El vaso de largo bordo horizontal: un trazador cultural del noroeste de la península Ibérica en el II milenio BC

El Vaso de Largo Bordo Horizontal Un Trazador Cultural del Noroeste de la Península Ibérica en el II Milenio BC

L. Nonat P. Vázquez Liz M. P. Prieto Martínez

BAR International Series 2699 2015

BAR

PUBLISHING

ÍNDICE PRÓLOGO ................................................................................................................................................ iii Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... v I. INTRODUCCIÓN .................................................................................................................................. 1 I.1. Definición de los términos de estudio .................................................................................................. 1 I.2. Historiografía: el aspecto cronológico ................................................................................................. 4 II. IDENTIFICACIÓN DEL VASO DE LBH ......................................................................................... 11 II.1. Catálogo de vasos ............................................................................................................................. 11 II.2. Estudio morfológico ......................................................................................................................... 23 II.3. Tratamiento de la pasta ..................................................................................................................... 41 II.4. Tratamiento decorativo de los vasos ................................................................................................. 48 II.5. Resultados: los LBH1 y LBH2 ......................................................................................................... 63 III. DIVERSIDAD DE LOS CONTEXTOS ............................................................................................ 71 III.1. Catálogo de yacimientos.................................................................................................................. 71 III.2. Distribución y emplazamiento: litoral/interior ................................................................................ 84 III.3. Estructuras funerarias: preponderancia de las fosas ........................................................................ 88 III.4. Prácticas funerarias: exclusividad de la inhumación? ..................................................................... 97 III.5. Disposición y características de los vasos de estudio en las estructuras funerarias y/o cultuales .. 100 III.6. Vasos de o con LBH en poblados: una presencia minoritaria? ..................................................... 105 III.7. Vasos de o con LBH y contextos: preferencias ............................................................................. 107 IV. CRONOLOGIA: UNA FORMA DE LARGA PERDURACIÓN ................................................... 111 IV.1. Cronología absoluta: la fragilidad de las dataciones ..................................................................... 111 IV.2. Cronología relativa: asociaciones directas o indirectas de artefactos ............................................ 115 IV.3. Propuesta y esquemas cronológicos .............................................................................................. 121 V. CONSIDERACIONES FINALES: EL LBH COMO TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NO............ 129 V.1. La cuestión de la identidad cultural ................................................................................................ 129 V.2. Entre homogeneidad y heterogeneidad ........................................................................................... 130 VI. BALANCE Y PERSPECTIVAS ..................................................................................................... 139 VI.1. Dos variedades de recipientes LBH .............................................................................................. 139 VI.2. Connexion entre el mundo de los vivos y de los muertos ............................................................. 140 VI.3. Discreción de las arquitecturas funerarias ..................................................................................... 141 VI.4. El LBH como trazador cultural ..................................................................................................... 142 RECONOCIMIENTOS .......................................................................................................................... 145 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................ 147 Selected tables translated in English (tables: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12) ................................................... 163 Selected figures translated in English (figures: 16, 17, 29, 38) ............................................................. 175 BIBLIOGRAFÍA .................................................................................................................................... 179

 

PRÓLOGO La tipología como pretexto

A la tipología, por más que continúe siendo una herramienta esencial de la Arqueología, no suele concedérsele ya el papel estelar que hace no más de tres lustros se le reconocía en cualquier manual de la materia. Los arqueólogos de la Prehistoria, que, obviamente, trabajamos con restos materiales, heredamos sobre todo de la Paleontología el gusto por la ordenación taxonómica y por la clasificación, siempre con la finalidad de individualizar unos “tipos” que, según circunstancias y épocas, actuaban como balizas cronológicas, como indicadores histórico-culturales o como simples referentes de funcionalidad. Considerar hoy agotada y fuera de lugar aquella forma de trabajo constituye una tentación atrevida pero comprensible, habida cuenta de la ingenuidad que supone recurrir a los “tipos” con fines cronológicos o con vistas a reivindicarlos como fósiles-guía en plena crisis del historicismo cultural. Sin embargo, resulta inobjetable que los “tipos” sobreviven como unidades de análisis más allá de la evidencia de que en la investigación arqueológica moderna la tipología no constituye una meta en sí misma sino solo un medio o instrumento para el ejercicio finalista de la interpretación cultural. Este libro, que generosamente me invitan a prologar sus autores Laure Nonat, Pablo Vázquez Liz y Pilar Prieto Martínez, es en gran medida un trabajo de tipología que se plantea como fin la investigación de unas singulares cerámicas de la Edad del Bronce del Noroeste peninsular que hace ya más de un siglo fueron bautizadas por los arqueólogos portugueses como “vasos en chapeu invertido” o de “largo bordo horizontal” (LBH). Pero es un trabajo también en el que el ejercicio tipológico constituye solo la excusa y el punto de partida para un estudio mucho más ambicioso y caleidoscópico en el que la cultura material funciona como un texto a interpretar de la mano de la Arqueología contextual. Un artefacto aislado puede proporcionar información sobre el hombre prehistórico a partir de sus características formales y estéticas, de su atribución cultural o de su cronología; pero, arropado por su contexto, se convierte en una herramienta mucho más poderosa capaz de trascender las historias de las que fue protagonista. Son muchos los méritos atribuibles a este volumen. El primero y más evidente, que se nutre de un vasto y bien documentado catálogo de yacimientos con LBH, sin el cual no habría réditos para la lectura cultural. En los estudios sobre Prehistoria, tal vez debido a la dificultad

del desafío de recrear la conducta de sociedades ágrafas desaparecidas, no es raro cierto abuso de la especulación, lo que debe hacernos meditar sobre la importancia de presentar detalladamente lo único objetivo que aquellas nos han legado: los yacimientos. Decía Ramón y Cajal que las teorías pasan y los hechos quedan, razón por la que se manifestaba poco proclive a los escarceos especulativos, al extremo de afirmar, con su proverbial retranca, “que si por impulsos incoercibles forjamos hipótesis, procuremos al menos no creer demasiado en ellas”. Evidentemente, sin hipótesis sería imposible avanzar en el conocimiento prehistórico, pero tan cierto como ello es que el único laboratorio en el que contrastar tales hipótesis es el banco de datos, de ahí la importancia de su calidad. Nada gratuitamente, añadía don Santiago, “los grandes descubrimientos corren a cargo de los técnicos más primorosos” lo que, en nuestro caso, constituye toda una reivindicación del trabajo de campo bien hecho y de la presentación rigurosa de los restos arqueológicos. Por esta razón, repito, es muy loable el completo y detallado corpus de vasos LBH reunido en la primera parte del libro -los “hechos” de Cajal- en tanto semilla inexcusable para el fructífero estudio posterior. Se nutre directamente de él, en efecto, la fina disección que conduce al reconocimiento, dentro del “tipo”, de variedades formales y decorativas; ha sido básico asimismo para acotar las distribuciones espaciales de estas; ha dado pie también a advertir, gracias a los sitios datados radiométricamente, los límites temporales en los que se mueven estos objetos (finales del III milenio y mediados del II AC); ha hecho posible igualmente conocer la naturaleza de los yacimientos (sobre todo funerarios) de los que mayoritariamente proceden; ha permitido reparar en los elementos de ajuar que se asocian a ellos; y no le han sido ajenos, inclusive, detalles tales como la existencia de manchas de hollín en buen número de los recipientes. Los arqueólogos Nonat, Vázquez y Prieto, apelando a interrogar el contexto de los artefactos, esto es chequeando sus asociaciones, han conseguido acceder en este caso a ciertas regularidades que les permiten sondear la naturaleza del comportamiento humano subyacente a los objetos y discutir sobre cómo se fabricaron, qué contuvieron, dónde se usaron, y en qué circunstancias y con qué finalidad se recurrió a ellos; efectuando, en suma, un ejercicio de arqueología interpretativa de impecable actualidad.

Por tanto, las cerámicas y su estudio tipológico solo han sido en este libro un pretexto para ofrecer una visión cultural panorámica de la Edad del Bronce. Investigaciones como la del antropólogo Olivier Gosselain en el sur de Camerún han puesto el énfasis en la diversidad y complejidad de los factores (selección de materias primas, rutinas técnicas, tradiciones cerámicas, destino utilitario, condición social de los usuarios, lazos de parentesco e identitarios de productores, e incluso algo tan aleatorio como las preferencias personales) que intervienen en la producción alfarera. Son tantos los condicionantes posibles y tan diversos que casi invitan a considerar que se trata de un campo abierto y no sujeto a leyes. Más algo importante se desprende de dicha aproximación, y es que la cerámica es un hecho complejo de suerte que la pretensión de este libro de servirse de ella como prisma desde el que observar las múltiples caras del macrocosmos cultural, está plenamente justificada. La alfarería prehistórica, en contraste con la metalurgia y a diferencia de lo que sucede en el resto de la Península Ibérica, ha sido campo de estudio tradicionalmente poco cultivado por los arqueólogos del Noroeste, algo a lo que sin duda ha contribuido la invisibilidad y escasa entidad de los asentamientos de dicha etapa. En los últimos años, sin embargo, aprovechando el impulso de la arqueología de gran escala asociada a ciertas obras públicas, han aflorado en Galicia importantes colecciones cerámicas, circunstancia que ha permitido a Pilar Prieto Martínez analizar de forma sistemática y en profundidad esta parcela de la cultura material de la Edad del Bronce. Hoy aquel trabajo y este completo estudio sobre los “chapeus invertidos”, que comparten la misma preocupación intelectual, han hecho posible que la cerámica raye a la misma altura que mamoas, depósitos metálicos o petroglifos en la investigación de la prehistoria reciente del Noroeste. Valladolid, noviembre de 2013 Germán Delibes de Castro

