Between norm and variation in the semiotic of the funerary world: examples and discussion of some...

Rendering Death:Ideological and Archaeological

Narratives from Recent Prehistory (Iberia)

Proceedings of the conference held in Abrantes, Portugal, 11 May 2013

Edited by

Ana Cruz Enrique Cerrillo-CuencaPrimitiva Bueno Ramírez

João Carlos CaninasCarlos Batata

BAR International Series 26482014

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 [email protected]

BAR S2648

Rendering Death: Ideological and Archaeological Narratives from Recent Prehistory (Iberia)

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2014

ISBN 978 1 4073 1287 3

Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

i

Contents

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS .............................................................................................................................................................. II

LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS, TABLES AND GRAPHICS .............................................................................................................. IV

RENDERING DEATH - IDEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPEECHES FROM RECENT PREHISTORY (IBERIA)

ANA CRUZ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

CUSTODIAN STONES: HUMAN IMAGES IN THE MEGALITHISM OF THE SOUTHERN IBERIAN PENINSULA.

P. BUENO RAMIREZ, R. DE BALBÍN BEHRMANN, R. BARROSO BERMEJO ........................................................................................ 3

THE CONTRIBUTION OF MANUEL HELENO TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUNERARY MEGALITHIC IN ALENTEJO

LEONOR ROCHA ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

MEGALITHIC RITES OF NORTH ALENTEJO – PORTUGAL

JORGE DE OLIVEIRA ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

DEATH AS “LIFE’S MIRROR”?

FUNERARY PRACTICES AND TRAJECTORIES OF COMPLEXITY IN THE PREHISTORY OF PEASANT SOCIETIES OF IBERIA.

JOÃO CARLOS SENNA‐MARTINEZ ..................................................................................................................................... 35

THE MOUND AT CIMO DOS VALEIROS (SERRA VERMELHA, OLEIROS, CASTELO BRANCO). A NEOLITHIC BURIAL SITE IN THE CENTRAL CORDILLERA, SOUTH OF SERRA DA ESTRELA

JOÃO CARLOS CANINAS, MÁRIO MONTEIRO, ANDRÉ PEREIRA, EMANUEL CARVALHO, FRANCISCO HENRIQUES,

JOÃO ARAÚJO GOMES & LÍDIA FERNANDES, ÁLVARO BATISTA ................................................................................................... 45

CAVES, MEGALITHISM AND TUMULI – THREE DIACHRONIC REALITIES IN FUNERARY ARCHAEOGRAPHY FROM ALTO RIBATEJO –

ANA CRUZ, ANA GRAÇA, LUIZ OOSTERBEEK ........................................................................................................................... 61

COLLECTIVE BURIAL CAVES IN SPANISH EXTREMADURA: CHRONOLOGY, LANDSCAPES AND IDENTITIES

ENRIQUE CERRILLO CUENCA, ANTONIO GONZÁLEZ CORDERO .................................................................................................... 77

BETWEEN DEAD AND ALIVE - THE RECENT PREHISTORY OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PAMPILHOSA DA SERRA (PORTUGAL CENTER)

CARLOS BATATA, FILOMENA GASPAR .................................................................................................................................... 91

BETWEEN NORM AND VARIATION IN THE SEMIOTIC OF THE FUNERARY WORLD: EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION OF SOME ABNORMAL GRAVES IN THE BRONZE AGE EUROPE

DAVIDE DELFINO ............................................................................................................................................................. 105

THE POLIMORPHISM OF GRAVES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS IN THE SOUTHWEST BRONZE AGE NECROPOLIS OF SOALHEIRONAS (ALCOUTIM)

JOÃO LUÍS CARDOSO, ALEXANDRA GRADIM ......................................................................................................................... 119

THE FACES OF DEATH: FROM BRONZE TO IRON AGE, BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH OF THE PORTUGUESE TERRITORY

RAQUEL VILAÇA .............................................................................................................................................................. 125

105

Between norm and variation in the semiotic of the funerary world: examples and discussion of some abnormal graves in the Bronze Age Europe

Davide Delfino

Abstract The study of funerary contexts can sometimes be flawed due to a monotonic and generalist approach to the contexts. Especially in rituals. But customs related to death may not sometimes be uniform, in the same region and at the same time being exceptions to “normalcy”, which points to the need to carry on studying funerary and ritual contexts using a more open and varied approach. In this paper we will present examples of “unusual” funerary rituals across Bronze Age for each region and each period in which they occur, which can cause problems if we base the interpretation of funerary contexts on a too processualist approach. We will present cases related to Italy, Serbia, Spain and Portugal, which are symptomatic of funerary rituals that deviate from normality of the typical archaeological record for some Bronze Age human cultures, but fit perfectly in the normal variation of a cultural and semiotic manifestation which sometimes is not uniform as is the case of funerary rituals. Keywords: Bronze Age, Europe, Burials, Symbolism, Semiotic, Abnormalities Introduction The interpretation of archaeological data is often based on a materialist/structuralist approach: the belief that human reason and action are structural (which is partly real), justified on many occasions by bringing the archaeological data together as if they were pieces of “dominoes” and structuring them would bring forward the various manifestations of ancient cultures. But this raises two problems: 1) often not all archaeological data can be structured and, in this case, some “dominoes” end up being censored because otherwise the “dominoes” do not match; 2) on the occasions where it is true that a researcher thinks and acts in a structuralist perspective, he/she often makes the mistake of thinking that the structure of our civilization, of our times, is the same as that of the ancient civilizations. This last problem, caused by the subjective structuralist approach, has already been raised by Criado Boado (2006: 250). Liable to overcome this convenient method that inserts and processes quickly as in a computer, the archaeological data seen from an extreme structuralist point of view need support from the cultural anthropology approach. But cultural anthropology does not submit to structuralist “religion”. When studying ancient societies one must take into account that human society acts according to a variable/invariable system, i.e. individual variation exists because their inherent differences intertwine with

common similarities. . Also the variation is not absolute but relates to the invariable and cultures themselves are made of this variable/invariable web (Remotti, 2011: 34-35). In this sense, culture is subject to large but also small variations (ibid.: 89-107). Regarding the nature of these small deviations, they can be of hexogen or internal nature: the first is given by interactions with the outside and the second by a movement of internal spontaneous growth. A common factor is the reason to associate the two modalities of small social changes: the decision to adopt them as part of the whole human community. Can they be defined as part of the generality of these small changes? Yes, probably as anomalies with respect to the common standard. What is an anomaly? Literally it is a deviation from the norm. For the Anomalists of the school of Pergamon the irregularities in the formation and decline of the words are the fundamental principle of language (Perutelli, Paduano, Rossi, 2010: 16). In the context of human culture, not all abnormalities are the fruit of or synonymous with change, but have to do with a number of choices made to give character to some aspects of society. Despite skepticism among archaeologists, it is undeniable that, especially in funerary horizons, there are anomalies within burials of the same culture. In general terms, you have already abnormalities when, in a given structure, the individual units are no longer perfectly equal to each other. In this perspective, the abnormalities are present in many funerary horizons in a same cultural area starting, for example, with the big difference between the positions of the body according to gender. Such is the case with the position of the bodies and the composition of the grave goods at the Late Bronze Age Terramare culture (Northern Italy) in which anomalies between male and female are the norm that characterizes the way this culture interred their dead. Or, as the anomaly in different funerary architectures at Early Bronze Age of Cyclades islands is typical of this culture. But, among the abnormalities that are the norm there are two types:

