Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T19:29:53.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconnecting the Late Neolithic Social Landscape: A Micro-Regional Study of Objects, Settlements and Tombs from Iberia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Ana Jorge
Ana Jorge*
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, UK
*
[email: a.jorge@abdn.ac.uk]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The contrast between monumentalized burials and almost invisible settlements has dominated Neolithic studies in western Europe, reinforcing an artificial divide between ceremonial and economically productive landscapes. By combining a material culture approach with a landscape scale, comparative artefact studies can trace connections between people, places, and social contexts. This paper investigates social networks in Late Neolithic Portugal by examining artefact provenance, biographies, and deposition on the Mondego Plateau. It focuses on three sites and four object categories characteristic of this period. The study reveals great diversity of raw materials, circulation of everyday objects, and regional availability of resources previously thought to be imports. It suggests that people used dispersed resource areas in an integrated way, and that exchange was an integral part of routine life. Evidence for links across the region is not restricted to tombs. Burial assemblages resulted from a complex web of social relations that preceded, accompanied, and followed the actions surrounding death. Understanding these places and fundamental questions about Neolithic social production and reproduction requires reconnecting tombs and settlements into wider lived landscapes.

Le contraste entre les sépultures monumentalisées et les villages presqu'invisibles a dominé les études du Néolithique en Europe de l'Ouest, tout en renforçant le clivage artificiel entre les paysages ceremoniels et ceux matériellement productifs. En combinant une approche relevant de la culture matérielle à l'échelle du paysage, des études comparatives d'artefacts peuvent être redevables des connexions entre personnes, lieux et contextes sociaux. Cet article étudie les réseaux sociaux au Portugal à la fin du Néolithique en examinant la provenance, les biographies et le dépôt des artefacts sur le plateau du Mondego. Il se focalise sur trois sites et quatre catégories d'objets caractéristiques de cette période et révèle une grande diversité dans les domaines suivants: matériaux bruts, circulation des objets de la vie quotidienne et disponibilité régionale de ressources considérées auparavant comme importations. On suggère que les communautés utilisaient d'une manière intégrée des régions de ressources dispersées et que l'échange faisait partie intégrante de la vie de tous les jours. Les preuves des liens à travers la région ne se trouvent pas seulement dans les tombes. Les ensembles funéraires résultaient d'un complexe réseau de relations sociales qui précédaient, accompagnaient et suivaient les actions concernant la mort. Pour comprendre ces places et les questions fondamentales au sujet de la reproduction sociale et de la reproduction au Néolithique, il faut reconnecter les tombes et les villages dans un contexte de paysages habités plus large. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Der Kontrast zwischen monumentalisierten Gräbern und nahezu unsichtbaren Siedlungen hat die Studien zum Neolithikum in Westeuropa dominiert und eine künstliche Trennung zwischen zeremoniellen und materiell produktiven Landschaften untermauert. Durch die Kombination eines Ansatzes der materiellen Kultur auf Landschaftsebene, können vergleichende Artefaktstudien Verbindungen zwischen Menschen, Orten und sozialen Kontexten nachvollziehen. Durch die Untersuchung der Artefaktherkunft, von Artefaktbiographien und -deponierung auf dem Mondego-Plateau untersucht dieser Beitrag soziale Netzwerke im Spätneolithikum des heutigen Portugal. Er betrachtet drei Fundplätze und vier Objektkategorien, die für diese Periode charakteristisch sind, im Detail. Die Studie erbringt eine große Diversität an Rohmaterialien, Umlauf von Alltagsgegenständen und regionaler