  Resumen: En el presente trabajo presentamos el estudio de un tipo cerámico particular del noroeste de la península Ibérica: el denominado Largo Bordo Horizontal (LBH). Uno de los aspectos distintivos, por lo tanto, es su presencia restringida exclusivamente al noroeste de la península Ibérica, los actuales territorios de Galicia y norte de Portugal (hasta el río Duero). Este tipo cerámico, conocido superficialmente en la bibliografía, tiene una repercusión mayor de la que es considerada en el registro arqueológico. Por ello, realizamos el primer trabajo sistemático global para la región, un trabajo que consiste en identificar el tipo cerámico – LBH –a partir de un catálogo amplio constituido por 76 vasos, algunos de ellos poco conocido, e incluso, inéditos se realiza una caracterización de la cerámica como primer paso. Se reconocen 4 grupos formales, sólo dos ellos pueden denominarse vasos LBH (LBH1 o forma clásica y LBH2), los otros dos grupos se denominarán vasos con LBH. Se continuará con la contextualización de los diferentes grupos clasificados en el seno de los distintos tipos de yacimientos con los que se relaciona, tres grandes ámbitos en los que surgen los recipientes de LBH el funerario (el mejor conocido), el doméstico y el indeterminado, sumando un total de 49 sitios arqueológicos. En el Norte de Portugal el registro arqueológico actual indica una distribución preferencial de los yacimientos por tierras del interior, al contrario de lo que testimonia en Galicia, donde el litoral o las proximidades al mismo parecen ser primado. Después de tratar los contextos, se procede a, compilar y revisar las dataciones disponibles relacionadas con los LBH hasta la actualidad para proponer un cuadro cronológico, presentando la distribución de los vasos LBH y con LBH en el tiempo apoyándonos en un análisis de la cronología absoluta y relativa, a la que sumamos la información de las similitudes decorativas y formales de los diferentes recipientes, planteándose propuestas relativas a las dos variedades de recipientes del tipo LBH: los LBH1 y LBH2. Se ha comprobado, a partir de los datos actuales que los LBH1 tuvieron un mayor grado de relevancia e importancia entre el siglo XV y XI cal BC, mientras que los LBH2 probablemente poseen en algunos casos una mayor antigüedad que los LBH1 llegando a cubrir un abanico de tiempo tan dilatado como aquellos. Finalmente, nuestro trabajo remata con la interpretación del vaso LBH como posible trazador cultural del noroeste, basándonos en ideas que nos aporta la antropología cultural para reflexionar, así como sobre la visión más tradicional de la arqueología. Se concluye con la presencia de un patrón general para el noroeste (formal y contextual), pero con ciertas particularidades que permiten definir tres posibles comarcas o grandes territorios. Palabras clave: Cerámica. Largo Bordo Horizontal. Edad del Bronce. II milenio BC. Galicia. Norte de Portugal. Identidad cultural. Técnicas decorativas. Estampillado.

Abstract: In this paper we study a specific type of pottery from the northwest Iberian Peninsula, known as the Wide Horizontal Rim (WHR) vessel. One of its distinctive aspects is precisely the fact that it is exclusively found in this region, which now comprises the Spanish region of Galicia and northern Portugal, as far south as the River Duero. This type of pottery, of which there are only scarce references in the literature, has a greater impact than its presence in the archaeological record. For this reason, we carried out the first systematic global study for the region, consisting on identifying the WHR pottery type from an extensive catalogue of 76 vessels, some of which are little-known or completely unknown, characterising the pottery as the first step. Four formal groups were identified, only two of which can be referred to as WHR vessels (WHR1 or the ‘classic’ shape, and WHR2), while the other two groups are referred to as vessels with WHR. We will then contextualise the different groups classified in the different types of sites to which they are associated, in three main spheres where WHR vessels are found: the funerary sphere (the best known), domestic sphere and undetermined, in a total of 49 archaeological sites. In the north of Portugal, the archaeological record points towards a preferred distribution of these sites in the interior, on the contrary to the situation found in Galicia, where there seems to have been a preference for coastal areas. After examining the contexts we offer a summary and review of the available datings associated with WHR vessels to date in order to propose a chronological table, indicating the distribution of WHR vessels and vessels with WHR over time, based on an analysis of the absolute and relative chronology. This is accompanied by information on the formal and decorative similarities of the different types of vessels, presenting a series of proposals regarding the two variations of the WHR vessels: WHR1 and WHR2. Based on currently available data, it has been found that the WHR1 type vessels were more relevant and important between the 15th and 21st centuries cal BC, while in some cases the WHR2 type are probably older than the WHR1, covering an equally long period of time. The paper concludes with an interpretation of the WHR vessel as a potential cultural marker from the north west Iberian Peninsula, based on ideas from the field of cultural anthropology, as well as from a more traditional archaeological perspective, suggesting the presence of a general formal and contextual pattern for the NW Iberian Peninsula, although with certain peculiarities that make it possible to define three potential regions or territories. Key words: Pottery. Wide Horizontal Rim vessel. Bronze Age. Second Millennium BC. Galicia. Northern Portugal. Cultural Identity. Decorative Techniques. Stamping.

SUMMARY 

SUMMARY THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC

prehistory have focused on Bell Beakers, which due their extent on different levels have led to an increase in the amount of research carried out on them. In comparison to this global phenomenon, it is quite easy to understand the difficulty involved in drawing attention to a less frequently-found item. However, it could be considered that the Bell Beaker phenomenon has overshadowed other types of pottery from late prehistory found in the NW Iberian Peninsula, such as the WHR vessels, perhaps less spectacular and less usual, seen from the perspective of the elements that are most frequently found in the archaeological record, but which the authors would nevertheless define as perfectly suitable for enriching the data and perspectives we have on the Bronze Age.

I. INTRODUCTION General objective In this paper we present the results of an in-depth study of a type of vessel known as wide horizontal rim pottery (WHR) found throughout the north west Iberian Peninsula (the Spanish region of Galicia and northern Portugal as far south as the River Duero), with the aim of drawing attention to this type of pottery not only within the context of regional frontiers and research, but on a wider scale, as this type of vessel has been completely overlooked in the specialised literature. Curiously, the rhythm of new proposals and questions arising from research has decreased significantly, in contrast to the steady increase in the number of vessels discovered in recent years, and despite the specific original features reflected this type of pottery, dating from a very remote period, not only in terms of their formal appearance, but also their spatial distribution and association with funerary contexts.

Another factor that may explain the limited presence of WHR vessels in local and international research is the difficulty involved in defining the period to which this type of pottery is attributed. Analysing it from a historiographic perspective, from the start of the 20th century emphasis was placed on the difficulties involved in identifying its origins, influences and disappearance. Nevertheless, absolute datings only appeared in the 1980s, and only for a small number of sites. Also, the decorations reminiscent of the Bell Beaker style found on some of these vessels have led some authors to associate them with this phenomenon, while others consider that they are related to Penhatype pottery due to the presence of mainly incised alternating lines within metopes and the hemispherical shape of some pieces. These differing opinions have not only been a result of the decoration used on this type of pottery, but also its shape, especially the carinated sections found on some pieces. Authors such as Calo Lourido and Sierra Rodríguez (1983: 67) saw this as a feature typical of the Late Bronze Age, while others, such as Suárez Otero preferred to attribute it to an earlier stage of the Bronze Age (Suárez, 1997: 25). Although we do now have absolute datings, the problem is far from being solved, as some of them are from relatively old excavations, and only a few are associated with sealed archaeological deposits. This said, one of the specific aims of this study is to gather together the existing datings and examine the contexts within which they appeared from a voluntarily critical perspective, in order to define the dates we can now consider as valid, and to make a practical contribution towards the chronological discussion.

As a result, the main aim of this study is to draw attention to a type of pottery that is capable of providing us with essential data to help understand the communities from the second millennium BC in Galicia and northern Portugal, and to participate in the complex description of the numerous cultures and facets from the Bronze Age in Atlantic Europe. This is all the more important due to the fact that for many years the pottery repertoire from the Atlantic region was difficult to characterise, with the spotlight instead focusing on cultures from the east of Europe. WHR: a limited repercussion in research in the NW Iberian Peninsula, and beyond its frontiers There are probably several reasons for the limited attention WHR has received in the specialised literature in the NW Iberian Peninsula and also in Europe, although here we will focus on the two most important reasons. The first is due to the indirect competition that affects the material record of different artefacts from material culture in research. Research that may place the emphasis – albeit involuntarily – on one artefact over another, concentrating on the material that stands out the most from the record, either because this makes it possible to reinforce its connections with a phenomenon on a larger (or global) scale, or because it makes it possible to identify a specific, regional feature on a smaller, local scale. Here we would make special mention of the attention that many researchers of late 147

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

Rationale and problems

1) To identify the WHR pottery type based on an extensive catalogue of 76 vessels, some of which have not been previously studied, and to provide a characterisation of this pottery.

In fact, before presenting the specific aims, we should first consider the main problem affecting this study: to what extent and why can the WHR be considered as a cultural marker?

2) To contextualise the WHR pottery in the different types of areas where it is found. To achieve this objective, a detailed site catalogue was created, defining the archaeological contexts where the 76 vessels used in this study were found, with data sheets summarising the information available for each of them.

The approach used in this study consists of adopting a clear posture in relation to certain archaeological contexts in which the WHR vessels appear, especially sites used for funerary purposes and/or worship. In fact, the archaeological record clearly shows that the WHR vessel had a specific use in the NW Iberian Peninsula in these contexts. In particular, these specific uses, due to their recurrent nature, seem to bear witness to the existence of codes or regulations that were related to burials or worship, and which may therefore indicate that the different communities in the region adopted a common value system. This means that our starting point is the hypothesis that the reproduction of these rules may indicate that they behaved in the same way with regard to death and had the same beliefs, which can indicate how these communities integrated and adopted the same identity, consciously or otherwise. However, these rules should not be considered as inflexible, as the archaeological record itself is lacking when dealing with a subject as complex as the instability of human reactions to the loss of a member of one’s kin, or as strictly defined, as a wide range of factors have to be taken into account, such as the topographical features of the north-west Iberian Peninsula, which could have influenced the way of life of these communities either directly or indirectly, and because these codes could have easily been transformed at particular moments in time depending on interactions between individuals or social and economic changes. Therefore, if codes really do exist, then they are a reflection of an identity that is understood today through the perspective of different disciplines as something dynamic and flexible, as an incessant interplay between the changes that took place in these communities and their will to preserve their value systems. This is an interdisciplinary approach, based on the clues provided by cultural anthropology and the more classical perspective of archaeology, taking into account the relationship between the artefact and the context, and the type of deposit and its spatial distribution.

