THE PLACE OF CIVIDADE AN APPROACH TO LATE BRONZE AGE/IRON AGE TRANSITION IN AROUCA VALLEY (NW...

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES

PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006)

ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006)

Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek

VOL. 41

Conceptualising Space and Place

On the role of agency, memory and identity in the construction of space from the Upper Palaeolithic

to the Iron Age in Europe

C41 - The creation of ‘significant places’ and ‘landscapes’ in the Northwestern half of the Iberia, during Pre and Proto-historic

times. Theoretical, recording and interpretation issues from case studies in this region

C72 - Space, Memory and Identity in the European Bronze Age

Edited by

Ana M. S. Bettencourt M. Jesus Sanches

Lara B. Alves Ramon Fábregas Valcarce

BAR International Series 2058 2010

This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S2058 Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Actes du XV Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Outgoing President: Vítor Oliveira Jorge Outgoing Secretary General: Jean Bourgeois Congress Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek (Series Editor) Incoming President: Pedro Ignacio Shmitz Incoming Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek Volume Editors: Ana M. S. Bettencourt, M. Jesus Sanches, Lara B. Alves and Ramon Fábregas Valcarce Conceptualising Space and Place: On the role of agency, memory and identity in the construction of space from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Iron Age in Europe C41 - The creation of ‘significant places’ and ‘landscapes’ in the Northwestern half of the Iberia, during Pre and Proto-historic times. Theoretical, recording and interpretation issues from case studies in this region C72 - Space, Memory and Identity in the European Bronze Age © UISPP / IUPPS and authors 2010 ISBN 978 1 4073 0547 9 Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs. Contacts : Secretary of U.I.S.P.P. – International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAR Email: [email protected] www.uispp.ipt.pt Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England [email protected] 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

153

THE PLACE OF CIVIDADE AN APPROACH TO LATE BRONZE AGE/IRON AGE

TRANSITION IN AROUCA VALLEY (NW PORTUGAL)

António Manuel S.P. SILVA Centro de Arqueologia de Arouca and CITCEM-Universities of Oporto and Minho

E-mail: [email protected]

Joana N. LEITE Centro de Arqueologia de Arouca E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper presents the site of Cividade, a Late Bronze/Iron Age settlement in the Arouca valley, while discussing archaeological data and research paradigms used in the study of these archaeological sites in the north of Portugal. Cividade is an enclosed hilltop site that yielded very few archaeological features of construction (e.g. postmolds, hearths or hut floors). We discuss the role of Cividade’s walled structures, considering its interpretation as an enclosure-type structure, and not as a conventional defensive wall. Key-words: Proto-history; Northern Portugal; Bronze/Iron Age transition period; Enclosure; Settlement; Places; Meaning

The archaeological site of Cividade is a Late Bronze/Iron Age settlement located in the Arouca valley. Arouca is a municipality located c. 60 km South-East of Porto, in Northern Portugal (Fig. 15.1). The Paiva and the Arda rivers, both tributaries of the Douro on its left side, run through the municipality. The Arda irrigates a wide valley where the modern village of Arouca is situated. Arouca has grown peacefully from the 9th or 10th on century, when a Benedictine community was constituted in the region.

But the human occupation of the valley and its surrounding mountains predates the Benedictine occupation. Dozens of megalithic monuments and mounds of megalithic tradition stand out in the landscape. As a result, human presence in the region can indeed be dated to, at least, as early as the 4th millennium BC (Silva, A.M. 2004; and especially Silva, F.P. 2004).