Verfügbarkeit von Ressourcen, von denen zuvor angenommen worden ist, dass es sich bei ihnen um Importe gehandelt hat. Sie machen es wahrscheinlich, dass die Menschen verstreut liegende Ressourcengebiete auf integriertem Wege nutzten und dass Austausch einen integralen Bestandteil des alltäglichen Lebens bildete. Nachweise für Verbindungen quer durch die Region sind nicht allein auf Gräber beschränkt. Grabausstattungen ergaben sich aus einem komplexen Netz sozialer Verbindungen, die den Handlungen, die den Tod umgaben, vorausgingen, diese begleiteten und nachfolgten. Für das Verständnis dieser Orte und fundamentaler Fragen zur sozialen Produktion und Reproduktion bedarf es der Wiederverbindung der Gräber und Siedlungen in die erweiterten Besiedlungslandschaften. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg

Keywords

Late Neolithicsocial landscapemegalithic tombssettlementobject biographiessocial networksprovenanceIberiaNéolithique finalpaysage socialtombes mégalithiquesvillagebiographies des objetsréseaux sociauxprovenanceIbérieSpätneolithikumsoziale LandschaftMegalithgräberSiedlungObjektbiographiensoziale NetzwerkeHerkunftIberische Halbinsel
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , 2014 , pp. 434 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2014 

References

Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Azevedo, M.R. & Nolan, J. 1998. Hercynian Late-Post-Tectonic Granitic Rocks from the Fornos De Algodres Area (Northern Central Portugal). Lithos, 44: 1–20.Google Scholar
Azevedo, M., Valle Aguado, B., Nolan, J., Martins, M. & Medina, J. 2005. Origin and Emplacement of Syn-Orogenic Variscan Granitoids in Iberia the Beiras Massif. Journal of the Virtual Explorer [online] 19 (‘The Southern Variscan Belt’, R. Carosi, R. Dias, D. Iacopini & G. Rosenbaum, eds.) [accessed 20 April 2010]. Available at: <http://virtualexplorer.com.au/journal/2005/19>Google Scholar
Barnard, H. & Wendrich, W. eds. 2008. The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism. Cotsen Advanced Seminars. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Basso, E., Binder, D., Messiga, B. & Riccardi, M.P. 2006. The Neolithic Pottery of Abri Pendimoun (Castellar, France): A Petro-Archaeometric Study. In: Maggetti, M. & Messiga, B., eds. Geomaterials in Cultural Heritage. Special Publications 257. London: The Geological Society, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
Berrocal, M.C., Cerrillo, E. & García Solano, J.A. 2006. Nuevos datos sobre el Calcolítico de Extremadura: El yacimiento de La Sierrecilla (Santa Amalia, Badajoz). Spal, 15: 51–70.Google Scholar
Blanco, J., López Alonso, M.A., Edo, M. & Fernández Turiel, J.L. 1996. Estudo analítico de determinación mineralógica y de composición química de las cuentas de collar de calaíta y otras materias del yacimiento de Las Peñas (Quiruelas de Vidriales, Zamora). Rubricatum, 2 (1): 227–37.Google Scholar
Bowser, B.J. 2005. Transactional Politics and the Local and Regional Exchange of Pottery Resources in the Ecuatorian Amazon. In: Livingstone Smith, A., Bosquet, D. & Martineau, R., eds. Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1349. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 23–32.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 2003. A Life Less Ordinary: The Ritualization of the Domestic Sphere in Late Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 13 (1): 5–23.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Production and Exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon, 51: 337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brück, J. 2005. Experiencing the Past? The Development of a Phenomenological Archaeology in British Prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12 (1): 45–72.Google Scholar
Bueno, P. 2000. El espacio de la muerte en los grupos neolíticos y calcolíticos de la Extremadura española: las arquitecturas megalíticas. Extremadura Arqueológica, 8: 35–80.Google Scholar
Bueno, P., Barroso, R. & Balbín, R. 2006. Megaliths in the Centre of the Iberian Peninsula: A Viewpoint of Analysis from Southern Meseta. In: Laporte, L., Joussaume, R. & Scarre, C., eds. Origin and Development of the Megalithic Monuments of Western Europe. Bougon: Musée des Tumulus de Bougon, pp. 435–50.Google Scholar