To compile and review the available datings 3) associated with WHR vessels to date in order to propose a chronological chart, based on all of the previous considerations, and based on the results of the pottery study, examining the decoration and shapes of the vessels in question. 4) To consider the WHR vessel as a possible cultural marker for the north-west Iberian Peninsula, based on the hypotheses provided by cultural anthropology, as well as the more traditional perspective of archaeology. II. IDENTIFICATION OF THE WHR VESSEL While the number of vessels found in the archaeological record of the north-west Iberian Peninsula has increased significantly, the definition of their type has not progressed at the same rhythm. previously existing definitions and Instead, characteristics have been applied, when the record is clearly indicating the presence of a significant number of vessels with a wide rim corresponding to Late Prehistoric pottery, and even revealing differences between different parts of this. As a result, in this section we will analyse the characteristics of the WHR vessels based on all of the material available to date, with the aim of reviewing the old definitions of the WHR vessel and identifying its defining features. The stages involved in this process are the following: 1) Presenting the corpus of vessels. 2) An analysis of the documentation by studying the morphology, clays and decorative treatment of the vessels.

Specific aims The four main sections of this paper correspond to specific objectives that focus on answering the initial question. Without seeking to provide a definitive response to such an extensive subject matter, the authors aim to propose new hypotheses and suggestions to stimulate future research. Accordingly, the specific objectives are the following:

3) Configuring the morpho-technical groups and defining the WHR type. These different stages make it possible to identify the recurring features found in the WHR type, and to identify the features that allow us to include or exclude pottery in this type.

148

SUMMARY 

Group III is divided into three subgroups, based on the orientation of the vessels’ rims and their widths. The three vessels included in group IIIa have sub-vertical rims and thicknesses of between 18 and 24 mm. The two vessels in IIIb have vertical, very narrow rims, and the three vessels in IIIc have sub-vertical rims and double handles. All of them are found in funerary contexts.

II.1. The catalogue We present a detailed catalogue that includes vessels that are relatively or completely unknown, together with vessels which have been classified in the bibliography as potentially being WHR vessels. Specifically, the catalogue contains 76 vessels from different archaeological contexts (domestic, funerary/cult scenarios) in Galicia and the north of Portugal. These vessels are presented in two different, complementary ways, firstly using a graphic representation of all 76 and then a description of them, including all of the available morpho-technical and decorative information and their associated bibliographic references.

Finally, group IV, which comprises three unique vessels, two of which are from the site of Requeán and one from Corvilho. They are found in domestic or undefined contexts. The following stages of the study involved aspects related to the treatment of the clay and the decoration, in order to identify the coherence of the morphological groups. Some of the conclusions derived from this analysis were:

II.2. Morphological study The first stage in the process of identifying the WHR type involves a morphological study of the vessels. This is based on studying the three main parts of the vessel: the rim, body and finally the foot. The four types of profiles shown in Figure 3 correspond to each of these parts. These are:

-! The presence in the pottery corpus of features that are rarely found, such as a sub-vertical orientation of the edges, double handles or very narrow rims, features which allow us to identify different types of WHR vessels.

-! The rim: horizontal (I.1.), sub-horizontal (I.2.), oblique (I.3.), subvertical (I.4.);

-! The need to consider WHR type vessels in terms of exclusion/inclusion, based on the combination of several features instead of just one feature, as one type of formal characteristic may be shared by different types of pottery.

-! The oval body: uncarinated (II.1.), spherical (II.2.), oval with shoulder (II.3.), and with a compound pseudo-carinated shape or carinated in the middle or upper half (II.4.);

-! The “twisted” rim is only one feature amongst many that can serve to define the WHR type. In fact, it appears on other vessels from Late Prehistory in the north-west Iberian Peninsula, such as the “hybrid” vessels with their rims twisted towards the exterior of the vessel, as well as other formal and decorative characteristics found on tronco-conical vessels (Figure 5).

-! The foot: oval (III.1.), straight with a slight curve (III.2.), straight with a strong curve (III.3.) or spherical (III.4.). Based on the different combinations of profiles and their recurrence, it is possible to define the most outstanding features of the vessels included in the study by using different illustrations. The result is four groups of vessels, configured according to their formal characteristics, and based on the vessels with a profile that could be reconstructed.

II.3. Treatment of the clay The second stage of the analysis carried out to identify WHR vessels involved studying how the clay was treated, in order to create groups. The results shed light on the following aspects:

Group I, which contains the largest number of vessels, consists of those with a simple shape, oval (with or without shoulders) and a lesser number with a spherical shape. The rims are horizontal, sub-horizontal or oblique. Their bases, the part that is found the least due to the fragmentation of numerous vessels, may be gently curved or flat. This group is found in all of the contexts.

-! With regard to the finishes of the vessels, nearly 70% of the total had a smoothed finished, with the rest having burnished or polished finishes. -! Three main tones were used: blacks, browns and reds. The majority are black, followed by brown, while reds are the least common.

Group II, which contains 12 vessels, consists of compound profiles that are slightly carinated in the middle or upper part of the body. Based on the data we currently have available, they have only been found in funerary contexts in tumuli.

-! Five different types of textures were documented: medium sandy, fine compact, medium and rough, and porous. The least frequent are rough compact (2.6%) and porous (6.6%), while we found 149

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

similar amounts of medium sandy (14.5%), fine compact (19.7%) and medium (17%) textures.

decoration found on 23 vessels. There are fewer vessels (12) with a highly complex decoration, with between 3 and 7 elements. The decorative structure of these elements appears either as horizontal bands or in metopes. The decoration is often simple and distributed in horizontal bands (29.41% of the vessels), although this decoration may also be complex using the same decorative structure (23.53% of the vessels).

-! In general terms, the majority of the vessels had an abundance of temper that was irregularly distributed in the mixture. This reinforces the idea of a searching for a product that did not have a particularly meticulous surface finish. -! No particular care seems to have been taken with the appearance of the vessels included in the catalogue, something that does not seem to tie in with the detail and variety of their decoration.

With regard to the vessels with decorations on their rims and bodies, there are three main configurations: o! The first consists of an important contrast between the decorations on the rim and the belly of the vessel (such as vessel 5 from Guidoiro Areoso);

This analysis, which focused on the production methods used for the vessels, affirms the four morphological groups that were defined in the previous stage, as it confirmed the presence of uniform features in the vessels, and also made it possible to identify the vessels that stood apart from the others. As a result, the first morphological group of vessels mainly consists of those with brown tones, with medium smooth finishes and medium-fine textures, or burnished finishes with porous textures. Also, as well as having isolated formal features, the technical treatment of the clays used for vessels 55 and 56 from Requeán and vessel 70 from Cuntis are also considerably different from the clays used in the other vessels. They are the only ones that have a relatively glossy surface finish with reddish tones, techniques that are closer to Penha-type pottery, mainly dating from the first half of the third millennium BC.

o! The second consists of clear similarities between these two parts of the vessel, using the same technique and the same instruments and/or motifs (vessel 37 from Monte da Ola); o! The third configuration consists of decorations on the bellies that add one or more motifs in relation to the rim of the vessel (vessel 10 from Monte da Morá 3). A wide range of decorative techniques are used. Specifically, 7 have been documented: incision, grooving, combing, stamping, printing, burnishing and artistic decoration. Although the majority are only decorated using incision, a total of 17 different combinations have been found.

II.4. Decorative treatment of the vessels

Also, when the stamping technique is used (a new technique in the north-west Iberian Peninsula in the second millennium BC) on a vessel, it is always associated with another technique, combined with incised motifs (on 4 vessels), or otherwise with incisions and prints (3 vessels), such as vessel 67 from the site of Barroso, and vessel 69 from Cruceiro Quebrado, respectively. Furthermore, the stamped motifs used are simple concentric circles and semicircles.

The third and final stage focuses on the decorative treatment used for the vessels, characterising the decorative elements and motifs used, how they are organised or distributed over the vessel, and the techniques used to make them (Table 6, figures 6 and 8). The decorative features in this analysis are the following: The decorative elements are preferably located on the rim of the vessels, found exclusively in this area in 76% of the vessels, although they are also combined with decorations on the belly in 16% of the vessels.

II.5. Configuration of the morpho-technical groups and identification of the WHR type

The favourite decorate element consists of lines, which may be parallel and straight, straight and perpendicular to the first, or oblique lines that are nearly always straight. To a lesser extent we can also find semicircles or concentric circles, herringbone patterns or acacia leaf designs.