This paper aims to discuss some aspects of the Bronze Age period and Bronze/Iron Age transition in the Arouca valley, focusing particularly on the site of Cividade, a settlements still under excavation. This site is located on a prominent and strategic hilltop facing the valley (Figures 15.2 and 15.4). In addition to Cividade, other archaeological data from this region will be addressed in this study. Of notice, the information presented in this paper resulted from excavations carried out between 2003 and 2006,1 therefore this article has the format of a site report rather than an in-depth analysis or final study. 1 These excavations were carried out through a research Project (2002-2006), named PAIVAR, which was presented by a local association, Centro de Arqueologia de Arouca, to the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology (IPA), being one of the authors (AMS) the Project Coordinator. Financial support came from IPA (c. 85%) and Arouca’s Town Hall (Silva, A.M. 2003).

CIVIDADE

The site of Cividade, also known by other local names, as Muro and Passeio dos Cavalos, is situated at 357 m. altitude and marks, for those arriving from West, the entrance to the valley on its Southern side (Figures 15.2 and 15.4). It is a narrow natural gate and the sole connection to the coastal areas. The folk name given to this gorge is ‘Pedra Má’ (that is, “Evil Rock”), conveying the idea of a risky point where in the past travellers had to face the threat of thieves, ghosts and other such dangers.

Those place-names have significant meanings from a historical and archaeological point of view. The toponymic set includes Cividade (applied to a broader area which includes the summit where the excavations took place), Muro and Passeio dos Cavalos, both specifically related to the archaeological site’s location. Muro signifies, very often, ‘wall’, in the general sense of ‘fortress’; Passeio dos Cavalos means a place for horse riding (actually, there is still a folk tradition which describes hilltop’s oval platform like a place where the Moorish knights used to practise).

The term Cividade is particularly meaningful, considering its historical documentary evidence, which can be set, at least, so far as the year 1110 AD, when a document recorded a donation of some properties situated ‘in uilla Laurosa inter duos montes Ciuidadella et Prensoiru’ made to Arouca’s monastery.2 ‘Cividade’ – which comes 2 Which literally means those possessions where located in villa Laurosa (a small group of dwellings, in Mediaeval times), between the hills Ciuidadella and Prensoiru, all the place-names still existing. The document is published in Documentos Medievais Portugueses – Documentos Particulares III, 349 (see Fernandes 1965:104-5 for discussion).

ARCHITECTURES FOR THE LIVING

154

Fig. 15.1 & 15.2. The region of Arouca in the context of the Iberian Península. The hilltop of Cividade

A.M.S.P. SILVA & J.N. LEITE: THE PLACE OF CIVIDADE . AN APPROACH TO LATE BRONZE AGE/IRONAGE TRANSITION…

155

Fig. 15.3. Location of the excavated areas at the site of Cividade, with ceramic density/m3 per area

Fig. 15.4. The hilltop of Cividade (left), facing the entrance to the Arouca valley

from the Latin ciuitas,−tis, later becoming the Portuguese word cidade (town, city) – is a common place-name in Northern Portugal, and is often associated to large and important Iron Age oppida, or, in some cases to small and apparently less important Iron or Bronze Age settlements.

Indeed, an issue to consider here and to which we will return later, is that in Arouca, (and perhaps in other locations as well), a small and modest archaeological site, without visible architectonic remains or large amounts of artefacts, developed and was preserved in the folk

memory of local communities for more than 15 centuries. Actually, in spite of its lack of monumental construction or remarkable artefacts, this natural site may have been an ancient focal centre for local communities with a long-term significance, its power and authority symbolized by the existence of ‘walls’, no matter the material that they were made of or how imposing they may have been.

The historical documentary evidence and oral tradition regarding Cividade, would lead us to expect a considerably visible site; however, archaeological survey


156

proved to be inconclusive, due to the large number of trees and ground vegetation. Cividade’s archaeological evidence remained practically unknown until 1993, when soil scarifying of the Northern slop for the purpose of planting trees disrupted the soil so deeply that some pottery shards were finally collected, dating the site to the Late Bronze Age. But it would take another ten years for excavations to begin. The excavations have yet to be completed, but the 2003 to 2006 seasons brought to light new evidence about the site.