Bueno, P., Barroso, R. & Balbín, R. 2010. Megalitos en la cueca interior del Tajo. In: Fernández Eraso, J. & Mujika, J.A., eds. Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Donostia: Aranzadi Zientzia Elkartea, pp. 152–87.Google Scholar
Bueno, P., Barroso, R.M., Balbín, R., Campo, M., González, A., Etxeberría, F., Herrasti, L., Galván, V., Juan-Tresserras, J., López, J.A., López, P., Matamala, J.C., Millos, J.J., Robledo, B., Trancho, G. & Sánchez, B. 2005. Alimentación y economía en contextos habitacionales y funerarios del Neolítico meseteño. In: Arias, P., Ontañón, R. & García-Moncó, C., eds. Congreso del Neolítico en la Penísula Ibérica. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
Bustillo, M.A., Castañeda, N., Capote, M., Consuegra, S., Criado, C., Díaz-del-Río, P., Orozco, T., Pérez-Jiménez, J.L. & Terradas, X. 2009. Is the Macroscopic Classification of Flint Useful? A Petroarchaeological Analysis and Characterization of Flint Raw Materials from the Iberian Neolithic Mine of Casa Montero. Archaeometry, 51 (2): 175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, J.L., Caninas, J.C. & Henriques, F. 2003. Investigações recentes do megalitismo funerário na região do Tejo Internacional (Idanha-a-Nova). O Arqueólogo Português (Série 4), 21: 151–207.Google Scholar
Carvalho, D. ed. 1992. Carta geólogica de Portugal. Lisbon: Servicos Geólogicos de Portugal.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A.F. 2003. O Final do Neolítico e o Calcolítico no Baixo Côa (trabalhos do Parque Arqueológico do Vale do Côa, 1996–2000). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 6 (2): 229–73.Google Scholar
Carvalho, P.S. 2005. A necrópole megalítica da Senhora do Monte (Penedono, Viseu): Um espaço sagrado pré-histórico na Beira Alta. Estudos Pré-Históricos, 12: 1–231.Google Scholar
Cleal, R. 1988. The Occurrence of Drilled Holes in Later Neolithic Pottery. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 7 (2): 139–45.Google Scholar
Clop, X., 2004. Pratiques funeraires au nord-est de la péninsule ibérique entre 3100–1500 avant J.-C. In: Besse, M. & Desideri, J., eds. Graves and Funerary Rituals during the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Europe (2700–2000 BC). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1284. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar
Clop, X. 2007. Materia prima, cerámica y sociedad. La gestión de los recursos minerals para manufacturer cerámicas del 3100 al 1500 ANE en el nordeste de la Península Ibérica. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1660. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Cordero, T., García Sanjuán, L., Hurtado, V., Martín, J.M., Polvorinos, Á. & Taylor, R. 2006. La arqueometría de materiales cerámicos: una evaluación de la experiencia andaluza. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 63 (1): 9–35.Google Scholar
Costa Caramé, M., García Sanjuán, L., Murillo-Barroso, M., Parrilla Giráldez, R. & Wheatley, D.W. 2011. Artefactos elaborados en rocas raras en los contextos funerarios del IV-II milenios cal ANE en el sur de España: una revisión. In: García Sanjuán, L., Scarre, C. & Wheatley, D.W., eds. Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: Absolute Chronology and Rare Rocks in European Megaliths. MENGA Monografías 1. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, pp. 257–76.Google Scholar
Criado, F. & Cabrejas, E. eds. 2005. Obras públicas e património: estudo arqueolóxico do corredor do Morrazo. TAPA 35. Santiago de Compostela: Laboratorio de Arqueología da Paisaxe/ Instituto de Estudos Galegos Padre Sarmiento/ CSIC Xunta de Galicia.Google Scholar
Cruz, D.J. 2001. O Alto Paiva: megalitismo, diversidade tumular e práticas rituais durante a Pré-História recente (, University of Coimbra).Google Scholar
David, N. & Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delibes, G. 1995. Neolítico y Edad del Bronce. In: Delibes, G. & Moreta, S., eds. Histόria de Zamora. Volume 1. Zamora: Diputaciόn de Zamora & Instituto de Estudios Zamoranos Florian de Ocampo, pp. 49–100.Google Scholar