The morphological study of the decorative techniques and motifs, as well as of the clays used for the vessels in the catalogue, has allowed the authors to define the WHR type as consisting of two different types of vessels that share a number of features and in which the direction of the rim is a basic criterion. These two types of WHR vessels (WHR1 and WHR2) have rims that are positioned obliquely or in a subhorizontal or horizontal position, except for the subvertical position in vessels which always have a clear division between the body and the rim and a certain proportion between their width and height, as well as curved bases,

If we focus on the number of elements per vessel, they may only contain a single decorative element in their design (simple decoration), which is the case with 16 vessels, although there are more vessels with a larger number of elements (2-4), a complex type of 150

SUMMARY 

  “twisted” rims, but which do not correspond with the main, uniform features of the two types of WHR. The fact that vessel 55 from Requeán is not included in the WHR type is quite easy to understand, as both the profile of the vessel, the way in which the clay is treated and the decoration all differ considerably from the other types of vessels included in the study, as well as the concept involved in its manufacture. However, it is more complicated to classify vessels such as number 41 from Coto de Laborada, which has a very small subvertical rim and a disproportion between its height and width. These are unique features from amongst all of the vessels included in the study, although at the same time it could be considered as corresponding to the WHR1 type due to its oval body with a handle, its size and the way in which the clay has been treated. The authors decided to refer to these as “vessels with WHR” (see Figure 16), i.e. vessels with some of the features of this type of pottery, but which are sufficiently differentiated in the archaeological record for them to be separated from the WHR1 and WHR2 types. The following part of this study, the analysis of the contexts, was also carried out with the aim of verifying if the vessels with WHR are also differentiated in the contexts in which they appear.

although some are flat. The decoration is also an important criterion in defining the WHR type, as these vessels are predominated by incised horizontal, vertical or oblique lines, forming herringbone patterns that are continuous or in metopes. However, as well as these common features that are found in both types of WHR vessels, there are also slight differences that make it possible to refer to these two types. Firstly, WHR1 (see Figure 17) vessels have bodies in a simple, oval or spherical shape. The dimensions of these vessels, at least in the case of those with a complete or semi-complete profile, are quite uniform, with rim widths of generally between 17 and 36 mm, although mainly between 22 and 26 mm. Their capacities, in relation to the neck diameter and their height, would also indicate that they were fairly uniform, generally between 300 and 800 cm3. This variety, which according to the archaeological record provided the largest number of vessels, may perhaps be considered as “classic”, although it is important to note that the WHR1 vessels mainly come from the north of Portugal. This said, they are also found in Galicia, although with slightly different shapes to those found in Portugal, with more variations in their profiles. At decorative level, only one vessel differs in terms of the uniform position of the motifs on the rim, with decoration also on its belly.

III. THE DIVERSITY OF CONTEXTS

  This section focuses on the archaeological contexts where the 76 vessels in this study were found, including WHR vessels (WHR1 and WHR2) and vessels with WHR, differentiating the type of features. In fact, this analysis of the sites containing these vessels will allow us to identify if the differences between the type of pottery and its features can be seen at the level of the archaeological contexts; in other words, if certain elements allow us to confirm these differences, or otherwise if the features they share are proof of similar connotations. We also present information on the location and distribution of these vessels in the north-west Iberian Peninsula, in order to verify if this helps us to identify the preferred locations for the bearers of this type of pottery. An analysis is also included of all of the deposits of WHR vessels: how they are specifically associated with funerary structures, the most frequently used funerary and/or ritual solutions, and their associations with different artefacts.

In turn, the WHR2 vessels have compound bodies, some of which are slightly or clearly carinated. The orientation of the rims coincides with those of the WHR1 vessels, compared to the sizes and capacities of the vessels, which are generally larger. The widths of the rims are between 22 and 39 mm, while the capacities vary between 700 and 1500 cm3. This variety can have decorations on the rim and/or body, reaching half way down the vessel (in most cases, the motifs are found on the rim and on the body). To emphasise the difference between these two types, it is important to note the use of stamping with single or concentric circles, found on the WHR2 vessels that are mainly present in Galicia. The circles are combined with incised horizontal and parallel lines, reflecting the existence of certain decorative standards in this type of pottery. In summary, two groups were classified from complete or semi-complete vessels: WHR1 and WHR2. As they contain common and uniform features, it is possible to affirm that they belong to the same type of pottery – WHR – while the differences between them make it possible to affirm the existence of these two main varieties.

III.1. Catalogue of sites A detailed catalogue was created, containing data sheets, with all of the information available on the sites or the contexts where the 76 WHR vessels were found. Based on a review of the literature, three main areas were identified where the WHR vessels were found: in funerary contexts, domestic contexts and indefinite contexts, comprising a total of 49 archaeological sites.

It should be noted that groups III and IV are not considered as WHR vessels, but as “vessels with WHR”, as they have unique, isolated features that do not allow them to be associated with the actual WHR groups (1 and 2). They are vessels that do have 151

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

Settlements in natural rock shelters: To date, fragments of WHR vessels have only been found in 2 rock shelters, although it is likely that there are more. The materials have come from occasional discoveries, which means that unlike the open air settlements, we do not know if they are associated with domestic structures, or if they were associated with funerary structures or places of worship.

Funerary sites These involve different configurations: the re-use of previously existing, mainly megalithic tumuli117, cists and pits, in different shapes and sizes. The most problematic of these are the tumuli, mainly due to the possibility of the vessels found in them not always being associated with strictly funerary practices, but also with the worship of ancestors, as offerings or as a part of ceremonies to highlight the sacred nature of the monuments.

Undefined sites This wide scope includes WHR vessels from possible sites that have still not been defined with regard to their type or chronology, as well as completely decontextualized findings whose origins are unknown. WHR vessels were found in a total of 11 sites of this kind.

Re-use of previously existing monuments: WHR vessels have been found in a total of 13 tumuli, 6 of which were excavated. In the rest of the monuments, the vessels or fragments were found completely by accident. Out of these tumuli, the most important are Marco de Camballón 5, which has provided at least 5 WHR vessels, together with 4 high-necked oval belly jugs.

III.2. Distribution and location: on the coast and in the interior One of the most outstanding aspects of the WHR pottery included in our catalogue, and perhaps the most distinctive, is the fact that it is exclusively found in the north west of the Iberian Peninsula, in the regions now occupied by Galicia and the north of Portugal, as far south as the River Duero. In terms of the category of the sites, a large number of WHR vessels are found in Galician tumuli, especially Megalithic tumuli, compared to only two sites in the north of Portugal. A particularly large number of vessels were found in two interior areas: the upper valley of the River Miño, only in the province of Lugo, and in the southern mountain ranges of Galicia, especially in the province of Pontevedra, mainly in the valleys of the rivers that form a part of the River Ulla basin (the Deza and Asneiro). Burials in cists seem to be restricted to the frontier area between Viana do Castelo and Braga, especially in the district of Esposende (Braga), where the most important necropoli are located with WHR1, and even a WHR2 vessel, corresponding to the presumed cist site of Monte da Ola. Funerary pits are mainly found on the Portuguese side of the frontier, specifically in the districts of Braga and Porto, especially in the municipal district of Braga. In Galicia, the relevance of the funerary structures with WHR still has to be defined. There is an equally significant presence of settlements in Galicia and in the north of Portugal, especially a small concentration in the western tip of the Morrazo Peninsula in Galicia, with four inhabited sites, two of which are covered. In the north of Portugal, the archaeological record currently indicates a preference for lands in the interior, while the opposite is the case in Galicia, which reveals a preference for the coastline or land in close proximity to it.

Cists: Only 3 sites of this kind have WHR vessels or vessels with WHR, and a direct connection between the pottery and the cist has only been possible in the case of the necropolis of Agra de Antas, which has at least 12 burials where 14 vessels were found, 13 of which were WHR type. The other examples are from chance discoveries, although based on the oral information received, it is accepted that these vessels are associated with these kinds of structures. Pits: To date, a total of 9 sites have been published with WHR vessels or vessels with WHR, in some cases forming a part of sites with dwellings. Out of these, only 3 have been excavated in recent times, while the rest correspond to chance findings made in the first half of the 20th century, in some cases complemented with observations made in situ at the same time, or with reviews of the initial information carried out over the last decade by Bettencourt (2010: 139-173; 2011: 115139). In this case, the most outstanding site is O Pego, where WHR vessels were used exclusively in the burials. Sites with dwellings These are mainly open-air sites of different sizes, as well as dwellings that have still not been fully researched in natural rock shelters, but which represent a major innovation in the archaeological record of the WHR vessels. Open-air settlements: Currently we know of 11 sites with dwellings where small traces of WHR vessels or vessels with WHR have been found. 117

Considered as the physical and/or symbolic appropriation of a specific space from a previously existing funerary structure, based on previously established ways of choosing, for the social legitimisation of a given group through rituals or ceremonies connecting them with their ancestors.

152

SUMMARY 

vessels or vessels with WHR, as we currently lack any examples that have been contrasted at archaeological level from more or less recent excavations.

III.3. Funerary structures: a predominance of pits An analysis of the funerary contexts with WHR vessels reveals the importance of negative structures or pits, either as a solution used inside other previously existing funerary sites, as was the case with the re-use of Neolithic tumuli (mainly megalithic structures, especially those with corridors), or otherwise as an exclusive formula, forming different sized necropoli118, set in open terrain, and in some cases corresponding with spaces that were used by previous communities, proof of a degree of continuity. The symbolic actions involved in the re-use of previously existing tumuli by the communities who used WHR vessels, based on the limited data we have available (such as Marco de Camballón 5 and A Romea), seem to be arranged in the following sequence: digging pits into tumuli mounds + depositing pottery and possible funerary remains + a certain distancing from Neolithic funerary chambers + acting spatially on the periphery of the monuments, specifically to the SSW and SE.

Finally, it is important to note other underground structures which in this case formed a part of the structural repertoire of the inhabited sites, and which were re-used as burial structures once they had lost their original function. Specifically, these are round pits that are commonly interpreted as having been silos or storage pits that were dug out of the earth. The only example in the north-west Iberian Peninsula that has provided a good fragment of a vessel with a WHR, together with other archaeological materials, is from structure 7 in Monte Buxel (Redondela, Pontevedra). Together with the funerary pits that contain WHR vessels or vessels with WHR, the communities that were bearers of this type of pottery also created stone structures119, which were either partly or wholly buried in the terrain. These were stone boxes or cists, with one or more stone slabs forming their sides, covered with another slab that in most cases is larger than the underlying structure, although there are cases where several slabs have been used as a covering. The only archaeological data that have made it possible to confirm a direct association between the cists and the WHR vessels to date come from the documentation of the necropolis of Agra de Antas (Esposende, Braga) carried out in 1939 by Ataíde & Texeira (1940), consisting of at least 12 trapezoidal cists made of schist, in different sizes and facing in different directions, all of which are close together.