The 2003 excavation season lasted three weeks, the team was small and we excavated only 31.5 m2, distributed by five units and small trenches, with different sizes. The stratigraphy is simple, showing only two or three layers, and the deposits shallow (usually less than 70 cm). The finds were surprisingly poor; despite careful excavation and screening of the soil, it yielded only 25 very small ceramic shards (all body sherds; no rims, bases, decoration or other diagnostic shards were recovered). But this result was consistent with the 1993 survey (Silva, A.M. 2004:250-1). The pottery yielded by both the excavation and the survey was similar and confirmed a Bronze Age chronology suggested for the site.

The trenches excavated on the peripheral rampart revealed an interesting architectural feature. The bedrock was intentionally cut and a wall (very destroyed by modern surface planting) had been built on the trench cut in the bedrock. The wall appeared to have a double alignment made of larger blocks, disposed irregularly, with soil, rubble and smaller stones filling the spaces between them. The state of destruction caused by natural and modern human interference prevented the identification of this structure as a conventional, defensive wall. Considering the characteristics of its construction technique, the wall could not have been more than two meters high when it was built. Furthermore, we have no reason to think that the people living in Cividade may have needed a defensive wall. Thus, and to avoid possible misunderstandings in the interpretation, we chose to call this wall a ‘peripheral walled structure’.3

The field seasons of 2004 and 2005 were more encoura-ging in terms of results. The number of finds increased to 1.700 including not only pottery, but also flaked and polished lithic artefacts, glass beads and a few small frag-ments of metal tools. In addition, these excavation sea-sons provided additional information about the peripheral walled structure mentioned above, although the excava-tion revealed very sparse evidence of domestic features.

The peripheral structure was identified in two more trenches. Its construction characteristics were slightly different from the “wall” identified in 2003. In ‘Sector M’, located in the site’s Northern platform, we could see the base of a massive, but not very wide wall that had the external face missing due to the construction of a modern 3 Port: estrutura de contenção perimetral.

planting platform. In Sector L, Southern platform (Fig. 15.5), the wall was considerably more destroyed than in the Northern platform; only the core, made of large granite and schist blocks, was visible. At the base of the structure, we found a broken grinding stone, which may be interpreted not as re-used raw material, but as a symbolic item. Due to the importance of such object in the daily life of these communities this find could have been an intentional deposit. Here, as in other aspects of these communities, domestic and symbolic dimensions of implements can hardly be distinguished, as Bradley and others have stressed (e.g. Bradley 2003). A second remarkable characteristic of the peripheral structure in this area was the evidence of two construction phases, with distinct building techniques. At a lower level the wall was made of smaller stones (Fig. 15.5). In a later period (but we cannot date this second level or say how much later its occupation was in relation to the lower level) this structure was abandoned, after collapsing, or it may have been intentionally buried. The structure/wall in the lower level was capped with a distinctive type of clayish soil, and then levelled out to build the second wall. Ceramics related to the upper and the lower phases seem very similar, which may mean that a short time span occurred between the construction and use of both structures.

Fig. 15.5. The peripheral structure at the southern rampart. The image shows the two chronological

phases of the structure

Evidence of domestic activities is sparse. Besides ceramic vessels, the site yielded few fragments of grinding stones and some spindle whorls. In fact, we could not identify features that could be interpreted as residential space, such as hearths, postmolds or hut floors. The only possible housing structure was a coarse curvilinear wall (suggesting a windbreaker), located in the hill’s western slope (Fig. 15.6), just outside the peripheral walled structure mentioned above. There, and in addition to a considerable amount of ceramics, we found a quantity of fragments of fired and decorated clay pavements. Considering that in the Iberian Northwest, stone houses


157

date to the recent Proto-historic period, for the Bronze/Iron Age transition period we would expect to find construction using perishable materials; thus we have to classify these structures in Cividade as perhaps of a different type. Nevertheless, they are consistent with similarly rough and also difficult to interpret structures previously documented in other contemporary settlements from Beira Alta (Northern-central Portugal), such as Canedotes (Canha 2002) and Vila Cova-à-Coelheira (Mendes 2003), both located in Vila Nova de Paiva (see Valinho 2003 for a general overview on the region), as well as in the coastal site of São Julião (Albergaria-a-Velha), mentioned above (Silva, A.M. and Silva, F.P. 1995).

