Encounters and Transformations. The
Archaeology of1beria in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 151-160. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Prescott Vicente, E., and M. Andrade 1971 A estaqAo arqueol6gica do Cabeqo dos Moinhos (Mafra). Breve notfcia. Actas dos 11 Congreso Nacional de
Arqueologia (Coimbra 1970) 1: 233-259.
Pricgo, M. C., and S. Quero 1977 El campanifortne en el valle del Manzanares. XIVCongreso Nadonal de Arqueologla (Vit6ria 1975) : 267-276.
Priego, M. C., and S. Quero 1982 El poblado del Bronce deFAbrica(Getafe, Madrid). &tudiosdePrehistoriayArqueologiaAfadrile; ias 1: 299-308.
Priego, M. C., and S. Quero 1991 ElVentorro: unpobladomadrilefiodelosiniciosdelametal6rgia. FstudiosdePrehistorfayArqueologia
Madrilehas 5: 34-60.
Prieto Martinez, P. 1993 Definici6n de un sisterna metodol6gico para el estudio de la cerAmica de la Edad del Bronce en Gal icf a. Aclasdel
XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologla (Vigo 1993) 1: 17-24.
Proenga, F. T.
1910 Archeologia do Districto de Castelo Branco. Typographia Leiricnse, Leiria.
Pryor, F. 1992 Current research at Flag Fen, Peterborough. Antiquity 66: 439-457.
Queiroga, F. 1984 Escavag6es arquel6gicas em Castelo de Matos - Noticia preliminar. Arqueologia 9: 105-116.
Queiroga, F. 1990 Le castro de Ermidas. Village fortifte du Portugal. Archeologie 253 (January): 44-52.
Queiroga, F., and 1. Figueiral 1988 Castelo de Matos 1982-1986. Arqueologia 17: 137-150.
Queiroga, F., and 1. Figuciral 1989 Datag8cs de Carbono 14 para Castclo de Matos. Boletim Cultural da Cdmara Municipal de Vila Nova de
FamaliVio 9: 67-69.
Quero, S. 1982 El poblado del Broncc Mcdio de Tajar del Sastre (Madrid). &tudlos de Prehistoria y Arqueologia Madrileflas
35: 185-243.
Quesada Sanz, F. 1992 Arma y simbolo. La Falcata lb&ica. Instituto de Cultura, Alicante.
Ramirez Delgado, JR 1982 Los primitivos nficleos de asentamiento en la ciudad de Cidiz. Gades 5: 58-85.
Ram6n y Femdndez Oxea, J. 1942 Una estela prerromana del tipo Solana de Caballas. Archivo Espa; 1ol de Arqueologia 15: 334-337.
Ramsey, G. 1995 Middle Bronze Age metalwork: Are artefact studies dead and buried? In Ireland in the Bronze Age, edited by J.
J. Waddell and E. S. Twohig, pp. 9-62. Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, Dublin.
Rands, R. L., and R. Bishop 1980 Resource procurement zones and patterns of ceramic exchange in the Palenque region, Mexico. In Models and
methods in regional exchange, edited by R. E. Fry, pp. 19-46. SAA, New York.
Randsborg, K. 1974 Social Stratification in Early Bronze Age Denmark: A Study in the Regulation of Cultural Systems.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 49 (1): 38-60.
Randsborg, K. 1980 The Viking Age in Denmark. Duckworth, London.
Randsborg, K. 1982 Rank, Rights and Resources - An Archaeological Perspective from Denmark. In Ranking, Resource and
F-vchange, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 132-139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Randsborg, K. 1993 Kiuk. Archaeology and Iconography. ActaArchaeologia 64 (1): 1-146.
Ravesloot, John C. 1988 Mortuary Practices andSocial Differentiation at Casa Grandes, Chihuahua; Alexico. University of Arizona Press.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 49, Tucson.
Redman, C. 1978 The Rise ofCivilisation. Wm Freeman and Co., New York, USA.
Redmond, E. M. 1994 External Warfare and the Internal Politics of Northern South American Tribes and Chiefdoms. In Factional
Competition and Political Development in the New TVorld, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, pp. 44-54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Redmont, CA.
1995 Pots and peoples in the Egyptian Delta: Tell El-Maskhuta and the Hyksos. Journal ofMediterraneanArchaeolosy 8 (2): 61-89.
Reinach, S. 1925 The Evora gorget. Antiquaries Journal 5: 123-134.
Renfrew, C. 1967 Colonialism and Megalithismus. Antiquity 41: 276-288.
Renfrew, C. 1968 Wessex without Myccnae. Annual ofthe British School at Athens 63: 277-285.
Renfrew, C. 1969 Trade and Culture process in European Prehistory. Current Anthropology 10: 151-169.
Renfrew, C. 1973 Before Civilisation. Jonathan Cape, London.
Renfrew, C. 1975 Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In Ancient Civilization and Trade,
edited by J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 3-59. University of New Mexico Press, Alberquerque.
Renfrew, C. 1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction andSocio-political
Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, pp. 1-8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Renfrew, C 1986 Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Prehistoric Europe. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 141-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Renfrew, C. 1993 Trade beyond the material. In Trade and Fxchange In Prehistoric Europe, edited by C. Scarre and F. I leally, pp. 5.
16. Oxbow, Oxford.
Revilla Andia, M. L., and A. Jimeno Martinez 1986 El Horizonte Campaniforme de "El Guijar", Almazon (S6ria). Numantia 11: 159-192.
Ribeiro, 0. 1965 0 Bronze Herldional Portugu& Museu de Beja, Beja.
Ribeiro, 0. 1987 Introdufdo ao estudo da Geografla Regional. Edig6es Joao SA da Costa, Lisbon.
Rice, P. 1984b The archaeological study of specialised pottery production: some aspects of method and theory. In Pots and
Potters: Current approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology Monographs XXIV, edited by P. Rice, pp. University of California, California.
Rice, P. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Rice, P. 1990 Functions and uses of archaeological ceramics. In The Changing roles ofCeramics in Society. 2600OBp to the
Present, edited by W. D. Kingery, pp. 1-10. Chicago.
Ridgway, D. 1984 The First Western Greeks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ridgway, D. 1988 Western Geometric Pottery: new light on interactions in Italy. Proceedings ofthe ThirdSymposjum on ancient
Greek and relatedpottery (Copenhagen 1987): 489-505.
Ridgway, D. 1992 The First Western Greeks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ridgway, D. 1997 Nestor's cup and the Etruscans. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 16 (3): 325-344.
Ridgway, D., and F. S. Ridgway 1992 Sardinia and History. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. T. Tykot and T. K.
Andrews, pp. 355-363. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Rihuete Herrada, C. 1996 El Bronce del Suroeste. In Cronologia de la Prehistoria Reciente de la Peninsula lbirica (c. 2800-900 cat ANE),
edited by P. V. Castro Martinez, V. Lull, and R. Mic6, pp. 140-144. Tempus Reparatum. British Archaeological Reports international Series N* 652, Oxford.
Riley, JA. 1984 Pottery Analysis and the Reconstruction of Ancient Exchange Systems. In The Many Dimensions ofPottery.
Ceramics in archaeology and anthropology, edited by S. Van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, pp. 55-74. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Ripoll Pere116, E. 1990 Acerca de algunas problemas del arte rupestre postpaleolitico en la Peninsula lbdrica. Fspacio, Tiempoy Forma
3: 71-104.
Rivera, D. 1988 Arqueob6tanica y Paleoetnob6tanica en el sureste de Espafta. Datos preliminares. Trabajos de Prehistoria
45: 317-334.
Rivera, D., and M. J. Walker 1991 Grape remains and direct C 14 dating: a disconcerting experience from El Prado, Murcia, Spain. Antiquity 65: 905-
908.
Rivero de la Higuera, M. C. 1972-1973 Nuevas cstacioncs de pintura, rupestre esquemAtica en Extremadura. Zephyrus 23-24: 302-303.
Robarchek, C. 1990 Motivations and Material Causes: on the Explanation of Conflict and War. In THeAnthrepology of War, edited
by J. Haas, pp. 56-76. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Robb, J. 1994 Gender contradictions, moral coalitions and inequality in prehistoric Italy. Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 2
(1)(Spring): 20-49.
Robles, F. J., V. M. GonzAlez, and A. Gon; Uez 1991 Estudio antropologico sobre enterramientos del horizonte Protocogotas en el valle del Manzanares. Cuadernos de
Prehistoria de Universidade de Madrid 18: 83-112.
Rocha, A. Santos 1889-1903 Vestfgiodaepochade Bronze em Alvaidzerc. Portugdlial., 135-136.
Rocha, A. Santos 1897 Mem6rlas sobre a Antiguidade. Imprensa. Lusitana, Figucira da Foz.
Rodriguez Diaz, A. 1991 Projecto Homachuelos (Ribera dels Fresno, Badajoz 1986-1990). I*Jornadas de Prehistorlay. 4rqueologia en
Extremadura (ExtremaduraArqueologla) 11: 283-300.
Rodriguez Diaz, A. 1994 El valle medio del Guadiana, "Espacio de Frontera" cn la Protohistoria del Suroeste. Saguntum 27: 107-124.
Rodriguez Hidalgo, J. M. 1983 Nueva estcla decorada en Burguillos (Sevilla). Archivo Espaflol deArqueologia 56: 229-234.
Rodriguez, J. C. 1986 Novo machado piano na provincia de Ourense. Novos datos para o Bronce Inicial e Medfo no Noroeste
Hispanico. ActasdasXVCongresoArqueol6gicoNacionaI : 125-146.
Rodriguez, J. C. 1988 Una nueva espada del bronce mddio hallada en Villaviudas, Palencia. Boletin del Seminario de Arte y
Arqueologia 54: 219-223.
Rodriguez, M. J. 1996 Metalurgia en la Edad del Bronce: el sur de la Cuenca Media del Ebro. Trabajos de Prehistoria 53 (2): 77-93.
Rodriguez Terniflo, I., and E. Nuflez Pariente de Le6n 1983-1984 Una segunda estela del Bronce Final hallada en Ecija. Pyrenae 19-20: 289-294.
Rodriguez Terniflo, L, and E Nuflez Pariente de Le6n 1985 La tercera estela del Bronce Final hallada en Ecija. Habis 16: 481-485.
Rodriguez Vinceiro, F. J., L. E. FernAndez, J. L. Clavero, J. L. Romero, A. Garcia, and J. SuArez 1992 Estado actual de la investigaci6n arqueometaldrgia prehist6ria en la provincia de Milaga. Trabajos de Prehistoria
49: 217-242.
Roe, P. G. 1980 Art and Residence among the Shipibo Indians of Peru: a study in microacculturation. American Anthropologist
82: 42-71.
Roman, J. 1986 Exportaci6n en Occidente de un tipo ovoide de dnfora fenicio-p6nica de dpoca arcaica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria
y Arqueologia Castellonese 12: 97-122.
Root, D. 1983 Information exchange and the spatial configuration of egalitarian societies. In Archaeological Hammers and
Theories, edited by J. Moore and A. Keene, pp. Academic Press, New York.
Rosa Sala, NP M. 1980 El Bronce Final: los origenes del mundo ibdrico. Hist6ria de la Regi6n de Murcia 11: 103-117.
Rosa Sala, M' M. 1989 Lapervivencia del elements indigena: la cerdmica Ibirica. Universidad de Murcia, Murcia.
Rosenberg, M. 1990 The Mother of Invention: Evolutionary Theory, Territoriality, and the Origins of Agriculture. American
Anthropologist 92: 399415.
Rossa de Luna, M. 1898 Losa sepulcral de Solana de Cabaflas en el partido de Logrosdn. Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia
32: 179-182.