Delibes, G. 2010. La investigación de las sepulturas colectivas monumentales del IV milenio A.C. en la Submeseta Norte española. Horizonte 2007. In: Fernández Eraso, J. & Mujika, J.A., eds. Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Donostia: Aranzadi Zientzia Elkartea, pp. 13–56.Google Scholar
Delibes, G., Benet, N., Pérez, R. & Zapatero, P. 1997. De la tumba dolménica como referente territorial, al poblado estable: notas sobre el habitat y las formas de vida de las comunidades negalíticas de la Submeseta Norte. In: Rodríguez Casal, A., ed. O neolítico atlántico e as orixes do megalitismo. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, pp. 779–808.Google Scholar
Delibes, G. & Santonja, M. 1986. El Fenomeno Megalítico en la Provincia de Salamanca. Salamanca: Disputación de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Dethier, J. 1993. Arquitecturas de terra. Triunfos e potencialidades de um material de construção desconhecido: Europa - Terceiro Mundo - Estados Unidos. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Díaz-del-Río, P. 1995. Campesinato y gestión pluriactiva del ecosistema: un marco teórico para el análisis del III y II milenios A.C. en la Meseta Peninsular. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 52: 99–109.Google Scholar
Díaz-del-Río, P. 2006. An Appraisal of Social Inequalities in Central Iberia (c. 5300–1600 CAL BC). In: Díaz-del-Río, P. & García Sanjuán, L., eds. Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1525. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, pp. 67–79.Google Scholar
Díaz-Guardamino, M. 1997. El grupo megalítico de Villarmayor (Salamanca). Contribuición al estudio del megalitismo del Occidente de la Meseta Norte. Complutum, 8: 39–56.Google Scholar
Domínguez-Bella, S. 2012. Archaeomineralogy of Prehistoric Artifacts and Gemstones. In: Herrero, J.M. & Vendrell, M., eds. Archaeometry and Cultural Heritage: The Contribution of Mineralogy. Seminários de la Sociedad Española de Mineralogía 9. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Mineralogía, pp. 5–28.Google Scholar
Domínguez-Bella, S. & Bóveda, M.J. 2011. Variscita y ámbar en el Neolítico gallego. Análisis arqueométrico del collar del túmulo 1 de Chousa Nova, Silleda (Pontevedra, España). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 68 (2): 369–80.Google Scholar
Eder, J.F. 1984. The Impact of Subsistence Change on Mobility and Settlement Pattern in a Tropical Forest Foraging Economy: Some Implications for Archaeology. American Anthropologist, 86: 837–53.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edo, M., Fernández Turiel, J.L., Villalba, M.J. & Blasco, A. 1997. La calaíta en el cuadrante NW de la Península Ibérica. In: Balbín Behrmann, R. & Bueno Ramírez, P., eds. II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular. Zamora: Fundación Rei Afonso Henriques, pp. 99–121.Google Scholar
Estremera, M.S. & Fabián, J.F. 2002. El túmulo de la Dehesa de Río Fortes (Mironcillo, Ávila): primera manifestación del horizonte rechaba en la Meseta Norte. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueologia, 68: 9–48.Google Scholar
Fernández Eraso, J. & Mujika, J.A. eds. 2010. Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Donostia: Aranzadi Zientzia Elkartea.Google Scholar
Font, J. 2005. Construção em Terra em Espanha e Portugal. Diferenças e Semelhanças. In: Arquitectura de terra em Portugal—Earth Architecture in Portugal. Lisbon: Argumentum, pp. 119–23Google Scholar
Forenbaher, S. 1999. Production and Exchange of Bifacial Flaked Stone Artefacts during the Portuguese Chalcolithic. British Archaeological Reports International Series 756. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
García Martín, P. 2000. Cosmovisión y historia de la transumância en la Peninsula Ibérica. In: Oliveira, A. & Silva, F., eds. Montemuro—A Última Rota da Transumância. Arouca: Associação da Defensa do Patrimόnio Arouquense, pp. 19–53.Google Scholar
García Sanjuán, L., Scarre, C. & Wheatley, D.W. eds. 2011. Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: Absolute Chronology and Rare Rocks in European Megaliths. MENGA Monografías 1. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