Fig. 15.6. A windbreaker-like structure found in the West platform

In trench M, close to the internal face of the peripheral structure, we found another unusual feature. Lying on the bedrock and at the corner of a natural rock intentionally cut, there is a feature that looks very similar to a burial cist (Fig. 15.7). However, we lack data that permits its identification as a grave. This structure has an almond-shaped plan; it was built with small and medium size granite and schist stones, with a large stone placed in the middle of the smaller ones. The cist-like feature did not yield artefacts, and the soil from its interior was different from the soil outside it. The structure does not seem to be a grave, and if it is a container for a ritual deposit or a hoard, the nature of the goods deposited in it is unknown. Moreover, stratigraphic data shows that the peripheral walled construction was built over the small cist-like structure. However, it is not clear if the cist-like structure was intentionally capped by the walled construction.

In a broader overview of Cividade, we must also consider the unequal distribution and density of artefacts throughout the site (Fig. 15.3). Clearly, in the upper platform, where the rocks rise from the thin layers of soil, as well as on the North rampart that faces the gorge, pottery and other materials are sparse (between 0.39 and

Fig. 15.7. The cist-like structure, close to the interior face of the peripheral structure in the North rampart

3.13 artefacts per cubic meter of excavated soil). The amount of artefacts increases greatly in the trenches excavated on the West platform (18.89/m3), possibly a domestic area, and particularly in the Southern platform and rampart. The West and Southern platforms together have a distribution of 43.95 artefacts per cubic meter of excavated soil. In addition, the most exceptional and uncommon items (e.g., a metal fibula, two glass beads and a flint flake) came from these richer areas. Nevertheless, a small and perhaps non-utilitarian gouge of polished stone was the unique find yielded by a trench excavated in the upper platform.

Absolute dating of the site has not yet been done, mainly due to the lack of significant samples of charcoal, seeds, bone or other organic materials, and to date the site with C14, we may have to use AMS. However, considering the bronze fibula and other older finds, as well as the imported wheel-made grey ware, the glass beads and a few shards with incised and stamped decoration, we suggest that the site’s occupation may span from the 7th to the 4th century BC, corresponding to the transition period between the Bronze and the Iron Age in Northwestern Portugal, according to the chronology recently suggested by A. Bettencourt (2005a).

DISCUSSION

Having in mind the local context of Cividade, we will now attempt a short overview of the prehistoric and protohistoric occupation of the Arda’s Valley. Despite the scarce data available due to lack of excavations and absence of reports, as well as lack of clear contexts for some finds, we will take a long-term perspective for our analysis.

The cultural landscape dating from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age is marked by a relevant quantity of megalithic and other funerary monuments of magalithic


158

tradition, namely those located in the highlands and in the lower level terraces that surround the valley (Silva, A.M. 2004). Similarly to what happens in other regions of Portugal, we know very little about the Neolithic settlements where the people who built and were buried in the megalithic monuments lived. However, the expansion of these monuments (together with the open-air rock engravings of Atlantic tradition, so far unknown in the Arda’s valley) perhaps may suggest those communities had a perception of their territories as open and free access spaces, whose boundaries we do not know but where the archaeological record shows us a significant lack of monumentality in the settlements, i.e. apparently being the labour and resources mainly invested in the long-term dwelling places for the dead and other ritualized features, instead of in the settlements for the living.

The late Bronze Age archaeological evidence for settlements is scarce. But the discussion and issues arising from the excavation of Cividade must take into account that the site’s excavated area (132 m2) may represent only c. 2.5% of the total walled area.