1) General and with a low degree of anomaly (like the examples above); 2) In detail and with high index of anomaly (like the examples that will be provided in this paper).

In this context, can the funerary horizons be defined? The author believes that they have, for the human community, a dual function which results in a dual nature: cultural and semiotic. Cultural Nature Purpose: preserve ancestral customs (and consequently the community customs) Semiotic Nature Purpose: communicate. The burial is a symbol to convey some kind of meaning. . It is relatively

Copyright material: no unauthorized reproduction in any medium

106

feasible to perceive the “what?” Generally the “two big messages” that you can understand from the various aspects (architecture, position of the grave, funerary treatment of the body, position of the body, number of dead in the same grave, grave goods) are: 1) Cultural affiliation and 2) Individuality of the dead. But, it is difficult to understand “to whom?” i.e. the targets of the funerary message. It is possible to speculate that it might be the gods from afterlife, death itself or posterity. But, we end up never knowing with absolute certainty. Talking about culture, we have to mention semiotics and signs: “Everything can be a sign” (Fidalgo & Gradim, 2004: 14) and “Culture is in all, from a certain point of view, the practice of unlimited semiotics” (Volli, 2005: 8). So, by virtue of its nature, also the semiotics of funerary horizons have to take into account the value of the anomalies in the construction of a language: “The language is not, therefore, a pure system of signs but a system of figures you can use to build the signs” (Saussure cit. by Volli, 2005: 14). “The easiest way to express what it means to a sign, is the sign to say what is not, what it is different, rather than trying to explain what” (ibid.: 15) Considering the fundamental role of irregularities in semiotics, it is considered important to focus on the anomalies in funerary rituals. But, we outline the anomalies of a second type (“In detail and with high index of anomaly” as described just above) since these constants in the cultures of the Bronze Age, and beyond, are the key towards understanding some of the parts of the message arising from funerary horizons. Choice of the samples areas The purpose of this paper is to show data and archaeological facts demonstrating that the presence of ritual burials that are considerable abnormal, when compared with the general overview of the archaeological material culture, are to be considered the norm, rather than the exception. In order to have a correct view of these anomalies that are the norm, tree levels of European geographical scale will be considered:

1) A macro region, which during Bronze Age had a similar social development dynamics verified over time and strong long-range interactions, mainly in metallurgical models. 2) Within each macro region, focus areas where, if possible, there are burial sites in sufficient number and relatively not too dispersed through a wide area. 3) Burials having, as much as possible, a very narrow chronological difference.

Specifically to the first criteria, the choice goes to large areas of northern Italy, Balkans and the south of the Iberian Peninsula: during much of the Bronze Age these

tree major areas are known to have had similar development levels in social structures. At the Early Bronze Age the Polada Culture, in Northern Italy (2100-1600 BC), located in an alpine lakes region, and the first phase of Bronce de la Mancha, in central Spain (2000-1700 BC) defines a society not very complex yet, but by way of being (Gilman, Fernandes Posse, Martin 1996; Brodsky, Gilman, Martin Morales 2013: 142). In Middle and Late Bronze Age, we are going to witness the formation of increasingly pre-urban societies: Terramare in Northern Italy (1600-1150 BC) in the low Po valley and the second phase of Bronce de la Mancha in central Spain (1700-1500 BC); part of Vatin Culture in Western Serbia (1700-1200 BC), characterized by a chiefdom structure settlement and by its connection with Mycenaean area (Tásic 1996). For the Final Bronze Age, in the macro-regions represented by Polada and Terramare culture there is a partial collapse, especially in the evidence of settlements, but also, probably in the evolutionary continuity, in the parts of these areas which did not had an adequate policy management (Bernabó Brea, Cardarelli, Cremaschi, 1997; Cupitó, et. al., 2012) or have not stayed in a good position to take advantage by themselves of the major coastal (intra-Mediterranean) or inland (trans-European) traffic routes (Bietti Sestieri, 1997: 758-759). Also in the Atlantic façade of the Southwest Iberian Peninsula, the Bronze do Sudoeste defined by Schubart (1975) and recently revisited by Torres Ortiz (2008) and Oosterbeek, et. al. (2011) marks an important human cultural scenario, where the social pre-urban structure development was born in full Middle Bronze Age and completed in Final Bronze Age II with the beginning of Phoenician contacts. Data from Polada Culture Located in Center Northern Italy between 21st – 17th century BC (figure 9.1: area 1). This culture takes its name from the village on stilts of Polada. Many settlement types like this, commonly dated with ceramic and metallic artifacts related to 2100-1600 BC, characterize the Bronze Age period in the area between the Alpine lakes of Lombardy-Veneto and the Po River (De Marinis, 2000: 98-99). Generally, the settlements are characterized by villages on stilts, as Lavagnone di Desenzano, Fiavé, Polada, Lucone, installed in small lakes between moraines around some large alpine lakes in Northern Italy (Barich, 1971; Perini, 1994; De Marinis, 1997; De Marinis, 2000). Material culture joined with the fortunate combination of radiometric dating and stilt dendrochronology studies, from these villages, allows establishing a precise chronology, especially for the Early Bronze Age (table 9.1):


107

Northern Italy Chronology

Correspondence with Reinecke Chronology

Absolute Chronology Material Culture

E.B.A. Ia BronzezeitA1 21st-start 20th cent BC Polada pre Barche di Solferino pottery style/ Falhertz metallurgy

E.B.A.Ib BronzezeitA2a 20th cent. BC Polada pre Barche di Solferino pottery style/ Bronze Metallurgy

E.B.A. Ic BronzezeitA2a 19th cent BC Polada pre Barche di Solferino pottery style/ Bronze Metallurgy

E.B.A. II BronzezeitA2b end of 19th- 17th cent BC

Polada Barche di Solferino pottery style/ Bronze Metallurgy

Table 9.1: Polada Culture chronology; Drawn from Reinecke, Bohner, Wagner, 1965; De Marinis, 1999).