Rothenberg, B. 1989 The Rio Tinto Enigma: Early Rio Tinto Mining and Metallurgy. In Mineridy Metalurgla en las Antiguas
CivilLzaciones Mediterraneas y Europas. 1, edited by C. Domergue, pp. 57-70. Instituto de Conservaci6n y Restauracion de Bicncs Culturales, Madrid.
Rothenberg, B., and A. Blanco Frcijeiro 1981 Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in south-west Spain. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London.
Rothschild, N. A. 1990 Prehistoric Dimensions ofStatus: Gender andAge in Eastern North America. Garland, New York.
Rovira i Port, J. 1996 Una cuenta singular vitrificada de tipo Orientalizante entre los dep6sitos funerarios de un t6mulo Cataldn del
Bronce Medio: El monumento I de El Bose de Correi (L'Espunyola, BerguedA, Catalufta). Trabajos de Prehistorla 53 (1): 155-162.
Rovira Llorens, S. 1983 Estudio arqueometaldrgico de laspiezas metAlicas de El Peflonde laRcina(Alboloduy, Almeria). Antropologlay
Paleoecologla Humana 3: 193-202.
Rovira Llorens, S. 1987 AIgumas aspectos de la tecnologfa metal6rgia cn El Bronce Final y Edad del Ilierro. Boletin de la Asociaci6n
Espaola de Amigos de la Arqueologia 23: 53-57.
Rovira Llorens, S., and 1. Montero
1995 Estudio arqueometalOrgico del dep6sito de ]a Rla de Huelva. In Ritos de Pasoy Puntos de Paso. La Ria de Huelva en el Mundo del Bronce Final Europeo, Compluturn Extra 5, edited by M. Rufz-Gdlvez Priego, pp. 33-64. Unirsidad Complutense, Madrid.
Rowlands, M. 1993 The role of memory in the transmission of culture. World Archaeology 25 (2): 141-15 1.
Rowlands, M. J. 1976 The Organisation ofMiddle Bronze Age metalworking. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports British Series N' 31
(2 volumes), Oxford.
Rowlands, M-J. 1980 Kinship, Alliance and Exchange in the European Bronze Age. In The British Later Bronze Age, 83(i), edited by J.
Barrett and I- Bradley, pp. 15-55. BAR British Series, Oxford.
Rowlands, M. J. 1984 Conceptualising the European Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. In European Social Evolution, edited by J.
Bintliff, pp. 147-156. Bradford University, Bradford.
Rowlands, M. J. 1986 Modernist fantasies in Archaeology. Man (N. S. ) 21 (4)(4): 745-746.
Rowlands, M. J. 1987 The concept of Europe in Prehistory. Man 22: 558-9.
Royo Guilldn, J. 1., and R. Lamaspa 1991 Balsa de Tamariz (Zaragoza). Trabajos realizadas en 1988. Arqueologla Aragonesa 1986-1987: 145-148.
Ruivo, J-S. 1993 Os espetos articulados de Reguengo do Fetal (Bartalha, Leiria). Estudos Pr&Hist6ricos 1: 105-110.
Ruiz Delgado, M-Ma. 1988 Un nuevo dep6sito de armas del Bronze Final en el rio Guadalquivir. Trabajos de Prehistoria 45: 273-279.
Ruiz Lara, D. 1986 Nueva cstela decoradaen el Valle del ZOjar. EstudiosdePrehistoriaCordobesal: 95-101.
Ruiz, M. 1977 Nueva aportaci6n al conocimiento de la cultura del Argar. Trabajos de Prehistoria 34: 87-107.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1975 Cerdmicas del Bronce del poblado de Valencina de la Concepci6n (Seville). Madrider Alitteilungen 16: 80.110.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1979 El Broncc Final - fase inicial - en Andalucia occidental. Ensayo de dcfinici6n dc sus cerimicas. Archivo Espaftl
de Arqueologia 52: 3-19.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1980 El Bronce Final - fase inicial - cn Andalucia Occidental. Ensayo de definici6n de unas ccrdmicas. Archivo
Fspaflol de Arqueologia 52: 3-15.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1981 El poblado metaldrgico de ýpoca tartdsica de Sdn Bartolomd (Almonte, I luelva). Madrider Mitteilungen 22: 15 1.
170.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1984-1985 Puntualizaciones sobre la ceramica pintada tartisica del Bronce Final - estilo Carambolo o Guadalquivir 1.
Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueologia II- 12(Homenaje al Prof. Gratiano Nieto): 224-243.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1986a Aportaci6n al andlisis de los inicios de la presencia fenicia en Andalucia sudoccidental, segfin las excavaciones
del Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva), San Bartolomd (Almonte), Castillo de DoAa Blanca (Puerto de Santa Maria, CAdiz) y El Carambolo (Camas, Seville). In Homenaje a Siret, edited by pp. 537-556. Publicaciones de la Conserja de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucia, Cuevas de Almanzora.
Ruiz Mata, D.
1986b Las cerAmicas fenfcias del Castillo de Dofla Blanca (Puerto de Santa Maria, CAdiz). In Los Fenicios en la Peninsula Wrica, I, edited by M. E. Aubet, pp. 241-263. Editorial Ausa, Barcelona.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1988 El Castillo de Doila Blanca. Yacimiento clave de la protohistoria peninsular. Revista deArqueologla afto IX
(85): 36-48.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1989 Huelva, un foco temprano de actividad metal6rgica durante el Bronze Final. In Tartessos. 4rqueologla
Protohist6rica del Bajo Guadalquivir, 2, edited by M. E. Aubet, pp. 209-243. Ausa, Sabadell.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1993 Los Fenicios de Epoca Arcaica - Siglos VIII/Vll - cn la Bahia de CAdiz. Estudos Orientals IV: Os Fenfcios no
Territ6rio Portugu8s: 23-72.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1994 La secuencia prehist6rica reciente de la zona gaditana, seg6n las recientes investigaciones. Arqueologia en el
entorno del Bajo Guadalquivir, Huelva : 279-328.
Ruiz Mata, D. 1995 El vifto cn dpoca prerromana en Andalucia occidental. In Arqueologia del Viflo - los origens del vitio en
Occidente, edited by S. Celestino Wrez, pp. 159-212. Universidad de Jdrez, Jdrcz de la Frontcra.
Ruiz Mata, D., and J. FemAndez Jurado 1986 El yacimiento meta]6rgica de dpoca tartdsica de San Bartolomd de Almonte (Huelva). Huelva Arqueoldgica
VIII: 1-331-
Ruiz Mata, D., and J. C. Martin dc la Cruz 1977 Noticias preliminarcs sobre los materiales del yacimiento de Papauvas (Aljaranque, Huelva). Cuadernos
PrehistoridyArqueoNgla 4: 35-48.
Ruiz Mata, D., and C. J. Pdrez 1988 La necr6polis tumular de Las Cumbres. Puerto de Santa Maria. El t6mulo ný. 1. Revista de Arqueologia 87: 38 -
47.
Ruiz Rodriguez, A. 1993 Present Panoramas of Spanish Archaeology. In Teorlay Prdctica de la Prehistoria. Perspectivas desde Jos
Extremos de Europa, edited by M. I. Martinez Navarrcte, pp. 307-326. CSIC Universidade de Cantabria, Cantabria.
Ruiz Taboa, A. 1994 La Edad del Bronce en la Cuenca Mddia del Tajo. Primero Congresso de Arqueologla Peninsular. Actas 11134
(1-2)(1-2): 177-189.
Ruiz Taboada, A. 1993 Producci6n y explotaci6n economica cn las Estribaciones Nororientales de los Montes de Toledo durante la Edad
del Bronce. Complutum 4: 311-320.
Ruiz Zapatero, G. 1989 Centro y periferia: La Europa bkbara y el Mediten-Aneo en la Edad del Ilierro. TrabajosdePrehlstoria46: 331-
340.
Ruiz Zapatcro, G. 1993 La Organizaci6n de la Arqueologia en Espafla. In Teorlay Phictica de la Prehistoria, edited by M. I. Martinez
Navarretc, pp. 45-74. CSIC Universidade de Cantabria, Cantabria.
Rufz-Gdlvcz Priego, M. 1978 El tesoro de Caldas de Reyes. Trabajos de Prehistoria 35: 173-186.
Rufz-GAIvez Priego, M. 1980 Consideraciones sobre el origen de los putiales de antenas gallego-asturianos. Actas del ]*Seminarlo de
Arqueologia del Noroeste peninsular, Guimardes 1: 85-111.
Ruiz-Gilvez Priego, M. 1982 Nueva espada dragada en el Rio Ulla: armas arrojadas a las aguas. EJ Huseo de Pontevedra 36: 181-196.
Ruiz-GAlvez Priego, M. 1983 Espada procedente de la Ria de Larache en el Museo do Berlin Oeste. Homenaje al Professor Martin Basch,
Madrid 11: 63-68.
Rufz-GMvez Priego, M. 1984a La Peninsula Ibiricay sus relaciones con el CirculoAthintico. Doctoral, Universidad do Madrid.
Rufz-GA]vez Priego, M. 1984b Reflexiones term1nol6gicas on torno a la Edad del Bronce Peninsular. Trabajos de Prehistoria 41: 323-342.
Rufz-Gdlvez Priego, M. 1986 Navcgaci6n y comdrcio entre el Atldntico y el Mediterrineo a fines de la Edad del Bronce. Trabajos de
Prehistoria 43: 942.
Ruiz-GAlvez Priego, M. 1987 BronceAtldntico y "Cultura" del BronceAtldntico en laPenfnsulalbdrica. TrabajosdePrehistoria44: 251-264.
Ruiz-Gdlvez Priego, M.. 1988 Oro y politica. alianzas comerciales y centros de poder cn cl Bronce Final del occidente peninsular. apacia,
TiempoyForma 1: 325-338.
Rufz-Gilvcz Priego, M. 1989 La orfebreria del Bronce Final: el poder y su ostentacfon. Revista deArqueologia Fxtra 4: 46-57.
Rufz-GMvez Priego, M. 1991 Songs of a Wayfaring Lad. Late Bronze Age Atlantic Exchange and the construction of the regional identity in the
west Iberian Peninsula. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 10 (3): 277-306.
Rufz-GAlvez Priego, M. 1992a LaNoviaVendida: AgriculturaherenciayorfebrerfacniaProtohistoriadelaPenfnsulalbdrica. Spall: 219-251.
Ruiz-Gilvez Priego, M. 1992b Orientacioneste6reticassobreintereambioycomercioenPrchistoria. Galal: 87-101.
Ruiz-GAIvez Priego, M. 1993 El Occidente de la Peninsula Ibdrica, punto de encuentro entre el Mediterrdneo y el Atldntico a fines de la Edad del
Bronce. Complutum 4: 41-68.
Ruiz-GAlvez Pricgo, M. 1994 The bartered bride. Goldwork, inheritance and agriculture in the late prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula. Journal
ofEuropean Archaeology 2 (1): 50-8 1.
Rufz-Gdlvez Priego, M. 1995a Ritos de pasoypuntos de paso: la Ria de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce Final Europa. Universidad
Complutense. Compluturn Extra 5, Madrid.
Ruiz-Gdlvez Priego, M. 1995b ElHallazgodelosbroncesdelaRfadelluelvaensumarcopaleografico. InRitosde PasoyPuntosde Paso: La
Ria Huelva en el Mundo del Bronce Final Europeo, edited by M. R. -G. Priego, pp. Universidad Complutcrise, Madrid.
Ruiz-GAlvez Priego, M. 1995c Dep6sitos del Bronce Final: LSagrado o profano? tSagrado y, a la vez, profano? In Ritos de Pasoy Puntos de
Paso. La Ria de Huelva en el Mundo del Bronce Final Europeo, Compluturn Extra 5, edited by M. Rufz-Gdlvez Pricgo, pp, 21-32. Unirsidad Complutense, Madrid.