Our first approach to Cividade was very conventional. Following a traditional archaeological framework, we assumed that Cividade was a Late Bronze Age settlement (Silva, A.M. 2004: 250-1), according to the occupation models established for this period by M. Martins (1990) for the Cávado River basin (Northern of Portugal), by R. Vilaça for Beira’s hinterland (1995), and by A.C.F. Silva (1986, 1995) and F. Queiroga (2003) in broader surveys for all the Northern region of Portugal. These authors indicated that this type of settlements was always located on hilltops, in general having good geo-strategic conditions of visual dominance over the surrounding valleys. Following the same model of landscape use, a Late Bronze Age or Iron Age settlement should be walled, i.e. fortified. Thus a stone, stone and soil wall, or at least a defensive less structured rampart, should be an expected feature in settlements of this period, despite the variety of uses and possible meanings that may be attributed to such features (Silva, A.M. 2005:175). In fact, there was a rampart surrounding the hilltop of Cividade, just where we would expect to find such feature.

The complete array of expected remains necessary to define a Late Bronze Age hilltop settlement would also include postholes, hearths and house structures (mainly sandy floors). This type of settlement evidence, considered in the context of a funtionalist theoretical model, had supported, also, the interpretation of other sites discovered in the costal region of Center-North Portugal (e.g. Senhor dos Aflitos, (Arouca; Silva, A.M. 2004) and São Julião (Albergaria-a-Velha; Silva, A.M. and Silva, F.P. 1995).

Nevertheless, in Cividade, the lack of features such as hearths, postholes, sandy floors, and the rarity of artefacts (despite the existence of a “wall”), cannot be explained

only by the small excavated area, as noted above, or by post-depositional disturbances, but perhaps by cultural reasons. Therefore, according to the theoretical model presented, the explanation of the site, as a permanent settlement may be inadequate.

We may need to approach Cividade’s identity from another perspective, stressing the symbolic interpretation of material features and of the activities taking place in the site (Ingold 2000; Thomas 2006), within the context of a theoretical framework that recently has been applied to the prehistory and proto-history of Northern Portugal (e.g., Jorge, S.O. 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Jorge, V.O. 2006; Bettencourt 2005b, 2009).

Thus, at Cividade most of the labour and of the raw materials were, seemingly, invested not in the building of residential spaces but in the peripheral structure, even if its architecture seems rather crude and heterogeneous in the several sampled areas. Cividade seems to be primarily an enclosure, which defines a separated and protected (at least in a symbolic level) small space (about 0.5 ha) located in a prominent hilltop with a dominant view of the valley’s entrance and the surrounding landscape. The site was probably built and used by a nearby community that developed and shared a common sense of identity throughout the use of monumental architecture, as well as by exceptional performances that took place in the enclosure, where the use of particular artefacts may have played a significant role. Thus, perhaps Cividade was precisely a place, a natural space socially transformed that acquired public relevance, rooted upon a set of stories repeated and reminded throughout generations, supporting the weaving of historical and emotional links between the communities and their environment, in a long-term framework.

We must also note that the pattern of coexistence of more impressive walls or other boundaries with very fragile, almost invisible dwelling structures seems to be common in other Late Bronze Age settlements in this region, such as at Senhor dos Aflitos, in Arouca (Silva, A.M. 2004), Chão de Carvalho (Vale de Cambra; Silva, A.M. 1997) and São Julião (Albergaria-a-Velha; Silva, A.M. and Silva, F.P. 1995). To a certain extent, it seems almost that ‘dwelling’ the landscape (in the sense of Ingold 2000) became in the Late Bronze/Iron Age transition of coastal Northern-Centre of Portugal, synonymous of ‘walling’, creating for the first time in the region enclosed and delimited spaces, communally built– and for this reason perceived as public architecture (Silva, A.M. 2005:174) –, sharing common projects and agencies, and in consequence fully suited for a more efficient design of social identities.