Gibaja, J.F., Terradas, X., Palomo, A. & Clop, X. 2010. La industria lítica del IV/primera mitad II milenio cal BC en el Noreste de la península Ibérica: contextos funerarios versus contextos domésticos. In: Fernández Eraso, J. & Mujika, J.A., eds. Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Donostia: Aranzadi Zientzia Elkartea, pp. 440–51.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, A.A.H. 1979. Elementos de cor verde provenientes de estações arqueológicas portuguesas: importância do seu estudo mineralógico. In: Actas da 1a Mesa-Redonda sobre o Neolítico e o Calcolítico em Portugal. Porto: Universidade do Porto, pp. 219–26.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, A.A.H. & Cruz, D.J. 1994. Resultados dos trabalhos de escavação da Mamoa 1 de Mandorras (S. Lourenço de Ribapinhão, Sabrosa, Vila Real). Estudos Pré-Históricos, 2: 171–232.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, V.S. 2003. STAM-3, a Anta 3 da Herdade de Santa Margarida (Reguengos de Monsaraz). Trabalhos de Arqueologia 32. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia.Google Scholar
Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. 1999. The Cultural Biography of Objects. World Archaeology, 31: 169–78.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O. 1998. Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In: Stark, M.T., ed. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 78–106.Google Scholar
Graefe, J., Hamon, C., Lidström-Holmberg, C., Tsoraki, C. & Watts, S. 2009. Subsistence, Social and Ritual Practices: Quern Deposits in the Neolithic Societies of Europe. In: Bonnardin, S., Hamon, C., Lauwers, M. & Quilliec, B., eds. Du matériel au spirituel. Réalités archéologiques et historiques des « dépôts » de la Préhistoire à nos jours. Antibes: Éditions APDCA, pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Guerra-Doce, E., Delibes, G., Zapatero, P. & Villalobos, R. 2009. Primus inter pares: estrategias de diferenciación social en los sepulcros megalíticos de la submeseta norte española. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arqueología, 75: 41–65.Google Scholar
Halstead, P. 2005. Resettling the Neolithic: Faunal Evidence for Seasons of Consumption and Residence at Neolithic Sites in Greece. In: Bailey, D., Whittle, A. & Cummings, V., eds. (Un)Settling the Neolithic. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 38–50.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.J. & Orozco, T. 2001. Beyond Characterisation. Polished Stone Exchange in the Western Mediterranean 5500–2000 BC. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 20 (2): 107–27.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, R.K., Bartram, L.E. Jr. 1998. Social Boundaries, Technical Systems, and the Use of Space and Technology in the Kalahari. In: Stark, M.T., ed. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 12–49.Google Scholar
Howard, H. 1981. In the Wake of Distribution: Towards an Integrated Approach to Ceramic Studies in Prehistoric Britain. In: Howard, H. & Morris, E.L., eds. Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint. British Archaeological Reports International Series 120. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Hulthén, B. 1977. On Ceramic Technology during the Scanian Neolithic and Bronze Age. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 6. Stockholm: Akademilitteratur.Google Scholar
Isbell, W.H. 2000. What We Should be Studying: The ‘Imagined Community’ and the ‘Natural Community’. In: Canuto, M.A. & Yaeger, J., eds. The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 243–66.Google Scholar
Jones, A. 2002. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jorge, A. 2011. Ceramic Technology and Social Networks in Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age Portugal (, University of Sheffield) Google Scholar
Jorge, A., Dias, M.I. & Day, P.M. 2013. Plain Pottery and Social Landscapes: Reinterpreting the Significance of Ceramic Provenance in the Neolithic. Archaeometry, 55 (5): 825–51.Google Scholar
Kopytoff, I. 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. In: Appadurai, A., ed. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–91.Google Scholar