The ground plans and cross sections of the pits, as an exclusive formula, reveal the use of different solutions in their morphology. On the one hand we have simple pits, defined as such due to the relative ease involved in opening them, as they are very shallow. They are normally rectangular or trapezoidal, between 1.5 and 2 metres long, with a flat or slightly concave bottom, and between 30 and 40 cm deep (see Figure 23), without any stone covering, at least in the known examples. Their filling is limited to a dark brown clay earth, known locally as xabre, with a darker tone than the original. The best-documented examples are from two necropoli in the north of Portugal: As Cimalhas (Felgueiras, Porto) and O Pego (Braga, Braga), both of which form a part of settlements. On the other hand, there are deeper pits, of about 1 metre, with an oval section and an elliptical ground plan, at least in one case. These type of pits are only known from two sites that were discovered in the 1930s: Coto da Laborada (Calvos de Randín, Ourense) and Faísca (Guimarães, Braga). In both cases, and based on written sources, the structures consist of relatively large groups, which due to their similar shape and composition, would have been necropoli for the members of the community who died during the period of occupation of the settlement. This means that as with the simpler shaped pits, it is likely that the settlements were close to the cemeteries, as indicated by the presence of other material remains, such as pottery, close to the tombs. The scarcity of these types of pits is the reason why they are not included amongst the funerary structures with WHR

III.4. Funerary practices: were they exclusively burials? There is no doubt that people were buried in cists, the clearest example of which is found in the site of Agra de Antas. The use of individual burials, based on the available data, could have extended to simple pits, such as those in O Pego and As Cimalhas. We are uncertain of how the bodies were positioned within these structures, although based on their size and shape, we would expect a similar situation to that found in the cists of Agra de Antas, i.e. in a prone position, supine position, or any variation of these, as suggested for the burials of O Pego. The main problem associated with the funerary rites is posed by the deep, oval pits, which appear in small groups, as in Coto da Laborada or Faísca, as well as the pits (whose shape has yet to be defined) dug into tumuli, preferably megalithic structures, such as Chã de Arcas, Marco de Camballón 5 or A Romea), providing they were strictly used for funerary purposes. This is due to the methodological or interpretive limitations of the period when they were discovered, in the case of the oval pits, and the limited amount of information, or

118

Understood as the space dedicated to the burial and implicit ritual practices, created either as a result of aggregating structures onto a previously existing structure, in a process that may have lasted millennia (diachrony), as commonly found in groups of tumuli or in the connection between different types of funerary structures from different periods, or in the accumulation of structures required to contain the dead during the period of occupation (inhabitation) of a settlement (synchrony).

119

So far, these are the only funerary structures made of stone that contain WHR vessels.

153

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

total absence of information, that was divulged about the openings made in previously existing tumuli, as is the case of Marco de Camballón 5. Even so, the large size of the oval pits makes it possible to consider that they were probably used for individual burials. As for the pits dug into the megalithic tumuli, as stated by Fábregas (1995: 112) “[…] here we find a wide range of contextual, and presumably functional situations, which therefore should not always be interpreted from a funerary perspective, or as having belonged to the same cultural period […]”. As a result, and in the event of the pit structures corresponding to burials, then the bodies could have been buried or cremated.

more or less reliable information we have from A Faísca, the WHR vessel was found in the central axis of the structure, at the top of its lower half. In the cists, such as Agra de Antas, the WHR vessel or vessel with WHR was positioned to the right of the deceased’s head if a single vessel was deposited, on both sides of the head if two were deposited, or also next to the feet when more than two were deposited, in the corners of the structures. In the case of the pits dug into tumuli, we have no information whatsoever on how the vessels were positioned within them. Another of the most typical features of a large number of WHR vessels or vessels with WHR, highlighted in the first discoveries that were the object of direct observations, is the presence of soot marks on both the inside and outside of the vessel, mainly in the area opposite the handle. This is seen in the vessels from Galicia and Portugal, especially those from funerary contexts or unknown contexts (but still thought to be funerary contexts), but also in those from settlements, such as A Sola and Bouça de Frade. The repeated presence of soot on a specific part of the vessels found in funerary contexts would seem to suggest that they were manipulated prior to being deposited, by being exposed to fire and burning certain plant substances inside them, such as resins or waxes. In the case of the funerary structures, this manipulation may have been associated with consecrating them and/or ceremonies for bidding farewell and burying the deceased, or for making offerings to their ancestors in the case of the pits carved into tumuli, which were not necessarily used for funerary purposes or purposes that still have to be defined in archaeological terms.

III.5. Position and characteristics of the WHR vessels in the funerary structures and/or ritual structures In the structures defined as simple pits or burials, only one WHR vessel or vessel with WHR has been found accompanying the deceased. However, in the case of the oval pits, between one and two vessels have been found in each structure. The only domestic pit (or storage silo re-used as a funerary structure) with a WHR vessel known to date in the region, pit 7 from Monte Buxel, was found to contain one vessel. In the case of the cists, based on the only site where a direct exploration was carried out (Agra de Antas), the number of WHR vessels or vessels with WHR varied between one and three, although based on other data from similar sites, such as Belinho and Monte da Ola, it is generally accepted that a single vessel was deposited, with signs of other types of pottery. Once again, due to a lack of information we are uncertain about the number of vessels deposited in the pits dug into the tumuli. Another important aspect of the funerary or presumably funerary contexts is the supposed association in certain cases of WHR vessels with metallic artefacts or jewellery, something which based on the current state of our knowledge is very unlikely. However, it is important to note the association in the sites of Coto da Laborada and Marco de Camballón 5 of the WHR vessels with other types of pottery, especially oval jars and in some cases sub-cylindrical jars, and in the Portuguese sites with tronco-conical vessels, both those with the classic shape and wide rim, and with sub-cylindrical vessels. This said, it should be noted that the association between the WHR vessels and the tronco-conical vessels is indirect, as it is not possible to confirm that they have appeared together or that they were deposited in the same structure, as a sealed archaeological deposit.

III.6. WHR vessels or vessels with WHR in settlements: a minimal presence? The feature that perhaps best defines the presence of these vessels in the settlements, at first glance, is their scarcity in relation to the pottery repertoire found in the sites that have been excavated in the last 30-35 years. However, if we examine the material results in greater detail, comparing the total number of vessels found with the number of WHR vessels in the settlements, we actually discover a relatively noteworthy amount. Based on the few sites that have been excavated or published in detail, they constitute around 10% of the pottery repertoire, as is the case in Bouça do Frade. Also, we imagine that there will also be a large number of belly fragments that cannot be associated with specific types of vessels, some of which could have been WHR vessels, meaning it is much less scarce than previously thought.

With regard to the spatial situation of the vessels, in the case of the simple pits they are mainly located in one of the corners of the structure, normally to the right of the head (as in O Pego), with the mouth facing upwards, the position found in all of the documented funerary and/or ritual structures. In the oval pits, based on the

III.7. WHR vessels and their contexts: preferences By analysing the contexts it is possible to identify a number of specific aspects associated with the WHR type, in particular with the WHR1 and WHR2 groups. As we were able to verify, except in the case of Monte 154

SUMMARY 

  archaeological deposit, in the case of the necropolis of cists in Agra de Antas, where it was possible to date the skeletal remains of an individual in one of these burials. The result obtained for this sample was 13831051 cal BC. However, it is true that another dating with a similar result could be associated with the first, in a similar context in the site of Monte da Ola, although it was not possible to precisely identify its correlation with this presumed cemetery containing cists, as the sample was taken years after the vessels were discovered on the site, during a series of recent digs, in which it was not possible to verify the presence of these structures. As a result, this dating has been ruled out, together with those of other sites such as the monument of Guidoiro Areoso. This site has only been partially published, and the distribution of the material and its stratigraphic relationship with the sample (taken from a shell midden) is completely unknown. It is also a tumular monument, structures that were frequently re-used throughout Late Prehistory, with a highly varied material culture from different areas, such as Penha-type vessels, Bell Beaker pottery, bronze punches, as well as the wide horizontal rim vessel (WHR1).

da Ola, the WHR2 vessels are only deposited in tumuli with megalithic chambers, in all likelihood in a similar way to that used for Marco de Camballón 5 and A Romea. On the contrary, the WHR1 vessels appear in a wide variety of contexts: tumuli (albeit to a lesser extent), cists (Agra de Antas), pits (Faisca), and in domestic sites (A Sola). It is also interesting to note that there was a clear preference to deposit these WHR1 vessels in burial pits, only in the south of the north-west Iberian Peninsula, specifically in the district of Braga, and to a lesser extent in the districts of Oporto and Viana do Castelo. In fact, the WHR1 found in this area are much more coherent with each other in terms of their profiles, sizes and decoration than the WHR1 found in Galicia, which are more varied. Nevertheless, like the pottery type they share – the WHR – they also share a number of specific features or variations depending on their geographic locations and specific funerary solutions, which means that the differences between WHR1 and WHR2 can not only be seen after a morpho-technical and decorative analysis, but also in terms of the contexts in which they were found. However, it should not come as any surprise that the vessels with WHR share the same funerary structures as the WHR vessels themselves, as the existence of formal differences does not mean that they were necessarily used and deposited in a different or opposing way.

