REVISITING SOME EARLIER PAPERS ON THE LATE PREHISTORIC WALLED ENCLOSURES OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ditched and walled enclosures of Late Prehistory in South Portugal: a brief comparative approach
Vila Nova de São Pedro e o Calcolítico Peninsular, 2024
he construction of enclosures is one of the innovations Late Prehistory. For a long time, the Portuguese Archeology of the period was involved in intense debates around the nature of walled enclosures, traditionally called “fortified settlements”. During the last three decades of the XX century, they were used to confront different theoretical perspectives, such as Historical Culturalism, Functionalism, Historical Materialism or contextualism. In the last two decades a new reality emerged: the proliferation of ditched enclosures, with a major concentration in South Portugal inner Alentejo, raising the question of how to relate and incorporate these two types of enclosures in the scientific discourse. This essay develops a comparative approach to these two types of sites in South Portugal, discussing their differences and proximities at several levels, not in a framework submitted to dichotomies such as domestic/ ceremonial or functional/sacred, but focused on how they differently or similarly allowed and materialized some of the social, economic, and ideological practices of Neolithic and Chalcolithic societies.
Monumentalising life in the Neolithic: narratives of change and continuity, 2020
In this chapter we aim to approach two walled enclosures, Crasto de Palheiros and Castanheiro do Vento (northeast Portugal) that we define here as monumentalised hills, justifying and discussing such terminological option. Even though they are geographically close to each other, being in general terms contemporary (3rd millennium BC), with similar archaeological materials, including Bell Beaker ceramics, they seem to exhibit different processes of monumentalisation and of its surrounding landscape. Bearing in mind these premises and the presence or absence of a previous monumentalisation of the territories, we will inquire about the monumentalisation process of its neighbouring landscape during the 3rd millennium BC, considering the interpretative possibilities of these sites.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2015
Neolithic ditched enclosures appear to be widely distributed across Central and Western Europe, and from the Mediterranean area to Scandinavia. They have been known in areas of Europe for a long time, but particularly in the last 25 years studies on British, French, Central European, and Scandinavian ditched enclosures have flourished. In line with this, a number of international meetings occurred in the last three decades. In southern Iberia, by contrast, ditched enclosures only began to be known in the 1970s, and even then methodological deficiencies and lack of funding hampered their characterisation. As a consequence of this, Iberian Neolithic and Copper Age ditched enclosures were largely unknown outside Portugal and Spain. They were not represented in any of the international meetings above, nor included in any of the syntheses made about the topic. Not only that, for decades, Spanish and Portuguese archaeologists were not aware of the potential analogies themselves, and the research that was being carried out elsewhere in Europe had almost no influence on the way ditched enclosures were surveyed, excavated, and interpreted in the peninsula. The main objective of this article is to advance the recognition of the southern Iberian evidence by other European researchers and the integration of the Iberian conversation into the general discussion. The focus will be on how these sites have been studied by several generations of Iberian archaeologists, in an attempt to explain why it has taken Portuguese and Spanish archaeologists so long to realise that Iberian enclosures should not be understood in isolation.
Journal of Iberian Archaeology, vol. 5, 2003
Abstract: The authors describe very briefly the main structures uncovered from 1998 to 2002 in the prehistoric settlement of Castanheiro do Vento (Horta do Douro, in the community of Vila Nova de Foz Côa, NE Portugal), and set out the main problems raised by these excavations. The report also underlines the importance of an archaeology of prehistoric structures, stressing that this kind of research goes far beyond a simple determination of the chronology/function of sites, or even of the ‘styles’ of their artefacts. Instead, it must be understood that these monumentalised spaces underwent successive transformations, aiming at constructing meaning (ordering the world) by imposing certain features on the natural environment. In stressing this we are moving away from the long-lasting tradition of generalist archaeology, concerned with ‘settlements’ and their ‘occupation phases’, to a more stimulating study of prehistoric spaces and their modes of structuration and re-structuration as meaningful acts in social and cognitive terms.
Trabajos de Prehistoria, 2018
Archaeological investigations of the agrarian communities of the 6 th-2 nd millennia BC in the Iberian Peninsula have undergone fundamental transformations over the past 25 years. This paper attempts to provide an overview of this research by considering three topics: 1) changes in theory, perspective, and practice, 2) the discovery of new sites or site types, and 3) developments in analytical methodologies and techniques. It concludes with some thoughts about possible future challenges and directions for research. RESUMEN Las investigaciones arqueológicas de las comunidades agrarias del VI al II milenios a. C. en la Península Ibérica han sufrido transformaciones fundamentales en los últimos 25 años. Este artículo trata de proporcionar una visión general de esta investigación considerando tres temas: 1) los cambios en la teoría, la perspectiva y la práctica, 2) el descubrimiento de nuevos sitios o tipos de sitios, y 3) la evolución de las metodologías y técnicas analíticas. Se concluye con algunas reflexiones sobre posibles futuros desafíos y direcciones para la investigación.