In the early chronological stages the links between the Polada area and the transalpine area are very important, passing on to the Adige (Trentino), showed for example in the Keulenkopfnadeln pin type (De Marinis, 2000: 108; 2003: 63). Unknown tombs or necropolis on most southern villages on stilts are to be found, but only in the northern part of Lake of Garda and in the middle Adige valley; the common characteristics are the fact that they are outside the settlements, in rock shelters and in lithic cists under small tumuli, adults in crouched or supine position and children in a pot. Again, the deposition is on the left or right side without distinction of sex (adults), often the

skull is removed and laid aside and in some cases there is double burial (De Marinis, 2003). Between the necropolis sufficiently known and related to Polada Culture, judging from the type of grave good objects (ceramics, metals or adornment elements in bone), there are many that can fit into the “pre Barche di Solferino” phase and then to Early Bronze Age I phase: Romagnano Loch, Mezzocorona Borgonuovo, Nogarole di Mezzolombardo, Catsel Corno di Mori, Santuario di Lassino and La Vela di Valbusa and Acquaviva di Besenello. All the burials in this necropolis, or singular grave, conform to the laws of normality between them, according to the characteristics mentioned just above, with exception of La Vela di Valbusa and Acquaviva di Besenello.

Figure 9.1: Localization of the archaeological Cultures treated in this paper: Polada Culture (1); La Mancha Bronze (2); Vatin Culture (3); Terramare Culture (4); Bronze Age: centre of Portugal (5).


108

Figure 9.2: La Vela di Valbusa grave: context (over the smelting kiln), drawn from Fasani 1992.

La Vela di Valbusa and Acquaviva di Besenello tombs La Vela di Valbusa is a tomb burial of an individual female, in an apparently lying position, even if it seems to be a secondary one, according to the rite of the double burial. It was placed under a small mound consisting of a base of large boulders to which stones of decreasing size have been overlapped. The structure was placed against the wall of a scarped rock, oriented NW / SE. Early Polada pottery and various elements of the personal ornament compose the grave goods (Fasani, 1990; Nicolis, 1997). Parallels with other tombs or necropolis are immediate, as for example, with Romagnano Loch (Perini, 1975): the same pottery, the same necklaces (same grave goods), the same position regarding one burial of Romagnano (tomb 13), the same ritual of the double burial in many graves, the same architecture (under tumuli) and the same landscape positioning. Also, parallels in burial ritual are found in Mezzocorona Borgonuovo and shelters 2 and 3 from Nogarole di Mezzolombardo (De Marinis, 2003: 18) The anomaly in the context of La Vela tumuli grave is the presence of a smelting kiln under the tumuli structure: in fact, after the removal of the burial, appeared a large area of several hundred copper smelting slag, mixed with carbon, with increasing intensity towards the rock wall coinciding with the mound and extending northward outside of it. In the center of the area covered by slags, is remarkable the presence of a baked clay quadrangular surface: it rested on a bed of slag with other slags encrusted on its surface, which was also deformed by the stones of the base of the burial mound. In the baked clay surrounding area were also found three bellows nozzles (tuyères) in ceramic (Fasani, 1990: 172, 174), (figure 9.2).

Similar to the tomb of La Vela di Valbusa is the one of Acquaviva di Besenello: it is another burial of a female individual, accompanied, as grave goods, by arrowheads and almond-shaped cusp, in association with a smelting copper kiln (Angelini, Bagolini, Pasquali, 1980). This, however, should be considered with extreme caution: the burial is prior to the implantation of the smelting kiln, unlike the other of La Vela, where the tomb is above the kiln and may be contemporary. The apparent anomaly of burials located on top of a smelting copper kiln, hides in reality another anomaly that raises an interesting question: if the metallurgical work was supposedly made by men (for obvious reasons of extreme conditions that required some physical prowess), why are two women buried in the kilns? Data from La Mancha Bronze South West Spain between 20th – 16th century BC (figure 9.1: area 2). It was defined by the Siret brothers in late 19th century (1890) as part of Argaric culture and is substantially different from the previous period in type of settlement, funerary ritual and material culture. A better and much recent definition distinguish this cultural area from Argar, defining it as Bronce de La Mancha (Nieto, Meseguer, 1988) or Bronce manchego. The area is defined at south by Segura river, at North by Tagus river, at Least the Vilanopó river. Currently we tend to characterize it as a distinct cultural horizon but with strong relationships with Argar and Valencian Bronze. In recent definition of the second phase of Bronce de La Mancha, we can observe a hierarchical system of settlements with large fortified settlements in the valley (motillas) and small settlement in hilltop (castellones). The former are understood as places of storage, monitoring of the crafts and subsistence goods while the


109

La Mancha chronology


Absolute Chronology Social evidences

Early Bronze BronzezeitA1- BronzezeitA2a

21st - 18th I cent. BC Non-structured settlement system.

Middle Bronze BronzezeitA2- BronzezeitB1

18th - 16th cent. BC Ever more hierarchical society, with few male warriors armed with

swords and many burials of children.

Structured settlement system.

Table 9.2: La Mancha Bronze chronology; Drawn from Reinecke, Bohner, Wagner, 1965; Nieto, Meseguer 1988 and Castro, et. al., 2001: 181.

latter are seen as having been used for territorial control. In economy, agriculture is the main function, followed by farming and metallurgy, still not bronze, but the arsenical copper. Material culture is typologically represented by riveted daggers and undecorated carenated pottery (Brodsky, Gilman, Martin Morales, 2013: 141). In general it is not very different from Argar Culture. This, with the recent research, particularly Castro, et. al. (1993) is a clearer perspective considering the aspects in common with Bronce de La Mancha:

- hilltop settlements are distinguishable but not uniform in the way of settlement; - burials inside the settlements or the houses constitutes a radical novelty regarding the Chalcolithic, and its uniqueness within West Europe Early Bronze Age; but not all funerary manifestations fall within this dominant criteria.

In the aspect of chronology, in the last 20 years, it was possible to collect a sufficient number of samples for radiometric dating, which allowed data to be combined with the relative chronology of metals. Nevertheless it does not seem to have shed much light on the various phases of argaric occupation – la Mancha and Valencian Bronze settlements and necropolis. It is possible, however, to systematize it in a table (table 9.2). As for the burial context, it seems that during all Bronce de La Mancha, the mode of burial was maintained substantially equal, like in Argar culture. Despite what has been La Mancha Early and Middle Bronze Age two very wide chronological phases, it is normal to find substantial variation in the funerary ritual. This shows two differences in the grave goods between motillas (simple) and castellones settlement type (much rich and varied), but uniformity exists within ritual according to the age: adults in lithic cist, children in pottery vessel (in most cases) (Meseguer, Galan, 2004).