Leal, N. 1997. Anexo III - Caracterização petrológica de artefactos polidos provenientes do Castro de Santiago e de sílex da região de Nelas. In: Valera, A.C., ed. O Castro de Santiago (Fornos de Algodres, Guarda): Aspectos da calcolitização da Bacia do Alto Mondego. Lisbon: Câmara Municipal de Fornos de Algodres, pp. 189–90.Google Scholar
Lillios, K. 1997. Amphibolite Tools of the Portuguese Copper Age (3000–2000 BC): A Geoarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Economics and Symbolism. Geoarchaeology, 12 (2): 137–63.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillios, K. 1999. Symbolic Artifacts and Spheres of Meaning: Groundstone Tools from Copper Age Portugal. In: Robb, J.E., ed. Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 173–87.Google Scholar
Lillios, K. 2000. A Biographical Approach to the Ethnogeology of Late Prehistoric Portugal. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 57 (1): 19–28.Google Scholar
Martineau, R., Walter-Simonnet, A.-V., Grobéty, B. & Buartier, M. 2007. Clay Resources and Technical Choices for Neolithic Pottery (Chalain, Jura, France): Chemical, Mineralogical and Grain-Size Analyses. Archaeometry, 49 (1): 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, S.B., Bernabeu, J., García, O., Aura, E., Molina, L., Descantes, C., Speakman, R.J. & Glascock, M.D. 2006. Testing Technological Practices: Neutron Activation Analysis of Neolithic Ceramics from Valencia, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33: 671–80.Google Scholar
Morzadec, H. 1995. Pétro-Archéologie des céramiques armoricaines du Néolithique à la fin de l'Age du Fer. Travaux du Laboratoire d'Anthropologie 41. Rennes: Université de Rennes I.Google Scholar
Munn, N. 1990. Constructing Regional Worlds in Experience: Kula Exchange, Witchcraft and Gawan Local Events. Man (N.S.), 25: 1–17.Google Scholar
Murillo-Barroso, M. & Martinón-Torres, M. 2012. Amber Sources and Trade in the Prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula. European Journal of Archaeology, 15 (2): 187–216.Google Scholar
Nocete, F., Saez, R., Nieto, J.M., Cruz-Aunon, R., Cabrero, R., Alex, E. & Bayona, M.R. 2005. Circulation of Silicified Oolitic Limestone Blades in South-Iberia (Spain and Portugal) during the Third Millennium BC: An Expression of a Core/Periphery Framework. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24: 62–81.Google Scholar
O'Connor, B. 2009. Re-Collected Objects: Carved, Worked and Unworked Stone in Bronze Age Funerary Monuments. In: O'Connor, B., Cooney, G. & Chapman, J., eds. Materialitas: Working Stone, Carving Identity. Prehistoric Society Research Paper 3. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 147–60.Google Scholar
Odriozola, C.P., Linares-Catela, J.A. & Hurtado, V. 2010. Variscite Source and Source Analysis: Testing Assumptions at Pico Centeno (Encinasola, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science, 37: 3146–57.Google Scholar
Pilar, L. & Rocha, A.T. 1960. Petrografia de rochas metamórficas de contacto da região de Tondela, Nelas, Ervidal da Beira e Santa Comba Dão. Revista da Faculdade de Ciências (2a série, C), 8 (1): 5–50.Google Scholar
Querré, G., Herbault, F. & Calligaro, T. 2008. Transport of Neolithic Variscites Demonstrated by PIXE Analysis. X-Ray Spectrometry, 37: 116–20.Google Scholar
Ralph, J. & Ralph, I. 1993–2009. Mineral and Locality Database [online] [accessed 18 April 2009]. Available at: <http://www.mindat.org>>Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S.W., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Talamo, S., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0–50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon, 51 (4): 1111–50.Google Scholar
Risch, R. & Martínez Fernández, F. 2008. Dimensiones naturales y sociales de la producción de hachas de piedra en el noreste de la Península Ibérica. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 65: 47–71.Google Scholar
Robb, J.E. & Farr, R.H. 2008. Substances in Motion: Neolithic Mediterranean ‘Trade’. In: Blake, E. & Knapp, A.B., eds. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 24–45.Google Scholar