Ruiz-GAlvez Priego, M. 1995d LaRlaenrelacfon con lametal6rgiadeotrasrcgionespcninsulares duranteel Bronce Final. InRitosdepasoy
Puntos de Paso. La Ria de Huelva en el Mundo del Bronce Final Europeo, Complutum Extra 5, edited by M. Rufz-Galvcz Priego, pp. 59-68. Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
Rufz-GAIvez Priego, M. 1995e From gift to commodity: the changing meaning of precious metal in the late Prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula.
in Prehistoric Goldin Europe. Mines, Metallurgy and Manufacture, ASI NATO Series 280, edited by G. Morteani and J. Northover, pp. 45-63. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Ruiz-Gdlvez Priego, M.
1995f El significado de ]a Rfa de Huelva en el contexto de las relaciones de intercambio y de las transformaciones producidas en la transiefon Bronze Final - Edad del Hierro. In Ritos de Pasoy Puntos de Paso. La Ria de Huelva en el Mundo del Bronce Final Eurapeo, Compluturn Extra 5, edited by M. Ruiz-Gdlvez Priego, pp. 129-156. Unirsidad Complutense, Madrid.
Rufz-Gdlvez Priego, M. 1997 The West of Iberia: Meeting Point between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic at the End of the Bronze Age. In
Encounters and Transformations. TheArchaeology ofiberia in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilmm and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 95-120. Sheffield Archaeological Press, Sheffield.
Ruiz-GAlvez Priego, M. 1999 The Journey as a Rite of Initiation. In Gods and Heroes ofthe European BronzeAge, edited by K.
Demakopoulou, C. ElUre, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhavel, and J. -P. Mohen, pp. 46-47. Thames and I ludson, London.
Rufz-Gdlvcz Priego, M. fortcoming Ancient routes and modem motorways, Communication in western Iberia. Communication in BronzeAge
Europe (Proceedings of the Tanun Conference, 1999)
Rufz-GAlvez Priego, M... and E. GalAn Domingo 1991 Las estelas del suroeste como hitos de vfas ganaderas y rutas comerciales. Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 257-273.
Russell C6rtez, F. 1946 Ponteira em. ouro durri punhal visig6tico de Vita Nova de Paiva. Ampurias VII-VIII: 351-354.
Russell C6rtez, F. 1954 0 bracelete de Estrernoz. Nummus 2 (6)(6): 71-73.
Rutkowski, B. 1981 Friftriechische Kultdarstellungen. Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin.
Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping your temper under control: Materials and the manufacture of Papuan pottery. Archaeology and Physical
Anthropology in Oceania 11: 106-137.
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Taraxucum, Washington.
Sackett, J. 1982 Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 1: 59-112.
Sackett, J. 1985 Style and Ethnicity: a reply to Wicssncr. American Antiquity 50 (1): 154-172.
Sampson, C. G. 1988 Stylistic Boundaries among mobile hunter-foragers. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Samson, I- 1991 Economic Anthropology and Vikings. In Social Approaches to Viking Studies, edited by R. Samson, pp. 87-96.
Cruithnc Press, Glasgow.
Sanches, M. de J. 1981 Recipientes cerAmicos da Prd-Hist6ria reccnte do Norte de Portugal. Arqueologia 3: 88-98.
Sanches, M. de J. 1988 0 povoado da Lavra (Marco de Canaveses). Arqueologia 17: 125-134.
Sanches, M. de J. 1995 0 povoado da Lavra, Serra da Aboboreira. In A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited by
S. O. Jorge, pp. 117-118. Instituto Portugu6s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Sanches, M. de J. 1996 Passos. Santa Comba Mountain in the context of the late prehistory of northern Portugal. World Archaeology
(Sacred Geography) 28(2): 220-230.
Sanches, M. de J. 1999 A arqueologia eo mcio natural: o caso da implantaqAo do sistema agro-pastoril em Tris-os-Montes c Alto Douro.
Arqueologia 24: 43-60.
Sdnches, M. de J. 1988 0 povoada da Lavra (Marco de Canaveses). Arqueologia 17: 125-134.
Sdnchcz, J. M. 1983 El Neolitico y la Edad del Bronce en la region de Madrid. Arqueologlay Palaeoecologia 3: 12-42.
Sdnchez Palencia, F. J., and L. C. Pdrez 1989 Los Yacimientos auriferos de la Peninsula lbdrica - Posibilidades de exploitaci6n en la Antiguidad. Revista de
Arqueologia - El Oro en la Hispania Prerromana: 16-23.
Sdnchez, V. S. 1983 Edad del Bronce en Extremadura. XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Murcia-Cartageru4 1982): 349-355.
Sandars, N. 1978 The Sea Peoples. Thames and Hudson, London.
Sandars, N. 1985 The Sea Peoples., Warriors ofthe Ancient Mediterranean. Thames and I ludson, London.
Sandars, N. K. 1971 From Bronze Age to Iron Age: a sequel to a sequel. In The European Community in Later Prehistory. 11awkes
Festschrift, edited by J. Boardman, M. Brown, and T. G. E. Powell, pp. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Sangmeister, E. 1960 Metalurgfa y comercfo del cobre en la Europa prehist6rica. Zephyrus XI: 131-139.
Sangmeister, E. 1966 Die Datierung der Rückstroms der Gleckenbecher und ihre Auswirkung auf die Chronologie der Kupferzeit in
Portugal. Palaeohistoria XII: 395-407.
Sangmeister, E., and H. Schubart 1981 Zambujal. Die Grabunden 1964-1973. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Sarimarti, J. 1991 El comercio fenicio y p6nico en Cataluna. IIJornadas de Arqueologia Fenicio-Punico, Ibiza : 119-136.
Sanmarti, J. 1997 Los anforas de los Iberos. Envases de transporte y almacenaje. Revista de Arqueologia 197(Septcmbcr): 6-14.
Santonja G6mes, M., and M. Santonja Alonso 1978 La estatua-menhir de Valdefuentes de Sangusfn (Salamanca) y el poblado de los Espinos. Boletin de la
Asociaci6n Espahola de Amigos de Arqueologia 10: 19-24.
Santos, M. F. 1972 A estela decorada de Castro Verde. Actas das IIJorndas Arqueol6gicas, Lisbon 1972: 223-229.
Santos Velasco, J. A. 1997 The Iberians in Sardinia: A Review and Update. In Encounters and Transformations. The ArchaeoloSy ofiberia
in Transition, edited by M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, and L. Prados-Torreira, pp. 161-166. Shcff ield Archaeological Press, Sheffield.
Sanz, E. 1994 Los enterramientos de la. Edad del Bronce Medio en la Penfnsula Ibdrica: Aproximaci6n a su origen y
paralelismos. Espacio, Tfempoy Forma Serie 1. Prehistoriay Arqueologia 7: 255-176.
Sanz Garcia, F. J., Misiego Tejada, J. C., Perez Rodriguez, F. J. 1994 La Acefla (Iluerta, salamanca). Un Campo de Hoyos de Cogotas I. Numantia 5: 73-86.
Savory, H. N. 1949 The Atlantic Bronze Age in south-west Europe. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 12(): 128-155.
Savory, II. N. 1951 A Idade do Bronze Atlfintico no Sudoeste da Europa. Revista de Guimardes LXI: 323-377,
Savory, H. N. 1968 Spain and Portugal. Thames and Hudson, London.
Schaafsman, P. 1985 Form, Content, and Function: Theory and Method in North American Rock Art Studies. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. Academic Press, New York.
Schauer, P. 1983 Orient im SpAtbronze - und Frfjheisenzeitlichen Occident. Kulturbezeiehungen zwischen der lberischcn I Talbinsel
und dem Vorderen Orient. Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentral Museum 30: 175-194.
Schauer, P. 1984 Spuren Minoisch-Mykenischen und Orientalischen Enflusses im atlantischen westeuropa. Jahrbuch der Rftisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseum, Mainz 31: 137-186.
Schneider, J. 1977 Was there a pre-capitalist World System? Peasant Studies 6: 20-29.
Schortman, E. M., Urban, P. A. 1988 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.
I I, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. Academic Press, New York.
Schortman, E. M. 1989 Interregional interaction in Prehistory: the need for a new perspective. American Antiquity 54 (1): 52-65.
Schubart, H. 1965a Atalaia: Urna necr6pole da Idade do Bronze no Baixo, Alentejo. Arquiva de Beja 22: 7.136.
Schubart, H. 1965b Zwei Belegungsphasen im Kuppelgrab von Monte do Outeiro bei Aijustrel in Portugal. Madrider Mitteilungen
6: 65-73.
Schubart, H. 1970 Die Kuppferzietliche Befestigung von Columbeira (Obidos). Madrider Afitteilungen II
Schubart, H. 1971 Acerca de la cerdmica del Bronce Tardfo en el Sur y Oeste Peninsular. TrabajosdePrehistoria28: 153-182.
Schubart, H. 1972a Novos achados sepulcrais do Bronze. Actas das IIJornadas Arqueoldgicas, Lisbon 1972 : 65-97.
Schubart, H. 1972b Estratigrafla horizontal de Atalaia. Una contribuci6n a la cronologfa del Bronce en el Sudoeste de la Penfnsula
lbdrica. XI Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia, 1970: 396414.
Schubart, H. 1973 Tumbas megaliticas con enterramientos secundarios de la Edad del Bronce de Colada de Monte Nuevo de
Olivenza. Actas das AW Congreso Nacional de Arqueologla (Zaragoza 1971) : 175-209.
Schubart, H. 1974a La cultura del Bronce en el sudoeste peninsular. Misceldnea Arqueol6gica. AXVAniversdrio de los Curso
internacionales de Prehist6ria y Arqueologia en Ampurias (Barcelona 1947-1971) : 345-370.
Schubart, H. 1974b Novos achados sepulcrais do Bronze do Sudoeste 11. Actas das IlJornadas Arqueol6gicas 11: 65-95.
Schubart, 11. 1975 Die Kultur der Bronzezeit im Sadwesten der lberischen 11albinsel. Walter de Gruyter & Co. (Madrider
Forschangen 9), Berlin.
Schubar4 H. 1976a Eine Bronzezeitliche Kultur im. Sadwestcn der lberischcn Halbinsel. In Acculturation and continuity in Atlantic
Europe during the Neolithic andBronze Age. Atlantic Colloquium 1975, edited by S. J. de Lact, pp. 221-234. De Tempel, Brugge.
Schubart, H. 1976b RelacionesmediterrineasdelaculturadeElAlgar. Zephyrus26-27: 331-361.
Schubar4 H. 1979 Morro de Mezquitilla. Campafla de 1976. Noticario Arqueol6gico Hispdn/co 6: 179-218.
Schubart, H. 1982 Asentamientos fenicios en la costa mcridional dc la Peninsula lbdrica. Huelva Arqueol6gica 6: 71-89.
Schubart, H. 1986 Consideraciones sobre el Bronce del suroeste Peninsular. In Hist6ria de Cartagena, edited by J. Maas-Garcia, pp.
221-250. Murcia.
Schubart, H. 1986 El Asentarniento fenicio de s. VIII&C. en el Morro de Mezquitilla (Algarrobo, MAlaga). In Los Feniclos en la
Peninsula Ibirica, Ledited by M" E. Aubet and G. d. O. Lete, pp. 59-83. Sabadell, Barcelona.
Schubart, H. 1988 Endbronzeitliche und ph6nizische Siedlungsfunde von der Guadiaro MOndung, Provincia CAdiz. Madrider
Mittedungen 29: 123-173.
Schubart, H. 1989 Significacfon historico-cultural de la costa meridional de la Peninsula Ibdrica desde la Edad del Cobre hasta la
colonizacfon knicia. In Discurso de Investidura de Doctor "Honoris Causa", edited by 11. Schubart, pp. 23-50. Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, madrid.