Concerning these general “common low” in burial, there are some exceptions, like La Motilla del Azuer. La Motilla del Azuer (Ciudad Real) (figure 9.3) Intervened since 1974 by T. Najera and F. Molina (Granada University), this fortified settlement had very big defensive walls that conferred the site with a fundamental importance inside the Argar Culture. The fortified settlement is in the plain and the radiometric date shows an occupation between 2450 and 1540 BC (Najera Colino, et. al., 2006: 151). Fortifications are composed by a central quadrangular tower, a first wall around the tower, and a second external and cyclopic (with very big stone) wall. The village is outside this second wall. Inside the fortification, were found 39 graves, of adult or children, characterized by: singular grave, in simple pit or lithic cist, children in urn (ibid.: 153-154). Grave goods are poor. Interesting is grave nº 39: near by the external wall façade, with several reconstruction stages along time, associable to the settlement phase 5, dating from 1.800 BC. Architecture grave consists in a lithic cist, within which a male child was buried (8-9 age old) in flexed position and lateral decubitus. Grave goods consist of pottery miniaturist material: 4 vessels, 2 clay disk and 1 toy clay; and also, one stone ball (Ibid.: 153-154). The singularity of this burial is: 1) children not inhumed in urn, but as adults in lithic cist; 2) position of the grave towards the fortification wall; 3) miniaturist pottery in grave good (also with very poor technology, like in the bonfire). As miniaturist pottery, there are also other examples in Argar area in various burials, or domestic contexts (Sanchez Romero, 2004; Aranda Jimenez & Molina Gonzalez, 2005). As for the other two singularities, worth of note is the position of the grave inside the fortification wall, in connection with the fortification, and the absence of the typical urn within which it was usual to bury children.


110

Figure 9.3: La Motilla del Azuer. Grave n. º 39: the position in the motilla (1); the grave (2); plan of the grave (3). Drawn from Najera Colino, et. al., 2006.

Vatin chronology Reinecke chronology Absolute chronology Early (Pančevo-Omoljica) Bronzezeit A2-B1 20th – starting 15th cent. BC Middle (Vatin-Vršac) Bronzezeit B2-C 15th – cent. BC Late (Belegiš I-Ilandža) Bronzezeit C-D 14th – starting 12th cent. BC

Table 9.3: Vatin Culture chronology; Drawn from Garašanin 1983.

Data from the Vatin Culture The Middle Bronze Age in Serbia is chronologically set in the 15th century BC (figure 9.1: area 3). Bronze Age in Serbia is still insufficiently known. Uneven geographical studies caused Bronze Age period to look like a patchwork formed of many cultural groups. The cultural relationships among the groups, their chronology and territorial settlement would have to be more accurately defined (Lijustina, Dimitrovic, 2009: 53). Generally it is characterized by the Vatin Culture with a tripartite generic chronology between the 16th and the 13th centuries BC (Garašanin, 1983), (table 9.3): This culture suffered some influences of Mycenaean Greece and had already developed social differentiation. Also, it has developed large central settlements, which were surrounded by smaller settlements and farms (Tásic, 1996). As for funerary horizons, the personal prestige status emerging during the Middle Bronze Age pursuits a new burial fashion, born in Early Bronze Age. Funerary practices occasionally become uniform over broad areas, although burials are remarkable both for their regional and chronological diversity. The practice of single graves under tumuli is widespread during the first half of Bronze

Age. Variety of tumuli and good graves suggest that access to status, power and wealth had been prerogative of restrict social groups. Grave architecture is characterized by tumuli, with inhumation in Early phase and in general incineration in Middle phase (Lijustina, Dimitrovic, 2012: 37), with both rituals during the beginning of Middle phase (Lijustina, Dimitrovic, 2013: 109). Dubac necropolis (Jančići) Mound III, grave 5 The beginning of Middle Bronze Age necropolis of Dubac consists in three tumuli made of earth and stones. In each tumulus we have several graves, mixing incineration (in full Middle Bronze Age) and inhumation left in crouched position turned right (early Middle Bronze Age). From a total of 2 graves, grave 5 of mound III is the most interesting. It is an individual inhumed female over 50, placed at the center of mound III and having three interesting data: 1) it is datable to the final phase of the Middle Bronze Age (differing from the other graves in this phase, with incineration); 2) it is centrally placed in this mound, reserved for distinct or elderly person (in mound I and II the central grave is of males); 3) it is positioned unusually, stretched on the stomach (ibid.: 109-110), (figure 9.4: number 1).


111

Data from the Terramare Culture At eastern Terramare from Late Bronze Age with a 13th century BC chronology (figure 9.1: area 4). It is located south of Po river and in the Venethian plain formed by big villages on stilts surrounded by embankments. Fully developed in the Middle Bronze Age 2 (1500-1450 BC), it involves a massive colonization of the Po Valley, with intensification of agriculture and material culture caracterized by pottery with handles, horned superelevation and connection with italian peninsula (protoAppennic area). After a period of implementation and prosperity during the Middle Bronze Age 3 (1450-1300 BC), in the Late Bronze Age, population pressure increases with greater social complexity. Metallurgical production reaches its maximum level, alongside with an increase in fortification of the largest villages. In the production of ceramics there is a clear break with the western Po Valley area. In this period the eastern Terramare are in contact with traffic and people coming from the Aegean through the Adriatic Sea: Frattesina and other settlements in the Po’ river delta have emporiums with Mycenaean pottery and Baltic Amber processing. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the Terramare undergo a sudden collapse, with the exception of eastern villages (Veneto). Probably caused by a missed ability to control the depletion of the natural resources caused by the intensive use of soils. Veneto, probably a more evolved social

structure, aided by a greater cultural dynamism across the sea and the Alps, escaped from sudden collapse (Bernabó Brea, Cardarelli, Cremaschi, 1997; Bettelli, Cupitó, 2010; Cupitó, et. al., 2012). The graves in the Olmo di Nogara and Franzine Nuove necropolis In the Terramare context, in low valleys near Verona, are necropolises from Middle Bronze Age 2 ( Olmo di Nogara) , Middle Bronze Age 3 (Bovolone and Scalvinetto) and Late Bronze Age ( Franzine Nuove and Vallona di Ostiglia) with both rituals, inhumation/incineration, and positioned at the top of a small hill near the settlement (Salzani, 2005). Inhumed individuals are in lying position; a minority of male have a warrior grave good; minority of femals have rich personal adornments (Leonardi, 2010: 28). In the Olmo di Nogara and Franzine Nuove necropolis, we have two inhumation graves, of individuals lying on the stomac. In the Olmo di Nogara, it is an adult female individual (grave 56), (Roncoroni, 2006: 67). In the Franzine Nuove, it is a male young-adult individual, whose head is turned to left and lower limbs are flexed (Corrain, Capitanio, Fasani, 1967). Apparentely doesn’t have grave goods (figure 9.4: number 2).