For other vessels, we have a terminus ante quem and terminus post quem, derived from the samples taken from the domestic site of Bouça do Frade. These provided three datings, two of which were identical – 976-800 cal BC – which must be related to the initial period of occupation of the site, and a final sample – 976-797 cal BC – as its final moment of activity. These results suggest that the WHR vessels were used over a long period of time, if we compare them with those from the cists of Agra de Antas. Nevertheless, these are curiously the only cases with such recent datings. Despite certain doubts about the other results, these are mainly concentrated around the first half of the second millennium BC, especially around the middle of this period. Here it is interesting to note the results of samples taken from carbon from between the stones inside the tumulus of Madorra da Granxa, from two different areas at the same level: 1685-1529 cal BC. In all likelihood, these samples are connected with this fragment, as the clay has a very similar treatment to that found on another vessel, decorated with incised wavy lines and with a handle, which was broken onto the layer of stones and found in situ. This same time period, from the middle of the second millennium BC, also applies to the sample taken from the structures in the site of Monte Buxel: 1491-1263 cal BC. While this result cannot be associated directly with the storage pit that was probably re-used as a burial pit and which contained the fragment of a vessel with WHR, it is true that the material that was discovered indicates a certain degree of uniformity that would suggest that this dating is correct, especially if we consider that other fragments of vessels with WHR were found mixed together with other types of pottery materials in the same site.

IV. CHRONOLOGY: A LONG-LASTING SHAPE

  In order to deal with the chronology of the vessels included in the catalogue, three methodological procedures were carried out. The first consisted of compiling all of the absolute datings known about the vessels and their contexts; the second consisted of applying the classic method of relative chronology, comparing and relating different artefacts based on their similarities; and finally, the third step consisted of combining and comparing the information obtained in the previous procedures based on the groups of vessels that were defined. IV.1. Absolute chronology: the fragility of the datings Out of the 48 archaeological contexts in which WHR vessels were found, only 10 provided radiocarbon datings. These datings are summarised in Table 10 (page 114), indicating from where the different samples were obtained that correspond to the radiocarbon results. A voluntarily critical approach was adopted based on these results, which nevertheless was necessary in order to be able to ascertain their accuracy, as they served as the foundations upon which all of the subsequent hypotheses and chronological schemes were based for the different groups of vessels. In fact, we find that there is only a direct relationship between the sample and vessel in one site, as a sealed 155

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

conceal potential local differences at formal and chronological level. In the case of the “hybrid” troncoconical vessels – those that have a tronco-conical body but a relatively wide rim – the chronological question is still unanswered. Both types could have existed simultaneously over time, and would be a reflection of the same type of pottery (in the same way as the WHR1 and WHR2 vessels are a part of the WHR type), or otherwise that one of these two vessels is of an older type than the other.

In general, the existing corpus of datings reveals the fragile nature of the documentation, as we either lack any information on the precise relationship between the sample and the vessels, or otherwise the result of the dating corresponds to a stage of occupation of the site, without this offering any clear definition of the time interval when the vessels were in use. The classic method based on relative chronology would seem to be a suitable way of completing this relatively restricted overview of the lifespan of the WHR vessel, with the aim of providing additional details in relation to its timeline.

In any event, the chronological framework (from the end of the third millennium to the middle of the second millennium BC) is useful in providing supplementary data about the lifespan of the WHR, as in some cases it is associated with funerary contexts, but nearly always indirectly. In other words, the current archaeological record does not indicate any direct association in burials between tronco-conical vessels and WHR vessels. One example is the site with burial pits of A Cimalhas, where interestingly the pits only have one WHR vessel or one tronco-conical vessel. Here it would be reasonable to consider different chronologies, with the tronco-conical vessel being previous to the WHR vessel. However, we cannot rule out the idea that both funerary practices coexisted for a certain period of time.

IV.2. Relative chronology: direct or indirect associations between artefacts This classic method involves comparing elements such as datings or associations between artefacts from different sites. In the case of the WHR vessels, a series of chronological hypotheses were drawn based on the artefacts that were either directly or indirectly associated with them. From a methodological perspective, we rejected the sites that did not provide any consistent information, which were only known based on very partial studies (such as Mesa de Montes), or which were old excavations that did not allow us to clarify the relationships between the different artefacts (such as Terroso). As a result, the contexts used for this relative chronology were limited to funerary sites, which generally provide better quality information for this purpose, as the pottery is usually in a better condition than that from domestic contexts, due to the horizontal concentration of the material (as in O Fixón) or the difficulty involved in isolating stratigraphic units in certain cases.

In the case of the high-necked oval vessels, their discovery in cists and tumuli made of stones (such as Casinha Derribada) suggests their use over an equally long period of time, between the 18th and 13th centuries BC. In a sealed archaeological deposit, this type of vessel is associated with tronco-conical vessels in the cist site of Chedeiro (in Cualedro, Ourense). In fact, the dating carried out using the carbonised remains impregnated in the walls of one of the tronco-conical vessels found in one of the cists in the south of Ourense (in the site of A Forxa) provided a dating of 1767-1527 cal BC. It is interesting to note this period of time, as these oval vessels are directly associated with sites with WHR vessels, such as the famous tumulus of Marco de Camballón 5 or the pit graves of Coto de Laborada.

In general terms, the WHR vessels are mainly found in sites with “classic” tronco-conical vessels, with highnecked oval vessels, or otherwise with “hybrid” troncoconical vessels. They may be associated directly in a sealed archaeological deposit where we can presume that the pieces were deposited at the same tame (synchrony of elements), or otherwise indirectly, when the materials were deposited at different times (diachrony of elements). It is not that easy to identify the chronology of these three types of vessels, as there are still only a few absolute datings that can be used to identify their respective timespans. The tronco-conical vessels are probably the most clearly identified in chronological terms, as they have the largest number of absolute datings (see Table 15) and clear, mainly funerary archaeological contexts. This vessel, especially in its “classic” shape, seems to have existed for a long period of time, between the end of the third millennium BC and the middle of the second millennium BC, although this is still quite imprecise, based on samples that require very detailed inspection, and which are also found over an enormous area. This latter aspect could

Based on these data, our aim is to offer a schematic representation of the chronological distribution of the WHR vessels based on the different groups or varieties we have established, based on the direct association between WHR vessels and oval vessels, or indirect association with tronco-conical vessels, together with the hypotheses derived from the currently available absolute datings and the results that are considered to be accurate. IV.3. Proposal and chronologies Figures 33, 34 and 35 show a chronology of the WHR vessels and vessels with WHR, based on the previous analysis, the absolute and relative chronology, and also 156

SUMMARY 

the similarities between the shape and decoration of the different vessels. This summary only refers to the two WHR type vessels – WHR1 and WHR2, as the vessels with WHR are more problematic: they are older, as is the case of vessel 55 from Requeán (from the first half of the third millennium BC), or offer very little contextual information, such as the vessel from Carril.

Gondesende or Roza de Afora. With regard to these two techniques, it should be mentioned that unlike the WHR1 vessels, stamping is used more frequently than incision. In the WHR2 vessels as a whole, those that only have printed decoration may be older than the rest. If this is the case, the vessel from Gondosende that only has printed decoration, with motifs associated with the international Bell Beaker style, would date from before the vessels with stamped decoration. Although we have very few absolute datings, we can put forward the idea that the WHR2 vessels were in use for as long a period as the WHR1 vessels, although not simultaneously, as some WHR2 vessels in this group would appear to be older.

As a result, with regard to the WHR1 vessels, those from the site of A Sola IIB, Chã de Arcas and Póvoa which share the same pattern (horizontal or subhorizontal rims, oval bodies with flat bases, decorated with incisions and printed designs) are considered as being from the same period. This also applies to the vessels from the sites of Agra de Antas and Belinho, which have clear similarities in terms of their shape and decoration, and were found in cist-type burials a short distance from each other. The WHR1 vessels seem to have been in use for a long period of time, from the second quarter or the second millennium BC until the first quarter of the first millennium BC, based on the oldest datings provided by the radiocarbon datings from A Sola IIB, and from the most recent terminus post and ante quem datings from the site of Bouça do Frade. Within this time range, it is possible to suggest that the WHR1 vessels achieved their moment of greatest relevance and importance between the 15th and 11th centuries cal BC.

It is also interesting to note the similarities in the decoration used on vessel 69 from Cruceiro Quebrado and vessel 5 from Guidoiro Areoso, and also perhaps at formal level (although it is not possible to correctly identify the profile, as it was restored). In any event, there are very clear similarities in the decoration used on both vessels: three decorative techniques (stamping, incision and printing), and the same configuration for the motifs (opposition between the rim and body, and rims decorated in a very similar way, using parallel incised lines). These features may possibly point towards a more recent chronology, associated with Madorra da Granxa or A Romea, which have the same pattern on the rim/body, and only use two decorative techniques (incision and stamping). In fact, some studies focusing on Iron Age pottery make it possible to affirm the presence of a wide variety of decoration used on the vessels, with numerous motifs and decorative techniques. In this case, the use of three techniques on the WHR vessels may perhaps be an indication of a immediately prior to productions from the Iron Age, where apart from the stamped concentric circle motifs, other styles appeared, such as semicircles. This idea also implies a formal change in line with the chronology, moving from the more elaborate or compound profiles such as those from A Romea, towards more generalised, simpler shapes, such as the spherical shapes found in Guidoiro Areoso, at least in Galicia.

With regard to the collection of complete or semicomplete WHR2 vessels, the chronological question is very much open, as we do not have any radiocarbon datings for them. However, from the perspective of comparing the formal and decorative aspects of the different vessels included in the study, we can consider the fragment of a WHR vessel from the site of Madorra da Granxa, for which we do have radiocarbon datings. This fragment, despite its small size, has a similar decoration to the other WHR2 vessels: a row of circles stamped around the rim, combined with incised parallel lines, clearly showing similar configurations and designs to those found on the vessels from A Romea and Monte da Mora 3. It also comes from a tumulus, the context in which most of the WHR2 vessels are found. These decorations would seem to correspond to a standard decorative pattern, which is why the vessels from A Romea, Monte Mora 3, Cruceiro Quebrado and Barroso are attributed to belonging to the same period. However, for the time being it is not possible to add any further information regarding the chronology of each of these vessels. Also, while they all have a compound form, their profiles vary considerably, with clearly market carination in some cases (Barroso), slightly carinated in others (A Romea), or simply insinuated (Cruceiro Quebrado). It is important to note the use of the stamping technique in this group of vessels, a novel feature in the previously existing vessels which suggests that the vessels with this technique are more recent than those with incisions and/or stamping, such as those from Monte da Ola, 157

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

V. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE WHR VESSEL AS A CULTURAL MARKER IN THE NW IBERIAN PENINSULA

V.2.1. Homogeneity The first aspect to be highlighted, and perhaps the most important, is the specific shape of WHR vessels from the second millennium BC in the north-west Iberian Peninsula. This type of pottery is exclusively found in this region, and has not been found in neighbouring areas such as the regions of Asturias or Cantabria, or further afield on the Atlantic coast or in France. We consider that this is the first feature that defines a specific cultural identity in spatial terms, which was possibly reinforced at a given moment in the second millennium BC.