The concern with enclosed spaces was described by S.O. Jorge as a general framework, focusing on the transition from the 4th to the 3rd millennium BC. According to this author, this time period was marked in some regions of the Iberian Peninsula “by the transition from undefined


159

territories to generally smaller ones with both real and cognitively perceived boundaries, in which dichotomies such as inside/outside and internal/external became increasingly relevant” (Jorge, S.O. 1999a).

On the other hand, in this process of defining territories, that increased during the Late Bronze Age, fragility and apparent disregard for permanent character of domestic architectures (Jorge, S.O. 1999a:62-3) might have been less dramatic than we may assume, if we realize that the new centres of power and consumption were settlements themselves and perhaps any building inside them. Perhaps this was precisely the relevant role that Cividade played, so that the memory of it as a central walled place was kept and re-created by later historic communities, allowing for its permanence in folk memory until recent periods.

We want to thank our friends John Simpson for the trans-lation of the text and to M. Dores Cruz for comments and a general revision that improved a great deal this paper. Finally, I would like to thank Ana Bettencourt, whose careful reading, bibliographic suggestions and valuable comments exceeded a lot what is due to an editor.

References

BETTENCOURT, A.M. (2005a) – O que aconteceu às populações do Bronze Final do Noroeste de Portugal, no segundo quartel do I milénio AC, e quando começou, afinal, a Idade do Ferro? In Castro, um lugar para habitar. Colóquio. Penafiel: Museu Municipal, p. 25-40 [Cadernos do Museu, 11].

BETTENCOURT, A.M. (2005b) – A arquitectura dos recintos monumentais. In J.M. Hidalgo Cuñarro (coord.) Arte e Cultura de Galicia e Norte de Portugal. Arqueoloxía. vol. 1. Vigo: Nova Galicia Edicións, S.L., p. 122-129.

BETTENCOURT, A.M. (2009) – A Pré-História do Minho: do Neolítico à Idade do Bronze. In Paulo Pereira (coord.) Minho. Traços de Identidade. Braga: Universidade do Minho, p. 70-113.

BRADLEY, R. (2003) – Enclosures, monuments and the ritualization of domestic life. In Jorge, S.O., coord. (2003a) – Recintos murados da pré-história recente... Porto-Coimbra: FLUP/CEAUCP, p. 355-369.

FERNANDES, A.A. (1965) – Arouca na Idade Média pré-nacional. Sep. “Arquivo do Distrito de Aveiro”. Aveiro.

CANHA, A.J. (2002) – Canedotes, povoado do Bronze Final do Alto Paiva. Dissert. de Mestrado apresentada à Fac. de Letras da Universidade do Porto. Texto policopiado.

INGOLD, T. (2000) – The perception of the environment. Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London/ New York: Routledge.

JORGE, S.O. (1999) – Bronze Age Settlements and Territories on the Iberian Peninsula: new conside-

rations. In Demakopoulou, K. et al. (1999) – Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age. London: Thames and Hudson, p. 60-64.

JORGE, S.O., coord. (2003a) – Recintos murados da pré-história recente. Técnicas construtivas e organização do espaço. Conservação, restauro e valorização patrimonial de arquitecturas pré-históricas. Porto-Coimbra: FLUP/CEAUCP.

JORGE, S.O. (2003b) – Pensar o espaço da Pré-história Recente: a propósito dos recintos murados da Península Ibérica. In Jorge, S.O. coord. – Recintos murados da pré-história recente… Porto-Coimbra: FLUP/CEAUCP.

JORGE, S.O. (2005) – O Passado é redondo. Dialogando com os sentidos dos primeiros recintos monumentais. Porto: Afrontamento.

JORGE, V.O. et al. (eds.) (2006) – Approaching ‘Prehistoric and protohistoric architectures’ of Europe from a Dwelling perspective. Journal of Iberian Archaeology. Porto. 8 [Special issue].