Figure 9.4: inhumed laid on the stomach: Dubac (Middle Bronze Age of western Serbia); Franzine Nuove (Late

Bronze Age in eastern Terramare). Drawn from Lijustina, Dimitrovic, 2013 and Corrain, Capitanio, Fasani, 1967.


112

Southwest Bronze III Chronology


Absolute Chronology Evidences

Final Bronze Age I Bronzezeit D/ Hallstatt A1/A2

12th cent. BC Begin of really bronze metallurgy

Huelva phase Hallstatt B1

Middle 9th- Middle 10th cent BC

Burnished decoration pottery/Atlantic

metallurgy Baiões/Plaza de las Monjas phase

Hallstatt B2

Middle 10th- end 9th cent. BC

Burnished decoration pottery/Atlantic and

Mediterranean metallurgy

Colonial phase Hallstatt B3/ Hallstatt C1

Post end 9th cent. BC Phoenician influxes, hole pottery and iron

metallurgy Table 9.4: Southwest Bronze III chronology; Drawn from Reinecke, Bohner, Wagner 1965; Torres Ortiz 2008

and Oosterbeeck, et. al., 2011. Bronze Age: centre of Portugal Final Bronze Age in Central Portugal dates between the 12th – 18th century BC) (figure 9.1: area 5). Territory includes Tagus, Zêzere and Nabão rivers hydrographic basin, with southern part of Beira Interior. It is, currently characterized by a not very well defined archaeological culture for the Bronze Age, very dependent of relative chronology and material culture studies in Baiões/Santa Lúzia, on the north (Senna Martinez, 2010) and Bronze do Sudoeste, on the south (Schubart, 1975; Parreira, 1995; Cardoso, 2007), what can today be considered as a cultural appendix. A much specific subdivision was made possible for the Bronze do Sudoeste III (Southwest Bronze III), by comparing with Southwestern Spain (Huelva) material culture (specifically the metallurgy), settlements modalities and chronologies. So, we will use the Bronze do Sudoeste as a chronological reference (table 9.4): The material culture is represented by smoothed decorations in a pottery (Lapa do Fumo – Alpiarça type) particularly reticule decoration, Atlantic metallurgy (double ring axes, tongue carp swords) and after influxes by Mediterranean (fibulae Pantalica type, for example); in these phases hilltop settlement in hinterland and familiar farms near the rivers are the predominant characteristics. All the data show a society in transition to a more structured level: starting in Chalcolithic (Oosterbeeck, et. al., 2011: 149, 151) it develops with the tin trade in the Final Bronze Age (Senna Martinez, 2013) and continued with the arrival of the Phoenician, at the begining of the Iron Age, along the Tagus, directly until Santarém, indirectly for the higher territorial area (Arruda, 2005; Delfino, 2012).

About the funerary horizons, three fundamental characteristics are highlighted in the North Alentejo – Tagus Valley area: - Replacement of the ancient monumentality of the graves by much more discrete architecture like mamoas (flat tumuli) like Souto (Cruz, 2011) or burials in lapas (little caves) like Gruta da Marmota (Kunst, 1995: 124), or in necropolises like Urns Fields, like Tranchoal (Cruz, Vilaça, Gonçalves, 1999), Meijão (Kalb, Hock, 1985), and Cabeço da Bruxa (Kalb and Hock, 1982), or necropolises in cist, like Provença and Pessegueiro (Kunst, 1995, 124). - Funerary ritual is mixt with burial (grave in lapas) and incineration (“field” necropolis and mamoas) - Continuity of funerary usage of the necropolis since Neolithic until Bronze Age, like Gruta do Morgado Superior (Cruz, et. al., 2013) Monte de São Domingos (Castelo Branco) (figure 9.5) Worked by J.C. Caninas in 1997 (Cardoso, Caninas, Henriques, 1998) this is probably a settlement constituted by two circular structures, with the bottom composed by an upright flat stone. Structure 1 is the smallest and shows a pavement in clay with charcoals and other evidences of everyday life (like three fragmented pottery shapes). Structure 2 is the biggest, doesn’t have evidences of everyday life, but under the pavement three little quartz lumps had been built that cover three pits. One of the pits contains one pottery urn with cremation (burned bones and ashes). Anomalies in the funerary world by the end of Final Bronze Age, in Central Portugal are: 1) graves in a domestic context; 2) relative monumentalization of the graves; 3) incineration graves in domestic context and in a relative monumental structure. Although it is also reasonable to understand structure 2 as a specifically funerary structure (doesn’t have material associated with daily life and is bigger than structure 1), the anomaly of a grave inside the settlement area remains.


113

Figure 9.5: Monte de São Domingos: structure 1 (1); incineration urn in structure 1 (2); burned bones of urn (3). Drawn from Cardoso, Caninas, Henriques, 1998.

Discussing Before some considerations, it is important to present some reflections made in the last 30 years that probably already pointed the interpretation methodology towards a certain tendency: “Postulate according to which if the data could be put into a computer, would split in a convenient taxonomy that would reveal cultural groups, is called into question” (Renfrew, 1987). “A semiotic approach in the study of cultures is crucial: Material manifestation = “Parole”; Idea producing material = “Langue”; Anomalies must be considered with the same attention of the customs; Culture = set of signs; Sign = set of differences that distinguish it from other signs” (resumed from Tabaczynsky 1996). “Nevertheless it is quite frequent to be tented to understand these aspects (funerary horizons) in constant, pursuing statically and unidirectional codes for each cultural and geographical situation” (Roncoroni, 2006: 63) Also from the work of F. Roncoroni (ibid.) it is possible to understand that customs in funeral rituals can return

centuries later and in adjacent regions. This demonstrates that rituals do not always follow systematic rules in prehistoric society but depend on semiotic laws. Conclusions The problem about the message that the authors of the burials wanted to convey is twofold: What did they want to communicate and to whom? For the “what they wanted to communicate”, the answers can be manyfold and, most of the times, none of them is really confirmable: the overall response “wanted to communicate the life of men and women”, or rather the actions, the social affiliation, the consideration that the community and the family had for them, perhaps it is the only one that can be taken as certain, because of the clear evidence material. Major problems faced by questions are: Who you want to allocate these messages (posterity, the afterlife gods, death itself?). Often, the only material evidence (place of burial, architecture, location of the deceased, cinerary ritual, good grave) is not sufficient to provide clear indisputable explanations. . Does “stomach inhumation” such as in Dubac, Olmo di Nogara and Franzine Nuove have a particular meaning? If we infer the meaning of similar burials in historical