Schubart, H. 1990 Los primeros Fenfcios en las costas de la Peninsula lbdrica. 4rchivo de Prehistoria Levantina Y-X: 294 1.
Schubart, H., and 0. Arteaga 1978 Fuente Alamo. Vorbericht fiber die grabung 1977 in der Bronzezeitlichen h6hensiedlung. Madrider Mitteilungen
19: 23-51.
Schubart, H., and 0. Arteaga 1980 Fuente Alamo. Vorbericht fiber die grabung 1979 in der Bronzezeitlichen h8hensiedlung. Madrider Mitteilungen
21: 40-80.
Schubart, H., and 0. Arteaga 1983 Excavaciones en Fuente Alamo. La cultura de El Argar. Revista de Arqueologia 24-26
Schubart, H., and 0. Artcaga 1986 El mundo dc la colonias fenicias occidentales. Homenaft a Luis Siret (Seville) : 499-525.
Schubart, H., 0. Artcaga, and V. Pingel 1985 Fuente Alamo. Informe preliminar sobre la excavaci6n de 1985 en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce. Ampurias
47: 70-107.
Schubart, H., 0. Arteaga, and V. Pingel 1989 Fuente Alamo. Vorbericht fiber die Grabung 1988 in der bronzezeitlichcn lIahensiedlung. Madrider Milledungen
30: 76-91.
Schubart, H., and H. G. Niemeyer 1976 Trayamar. Los hipogeos fenicios y el asentainiento de la desembocadura del rio Algarrobo. &cavaciones
Arqueol6gicas en Espafta, Madrid 90
Schille, W. 1960 Problcme der Eiscnzeit auf lberischen 11albinsel. Jahrbuch des Rftisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 7: 59-
125.
Schtile, W. 1968 Tartesso y el hinterland (excavaciones de Orce y Galera). Tartessos y sus Problemas, V4mposium Internaclonal
de Prehistoria Peninsulwý Barcelona: 15-32.
Schale, W. 1969 Die Meseta-Kulturen der lberischen Halbinsel. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
Schfile, W. 1976 Der Bronzezeitliche Schatzfund von Villena (Province Alicante). Madrider Mitteilungen 17: 142-179.
Schale, W. 1980 Orce und Galera Zwei Siedlungen aus dem 3 bis L Jartausend v. chr. im Sfidosten der Iberischen 11albinsel L
Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Schfjlc, W., and M. Pclliccr 1966 El Cerro de la Virgen, Orce (Granada) I. ExcavacionesArqueol6gicas, Madrid 46: 23-55.
Schulten, A. 1984 Tortessos. I st- 1922. Espasa-Calpc, Madrid.
ScItman, C. 1957 Wine in the Ancient World. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1981 ContriibuýAo para uma Tipologia da Olaria do mcgalitismo das Beiras: os matcrias do Dolmen nO. I dos Moinhos
do Vento, Arganil. Trabalhos do Museu Regional de Arqueologia I
Senna-Martfncz, J. C. 1984a Contribuq6cs arqueomdtricas para um modelo sociocultural: padraes volumdtricos na Idade do Bronze do Centro
e NW de Portugal. Clio Arqueologia 1: 169-188.
Senna-Martfnez, J-C. 1984b 0 Monumento no. 3 da nccr6pole dos Moinhos de Vento, Arganil: a campanha de1984. Clio Arqueologla 1: 213 -
216.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1989 Prj-Hist6ria Recente da Bacia do Midio e Alto Mondego: a1gumas contribuiq6espara um modelo sociocultural.
Phl), Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa.
Senna-Martfnez, J-C. 1991a Las fechas C- 14 para Castro de Santa Luzia c SAo RomAo. Informaqjo Arqueologia 10: 1 -8.
Senna-Martinez, J-C. 1991b Megalitismo, habitat e sociedades a Bacia Mddio c Alto Mondego no conjunta da Beira Alta. Actas do Seminarlo
110 Megalitismo no Centro de Portugal" 2, Mangualde: 153-172.
Senna-Martfnez, J. C. 1993a A ocupagao do Bronze Pleno da "Sala 20" do Buraco da Moura de Sao RomAo. Trabalhos de Arqueol6gia da
EAM. 1: 55-75.
Senna-Martfnez, J. C. 1993b A ocupacAo do Bronze Pleno da "Sala 20" do Buraco da Moura de SAo Rornlo. TrabalhosdeArqueologiada
EAMI: 55-75.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1993c Notas para o estudo da gdnese da Made do Bronze na Beira Alta. TrabalhosdeArqueologiadaF-4MI: 173-200.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1993d Apresentagao: Trabalhos de Arqueologia na Bacia do Mddio e Alto Mondego - 1982-1992. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia da F, 1M 1: 1-7.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1993e 0 Grupo Baitses-Santa Luzia: ContribuýOes para urna tipologia da olaria. Trabalhos de Arqueol6gia da E. A. M.
1: 93-123.
Senna-Martfnez, J. C. 1993f Duas contribuqbes arqueomdtricas para o estudo do Bronze Pleno do Centro c Noroeste do Portugal. Trabalhos
deArqueol6giadaEAM 1: 77-91.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1994a Megalftismo, habitat y sociedades. A bacia do Mddio c Alto Mondego no conjunto da Beira Alta. Fstudos
Prihistoricas. 0 Megalitismo no Centro PortugaL Actas do Seminarlo (Mangualde November 1992) 11: 15-29.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1994b Subsfdios para o estudo do Bronze Pleno na Extremadura Atldntica: 1. A alabarda de tipo "Atlintico" do Habitat
das Ba6tas (Amadora). Zepk7w 46-47: 149-170.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1994c Entre Atldntico e Mediterrdneo: Aigumas reflex6es sobre o Grupo Baides-Santa Luzia eo desenvolvimicnto do
Bronze Final Peninsular. Trabalhos de Arqueologia da FAM 2: 205-222.
Senna-Martfnez, J. C. 1995a The Late Prehistory of Central Portugal.: A First Diachronic View. In The Origins ofcomplex societies in Late
Prehistoric Iberia, 8, edited by YL Lillios, pp. 64-96. International Monographs in Prehistory, Michigan.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1995b Entre AtlAntico c Mediterrineo: Algumas Reflex6cs sobre o grupo Baiaes-Santa Luzia co Desenvolvimento do
Bronze Final Peninsular. In A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 118-122. Instituto Portugu6s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Senna-Martinez, J. C. 1998 ProduýAo, ostentagao e redistribuqAo: Estructura Social e Economia Politica no Grupo Bakscs-Santa Luzia. In
Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlintico?, Trabalhos de Arqucologia 10, editcd by s. O. Jorge, pp. 218-229. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Senna-Martinez, J-C., and A. M. Dias Luz 1983 0 megalitismo da bacia do Alvo: primera contribuqAo para urn modelo socioec6nomico. OArqueol6go Portugues
I (sdrie IV): 101- 117.
Senna-Martinez, J. C., M. F. Garcia, and M. J. Rosa 1984 Contribuiq6es para uma tipologia da olaria do megalitismo das Beiras: olaria da Idade do Bronze (1). Clio
Arqueologia 1: 105-138.
Senna-Martinez, J. C., A. Guerra, and C. Fabiao 1986 Cabego de Crasto de Silo Romdo, Sela. A campanha 1 (1985). Universidade de Lisboa (UNIARCI I). Gabinete dc
Historia y Arqueologia de Seia, Lisbon.
Senna-Martfnez, J. C., A. Nascimento, A. F. Carvalho, and F. S. Almeida 1993 0 sftio do Bronze Final do Cabego do CucAo, Pedra Cavaleira (Silgueiros, Viseu): uma primeira andlise.
TrabalhosdeArqueol6giadaE. A. M, 1: 143-147.
Senna-Martinez, J. C., and T. S. Nuftes 1993a A ocupaqAo do Bronze Final do Buraco da Moura de SAo RomAo. Trabalhos de Arqueoldgia da EA. M. 1: 125 - 135.
Senna-Martinez, J. C., and T. S. Nufles 1993b A ocupaqAo do Bronze Final do Outeiro do Castelos(Beij6s): umaprimeiraandlise. TrabalhosdeArqueoldgla
daEA. M. 1: 137-141.
Senna-Martfnez, J. C., L. Rocha, and I- Ramos 1993c 0 sitio do Bronze Final da Malcata (Carregal do Sal): uma primeira anilise. Trabalhos de Arqueol6gla da
E. A. M. 1: 149-154.
Sema, M. R., J. L. Escacena, and M. E. Aubet 1984 Nuevos datos para una definicion del Bronce Antiguo y Pleno en el Bajo Guadalquivir. In Settlement in the
Western Mediterranean Islands and the Peripheral Areas, edited by W. Waldren, pp. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports Intemacional Series NO 229, Oxford.
Serrano-Picdecasas FernAndez, L. 1981 Estella a Sevilla: un camino en 1352. In Les Communicacions dans la Pininsule Ibirique au Moyen-Age, edited
by L. Serrano-Piedecasas Femdndez, pp. 191-205. CNRS, Paris.
SerrAo, E. da Cunha 1958a Ccrdmica corn omatos a cores da Lapa do Fumo (Sesimbra). I* Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia. Assoclaqt? a
dos Arqueol6gos Portugueses (Lisbon) 1: 337-359.
Serrdo, E. da Cunha 1958b CerAmica protohist6rica da Lapa do Fumo (Sesimbra). com omatos coloridos e brunidos. Zephyrus 9 (2): 177-
186.
SerrAo, E. da Cunha 1964 A Lapa do Fumo. Uma primera anilise. Geographica 4: 68-92.
Serrfio, E. da Cunha 1969 A Lapa do Fumo. Geographica 15: 265-287.
Serrio, E. da Cunha 1970 As cerknicas dc "retfcula bruilida" das cstaqdcs arquco]6gicas espanholas e com "omatos bruftidos" da Lapa do
Fumo. Actas das I'Jornadas Arqueoldgicas. Associaqdo dos Arque6logos (Lisbon 1969) 1: 273-308.
Serrfio, E. da Cunha 1975 Contribuý6es arqueol6gicas do Sudoeste da Peninsula de Setabal. Sellibal Arqueol6gica 1: 199-226.
Serrfio, E. da Cunha 1978 Lapa do Fumo. Aspectos e mdtodos da Prd-hist6ria. Arqueologia
Trabalhos do grupo de Estudos Arqueol6gicos de Porto I (Aspetos e Mdtodos da Prd-Hist6ria, Porto. Grupo dc Estudos Arqueologicos de Porto): 27-45.
Service, E. R. 1962 Primitive Social OrganLzation. Random House, New York.
Severo, I- 1905-1908 Os torques de Almoster. Portugalia 11: 17-29.
Sevillano San Josd, M. C. 1982 Un nuevo hallazgo en Extremadura: el fdolo-estela de El Cerezal. Zephyrus 34-35: 165-17 1.
Sevillano San Josd, M. C. 1985 Grabados rupsetres en la comarca de Las Hurdes (Ckiceres). Universidade de Salamanca, Salamanca.
Shanks, M., Tilley, C. 1989 Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review
Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1982 Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a Reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In
Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by 1. Hodder, pp. 129-154. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shanks, M., and C. Tilley 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Sharpies, N. 1991 Warfare in the Iron Age of Wessex. Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 79-89.
Sheflon, B. 1982 Greeks and Greek imports in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. In Ph6nizier im Westen, edited by I I. G.
Niemeyer, pp. 337-370. Philipp Zabern (Madrider BeitrAger 8), Mainz.
Shcnnan, S. J. 1978 Archaeological 'cultures': an empirical investigation. In The Spatial Organisation ofCulture, edited by 1.1 [odder,
pp. 113-132. Duckworth, London.