Mind the gap: Neolithic and Chalcolithic enclosures of South Portugal
This paper approaches the new data obtained during the last 15 years concerning ditched enclosures in Portugal, particularly the recent information from southern part of the country. Some of the problems raised by the recent proliferation of these sites in Western Iberia will be discussed. After presenting their spatial distribution and chronological span, the dissimilarities with walled enclosures (and amongst ditched enclosures themselves) will be analysed. I will dispute a homological reductionism and argue in favour of diversified social roles for this kind of sites. Particular attention will be given to size, landscape relations (terrestrial and celestial), ditch filling processes and associated funerary practices. In the end it will be sustained that ditched enclosures of South Portugal, in their diversity, must be read as an expression of the Neolithic cosmogonies. The movement for increasing of dimension and complexity that can be observed during Chalcolitic times is interpreted as a “singing of the swan” of those world views, and its abrupt declination, expressed by the apparently rapid disappearance of large ditched enclosures and ditched enclosure architecture, is seen as a result of that cosmogonic change.
Medieval Archaeology has grown significantly in Portugal since 1987. This results mainly from a twofold fact: the increasing number of archaeological excavations in the framework of salvage projects and the development of systematic research projects. Despite the recent appearance of Medieval Archaeology in Portuguese archaeological research, the present synthesis is however preceded by a few others that have been published in the last few years (CATARINO, 1995/97, 2002; FONTES, 2002; GOMES, 2002; FERNANDES, 2005a; FERNANDES, MACIAS, 2011). None of these was— or aimed to be —an exhaustive overview. And, once again, this contribution will not, nor could, approach all the works and publications made in the last 30 years. It is interesting to notice that somehow these syntheses reflect the bifocal tendency that can be observed on the subject. As in Spain, Medieval Archaeology in Portugal emerged and developed within two perspectives: the archaeology of Islamic spaces, where the topics of ceramic studies, urbanism and fortifications were the most relevant; and the archaeology of the Christian communities, that focused on the first built manifestations of Christianity (necropolises and temples) and settlement systems, whose approach is closely connected to the study of rock-cut graves, fortifications, and monasteries and churches dated to the beginnings of Portuguese nationality. In the latter, the research is still marked by studies within the History of Art. In my opinion, 1992 indelibly marks the destiny of Medieval Archaeology in the country. Several scientific and social events took place in that year, a fact that enhanced a greater investment in this domain and encouraged researchers. This year also featured the publication of the first volume of the Portuguese journal Arqueologia Medieval (“Medieval Archaeology”) by Mértola’s Archaeological Field. Again in 1992, the “Fourth Meeting of Peninsular Christian Archaeology” took place in Portugal, with the proceedings being published in 1995. Most of the contributions focused on excavation results from Portuguese sites, including an important collection of data on Paleo-Christian contexts. Indeed, the 1990’s marked an important turning point in Medieval Archaeology in the country. A number of factors can be put forward. One was the increasing number of archaeological fieldworks, mainly salvage excavations in urban contexts but also in the framework of the Alqueva Dam megaproject of salvage archaeology. The creation of the Portuguese Institute for Archaeology in 1997 pushed this tendency even further and allowed the funding of multiannual research projects aiming at the study of diverse topics, such as churches and monasteries, regional settlement systems, necropolises, cities and castles. The topic of Medieval fortifications resulted in many publications and archaeological excavations. Already focused by C. A. Ferreira de Almeida (1979), it was followed by M. J. Barroca, who published several relevant papers on the subject (1990/91, 1996/1997, 2003, 2004, 2008/2009). The increase in number of excavation works in Early Medieval churches and monasteries allowed new insights and interpretations on their architectonic and decorative evolutions, which in turn provided new bases for the enrichment of these monuments’ museological discourse. This growing trend in Medieval Archaeology can also be observed in projects focusing settlement systems of given geographical areas or centred in single archaeological sites. Systematic studies of necropolises and rock-cut graves were also carried out. Despite the fact that many researchers attempted to go further than record field data, the most recent theoretical leap is due to I. Martín Viso, who developed new perspectives on the analysis and interpretation of these Early Medieval funerary structures, that are very abundant in the Portuguese territory (MARTÍN VISO, 2007, 2009, 2014, 2017; TENTE, 2015, 2017a). Regarding material culture studies, a substantial development also took place with the increase of publications and thematic meetings, in particular those focusing pottery collections. Unfortunately, the latter are not always