114

times, we come across individuals who had been excluded from the life of the community when they were alive: witches, people considered frenzied, people considered affected by vampirism. Or simply were guilty of serious crimes. Can we envisage a similar motivation for the Bronze Age according to a general axiom relating to a pre-existing knowledge (Delfino, Charters de Almeida, 2013: 125-126) or, on the contrary, is there a completely different cultural context from the European historical epoch, and so, almost impossible to verify these days? Finally, in the context of a particular common rule, in general, the burials within a human community are, by contrast, subject to standardization, specification of the message within the funerary horizon. An important aim to remember: one chrono-cultural phase (for example Early

Bronze Ib in Polada Culture, or Huelva phase in Southwestern Iberia Peninsula) covers about hundred years or several decades and during this relative long period, traditions may be maintained or on the other hand new trends, ideas or other factors transforming the society are likely to appear. And, these transformations, including the funerary ritual, also depend on personal and familiar sentiments or the overall sentiments of the small community. There are exceptions within the standard. These should not be underestimated as an integral part and physical evidence of an ancient language the community wanted to transmit. And which perhaps, as archaeologists, we are involuntary receivers. And sometimes the abnormalities of the language are the key to understanding where normality is lacking.

References ANGELINI, B.; BAGOLINI, B.; PASQUALI, T. (1980)

– Acquaviva di Besenello (Trento). Preistoria Alpina. Trento: Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, nº 16, p. 67-69.

ARANDA JIMENEZ, G.; MOLINA GONZALEZ, F. (2005) – Intervenciones arqueologicas en el jacimiento de la Edad del Bronce del Cerro de la Encina (Monachil, Granada). Trabajos de Prehistoria. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, volume 62, nº 1, p. 165-180.

ARANDA JIMENEZ, G.; ESQUIVEL, J.A. (2006) – Ritual funerario y comensalidad wen las sociedades de la Edad del Bronce del Sureste peninsular: la Cultura de El Argar. Trabajos de Prehistoria. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, volume 63, nº 2, p. 117-133.

ARANDA JIMENEZ, G.; MONTON SUBIAS, S.; SANCHEZ ROMERO, M.; ALARCON, E. (2009) – Death and everyday life. The Aragaric society from Southeast Iberia. Journal of Social Archaeology. [S.l.]: Sage journals, volume 9, nº 2, p. 139-162.

ARRUDA, A.M. (2005) – O Iº milénio a.n.e. no Centro e no Sul de Portugal: leituras no início de um novo século. O Arqueólogo Português. Lisboa: Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, série IV, volume 23, p. 9-156.

BARICH, B. (1971) – Il complesso industriale della stazione di Polada alla luce di piú recenti dati. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana. Roma : Museo preistorico etnografico L. Pigorini, 80, p. 77-182.

BERNABÓ BREA, A.M.; CARDARELLI, A.; CREMASCHI, M. (1997) – Il crollo del sistema terramaricolo. In BERNABÓ BREA, A. M.; CARDARELLI, A.; CREMASCHI, M. (eds) – Le Terramare: la piú antica civiltá padana. Milano: Elekta, catalogo della mostra di Modena, p. 745-756.

BETTELLI, M.; CUPITÓ, M. (2010) – Fando Paviani, Legnago (Verona). In RADINA, F.; RECCHIA, G. (eds) – Ambra per Agamennone. Indigeni tra Micenei tra l’ Adriatico Ionio ed Egeo. Bari: Adda Editore, catalogo della mostra di Bari, p. 258-259.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M. (1997) – Il territorio padano dopo le Terramare. In BERNABÓ BREA, A. M.; CARDARELLI, A.; CREMASCHI, M. (eds) – Le Terramare: la piú antica civiltá padana. Milano: Elekta, catalogo della mostra di Modena, p. 757-769.

BLANCE , B. (1971) – Die Anfange der metallurgie auf der Iberische Halbinsel. Studien zu den Anfangen der Metalurgie. Berlin: Mann, nº 4.

BRODSKY, M.; GILMAN, A .; MARTIN MORALES, C. (2013) – Bronze Age political landscape in La Mancha. In CRUZ BERROCAL, M.; GARCIA SANJUAN, L.; GILMAN, A. – The Prehistory of Iberia. Debating Early social stratification and the State. New York: Routledge, p. 141-169.

CARDOSO, J.L. (2007) – Pré-história de Portugal. Lisboa: Verbo.

CARDOSO, J.L.; CANINAS, J.C.; HENRIQUES, F. (1998) – Duas cabanas circulares da Idade do Bronze do Monte de São Domingos (Malpica do Tejo- Castelo Branco). Estudos Pré-Históricos. Viseu: Centro de Estudos Pré-Históricos da Beira Alta, p. 325-345.

CASTRO, P. V.; COLOMER, E.; CHAPMAN, R.; GILI, S.; GONZALEZ, P.; LULL, V.; MICÓ, S.; MONTÓN, S.; PICAZO, M.; RIHUETE, C.; RISCH, R.; RUIZ PARRA, M.; SANAHUJA, M. E.; TENAS, M. (1993) – Projecto Gatas. Sociedad y economia en el sureste de Espanha c.2.500-800 antes de nuestra era. Huelva: Junta de Andaluzia, I.A.A., 1985-1992 Projectos, p. 401-415.

CASTRO, P. V.; CHAPMAN, R.; GILI, S.; LULL, V.; MICÓ, S.; RIHUETE, C.; RISCH, R.; SANAHUJA, M.E. (1998) – Aguas Project. Paleoclimatic reconstruction and the dynamics of human settlements and land-use in the area of tha Middle Aguas (Almeria) in the South east of the Iberian Peninsula. Luxemburgo: European Commission Directorate XII. Science, Research and Developpment.

CORRAIN, C.; CAPITANIO, M.; FASANI, L. (n.d.) – Un inumato in posizione bocconi nella Necropoli Enea di Franzine Nuove di Villabartolomea (Verona). Quaderni di Antropologia e di Etnologia. Nº 4, p. 145-148.