V.1. The question of cultural identity In this section, we will attempt to resolve the initial problem of this study, indicating how and to what extent WHR vessels may be a cultural marker. These considerations are based on the complex idea of culture seen from the perspective of cultural anthropology, as well as the more classic definition from an archaeological perspective.

In the funerary context, the most suitable for reflecting types of behaviour associated with a symbolic value system, the WHR vessels also transmit this identity to a certain degree. The first aspect that seems to be expressed in depositing the vessel is that it was not associated with metallic artefacts. Here it is possible to identify what may be a change from the system used in the transition from the third to second millennium BC or in the early second millennium BC, when the Taraio-type vessel is associated with metallic grave goods (as in the cist of Taraio, Malpica, A Coruña; Vázquez, 1980: 25-26).

Seen from the perspective of cultural anthropology, as well as from a sociological and psychological perspective, it is assumed that culture can be read in several different ways, all of which are dynamic. It is not possible to consider this idea as something static, but instead as something that is constantly in movement, paradoxically combining homogeneity, through which individuals are capable of recognising the fact that they belong to a collective entity (consciously or not), and heterogeneity, as the interrelations necessarily imply a series of specific features that involve an individual differentiation. From this perspective, homogeneity and heterogeneity seem to be closely linked, as on the one hand, it is only the differentiation that makes it possible to affirm the existence of a collective identity due to the need to refer to it, and on the other, because this came about as a result of the previous process.

Leaving the exceptions to one side, the second uniform aspect consists of depositing the WHR vessels in three combinations or on their own inside the structures (As Cimalhas), using combinations of both (Agra de Antas), or less frequently in direct association with oval, high-necked vessels (Marco de Camballón 5).

From an archaeological perspective, researchers such as P. Brun have integrated these concepts and proposed defining a series of cultural entities based on the repetition of types that are more frequently associated within a given area than outside it (Brun, 1998: 43), always based on the widely varied aspect of culture. For this reason, it is not only possible to evoke the idea of a culture after having determined a series of attributes that are frequently associated with each other (Brun, 1991: 12). This said, during this study of WHR vessels and despite a number of specific local or individual features, we perceived and were even able to affirm the existence of a unique, clearly defined culture identity within the north-west Iberian Peninsula, a cultural identity that came about as a result of this constant interplay between homogeneity and heterogeneity.

These associations between the different pieces of pottery and their disassociation with metallic artefacts in funerary contexts determine a series of strict codes, which in all likelihood demonstrate the existence of a shared concept of the afterlife by the communities who used the WHR vessel, in which individuals do not seem to be differentiated, something that may have also been the case in life, as this lack of differentiation in death could be understood as a reflection without any strong sense of hierarchisation at their core (although not necessarily without any differences between individuals who simultaneously carried out other specialised tasks, combined with community activities). Obviously, the relative homogeneity of the grave goods can also be understood as a different strategy within these same communities, in which some of their individuals held power or had a special status in life, while in death any differences were eliminated, by using discrete tombs in a simple architectural style. It is also interesting to observe the remnants of soot found in a large number of WHR vessels, indicating that they were burned before being deposited, leaving a distinctive mark on different parts of the vessel: the part opposite the handle, the bottom and the rim. This

V.2. Between homogeneity and heterogeneity We start by highlighting the features that are recurrently found in the north-west Iberian Peninsula which reflect this homogeneity, then using them to identify the differences or heterogeneity that make it possible to refer to this homogeneity as a base, and confirm its existence. 158

SUMMARY 

is indicative of common use and function of these vessels in the north-west Iberian Peninsula. Another aspect is associated with the re-use of the tumuli, as it would seem that new monuments of this kind were not built to deposit the WHR vessels, but that instead previously known spaces were used, possible giving preference to tumuli with megalithic chambers and corridors.

although the data that have so far been published do not allow us to precisely identify its location. Here it is important to note that apart from this contextual aspect, at formal level – and as previously mentioned – zone A shows a predominance of WHR2, i.e. vessels with compound bodies, sometimes carinated, and to a lesser extent WHR1120. It is also interesting to note the type of decoration used, as the vessels from Guidoiro Areoso, A Romea and Monte Morá 3 use the stamping technique. Taking this into account and the funerary practices in the zone, it could be possible that the vessels from Cruceiro Quebrado and Gondesende also come from tumuli, and in this case mark the southern limits of this Galician zone.

Finally, it is also interesting to note how the sites are distributed throughout the north-west Iberian Peninsula, as they are connected with the western regions of the coastline (with the exception of the province of A Coruña) as well as with the interior, always at relative low altitudes in relation to the surrounding topography, and in most cases associated with smaller watercourses. On the contrary, no WHR vessels have been found in the more mountainous regions. It would seem that the bearers of this type of pottery were limited to very specific parts of the landscape, especially areas that were better suited for agricultural activities. If we consider the southern mountains of Galicia, the distribution of WHR vessels confirms this idea, as they directly follow the direction of the mountain range, some in the foothills while others are found at a slightly higher altitude, always in key points of the landscape, with direct access to the valleys but also to the highest points of the ridges. As there was perfect access from east to west or west to east by crossing the highest part of the range, the question remains as to why they apparently left no signs in these high points. However, it is true that compared to the homogeneity of these data, and on a detailed scale, it is also possible to highlight particular features in this region, indicating the presence of specific entities that do not all correspond to the same guidelines.

These data contradict (or are complemented by) those from the north of Portugal, specifically the sites in the district of Braga, and to a lesser extent the site in Oporto: zone B. In effect, the WHR vessels do not appear in tumuli, but instead mainly in pits, settlements and to a lesser extent in cists (in the sites of Agra de Antas and Belinho) in the far north west of the district of Braga. On the contrary, cists with WHR vessels have not been found in the current archaeological record of zone A. It is also important to note the fact that the vessels shown strictly belong to the WHR1 group. In terms of the decorative technique, the main method is stamping, together with a diversified panel of motifs made using incisions, printing, burnishing and spatulating. In fact, these last two techniques – based on the current archaeological record – were not used in zone A. Settlements are also well represented, or better documented, with the sites of A Sola, Touginha, Bouça do Frade and Terroso. Meanwhile, in zone A, the settlements are mainly limited to Zudres and Mesa de Montes121. These data perhaps reveal lifestyles that varied slightly in these different zones, as sites comparable to As Cimalhas and O Pego are currently unknown in Galicia, indicating the presence in these territories of communities that were more sedentary, associated with land with a good agricultural potential, and where it is possible to identify a clear relationship between the funerary methods and the settlements. On the contrary, in the Galician zone we do not have any clear indication whatsoever of the type of relationship and the distance that separates the tumuli that were reused by the carriers of WHR and their settlements.

V.2.2. Heterogeneity If we analyse the data in greater detail, we find that in general, there are two different zones with specific features in the NW Iberian Peninsula (see Figure 37), especially at funerary level: a northern zone (zone A), contrasted with a southern zone (zone B). In effect, if we focus on the vessels that exclusively belong to the WHR1 and WHR2 types, we find that the funerary contexts of the River Miño valley, as well as the sites close to the mountain ranges in the south of Galicia – zone A – form a coherent group in terms of the funerary practices used. These consist exclusively of deposits in tumuli from earlier periods. The sites of Marco de Camballón 5, A Romea, and perhaps A Cruz 2 indicate that the deposits are limited to the surface layers of the monument, in areas at a distance from the chamber, in the body of the tumulus, as a way of respecting the past and avoiding any disturbance of their ancestors. In all likelihood, vessel 5 from Guidoiro Areoso is a result of a similar practice,

Based on the global study of this paper, the WHR-type vessel clearly reflects a homogeneity that can be 120 This is the case with the vessels from the site of Marco de Camballón 5, where the WHR1 vessels are associated with pitchers and a WHR2, as well as the site of Guidoiro Areoso, although in the case of this site we have to take into account the highly probable chronological differences with the WHR2. 121 Here we can also include the site of O Fixón, although the vessels found here do not seem to include all of the features necessary to refer to WHR-type vessels. In the case of A Cunchosa and Sanamaro, these are more precisely settlements in sheltered locations.

159

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

contrasted with specific regional features, which as a result of being combined in a significant manner make it possible to identify the presence of at least two cultural groups, one in the north and another in the south, clearly reflected through their funerary contexts. These specific features even make it possible to suggest the existence of an intermediate C zone, with a more diverse variety of sites and WHR vessels, combining features that are more frequently found in the first zone (the re-use of tumuli and WHR2 vessels) and in the second (pits and WHR1 vessels), potentially as a result of interculturation and intermingling. The site that most clearly represents this intermingling is Monte da Ola, which has at least one WHR2 vessel, which very probably appeared in a cist. Obviously, these cultural groups could also correspond to different chronological periods, and be differentiated according to them.

cannot be considered as constituting an exclusive, defining criterion for the WHR type of vessel. We therefore insist on the need to differentiate the feature of the type, which can be defined on the basis of the combination of several criteria and not just one, thereby avoiding the risk of creating a corpus of vessels with different chronologies, functions or uses.