Rodman, M. 1992. Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivovality. American Anthropologist, 94: 640–56.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Rellán, C., Lombera Hermida, A. & Fábregas, R. 2011. El sílex durante la prehistoria reciente del NO de la Península Ibérica. In: Gibaja, J.F., Terradas, X., Palomo, A. & Clop, X., eds. Les grans fulles de sílex. Europa al final de la Prehistòria. Barcelona: Museu d'Arqueologia de Catalunya, pp. 69–74.Google Scholar
Rojo-Guerra, M.A., Delibes, G., Edo, M. & Fernández, J.L. 1996. Adornos de calaíta en los ajuares dolménicos de la provincia de Burgos: Apuntes sobre su composición y procedencia. Rubricatum, 2 (1): 239–50.Google Scholar
Rojo-Guerra, M.A. & Garrido-Pena, R. 2012. From Pits to Megaliths: Neolithic Burials in the Interior of Iberia. In: Gibaja, J.F., Carvalho, A.F. & Chanibon, P.H., eds. Funerary Practices in the Iberian Peninsula: From the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2414. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Taboada, A. & Montero, I. 2000. The Pattern of Use of Stone and Copper in Central Spain suring the Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology, 3 (3): 350–60.Google Scholar
Sanches, M.J. 1994. Megalitismo na Bacia de Mirandela. Estudos Pré-Históricos, 2: 249–84.Google Scholar
Sanches, M.J. 1997. Pré-História Recente de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro. Porto: Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia.Google Scholar
Sanches, M.J. & Pinto, D. 2006. Terra, madeira e pedra - materiais para a construção de um povoado proto-histórico de Trás-os-Montes: o caso do Crasto de Palheiros - Murça. In: Correia, M. & Jorge, V.O., eds. Terra: formas de construir. Arquitectura, Antropologia, Arqueologia (10a Mesa-Redonda da Primavera). Lisboa: Argumentum & Escola Superior Gallaecia, pp. 83–90.Google Scholar
Saville, A. ed. 1990. Hazleton North, Gloucestershire, 1979–82: The Excavation of a Neolithic Long Cairn of the Cotswold-Seven Group. English Heritage Archaeological Report 13. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Scarre, C. 2010. Rocks of Ages: Tempo and Time in Megalithic Monuments. European Journal of Archaeology, 13 (2): 175–93.Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. 1989. Pré-História Recente da Bacia do Médio e Alto Mondego: algumas contribuições para um modelo socio-cultural (, University of Lisbon).Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. 1995/96. Pastores, recolectores e construtores de megálitos na Plataforma do Mondego nos IV e III milénios AC: (1) O sítio de habitat do Ameal-VI. Trabalhos de Arqueologia da EAM, 3/ 4: 83–122.Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. 2000a. Habitat do Ameal—IV (Oliveira do Conde, Carregal do Sal). In: Senna-Martinez, J.C. & Pedro, I., eds. Por terras de Viriato. Arqueologia da região de Viseu. Lisboa: Governo Civil do Distrito de Viseu and Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. 2000b. Habitat do Murganho 2 (Nelas). In: Senna-Martinez, J.C. & Pedro, I., eds. Por terras de Viriato. Arqueologia da região de Viseu. Lisboa: Governo Civil do Distrito de Viseu and Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, pp. 67–68.Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. 2000c. Habitat da Quinta Nova (Carregal do Sal). In: Senna-Martinez, J.C. & Pedro, I., eds. Por terras de Viriato. Arqueologia da região de Viseu. Lisboa: Governo Civil do Distrito de Viseu and Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C., López Plaza, S. & Hoskin, M. 1997. Territorio, ideología y cultura material en el megalitismo de la plataforma del Mondego (Centro de Portugal). In: Rodríguez Casal, A.A., ed. O Neolítico Atlántico e as Orixes do Megalitismo. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, pp. 657–76.Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. & Luís, E. n.d. O Sector B do Habitat do Ameal-VI e o Neolítico Final da Beira Alta. In: Actas do 5° Congresso do Neolítico Peninsular. Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, pp. 139–46 (in press).Google Scholar