115

CRIADO BOADO, F. (2006) – Se puede evitar la trampa de la subjectividad? Sobre arqueoologia e interpretación. Complutum. Madrid: Universidad Complutense Madrid, nº 17, p. 247-253.

CRUZ, D.; VILAÇA, R.; GONÇALVES, A. (1999) – A Necrópole de Tanchoal dos Patudos (Alpiarça, Santarém). Conímbriga. Coimbra: Instituto de Arqueologia, nº 38, p. 5-29.

CRUZ, A. (2011) – A Pré-História Recente do vale do baixo Zêzere. Arkeos, perspectivas em diálogo. Tomar: Centro Europeu de Investigação da Pré-História do Alto Ribatejo, volume 30, PhD dissertation, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 273 p.

CRUZ, A.; GRAÇA, A.; OOSTERBEEK, L.; ALMEIDA, F.; DELFINO, D. (2013) – Gruta do Morgado Superior – Um Estudo de Caso Funerário no Alto Ribatejo (Tomar, Portugal). Las Crisis en La Historia: Noción y Realidades. Comunidad de Castilla-La Mancha: Departamento de la Universidad de Castilla – La Mancha, Vinculos de Historia, nº 2, URL: vinculosdehistoria.com/índex.php/vínculos/article/view/62, p. 143-168.

CUPITÒ M., DALLA LONGA E., DONADEL V., LEONARDI G. (2012) – Resistances to the 12th century BC crisis in the Veneto region: the case studies of Fondo Paviani and Montebello Vicentino. In KNEISEL, K..; KIRLEIS, W.; DAL CORSO M.; TAYLOR, N.; TIEDTKE V. (eds) – Collapse or continuity? Environment and development of Bronze Age human landscapes. Proceedings of the international workshop Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes, II, Kiel, 14th-18th March 2011, 1, p. 55-83.

DE MARINIS, R.C. (1997) – L’etá del Bronzo nella regione Benacense e nella Pianura Padana a Nord del Po’. In BERNABÓ BREA, A. M.; CARDARELLI, A.; CREMASCHI, M. (eds) – Le Terramare: la piú antica civiltá padana. Milano: Elekta, catalogo della mostra di Modena, p. 405-422.

DE MARINIS, R.C. (1999) – Toward a relative and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age in Northern Italy. Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi. Bergamo: Civico Museo Archeologico di Bergamo, nº 7, p. 23-100.

DE MARINIS, R.C. (2000) – Il Museo Civico Archeologico “Giovanni Rambotti” di Desenzano del Garda; un’ introduzione alla preistoria del Lago di Garda. Desenzano del Garda: Cittá di Desenzano del Garda.

DELFINO, D.; CHARTERS DE ALMEIDA, J. (2013) – Uma nova abordagem para um diálogo entre arqueologia e arte. A Vénus pré-histórica da Colecção Estrada, In JANA, I.; PORTOCARRERO, G.; DELFINO, D. (eds) – Actas II e II Jornadas Internacionais do M.I.A.A. Museu Ibérico de Arqueologia e Arte. Abrantes: Câmara Municipal de Abrantes, p. 117-128.

FASANI, L. (1990) – La sepoltura e il forno di fusione

della Vela di Valbusa (Trento). Preistoria Alpina. Trento: Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, nº 11, p. 165-181.

FIDALGO, A.; GRADIM, A. (2004) – Manual de Semiótica. Covilhã: Universidade de Beira Interior.

GARASANIN, M. (1983) – Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. Sarajevo: Bronzano doba, nº IV, p. 736-753.

GILMAN GUILLEN, A.; FERNANDEZ POSSE, M. D.; MARTIN, C. (1996) – Consideraciones cronológicas sobre la Edad del Bronce en La Mancha. Complutum. Madrid: Universidad Complutense Madrid, nº 6, extra II, p. 111-137.

GONZALEZ MARCEN, P. (1994) – Cronologia del Grupo Argarico. Revista de Arqueologia de Ponent. Lleida: University of Lleida History Department, nº 4, p. 7-46.

KALB, P.; HÖCK, M. (1982) – Cabeço da Bruxa, Alpiarça (Distrito de Santarém) – relatório preliminar da escavação de Janeiro e Fevereiro de 1979. Portugália. Porto: Universidade do Porto. Faculdade de Letras, Nova Série, volume II/III, p. 61-69.

KALB, P.; HÖCK, M. (1981–1982) – Cabeço da Bruxa, Alpiarça (distrito de Santarém). Relatório preliminar da escavação de Janeiro e Fevereiro de 1979. Portugalia. Porto: [s.n.], Nova Série, nº 2–3, p. 61–69.

KALB, P.; HÖCK, M. (1985) – Cerâmica de Alpiarça. Exposição Temporária na Galeria dos Patudos - Catálogo. Alpiarça: Câmara Municipal de Alpiarça/Casa-Museu dos Patudos/Instituto Arqueológico Alemão de Lisboa.

KUNST, M. (1995) – A Idade do Bronze na Estremadura. In OLIVEIRA JORGE, S. (ed.) – Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de poder. Lisboa: Instituto Português dos Museus, catálogo da exposição do Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, p. 124-125.

LEONARDI, G. (2010) – Premesse sociali e culturali alla formazione dei centri protourbani del Veneto. Bollettino di Archeologia on line I. Rome: Proceeding of International Congress of Classical Archaeology; meeting between cultures in the ancient Mediterranean (Rome 2008), volume speciale F/F1/4, www.archeologia.beniculturali.it/pages/pubblicazioni.html, p. 23-35.

LJIUSTINA, M.; DIMITROVIC, K. (2009) – The Bronze Age Vatin Culture in the west Moravia Basin- case study of Sokolica in Ostra. In ZANOCI, A.; ARNAUT, T.; BAT, M. (eds) – Studia Archaeoligiae et Historia Antiquae. Doctissimo viro Scientiarum Archeologiae et Historiae Ion Niculiţă, anno septuagesimo aetatis suae, dedicator. Chişinău: Univ. de Stat din Moldova, p. 53-63.

LJIUSTINA, M.; DIMITROVIC, K. (2012) – In search for prestige: bronze age tumular graves in West Serbia. In SIRBU, V.; SCHUSTER, C. (eds) – Tumuli graves. Status symbol of the death in the Bronze and Iron Age in Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress, Proceeding of the XVI U.I.S.P.P. World Congress in Florianopolis (4-10 September 2011), BAR international series 2396, p. 35-42.


116

LJIUSTINA, M.; DIMITROVIC, K. (2013) – Middle Bronze Age in tumular graves in Kablar range, West Serbia- Gender perceived as physical condition and social construct. In SIRBU, V.; MATTEI, S. (eds) – Bronze and Iron Age graves from Eurasia - Gender between Archaeology and Anthropology. Buzau: Muzeul Judetean Buzau, Proceeding of the 13th Internacional Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology (Buzau 17th- 21th October 2012), Mousaios, XVIII, p. 105-129.