Shennan, S. J. 1982 Ideology, Change and the European Early Bronze Age. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by 1.
Hodder, pp. 155-161. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Shennan, S. J. 1986 Central Europe in the third millennium BC: an evolutionary trajectory for the beginning of the European Bronze
Age. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeoloSy5: 115-146.
Shennan, S. J. 1987 Trends in the Study of Later European Prehistory. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 16
Shennan, S. J. 1990 Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Sherman, S. J. 1993 Settlement and social change in central Europe 3500-150013C. Journal of World Prehistory 7 (2): 121-16 1.
Shepard, A. 0. 1956 Ceramicsfor the archaeologist. Camegie Institute of Washington, Washington.
Shepard, A. 0. 1965 Rio-Grande glaze paint pottery: a test of petrographic analysis. In Ceramics and Man, edited by F. Matson, pp.
Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, New York.
Shepard, A. 0. 1968 Ceramicsfor the archaeologist, Camegie Institution, Publ. 609, Washington D. C.
Shephard, R. 1993 Ancient mining. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Sherratt, A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In Pattern ofthe Pasr Studies in Honour
ofDavid Clarke, edited by 1. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 261-305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sherratt, A. 1983 The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 15: 90-104.
Sherratt, A. 1991 Sacred and profane substances: the ritual use of narcotics in later Neolithic Europe. In Sacred and Profane:
Proceedings ofa Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32, edited by P. Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skcates, and J. Toms, pp. 50-64. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sherratt, A. 1993a 'Who are you calling peripheralT Dependence and independence in European prehistory. In Trade and
Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Monographs 33, edited by C. Scarre and F. Healy, pp. 245-255. Oxbow, Oxford.
Sherratt, A. 1993b What would a Bronze Age World System look like? Relations between Temperate Europe and the
Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 1 (2): 1-57.
Sherratt, A. 1994a Core, periphery and margin: Perspectives on the Bronze Age. In Development and Decline in the Mediterranean
Bronze Age, edited by S. Stoddart and C. Mathers, pp. 335-346. I. R. Collis Publications (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8), Sheffield.
Shcrratt, A. 1994b The emergence of dlites: Earlier Bronze Age Europe, 2500-130013C. In The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of
Europe, edited by B. Cunliffe, pp. 244-276. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sherratt, A. 1995a "FataMorgane. Illusion and Reality in Greek-Barbarian relations. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5
(1): 139-156.
Sherratt, A. 1995b Alcohol and its alternatives: Symbol and substance in pre-industrial cultures. In Consuming Habits: Drugs in
History and Anthropology, edited by J. Goodman, P. E. Lovejoy, and A. Sherratt, pp. 11-45. Routledge, London.
Sherratt, A., and S. Sherratt 1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. In Bronze Age Trade
in theklediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, edited by N. 1 1. Gale, pp. 351-386. Jonsercd, Sweden.
Shcrratt, A. G. 1987 Cups that Cheered: The Introduction of Alcohol to Prehistoric Europe. In Bell Beakers ofthe West Mediterranean,
edited by W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 81-114. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 33 1, Oxford.
Sherratt, S. , and A. Sherratt 1993 The growth of the Mediterranean economy in the early first millennium BC. World. 4rcahaeologv24(3): 361-378.
Siculus, Diodorus 1933(trans) Diodorus of Sicily (Translated by C. H. Oldfather). Heineman, London.
SilRres, P. 1990 Les voies de comunication de Wispanie Meridionale. Publications du Centre Pierre, Diffusion de Boccard, Paris.
Silva, A. C. F. 1983-1984 A cultura castreja no Noroeste de Portugal: Habitat e cronologfas. Portugalia IV-V: 121-129.
Silva, A. C. F. 1986 A Cultura Castreja no Noroeste de Portugal. Museo Arqueol6gico da Cit5nia de Sanfins, Sanfins.
Silva, A-C. F.
. 1993 A Idade do Bronze do Portugal. In Prj-Hist6ria de Portugal, edited by A. C. F. Silva, pp. 235-283. Univcrsidade Aberta 57, Lisbon.
Silva, A. C. F. 1994 Proto-Hist6ria do Norte e Centro de Portugal. In Proto-Hist6ria de Portugal, edited by A. F. C. Silva and M. V.
Varela G6mes, pp. 31-97. Universidade Aberta, Lisbon.
Silva, A. C. F., L. Raposo, and C. T. Silva 1993 Prehist6ria de Portugal. Universidade Aberta, Lisbon.
Silva, A. C. F., C. Silva, and A. Lopes 1984 Dep6sito de fundidor do final da Idade do Bronze do Castro da Senhora da Guia, (Baides, S. Pedro do Sul, Viseu).
Lucerna - Homenagen a D. Domingo Pinho Branddo : 73-110.
Silva, A. C. F., and M. V. Varela G6mes 1994 Proto-Hist6ria de Portugal. Universidade Aberta, Lisbon.
Silva, A. F. C. 1990 Infludricias Orientalizantes na formaqfto da Cultura Castreja do Noroeste de Portugal. Estudos Orientais 1: 135-
155.
Silva, A. M., and F. A. P. Silva 1992 EstaqAo arqueol6gica de Sao Juliao. Memorandum July 1992 (dactilografado)
Silva, A. M., and F. A. P. Silva 1993 Estaqfto arqueol6gica de Sao Juliao. Reldtorio da V Campanha de Escavaqbes. Memorandum April 1993
(dactilografado)
Silva, ARP. 1976 Carbonised grain and plant imprints in ceramics from the castro of Baides (Beira Alta, Portugal). Folia
Quaternaria 47(Krakow): 3-9.
Silva, A. F-P. 1988 A Paleoctnobotdnica na Arqueologia Portuguesa: resultados desde 1931 a 1987. Paleoecologia eArqueologia 1: 5-
36.
Silva, Celso T. 1978 Cerknica tipica da Beira Alta. Actas das III Congresso de Arqueologia (Lisbon 1977) : 185-196.
Silva, Celso T. 1979 0 Castro de Bai6es (S. Pedro do Sul). Beira Alta 38 (3): 509-53 1.
Silva, Celso T., A. Correia, and J. 1. Vaz 1984 Castro de Santa Luzia. Informagdo Arqueol6gica 4: 124-125.
Silva, Celso T., A. Correia, and J. 1. Vaz 1985 Castro de Santa Luzia. Informaqdo Arqueol6gica 5: 145.
Silva, Celso T., A. Correia, and J. 1. Vaz 1985 Monte Oe Santa Luzia. InformaVi7o Arqueol6gica 5: 145.
Silva, Celso T, A. Correia, and J. L. Vaz 1982-1983 Viseu. Castro de Santa Luzia. Informagdo Arqueologia 5: 145.
Silva, Carlos T, and J. Soares 1978 Umajazida do Bronze Final na Cerradinha (Lagoa do Santa Andrd). SitubalArqueol6gicaIV: 71-97.
Silva, C. T., and J. Scares 1979 0 monumento I danecr6pole do Bronze do Sudoeste doPessegueiro (Sines). SdiubalArqueologia5: 121-153.
Silva, C. T., and J. Scares 1981 Prj-hist6ria do irea de Sines. Trabalhos arqueol6gicos de 1972-1977. Gabinete da Area de Sines, Sines.
Silva, C. T., J. Soarm C. M. Beirao, L. F. Dias, and A. Coelho-Soares 1980-1981 EscavaqOcs arqueol6gicas no Castelo de Alcacer do Sal (Campahna de 1979). S9tubalArqueol6gica &7: 71-
89.
Silva, M. M., and P. J. Mota Santos 1988-1989 As CerAmicas tipo Penha da Sociedade Martins Sannento-Guimatrftes. Estudo tipol6gico. Portugalia (7v. S. )
9-10: 64-73.
Simon Garcia, J. L. 1989 La Edad del Bronce en Javea (Alicante). A7X Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia 1: Ponencias y
Comunicaciones: 429-440.
Simonton, D. K. 1994 Individual Differences, Developmental Changes, and Social Context. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 17: 552-
553.
Sinopoli, C. M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press, New York.
Siret L. 1913 Questions de chronologie et dethnographie ibiriques 1. Paul Geuthner, Paris.
Skibo, J. M. 1992 Potteryfunction: a use alteration perspective. Plenum Press, New York.
Skibo, J. M. 1994 The Kalinga cooking pot: an ethnoarchaeological and experimental study of technological change. In Kalinga
Ethnoarchaeology. Expanding Archaeological Method and 7heory, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 113-126. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Skibo, J. M., M. B. Schiffer, and K. C. Reid 1989 Organic-Tempered pottery: An experimental study. American Antiquity 54: 122-146.
Small, D. B. 1990 Handmade Burnished Ware and prehistoric Aegean economics: An argument for indigenous appearance. Journal
ofMediterranean Archaeology 3: 3.25.
Small, D. B. 1997 Can we move forward? Comments on the current debate over Handmade Burnished Ware. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 10: 223-228.
Smith Jr., M. F. 1985 Towards an economic interpretation of ceramics: relating vessel size and shape to use. In Decoding Prehistoric
ceramics, edited by B. A. Nelson, pp. 254-3 10. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville.
Smith, T. R. 1987 Mycenean trade and interaction in the west central Mediterranean 1600-1000BC. B. A. R. British Archaeological
Reports International Series No 371, Oxford.
Soares, A. M. 1984 0 povoado de Passo Alto. Excavaq8es de 1982. Arquivo de Beja 3 (Sdrie 2): 45-87,
Soares, A. M.
1986 0 povoado do Passo Alto. EscavaýOes de 1984. Arquivo de Beja 2's4rie 3: 89-99.
Soares, A. M. 1994 0 Bronze do Sudoeste na margem esquerda do Guadiana. As necr6poles do Concelho da Serpa. Actas das V
JornadasArqueol6gicas da Associaqjo dos Arque6los Portugu9ses 2: 179-197.
Soares, A. M., M. F. Araujo, and J. M. P Cabral 1985 0 Castelo Velho de Safara: vestlgios da pritica da metal4rgia. Arqueologia 11: 87-94.
Soares, A. M., and J. M. P. Cabral 1984 Datas radiocarbono para estaq8es arqueol6gicas portugueses ea sua calibraýfto. 0 Arque6logo Portugues Sdrie IV
(2): 167-214.
Soares, J., and C. T. Silva 1998 From the collapse of the Chalcolithic mode of production to the development of the Bronze Age societies in the
south-wcst of the Iberian Peninsula. In Existe uma Idade do BronzeAt1dnt1co?, Trabalhos de Arqueologfa I O, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 231-238. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Soares, J., and C. T. da Silva 1995 0 Alentejo Litoral no contexto da Idade do Bronze do Sudoeste Peninsular. In .4 Idade do Bronze em Portugal.
Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 136-139. Instituto Portugu8s de Muscus, Muscu Nacional de Arqucologia, Lisbon.
Soldevilla, I. P. 1991-2 la Solana del Castillo de Alange: Una Propuesta de Secuencia Cultural de la Edad del Bronce en la Cuenca
Media del Guadiana. Norball-12: 75-98.
Soler Garcia, J. M. 1986 La Edad del Bronce en la comarca de Villena. Homenaje a Luis Siret. Cuevas de Almanzora Consejeria do
Cultura de la Junta de Andalucia : 381-404.
Soler, J. M. 1965 El tesoro de Villena. Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en Espaha 36, Madrid.
Soler, J. M. 1987 Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Cabezo Redondo, Villena. Ayuntamiento de Villena e Instituto de Estudios Juan
Gil-Albert
Sorensen, M. L., and R. Thomas 1989 Introduction. In The Bronze Age-Iron Age transition in Europe, edited by M. L. Sorensen and R. Thomas, pp. I
2 1. B. A. R_ British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 483, Oxford.