Senna-Martinez, J.C. & Ventura, J.M. 2000. Pastores, recolectores e construtores de megálitos: o Neolítico Final. In: Senna-Martinez, J.C. & Pedro, I., eds. Por terras de Viriato. Arqueologia da região de Viseu. Lisbon: Governo Civil do Distrito de Viseu and Museu Nacional de Arqueologia, pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. 1991. Pottery Production in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Ireland: A Petrological and Chemical Study. In: Freestone, I. & Middleton, A., eds. Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology. British Museum Occasional Papers 81. London: British Museum Press, pp. 306–36.Google Scholar
Soler Díaz, J. 1991. La industria lítica del dolmen de La Veguilla (Salamanca). Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arqueología, 57: 9–52.Google Scholar
Stahl, A.B. 2008. Dogs, Pythons, Pots and Beads: The Dynamics of Shrines and Sacrificial Practices in Banda, Ghana, AD 1400–1900. In: Mills, B. & Walker, W., eds. Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, pp. 159–86.Google Scholar
Teixeira, C., Carvalho, L.H.B., Barros, R.F., Martins, J.Á. & Haas, W.E.L. 1961. Carta geológica de Portugal na escala 1/50000: notícia explicativa da folha 17-C (Santa Comba Dão). Lisboa: Serviços Geológicos de Portugal.Google Scholar
Teixeira, C., Carvalho, L.H.B., Santos, J.A., Peres, A.M., Barros, R.F., Pilar, L., Fernandes, A.P. & Rocha, A.T. 1967. Carta Geológica de Portugal na escala 1/50000: notícia explicativa da folha 17-D (Gouveia). Lisboa: Serviços Geológicos de Portugal.Google Scholar
Terradas, X., Palomo, A., Gibaja, J.F. & Clop, X. 2005. Primeros resultados sobre el estudio de grandes láminas procedentes de contextos funerarios del nordeste de la Península Ibérica. In: Arias, P., Ontañón, R. & García-Moncó, C., eds. III Congreso del Neolítico en la Penísula Ibérica. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, pp. 349–57.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.T. 2011. Fashioning Identities, Forging Inequalities: Late Neolithic/Copper Age Personal Ornaments of the Portuguese Estremadura. European Journal of Archaeology, 14 (1–2): 29–59.Google Scholar
Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Valera, A.C. 1994. Murganho 1. Intervenção de emergência numa área de eucaliptal. In: Actas das V Jornadas Arqueolόgicas. Lisboa: Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses, pp. 105–15.Google Scholar
Valera, A.C. 2007. Dinâmicas Locais de Identidade: Estruturação de um Espaço de Tradição no 3° Milénio AC (Fornos de Algodres, Guarda). Fornos de Algodres: Município de Fornos de Algodres/Terras de Algodres.Google Scholar
Valera, A.C. 2009. Estratégias de identificação e recursos geológicos: o anfibolito e a necrópole da Sobreira de Cima, Vidigueira. In: Bettencourt, A.M.S. & Bacelar Alves, L., eds. Dos Montes, das Pedras e das Águas: Formas de Interacção com o Espaço Natural da Pré-história à Actualidade. Braga: CITCEM/APEQ, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Valera, A.C. & Filipe, V. 2012. A necrópole de hipogeus do Neolítico Final do Outeiro do Alto 2 (Brinches, Serpa). Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 8: 29–41.Google Scholar
Ventura, J.M. 1999. Monumentalidade e visibilidade nos sepulcros megalíticos da Plataforma do Mondego. Trabalhos de Arqueologia da EAM, 5: 35–49.Google Scholar
Vicent, J. 1997. The Island Filter Model Revisited. In: Balmuth, M.S., Gilman, A. & Prados-Torreira, L., eds. Encounters and Transformations: The Archaeology of Iberia in Transition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Walsh, K. 1999. Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology and Environmental Reconstruction. In: Leveau, P., Trément, F., Walsh, K. & Barker, G., eds. Environmental Reconstruction in Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Waterman, A.S., Peate, D.W., Silva, A.M. & Thomas, J.T. 2014. In Search of Homelands: Using Strontium Isotopes to Identify Biological Markers of Mobility in Late Prehistoric Portugal. Journal of Archaeological Science, 42: 119–27.Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1997. Moving On and Moving Around: Neolithic Settlement Mobility. In: Topping, P., ed. Neolithic Landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and Beakers: Heirlooms and Relics in the British Early Bronze Age. Antiquity, 76: 1040–47.Google Scholar