LULL, V. (2000) – Argaric society: death at home. Durham: Durham University, volume 74, nº 281, p. 581-590.

MESEGUER, J. L.; GALAN, C. (2004) – El Serro de La Encantada. In GARCIA HUELTA, M. R.; MORALES HERVAS, J. (eds) – La Penisnula Iberica en el II Milennio a.C.: Poblados y Fortificaciones. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, p. 115-172.

NAJERA COLINO, T.; MOLNA GONZALEZ, F.; SANCHEZ ROMERO, M.; ARANDA JIMENEZ, J. (2006) – Un enterramiento infantil singular en el yacimiento de la Edad el Bronce de La motilla del Azuer (Daimel- Ciudad Real). Trabajos de Prehistoria. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, volume 63, nº 1, p. 149-156.

NICOLIS, F. (1997) – La sepoltura dell’ Antica Etá del Bronzo della Vela di Valbusa. In ENDRIZZI, L.; MARZATICO, F. (eds) – Gli ori delle Alpi, catalogo della mostra di Trento. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, p. 372-373.

NIETO GALLO, G.; SANCHEZ MESEGUER, J. (1998) – Bases para la sistematización del estudio de la Edad del Bronce de La Mancha. Pueblos y Culturas Prehistóricas y Protohistóricas. Castilla-la-Mancha: Servício de Publicaciones de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-la-Mancha, Iº Congreso de Historia de Castilla-La Mancha, volume 2, p. 221-227.

OOSTERBEECK, L.; DELFINO, D.; BAPTISTA PEREIRA, F.; PORTOCARRERO, G. (2011) – Objectos, economias e sociedade nas origens da urbanização no Sudoeste peninsular. Museu Ibérico de Arqueologia e Arte de Abrantes, antevisão III. Abrantes: Câmara Municipal de Abrantes, p. 149-154.

PARREIRA, R. (1995) – Aspectos da Idade do Bronze no Alentejo Interior. In OLIVEIRA JORGE, S. (ed.) – Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de poder. Lisboa: Instituto Português dos Museus, catálogo da exposição do Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, p. 131-134.

PERINI, R. (1975) – La necropoli di Romagnano Loch III e IV – Le tombe all’inizio dell’ Etá del Bronzo nella regione alpina SudOccidentale. Preistoria Alpina. Trento: Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, nº 11, p. 295-315.

PERINI, R. (1994) – Scavi archeologici nella zona palafitticola di Fiavé - Carena. Trento: Servizio Beni Culturali della Provincia Autonoma, volume 3.

PERUTELLI, A.; PADUANO, G.; ROSSI, E. (2010) –

Storia e testi della letteratura latina. Bologna: Zanichelli.

REINECKE, P.; BOHNER, K.; WAGNER, F. (1965) – Mainser Aufsatze zur chronologie der Bronzer und Eisenzeit. Bonn: Habelt ed.

REMOTTI, F. 2011) – Cultura dalla complessitá all’impoverimento. Bari: Laterza editore.

RENFREW, C. (1987) – Problem in the modelling of socio-cultural system. European Journal of Operational Research. London: Elsevier, volume 30, issue 2, p. 179-192.

RONCORONI, F. (2006) – Riflessioni sull’interpretazione dei riti funerari in arqueologia preisttorica e proistorica. Bulletin d’Études Prehistoriques et Archeologiques Alpines. Aoste: Société Valdôtaine de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie, nº XVII, p. 63-69.

SANCHEZ ROMERO, M. (2004) – Children in the Southeast of Iberian Peninsula during Bronze Age. Ethnographish-Archaeologische Zeitschrift. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, nº 45, p. 377- 387.

SALZANI, L. (2005) – La Necropoli dell’età del Bronzo all’Olmo di Nogara. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona. Verona: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Sezione Scienze Dell’uomo, Serie 2, nº 8.

SENNA MARTINEZ, J.C. (2010) – Un mundo entre mundos. O Grupo Baiões/Santa Luzia: sociedade, metalurgia e relações inter-regionais. Iberografias. Guarda: Centro de Estudos Ibéricos, nº 6, p. 13-26.

SENNA MARTINEZ, J.C. (2013) – Um rio na (s) rota (s) do estanho: o Tejo entre Idade do Bronze e Idade do Ferro. CIRA Arqueologia. Vila Franca de Xira: Museu Municipal de Vila Franca de Xira, nº 2, p. 7-18.

SHUBART, H (1975) – Die kulture der Bronzezeit in Sudwestern der Hioberischen Halbinsel. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2 volumes.

SIRET, E.; SIRET, L. (1890) – Las primeras Edades del metal en sudeste de Espanha. Barcelona. Edición facsimilar, 2006, Murcia: Museo Arqueológico de Murcia.

SPINDLER, K.; CASTELLO-BRANCO, A.; ZBYSZEWSKY, G.; FERREIRA, O. Da VEIGA (1973-1974) – Le monument a coupule de l’Age du Bronze Final de la Roça do Casal do Meio (Calhariz). Lisboa: Serviços Geológicos de Portugal, Comunicações do Serviço Geológico de Portugal, nº 57, p. 91-153.

TABACZYNSKI, S. (1996) – La cultura ed i suoi corrrelati oggettuali; approccio pragmático, approccio semiótico, approccio integrale. Ferrara: A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni, Atti del XIII Congresso U.I.S.P.P. di Forlí- Italia (8-14 Settembre 1996), volume 1, sottosezione: problemi teorici e metodologici, p. 3-7.

TÁSIC, N. (1996), (ed.) – The Danube Yugoslavian Basin and the neighboring regions in the 2nd millennium BC. Vrsac-Belgrade: Institute for Balkan Studies, proceeding of International Colloquium of Vrsac 1995.

TORRES ORTIZ, M. (2008) – The chronology of the


117

Late Bronze in Western Iberia and the beginning of the Phoenician colonization in the Western Mediterranean. In BRANDHERM, D.; TRACHSEL, M. (eds.) – A new dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age chronology. Oxford: Archaeopress, proceeding of the XV

U.I.S.P.P. Congress, Lisbon September 2006, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1871, p. 135-148.

VOLLI, U. (2005) – Manuale di Semiotica. Bari-Roma: Laterza.


Between norm and variation in the semiotic of the funerary world: examples and discussion of some...

Documents

Transcript of Between norm and variation in the semiotic of the funerary world: examples and discussion of some...