MARTINS, M. (1990) – O povoamento proto-histórico e a romanização da bacia do curso médio do Cávado. Braga: U.A.U.M. [Cadernos de Arqueologia. Monografias, 5].

MENDES, S.L. (2003) – O Castro de Vila Cova-à-Coelheira: a ocupação proto-histórica. Dissert. de Mestrado apresentada à Fac. de Letras da Universidade do Porto. 2 vols. Texto policopiado.

QUEIROGA, F. (2003) – War and Castros. New approaches to the Northwestern Portuguese Iron Age. Oxford: Archaeopress [BAR International Series 1198].

SILVA, A.C.F. (1986) – A Cultura Castreja no Noroeste de Portugal. Paços de Ferreira: C.M.P.F./M.A.C.S.

SILVA, A.C.F. (1995) – “Portuguese castros: the evolution of the habitat and the proto-urbanization process”. In Cunliffe, B.; Keay, S. eds. – Social complexity and the development of towns in Iberia. From the Copper Age to the Second Century AD. Oxford: O.U.P., p. 263-89 [Proc. British Academy, 86].

SILVA, A.M.S.P. (1994) – Proto-história e Romanização no Entre Douro e Vouga Litoral. Elementos para uma avaliação crítica. Dissert. de Mestrado apresentada à Fac. de Letras da Universidade do Porto. 2 vols. Texto policopiado.

SILVA, A.M.S.P. (1997) – Povoados proto-históricos de Vale de Cambra. Elementos para uma carta arqueológica concelhia. Boletim Cultural de Vale de Cambra. Vale de Cambra. 1, p. 34-46.

SILVA, A.M.S.P. (2003) – O projecto PAIVAR, um plano de investigação arqueológica de âmbito regio-nal. Revista da Faculdade de Letras – Ciências e Téc-nicas do Património. Porto. 1ª Série (2), p. 199-222.

SILVA, A.M.S.P. (2005) – Povoamento proto-histórico no Entre Douro e Vouga Litoral: a estruturação do


160

habitat. I – Arquitectura dos castros. In Castro, um lugar para habitar. Colóquio. Penafiel: Museu Municipal, 167-88 [Cadernos do Museu, 11].

SILVA, A.M.S.P. coord. (2004) – Memórias da Terra. Património Arqueológico do Concelho de Arouca. Arouca: C.M. Arouca.

SILVA, António M.S.P.; SILVA, Fernando A.P. (1995) – O Povoado de S. Julião (Branca, Albergaria-a-Velha, Aveiro). In Silva, I. coord. – A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de poder. Lisboa: IPM, p. 123.

SILVA, F.P. (2004) – “Megalitismo e tradição megalítica no concelho de Arouca: três mil anos de arquitectura funerária”. In Silva, A.M.S.P., coord. (2004) –

Memórias da Terra. Património Arqueológico do Concelho de Arouca. Arouca: C.M. Arouca, p. 44- 68.

THOMAS, J. (1996) – Time, culture and identity. London/New York: Routledge.

VALINHO, A.T.S. (2003) – A ocupação humana no Alto Paiva no I milénio a.C.: uma abordagem espacial. Dissert. de Mestrado apresentada à Fac. de Letras da Universidade do Porto. 2 vols. Texto policopiado.

VILAÇA, R. (1995) – Aspectos do Povoamento da Beira Interior (Centro e Sul) nos Finais da Idade do Bronze. 2 vols. Lisboa: IPPAR [Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 9].

THE PLACE OF CIVIDADE AN APPROACH TO LATE BRONZE AGE/IRON AGE TRANSITION IN AROUCA VALLEY (NW...

Documents

Transcript of THE PLACE OF CIVIDADE AN APPROACH TO LATE BRONZE AGE/IRON AGE TRANSITION IN AROUCA VALLEY (NW...