accompanied by complete studies of their assemblages—relevance is often paid to exceptional pieces or partial assemblages, thus preventing systematic, comparative studies. Islamic productions have been retaining most of the researchers’ attention. Another topic with a remarkable growth in the last years has been the archaeology of architectures, mostly of religious buildings and castles. According to official regulations, the participation of bio-anthropologists in the excavation of funerary contexts is mandatory in Portugal since 1999. This legal obligation, which runs in parallel with the increasing number of excavations, decisively boosted bio-anthropological and mortuary studies from archaeological contexts. An important development is also noticeable in the study of subsistence strategies, namely based on palaeobotanic and zooarchaeological data. These, however, are still far from systematic. To a great extent, these studies have been limited by the employed field methodologies that often ignore the scientific value of such type of evidence. More than in the case of macrofaunal remains, the (almost) invisibility of botanic and microfaunal remains lies at the core of their (almost) absence in current research. Studies have been more abundant in the domain of zooarchaeology. Here too a stronger focus on Islamic contexts is noticeable, to some extent related to contrasting taphonomic conditions, that are more favourable to organic preservation in the southern half of the country where the presence of Muslim communities was longer and research has been more intensive. Despite the growing number of publications and scientific meetings in the last 30 years, the countless number of field works was not always accompanied by the respective publications. Some of the main published studies can be found in the Bibliography, where the main references are cited. It is also worth mentioning that syntheses, either general or regional, are still lacking. This fact converges into another limitation, which is the scarcity of theoretical reflection that would allow interpretative models to be put forward and the building of a problematizing historical knowledge. However, the future seems promising and it is hoped that the above limitations may be surpassed in the next decades as, in Portugal, we are presently witnessing an increase of academic training in this specific research area.
Prehistoric ditched enclosures and necropolises in Southern Iberia: a diachronic overview
Vincent Ard & Lucille Pillot (eds) (2016): Giants in the Landscape: Monumentality and Territories in the European Neolithic. Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress (1–7 September, Burgos, Spain) Volume 3 / Session A25d, pp. 57-68., 2016
In this paper, we shall briefly describe the main features of Southern Iberian Final Neolithic and Copper Age enclosures, and will examine how they relate in space and time to Prehistoric funerary contexts. We will attempt to show how this relationship changed through time. In the 4th millennium BC, during the Final Neolithic, both megalithic tombs and ditched enclosures were built. However, very rarely they are close in space. In the 3rd millennium BC, coinciding with the Chalcolithic, necropolises of tombs (tholoi and hypogea) began to form around ditched enclosures of the period. However, this process only occurred at a few sites – the ‘mega-sites’.
Comparing the incomparable – The Chalcolithic walled enclosures of the Iberia Peninsula and beyond.
A. Vale, J. Alves-Ferreira & I. Garcia-Rovira (eds.), Rethinking Comparison in Archaeology, New Castle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017
During the first half of the twentieth century, comparative exercises attempted to establish sets of parallels in order to study the diffusion of specific cultures. However, with the advent of carbon dating in the 1960's, archaeologists like Colin Renfrew were able to question the contemporaneity of the similarities identified by culture-historical archaeology. Today, regardless of the theoretical framework, archaeology compares general plans in order to study possible contacts and networks of exchange and to study the general tendencies of ways of inhabiting enclosed spaces. However, it looks like the comparative method is widely used just to study patterns and regularities, or as a tool to emphasize the similarities between features that could fit in the same type, and less often as a way to stress the uniqueness of a context. Although most comparative studies of the Chalcolithic walled enclosures in the Iberian Peninsula are the foundation of valuable archaeological synthesis, they seem to obscure the particularities of each element in being compared. Other comparative studies have been made which stressed the different contexts of use and meanings present in each site. However in some ways, this line of research seems to limit further comparison. Recognizing the interesting and creative insights that the use of comparison in archaeology can bring us, how do we deal with the difference? Is it possible to deal with the singularities of what seems similar? If we study the general plans as the process of a formation and not as a finished form, as the drawing of growing and changing constructions rather than finished buildings, and as the result of practices of design and not as the concretization of a project, is it still possible to compare general plans? Or are we comparing the incomparable?