Sorensen, M. L. S. 1998 The Atlantic Bronze Age and the construction of Meaning. In &iste uma Idade do Bronze Atlantico?, edited by
S. O. Jorge, pp. 255-266. Instituto Portuguds de Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Sos Baynat, V. 1977 Los hallazgos prehist6ricos de LogrosAn (CAceres). Revista de Estudios Extremehos 33: 261-285.
Souville, G. 1965 Influences de la Pdninsule Ibdrique sur les Civilisations Post-Ndolithiques du Maroc. Alisceldnea en Homenaje al
Abate Henri Breuil (1877-1961) (Barcelona 1964) 11: 409422.
Sperber, L. 1999 Crises in Western European metal supply during the Late Bronze Age. In Gods and Heroes ofthe European
Bronze Age, edited by K. Demakopoulou, C. Elu&e, J. Jensen, A. Jockenhovel, and L. P. Mohen, pp. 48-5 1. Thames and Hudson, London.
Spindler, K. 1981a Glockenbecherund Bronzezeit als duales Kulturensystem auf der Iberischcn Ilalbinsel. SimpJsioA11Jn11coI: 23-
56.
Spindler, K. 1981b Cova da Moura. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rheim.
Spindler, K.
1981c Cava da Moura (Die Besledlung des AtIantischen Kastengebietes Mittelportugals voin Neolithikum bis an der Ende der Bronzezeit). Madridcr Beitrage 7, Madrid.
Spindler, K. 1988 Campaniforme e Bronze: Un Dualismo Cultural na Penfnsula Wrica. Arqueologia e Hist6ria; Series X 1111: 51-62.
Spindler, K., A. C. Branco, G. Zbyszewski, and 0. da Veiga Ferreira 1973-1974 Le monument A coupole de I'Age du Bronze Final de la Roga do Casal do Meio (Calhariz). Comunicaq6es
dos Seviýos Geol6gicos de Portugal 57.91-153.
Spindler, K., and G. Gallay 1972 Die tholos von Pai Mogo, Portugal. Aladrider Mittedungen 13: 38-108.
Spindler, K., and 0. da Veiga Ferreira 1974 Das vorgeschichtliche Fundmatcrial aus der Gruta do Carvalhal, Portugal. Aladrider Afitteilungen 15: 11-54.
Stark, M. T. 1994 Pottery exchange and the regional system. A Dalupa case study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Erpanding
Archaeological Method and 7heory, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 169-198. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Stem, E. 1993 The Renewal of trade in the Eastern Mediterranean in Iron Age I. Biblical. 4rchaeology Today 1990. Second
International Congress on BiblicalArchaeology. (Jerusalem 1990). Israel Exploration Society : 325-334.
Stemer, J. 1989 Who is signalling whom? Ceramic style, ethnicity and taphonomy among the Sirak Bulahay. Antiquity 63:?
Stevenson, A. C. 1984 Studies in the Vegetational history of south-west Spain III: Palynological Investigations at El Asperillo, I luelva.
Journal of Biogeography ?:?
Stevenson, A. C. 1985a Studies in the vegetational history of S. W. Spain. 1. Modem pollen in the Donana national Park, I luelva. Journal
of Biogeography 12: 243-268.
Stevenson, A. C. 1985b Studies in the vegetational history of S. W. Spain. It. Palynological investigations at laguna de ]as Madres.
Journal of Biogeography 12: 293-314.
Stevenson, A. C. 1988 studies in the vegetational history of S. W. Spain. IV. Palynological investigations at El Accbr6n, I luelva. Journal
ofBiogeography 15: 339-361.
Stevenson, A. C., and R. J. Harrison 1992 Ancient Forests in Spain: A Model for Land-use and Dry Forest management in South-west Spain from 400OBC to
1900AD. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 58: 227-247.
Stevenson, A. C.. and P. O. Moore 1988 Studies in the vegetational history of S. W. Spain IT. Palynological investigations at El Acebr6n, I luclva. Journal
ofBiogeography 15: 339-361.
Stone, G. D. 1988? Agrarian Settlement and Spatial Disposition of Labour. In Spatial Boundaries and Social Dynamics, edited by A.
Holl and T. E. Levy, pp. International Monographs in Prehistory, Michigan.
Strabo The Geography ofStrabo. Translated by L Jones (1923). Heineman. London.
Strathem, M. 1981 Self interst and the social good: Some implications of Hagen gender imagery. In Sexual Aleanings, edited by S.
Ortner and H. Whitehead, pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Strato, M. 1992 Hallazgo de un enterramientos en fosa de la Edad del Broncc. Revista de Arqueologla 134: 56-66.
Strauss, L. G., J. Attuna, M. Jackes, and M. Kunst 1988 New excavations in Casa da Moura (Serra d'E1 Rei, Penichc) and at the Abrigos de Bocas (Rio Maior), Portugal.
Arqueologia 18(Deccmber): 65-94.
Suarez Padilla, J. 1992 Aproximacion al estado de la cuestion sobre el Bronce Reciente en las tierras malagueftas. Baetica 14: 205-234.
Suarez Padilla, J., L. Femdndez Rodriguez, F. J. Rodriguez, C. Mayoral, and A. Garcia Pdrez; 1991 Pefia de Los Enamadores de Antequera (ladera oeste). Un importante enclave en la ruta del Gdnil hacia la
Andalucia Oriental. Actas del XA7 Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia (Teruel) 1: 73-85.
Tackholm, U. 1965 Tarsis, Tartessos und sie Saulen des Herakles. Opusculd Romana 5: 176-188.
Tainter, J. A. 1988 The Collapse ofComplex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Takaki, M. 1977 Aspects ofExchange in Kalinga Society, northern Luzon. Doctoral, Yale University.
Tani, M. 1994 Why should more pots break in larger households? Mechanisms of underlying population estimates from
ceramics. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Eapanding Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 51-70. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Taramelli, A. 1921 11 Ripostiglio del Bronzi Nuragici de Monte Sa Idda. MonumentoAntichi27: 373410.
Tarradell, M. 1946 Sobre la delimitaci6n geogrifica de la cultura del Algar. 11 Congreso Arqueoldgico del Sudeste Espaflol : 139-14 1.
Tarradell, M. 1950 La Peninsula lbdrica en la epoca de El Algar. VCongreso Arqueol6gico del Sudeste Fspa; loly I Congreso
Nacional de Arqueologia : 72-85.
Tarradell, M. 1962 EI Problema de la Diversos Areas Culturales de la Peninsula lbdrica en la Edad del Bronce. Afisceldnea en
Homenaje alAbate Henri Breuil 1877-1961. (Barcelona 1961) 11: 423430.
Tarradell, M. 1964 Sobre el tesoro real de Villena. Saitabi 14: 3-12.
Tarradell, M. 1969 La Cultura del Bronce Valenciano. Nuevo Ensayo de Aproximacion. Miycilanea Pericot 6: 7-30.
Taun, Y. F. 1971 Space and Place. Edward Arnold, London.
Taylor, I- 1993 Hoards ofthe Bronze Age in Southern Britain. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports British Series N" 228,
Oxford.
Taylour, ? 1958 Mycenean pottery in Italy and adjacent areas. Cambridge.
Tejera Gaspar, A. 1977 Panorama arqueologico de la marisma del Guadalquivir. Habis 8: 207-215.
Tejera Gaspar, A. 1979 fluerto Pimentel (Lebrija, Sevilla): un poblado del Bronce Mcdfo y Final en la marisma del Guadalquivir.
Congreso Nacional de Arqueologla XV. Lugo 1977 : 203-210.
TqJera Gaspar, A. 1980 El Bronce Final del Bajo Guadalquivir y su problematica. IluelvaArqueol6gica4: 181-196.
Tejera Gaspar, A. 1985 Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en el Huerto Pimentel (Lebrija, Sevilla). Noticario, 4rqueol6gico Ifispeinico 26: 7-85.
Tejera Gaspar, A. 1996 ZSe estableci6 un pacto entre fenfcios y tartesios para la fundaci6n de CAdiz? Complutum Fxtra (Homenaft al
Prof Manuel Fern6ndez Miranda) 6(l): 369-372.
Terreno, J. 1944 . 4rmasy objectos de bronze extraidos en los dragados del Puerto de Huelva. Facismil de ClAsicos de la
Arqueologia de Huelva 3, Huelva.
Thadeu, D. 1965 Carte Minidre du Portugal -Notice Explicative. In edited by, pp. vol. general editor. SGP, Lisbon.
Thapar, I- 1981 Death and the Hero. In Mortality and Immortality. The, 4n1hropology and, 4rchaeology ofDeath, edited by S. C.
Humphreys and H. King, pp. 293-315. Academic Press, London.
Therbom, G. 1980 The Ideology ofPower and the Power of1deology. NLB, London.
Thomas, J., and C. Tilley 1993 The axe and the torso: Symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany. In Interpretative 4rchaeology, edited by
C. Tilley, pp. 225-326. Berg, Oxford.
Thomas, K. D., and J. R. Knox 1994 Routes of Passage; Later Prehistoric settlement and Exploitation of a frontier region in north-western Pakistan.
Bulletin ofthe Institute oftondon 41: 89-104.
Thomas, R. 1997 Land, kinship and the rise of enclosed settlements in the first millennium BC in Britain. OxfordJournal of
. 4rchhaeology 16 (2): 211-218.
Tilley, C. 1994 4 Phenomenology ofLandscape. Places, paths and monuments. Berg, Oxford.
Tind, S., and L. Vagnetti 1967 Micenei in Italia. Fasano.
Todd, I., and A. South 1992 The Late Bronze Age in the Vasilikos Valley: Recent research. Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis.
Society of Cypriot Studies, Nicocia : 191-204.
Topp, C. 1987 Incised versus Beaker wares in the Balearic Islands. In Bell Beakers ofthe Western Mediterranean, edited by
W. H. Waldren and R. C. Kennard, pp. 207-266. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series NO 33 1, Oxford.
Topper, U. 1975 Felsiber an der Sadspitze Spaniens. Madrider Mitteilungen 27: 21-35.
Trancho, G. J., B. Robledo, 1. L6pez-]3ueis, and J. F. Fabidn 1996 Reconstrucci6n del patr6n alimenticio dos poblaciones prehist6ricas de la Meseta Norte. Complutum 7: 73-90.
Treheme, P. 1995 The Warrior's beauty: The masculine body and sciNdcritity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal ofEuropean
Archaeolqy 3 (1): 71-97.
Trigger, B. 1989 4 History ofArchaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Trigger, B. G. 1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. World. 4rchaeology22
(2): 119-132.
Tringham, R. 1972 Territorial demarcation of prchistoric settlements. In Mam Settlement and Urbanism, edited by P. Ucko, R.
Tringham, and G. Gimbledy, pp. 463476. Duckworths, London.
Trinidade, L., and 0. da Veiga Ferreira 1971 Vaso campaniforme'tipo garrafa bojuda! do Museu de Torres Vedras. Revista de Guimardes LXXXI: 261-264.
Tusa, V. 1983 La Sicilia nellapreistoria. Palermo.
Tylecote, R. F. 1962 Metallurgy in Archaeology. Arnold Engineering, London.
Tylecote, R. F. 1987 The Early History ofMetallurgy in Europe. Longman, London.
Ulreich, H., N. Martinez, M. Antonio, and E. P. Ramirez 1984 Cerdmicadecoradade hoyas del Castillo (Pajaronchillo, Cuenca). Bolefin del Seminarto de Estudios de Artey
Arqueologia LX: 105-138.
Upham, S. 1987 A Theoretical Consideration of Middle Range Societies. In Chiefdoms in the Americas, edited by R. D. Drennan
and C. A. Uribe, pp. 345-367. University Press of America, Lanham.
Uriol, J. 1. 1990 Historia de los camifios de Espa; 1a. Colegio de Ingenieros de Camiflos, Cailales y Puertos, Madrid.
Vagnetti, L. 1992 El comercio micdnico con el Mediterrineo Central; Italia peninsular y las islas. In El Mundo Micdnico: Cinco
siglos de laprimera civilL-aci6n europa 1600-1100a. C., edited by pp. 106-109. Ministerio de Cultura, Musco Arqueol6gico Nacional, Madrid.
Vagnetti, L., and F. Lo Schiavo 1989 Late Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: The Role of the Cypriots. In Early Society In Cyprus, edited by E.
Peltenburg, pp. 217-243. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Valiente Malla, J. 1987 La Loma del Lomo 1. Cogolludo, Guadalajara. Evcavaciones de Arqueol6gicas de Espaha 157
Valiente Malla, J. 1988 Enterramientos de la Edad del Bronce en el Llomo (Cogolludo, Guadalajara). I Congreso de Castilla-La Mancha
Tomoffl. Pueblos Y Culturasprehistoricasyprotohistoricas III(Pueblos y Culturas prehistoricas y protohistoricas): 79-92.
Valiente Malla, J., and S. Prado Toledano 1977-1978 Estelas decoradas de Aldea del Rey (Ciudad Real). ArchivoEspa; loldeArqueologiaSO-51: 375-388.
Valiente Malla, J., and S. Prado Toledano 1979 Nueva estela decorada de Aldea del Rey (Ciudad Real). Archivo Espailol de Arqueologia 52: 27-32.
van der Leeuw. S. 1984 Dust to dust: a transformational view of the ceramic cycle. In The Many Dimensions ofPottery, edited by S. P. van
der4 Leeuw A., pp. 707-774. Univcrsiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Van der Waals, J. D. 1976 Continuity and discontinuity in prehistory. Some comments on definitions. demonstrability and interpretations. In
Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe (Papers presented at the IVAtlantic Colloquium, Ghent 1975), edited by S. J. De Lact, pp. 257-260. De Tempel, Bruge.
Van Gennep, A. 1909 Les Rites de Passage (Translatedfrom French by M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee). Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Varela Gomes, M. 1990 0 Oriente no Ocidente. testemunhos iconogrificos na Proto-hist6ria do Sul de Portugal: "smiting gods" ou deuscs
ameaqadores. Estudos Orientais. Presenfas Orientalizantes em Portugal da Prehist6ria aoperiodo Romano 1: 53-106.
Varcla Gomes, M. 1991 Corniformes e figuras associados a dois santudrios Rupestres do Sul de Portugal. Almansor 9: 17-74.
Varela Gomes, M. 1992 Proto-hist6rica do Sul de Portugal. In Proto-Hist6ria de Portugal, edited by A. C. F. Silva and M. Varcla Gomes,
pp. 99-202. Universidadc Aberta, Lisbon.
Varela Gomes, M. 1993 0 estabelecimento fenfcio-p(inico do Cerro da Rocha Branca (Silves). Eytudos Orientais IV: Os Fcnfcios no
Territ6rio Portugues: 73-108.
Varela Gomes, M. 1994 A Necr6pole de Alfarrobeira (S. Bartolomeu de Messines) ea Made do Bronce no concelho de Silves. CAmara
Municipial, Silves.
Varela Gomes, M. 1994 A Ndcropole de Alfarrobeira (S. Bartolomeu de Messines) ea Made do Bronze no concelho de Silvcs. Xelb 2: 2-
162.
Varela Gomes, M. 1995a As Denominadas "Estelas Alentejanas". In A Made do Bronze em PortugaL Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O.
Jorge, pp. 134-135. Instituto Portugu8s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Varela Gomes, M. 1995b As Estelas FunerArias da Made do Bronze Final no Centro e Sul de Portugal. In A Made do Bronze em Portugal.
Discursos de Poder, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 130-13 1. Instituto Portugu8s de Museus, Museu Nacional de Arqueolgia, Lisbon.
Varela Gomes, M., and C. de M. BeirAo 1986 0 Cerro da Rocha Branca (Silves) - Resultados preliminares de trds campanhas de escavaqaoes. Actas do IV
Congresso do Algarve, Silves 1: 77-83.
Varela Gomes, M., R. V. Gomes, C. de M. Beirao, J. L. Matos, A. S. Cunha, C. T. da Silva, F. B. Gil, M. F. Guerra, and G. Barreira
1986 A Necr6pole da Vinha do Casdo (Vilamoura, Algarve) no contexto da Idade do Bronze do Sudoeste Peninsular. Ministdrio da EducaqAo e Cultura, Lisbon.
Varela Gomes, M., and J. Pinho Monteiro 1977 Las Estelas decoradas do Pomar (Beja, Portugal). Estudio comparado. Trabajos de Prehistoria 34: 165-214.
Vasco Rodrigues, A- 1958 Estela da Made do Bronze encontrada ern Meimao (Penamacor). 2ephyrus 9: 225-226.
Vasconcelhos, J. Leite de 1895 Nova achado de braceletes prd-romanos. 0 Arque6logo Portuguis 1: 86-88.
Vasconcelhos, J. Leite de 1896 XorcadeOuro. OArque6logoPortugugs2: 17-24.
Vasconcelhos, J. Leite de 1898 Excurs. 1o archeologica ao sul de Portugal. 0 Arqueol6go Portugugs 4: 103-314.
Vasconcelhos, J. Leite de 1906 Estudos sobre a epoca do bronze ern Portugal (1). 0 Arque6logo Portuguis 11: 179-189.
Vasconcelhos, J. Leite de 1908 Estudos sobre a epoca do bronze ern Portugal (11). 0 Arque6logo Portuguk 13: 300-313.
Vayda, A. P. 1961 Expansion and Warfare among Swidden Agriculturalists. American Anthropologist 63: 346-358.
Vaz, J. 1. 1990 Novas povoadas prd-romanos da regiao de Viseu. Livro do 11 Col6quio Arqueoldgico, de Viseu, Viseu : 14-18.
Vazquerizo Gil, D. 1985 Dos nuevas estelas de guerrero en la provincia de Badajoz. XVII Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia. Lograo
1983 (Zaragoza) : 465-472.
Vazqucrizo Gil, D. 1989 Estelas de Guerreros en la Protohist6ria Peninsular. Revista de Arqueologia I O(July): 29-38.
V4zquez Varela, J. 1995 Ethnoarqueologfade laextracci6n del oro de los rfos en el Noroeste de la PenInsulalbdrica. Trabajosde
Prehistorld 52 (2): 157-161.
VAzquez Varela, J., and J. Cafto Pan 1988 Una nueva perspectiva de la Edad del Bronce. Trabajos de Prehistoria 45: 281-287.
Vdzquez Varela, J. M. 1994 Aplicaci6n de la Teorf ay metodo de anilisis del arte prehist6rico de Alonso del Real de la Edad del Bronce en
Galicfa(AugadeLaxePonevedra). TrabajosdePrehistoria5l(l): 163-168.
Vdzquez Varela, J. M. 1994 Imagen y Sociedad en la Had del Bronce de Galicia. Actas das Primeras Congreso de Arqueologia Peninsular
2: 287-301.
Veiga Ferreira, 0. da 1956 Acerca dos Monumentos Funerarfos da Cultura do Vaso Campaniforme. Trabalhos de Antropologla e Etnologla
XV: 203-218-
Veiga Ferreira, 0. da 1966 La cultura du Vase Campaniforme au Portugal. ServiVos Geol6gicos de Portugal Mem6rias 12: 23-48.
Veiga Ferreira, 0. da 1971 Um escondrijo de fundidorcncontrado no Castro de SAo Bernardo (Moura), Alentejo. OArqueol6goPortugu&V
(sdrie 3): 9-20.
Veiga Ferreira, 0. da, A. Viana, and J. Formosinho 1954 Estudos arqueol6gicos nas Caldas de Monchique. Relevance das exploraqOes nas necr6polcs da Idade do Bronze.
Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia 15 (1-2): 17-54.
Veiga Ferreira, 0. da, G. ZbyszewskL M. Leitao, C. T. North, and H. Reynolds de Sousa 1956 The megalithic tomb of Pedra Branca. Preliminary report. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 41: 167-178.
Veiga Ferreira, 0. da, G. Zbyszewski, M. LeitAo, C. T. North, and H. Reynolds de Sousa 1975 The Megalithic tomb of Pedra Branca, Portugal. A Preliminary report. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society
41: 167-178.
Veiga, S. EstAcio da 1886 Antiguidades Monumentaes do Algarve. Paleoethonologia l(l): 213-242.
Veiga, S. EstAcio da 1887 Antiguidades Monumentaes do Algarve Tempos Prehistoricos. Paleoethonologla 11: 328-340.
Veiga, S. Estdcio da 1889 Antiguidades Monumentaea do Algarve Tempos Prehistoricos. Paleoethonologia 11(l): 78-249.
Veiga, S. Estdcio da 1891 Antiguidades Monumentaes do Algarve Tempos Prehistoricis. Paleoethonologia IV (1): 1-237.
Veiga, S. EstAcio da 1891 Antiguidades Monumentos do Algarve, volume 4. Imprensa Nacional, Lisbon.
Vencl, H. 1984 War and Warfare in Archaeology. Journal ofAnthropological. 4rchaeolov 3: 116-132.
Vend, S. 1994 The Archaeology of Thirst. Journal ofEuropean Archaeology 2 (2): 299-325.
Viana, A. 1944 Notas Hist6ricas Arqueol6gicas e EtnogrAfas do Baixo Alentejo: Sepulturas de Val Formoso, Serra do Serpa.
Arquivo de Beja 4 (1-2): 32-39.
Viana, A.
1954 A Necr6pole de Santa Vit6ria. Arquivo de Beja 11: 19-26.
Viana, A. 1955 A Cova da Moura. Cronica del Iff Congreso Arqueol6gico Nacional (Galicia 1953). Z2ragoza : 481497.
Viana, A. 1960a Monumento da Nora Velha. Arquivo de Beja 17: 181-188.
Viana, A. 1960b Notas Hist6ricas, Arqueol6gicas e Etnogdficas do Baixo Alentejo. Arquivo de Beja 17: 12-29.
Viana, A- 1965 A ndcropole de Monte da Ulma. Arquivo de Beja 20: 110-167.
Viana, A, 0. da Veiga Ferreira, and R. F. Andrade 1961a Descoberta de dois monumentos do false c6pula na regiAo de Ourique. RevistadeGuimart7esLXXT(I-2): 5-12.
Viana, A, 0. da Veiga Ferreira, and F-F. Andrade 1961b Un t6mulo de tipo alcalarense nos arredorcs do Aijustrel. Revista de Guimarjes LY-XI (34): 247-254.
Viana, A., 0. da V. Ferreira, and J. Formosinho 1949 Necropolis de las Caldas de Monchique. Nuevas Contribuciones para el conocimiento de la Edad del Bronze on el
Algarve. ArchivoEspailoldeArqueologia22: 291-312.
Viana, A., and F. Nuftes Ribeiro 1956 Notas Hist6ricas, Arqueologicas e Etnogrifias do Baixo Alentejo. Arquivo de Beja 13: 110-167.
Vilaga, R. 1987a Alegrios e Idanha-a-Nova, Castelo Branco. InformaCdo Arqueol6gica 8: 18-19.
Vilaga, R. 1987b Eira Pedrinha, Condeixa-a-Nova. Informaqdo Arqueoldgica 8: 23.
Vilaga, R. 1990 Broche A rotir articulde de Caýhouca, Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal. Bulletin de la Sociad Prihistorique Franfaise 87
(6)(6): 167-169.
Vilaga, R. 1993 Resultados Preliminares das escavaqOes realizadas no povoado do Castelejo (Sabugal). Estudos Pr&lfist6ricos
1: 51-65.
Vilaga, R. 1995 Aspectos do Povoamento da Beira Interior (Centro e Sul) nosfinais da Idade do Bronze. A Uni&o, Torres Vedras.
Vilaqa, R. 1998 Hierarquizagao e conflito no Bronze Final da Beira Interior. In &1ste uma Idade do Bronze Atldntico?, Trabalhos:
de Arqueologia I O, edited by S. O. Jorge, pp. 203-217. Instituto Portuguds do Arqueologia, Lisbon.
Vilaga, R. 1999 Some comments on the archaeological heritage of the Late Bronze Age in Beira Interior. Journal of1berian
Archaeology 1: 173-184.
Vilaga, R., and D. J. da Cruz 1999 PrAticas funerdfias e cultuais da Idade do Bronze na Beira Alta. Arqueologia 24: 73-100.
Villard, F. 1990 Les barbares et la boisson. Archdologie do la vigne et du vin. Caesarodunuum 24: 247-252.
Villaseca Diaz, F. 1993 La estela decorada y la espada de lengua de carpa del Bronce Final de Almarden (Malaga). Baetica 15: 217-226.
Villuga, P. 1. de 1546(1950) Repertorio de todos los caminos de Dpafia. Medina del Campo edici6n facsimil a cargo de Reimpresiones
BibliogrAficas, Madrid.
Vitelli, K.
1984 Greek Neolithic pottery by experiment In Pots and Potters: Current approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology Monographs XXIVedited by P. Rice, pp. 113-13 1. University of California, California.
Vitelli, K. 1989 Were pots first made for foods? Developments from Franchthi. WorldArchaeology 2 1.1 (Ceramic
Tcchnology): 17-29.
Vitelli, K. 1995 Pots, Potters and the Shaping of the Greek Neolithic. In The Emergence ofPottery. - Technology and Innovation in
Ancient Societies, edited by WX Barnett and J. W. Hoopes, pp. 55-63. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Vogel, J. C., and H. T. Waterbolk 1972 GrOningen Radiocarbon dates X. Radiocarbon 14: 6-110.
Von Hase, F. W. 1987 Die Agaisch-Bronzezcitlichen importe in Kampannien und Mittelitalien im Licht der neuren forschung. In
. 4gaische Bronzezeit, edited by H. G. Bacholz, pp. 257-273. Darmstadt.
Wagner, C. 1983 Aproximaci6n al proceso hist6rico de Tartessos. Archivo Espahol de Arqueologia 56: 3-36.
Wagner, C. 1986 Notas en torno a ala aculturaci6n en Tartessos. Gerion 4: 129-160.
Wagner, C. 1988 Gadir y los mAs antiguos asentamientos fenicios al este del Estrecho. Congreso Internacional "El Estrecho de
Gibraltar" (Ceuta 1987) 1: 419428.
Wagner, C. 1993 Las estructuras del mundo tart6sico. In Los enigmas de Tarteso, edited by J. Alvar and I. M. BlAzquez, pp. 103 -
116. Madrid.
Wagner, C. 1995 Fenfcios y autoctones en Tartessos. Consideradones sobre las relaciones coloniales y ]a dinamica de cambio en el
suroeste de la Penfnsula lbdrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 52 (1): 109-126.
Waldren, W. H. 1979 A Beaker workshop area in the rock shelter of Son Matge, Valldcmosa, Mallorca. World Archaeology 11
(1)(1): 43-67.
Waldren, W. H. 1986 Balearic pentapartite division ofprehistory. Radiocarbon and other date determination inventories. B. A. R.
British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford.
Waldren, W. H. 1997 The definition and duration of the Beaker culture in the Spanish Balearic Islands. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology
16 (IXI): 2548.
Waldren, W. H. 1998 The Beaker culture ofthe Balearic Islands: an inventory ofthe evidencefrom caves. rock shelters, settlements and
ritual sites. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series N* 709, Oxford.
Waldren, W. H., R. C. Chapman, and J. Lewthwaite 1984 The Deya Conference ofPrehistory. Early Settlement in the Western Mediterranean Islands and their Peripheral
Areas. B. A. R. British Archaeological Reports International Series 229 (i-iv), Oxford.
Walker, M. J. 1984-1985 Nuevos datos acerca de la explotatfon de la vid en cl Eneolitivo Espaftol. Cuadernos do Prehistortay
Arqueologia 11-12(1): 163-182.
Walker, M. J. 1985 5000 ahos de viticultura en Espafla. Revista deArqueologia 6: 4447.
Walker, M. J. 1989 Grapes in Early Spain. Review ofPalaeobotany and Palynolojy 61: 205-237.
Wallerstein, 1. 1974 The Modern World-System: capitalist agriculture and the origins ofthe economy in the l6th century. Academic
Press, New York.
Wason, P. K. 1994 The Archaeology ofRank Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Watkins, T. 1976 Wessex without Cyprus: 'Cypriot daggers' in Europe. In To Illustrate the Monuments., Essays on Archaeology
presented to Stuart Piggott, edited by J. V. S. Megaw, pp. 135-143. Thames and Hudson, London.
Watson, P. J., Redman, C., LeBlanc, S. 1971 Explanation in Archaeology. Colombia University Press, New York.
Webb, J. M., and D. Frankel 1994 Making an impression: Storage and Surplus Finance in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal OfMediterranean
Archaeology 7 (1)(1): 5-26.
Webster, G S. 1990 Labor Control and Emergent Stratification in Prehistoric Europe. Current Anthropology 31 (4)(4): 337-366.
Wegner, G. 1976 Die vorgeschichtlichen Fifififunde aus dem Main und aus der Rhein bei Mainz. Michael Lassleben, Kallmunz.
Weissner, P. 1984 Reconsidering the behavioural basis of style. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 3: 190-234.
Weissner, P. 1985 Style or isochrctic variation? A reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50: 154-159.
Wells, P. 1980 Culture contact and Culture change: Early Iron Age central Europe and the Mediterranean world. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
WelK P. 1984 Farms, villages andcities: Commerce and Urban origins in late Prehistoric Europe. Comell University Press,
Ithaca, New York.
Wells, P. 1985 Material Symbols and the Interaction of Culture Change. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 4 (1): 9-17.
Wells, P. 1988 Intensification, Entrepreunership and Cognitive Change in the Bronze-Iron Age transition. In Tile Brome Age-
Iron Age transition in Europe, edited by L. M. Sorensen and R. Thomas, pp. 173-183. B. A. R_ British Archaeological Reports, European Series N1 484 (vol i), Oxford.
Wells, P. S. 1990 Iron Age Temperate Europe: Some Current research Issues. Journal of lVorldPrehistoly 4: 437476.
Wemer Ellering, S. 1990 La Cerdmica Pintada Geomitrica del Bronce Finaly de la Primera Edad del Ifierro. Madrid.
Wertime, T., and J. D. Muhly 1980 The Coming ofthe Age offron. University Press, New I laven.
Whallon, R. Jr. 1972 A new approach to pottery typology. American Antiquity 37: 13-33.
Wheeler, T. S., Maddin, R. 1980 Metallurgy and Ancient Man. In The Coming ofthe Age of1ron, edited by T. S Wertime and J. D. Muhly, pp. 99.
126. Yale University Press, Yale.
'White, D. R. 1988 Rethinking Polygyny: Co-Wives, Codes, and Cultural Systems. Current Anthropology 29 (4)(4): 529-572.
White, D. I- 1991 On the Explanation of Polygyny: Additional Source Materials. Current Anthropology 31 (3): 313.
Whittaker, C. R. 1974 The Western Phoenicians: Colonisation and Assimilation. Proceedings ofthe Cambridge Philological Society
20: 58-79.
Whittle, A. 1988 Problems in Neolithic archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Whittle, E. H, and J. M. Arnaud 1975 Therrnolumincsccnce dating of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age pottery from sites in Central Portugal. Archaeometry
17: 5-24.
Wiessner, P. 1984 Reconstructing the behavioural basis of style. Journal ofAnthropolgical Archaeology 3: 190-234.
Wiessner, P. 1990 Is there a unity to style? In The uses ofstyle in Archaeology, edited by M. Conkcy and C. I lastorý pp, 105-112.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wightman, G. J. 1985 Megiddo VIA-III: Associated structures and chronology. Levant 17.117-129.
Wik R. I- 1983 Little House in the Jungle: The Causes of Variation in House Size among Modem Kckchi Maya. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2: 99-116.
Williams, D. F. 1988 The impact of Roman amphora trade on pre-Roman Britain. In Centre and Periphery. comparative studies In
archaeology, edited by C. T. C., pp. 142-150. Unwin Hyman, London.
Wilson, C. E. 1981 Burials within settlements in southern Britain during the pre-Roman Iron Age. Bulletin ofthe Institute of
Archaeology ofLondon
Winghart, S. 1989 Ein wagengraber der spaten Bronzezeit von Poing. Das Archaologische Jahr in Bayern : 74-75.
Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange. In For the Director., Research F-isays in Honor ofJames Bennett
Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-334. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Wolf, G. 1993 Rethinking the Oppida. OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 12 (2): 213-233.
Woodman, P. C. 1992 Filling in the Spaces in Irish Prehistory. Antiquity 66: 295-314.
Woods, A. J. 1986 Form, fabric and function: Some observations on the cooking pot in antiquity. In Ceramics and Civilisation 11.
Technology and Style, edited by W. D. Kingery, pp. 157-172. American Ceramic Society, Columbus, 011.
Wylie, A. 1989 Matters of Fact and Matters of Interest. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by S. I.
Sherman, pp. 94-109. Unwin Hyman, London.
Wylie, M. A. 1985 The Reaction Against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Alethod and Theory, g, editedbyM. B. Schiffer.
pp. 63-111. Academic Press, New York.
Yentsch, A. 1996 The Symbolic Dimensions of Pottery: Sex-related Attributes of English and Anglo-American household pots. In
Contemporary Archaeology In Theory. 'A
Reader, edited by R. W. Preucel and 1.1 [odder, pp. 315-349. Blackwell, Oxford.
Yoffec, N. 1993 Too many chiefs? (or safe texts for the'90s). In Archaeological theory., who sets the agenda?, edited by N. Yoffee
and A. Sherratt, pp. 60-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yoffee, N. 1993b Too many Chiefs? (or Safe Texts for the 1990s). In Archaeological Theory. Who sets the Agenda?, edited by N.
Yoffee and A. Sherratý pp. 60-78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zafre de la Torre, N., and C. Pdrez Bareas 1990 Excavaciones arqueol6gicas on la Cerro del Alcaza de Bacza (1990). AnuarioArqueoldgico de Andalucia III
(Actividades de Urgencia): 294-303.
Zamora Canellada, A. 1976 Fxcavaciones de la Cueva de La Vaquera, Torreiglesias, Sigovia (Edad del Bronce). Diputaci6n Provincial do
Sdgovia, Sýgovia.
Zbyszewski, G. 1943 La station prdhistorique de Goncha (Alpiarga). Comunicagdes dos ServiVos Geoldgicas 24: 99-108.
ZbySZewski, G. 1946 bude gdologique de la region de Alpiarga. Comunicavaes dos ServiVos Geol6gicas 27: 145-268.
Zentai, T. 1979 The Sign-Language of Hungarian Graveyards. Folklore 90: 131-140.
Zilhao, J. 1992 Gruta do Caldeirio. IPPAR, Lisbon.
Zilhao, J. 1993 The Spread of agro-pastoral economies across Mediterranean Europe: a view from the far west Journal of
Mediterranean ArchaeoloSy 6: 5-63.
Dichner, C. 1992 Idol, Schild oder Wagon? Zur Deutung ciner Gravierung vorn Castro de Conjo bci Santiago do Compostcla.
MadriderMitteilungen 33: 1-5.
K
Related Documents