In any event, the WHR vessels make it possible to clearly see how the different communities that lived in the NW Iberian Peninsula ate and how they definitely shared a system of complex values, consisting of strict rules and regulations associated with death, as well as similar techniques, beliefs and perhaps even ways of life. From this point of view, it does not seem to be to audacious to suggest that the WHR vessel is a marker for the wide range of facets that allow us to evoke this idea of culture or cultural identity (see Figure 38), as long as these are conceived as a dynamic, dialectic model, making use of the new perspectives regarding the idea of interculturation and strategies of identify, i.e. through an interdisciplinary approach, and as a process that was necessarily associated with the constant interplay between two complementary and inseparable figures: one the one hand, the particularities or differences between specific groups, and on the other, their conformities, and therefore their sense of belonging to a collective entity122.

One important aspect in relation to the shape of the vessels is associated with the visual development of the carinated shape, although more data are required. Based on similarities with the decoration used on Galician vessels from Cruceiro Quebrado and Guidoiro Areoso, and if we accept the idea that these are spherical elements in both cases, then we can put forward the hypothesis that the absence and/or presence of carinated shape on the vessels may serve as a chronological indicator, at least in terms of their relative chronology. This means that if we focus on the linear evolution of the shapes, specifically those of the WHR2 pottery, the spherical vessels could reflect the final stage of the WHR, which would have begun with more or less sharply angled carinated shapes (Roza de Afora, with a single decorative technique – printing), then with slight curves or angles (Monte da Romea, with two decorative techniques – stamping and incision), finally arriving at more simple shapes, such as those found in Guidoiro Areoso and Cruceiro Quebrado. Therefore, the simplification of the shape of the vessel, spherical and angled, would be a result of the development of the decorative techniques used, on the one hand becoming diversified, and on the other perhaps arriving at a certain degree of standardisation in the layout of the motifs.

Two groups of vessels stand out in the study catalogue: WHR1 and WHR2, which as a result of simultaneously reflecting common and homogeneous features, allow us to highlight the fact that they belong to the same pottery type –WHR – and that the features that differentiate them allow us to refer to the presence of these two major varieties. A linear evolution of carinated shape of WHR vessels?

VI. REVIEW AND PROSPECTS As a review, this section focuses on a series of aspects that have been highlighted in this study as prospective areas for future investigation.

Bronze Age pottery: a real break with the Iron Age?

VI.1. Two varieties of WHR vessels The first objective of this study consisted of examining the concept of the “wide horizontal rim” vessel in order to identify which vessels could be included within this group, as well as to define the ceramic type in itself, as in reality the peculiarity of the vessels with outwardturned rims would not seem to be a sufficient criterion to include all of the vessels with this feature into the type in question. Put differently, this specific feature

The stamping technique, as indicated in this paper, can no longer be considered as a technique from the Second Iron Age, as it appeared on the WHR in all likelihood from the second millennium BC onwards. Therefore, we can consider the presumed points of rupture between pottery production from the Bronze and Iron Ages. From a strictly decorative perspective, the record perhaps does not allow us to refer to a clear break, but instead the development and sophistication in the Iron Age of the techniques used in the Bronze Age.

122 With regard to identity, G. Vinsonneau writes: “L’identité se réalise comme un processus dialectique, au sens d’intégrateur des contraires” (Vinsonneau, 2000: 12).

160

SUMMARY 

  discretion, perhaps in respect to their ancestors, only visible at the point of moving away from the central points, while at the same time reflecting a certain affirmation and the right to leave a mark in the heart of the previously existing monument, next to their ancestors, or of the values transmitted by this type of architecture by the second millennium BC.

VI.2. The connection between the world of the living and the world of the dead: the need for archaeometric analyses One important area that must be dealt with in future studies on the WHR is the need to carry out analyses that can allow us to obtain information that can only be acquired in this way. Mineralogical and geochemical studies can contribute towards characterising the clays in greater detail at technological level, and comparing them with geological information may help us to define the nearby source areas and allow us to identify the relationship between the areas where the three different types were found. Studying residues may provide some answers or indications about the soot stains and internal residue that regularly appear on the vessels. These analyses may help us to understand the role these vessels played in tumulus contexts, particularly in the re-use of previously existing tumuli, and to know whether they were used to contain offerings or if they were associated with cremation rites, or perhaps as containers for body parts (organs) from individuals buried in the tumuli. If we are able to identify the contents, it may also help us to ask questions related to the biography of the vessel and if they were exclusively produced to accompany the dead, or if they were used previously in daily life, and were then recycled or sacrificed for funerary or cultural use. The divide between the world of the living and the world of the dead is more apparent than real, and data from sites such as A Cimalha or O Pego indicated that they coexisted and that there were even interactions between them.

The WHR vessels found in tumuli in these last two excavations only seem to be associated with the re-use of the structures, as well as the fragment from A Cruz found on the surface of the megalithic monument123. Despite a lack on information on the deposits of WHR vessels in tumuli, these vessels do not seem to be intentionally associated with this type of monument. Therefore, until we have more information available, the argument regarding the discrete nature of the funerary structures would perhaps allow us to affirm this situation, as this solution would point towards a different way of conceiving funerary space in the landscape. VI.4. WHR as a cultural marker The ceramological study of the vessels and the analysis of their contents point towards the existence of a clear cultural identity in the NW Iberian Peninsula, in which a series of communities seem to either consciously or unconsciously recognise a series of shared values. Uniform features are clearly visible in the NW Iberian Peninsula, such as the absence of metallic objects associated with WHR vessels, the presence of soot in certain parts of the vessels, the discrete nature of funerary architecture used to bury the dead in the landscape (pits and cists), the intimate link that connects this architecture with the living and the dead, the absence of WHR vessels in mountainous areas and the preference for gentler reliefs (such as agricultural land, areas with good visibility or clear landmarks), or the absence or presence of metallurgy in domestic contexts. All of these factors, together with other types of differential behaviour, make it possible to identify a frontier between at least two cultural groups, with different approaches towards funerary or cultural solutions: a group in the north (zone A), identified by almost exclusively re-using tumuli with WHR2 vessels, and a group from the south (zone B) which preferred to intentionally use pits and cists with WHR1.

VI.3. The discrete nature of funerary architecture: a lack of ex nihilo tumuli? The presence of WHR vessels in funerary sites is associated with discrete structures in the landscape such as pits, either simple pits (As Cimalhas), pit-silos (Monte Buxel) or oval pits (Faiscas) or cists, which despite being more elaborate than pits, were built using slabs of local material, therefore requiring limited physical effort. Whether they include some type of indication system on the surface or not, the idea is that they can only be seen when we are very close to them. In the case of tumuli, the data indicate that the WHR vessels, either in actual burials or as offerings, were deposited in existing tumuli. The architectural gestural seems to be limited in two cases (A Romea and Marco de Camballón 5) to the excavation of a simple pit in the tumulus structure. The only case known to date that may point towards a different strategy or a different concept of sacred space is the site of Madorra da Granxa, as if the dating can be associated with a layer of stones and a fragment of WHR, then this would have been an architectural addition. However, the site has only be partly excavated and few data are available, and so we cannot be certain of this. In any event, the re-use of tumuli reflects this tendency towards

In conclusion, it is also important to remember that the main aim of this study consisted of summarising the information we currently have on the WHR vessels, which we have attempted to present in as much detail as possible, exercising the necessary caution with

                                                             123 With regard to the presence of WHR vessels in tumuli, Suárez Otero (1997: 26) suggests the possibility of the intentional construction of tumular monuments, even with simple chambers, by communities that were bearers of this type of pottery, as seen in Xendive or Gándara Cha. However, the lack of direct, contrasted observations of the findings in these locations means it is impossible to fully confirm this. 

161

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

  regard to old excavations or investigations. We have also provided new suggestions and hypotheses that can be refuted or completed with new excavations and analyses of residues or clays that need to be carried out on these vessels. Obviously, it is not our aim to provide definitive results or answers, but instead to offer suggestions and encourage a new approach towards studying different aspects of WHR vessels, artefacts which due to their importance warrant new research that help us to better understand the communities from the NW Iberian Peninsula from the second millennium

BC, and which will help us to better characterise pottery production from the Atlantic regions in the Bronze Age. The fragile nature of absolute datings and the few contents that have been excavated using rigorous scientific methods mean that we are still unable to reach a firm dating for WHR vessels, which seem to have existed from at least the first quarter of the second millennium BC until the first quarter of the first millennium BC, something that is therefore one of the main challenges for future studies.

162

SUMMARY 

  SELECTED TABLES TRASLATED IN ENGLISH (Tables: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12) VESSEL

1

2

3

CLAY/FIRING/FINISH

COLOUR

SHAPE

Quite coarse clays with abundant large size tempers. Irregular firing with predominance of reduction firing on the outside and oxidising firing on the inside. Simply smoothed but careful finish.

Black-light brown

Flat oblique rim (I.3.) with enhanced lip, biconical body with pronounced carination (II.4.) and flat base (III.3.).

Clay with small white grains and smoothed surfaces.

Brown

Concave subhorizontal rim (I.2.) oval body (II.1.) and flat base (III.2.).

Clay with very fine mica tempers, monochrome. Reduction firing. Simple smoothed finish. Soot residue in upper part of rim.

Dark brown

Fragment of slightly convex horizontal rim (I.1.) very fine tongue on edge. Concave subhorizontal rim (I.2.) ending in a curved lip; slightly carinated upper part of body (II.4.), with a single vertical handle and curved, oval base (III.1.).

MEASURE MENTS (mm/cm3)) MD: 164 ND: 120 RW: 25 S: 5.6-8 MD: 191 ND: 128 H: 103 RW: 35 S: 5.8-9.6 C: 1000 MD: 179 ND: 120 RW: 33 S: 3.4-7.8 MD: 148 ND: 100 H: 112 RW: 28 S: 4-9 C: 900 MD: 110 ND: 77 H: 75 RW: 18 S: 2.6-7.5 C: 400

REFERENCES

Suárez 1997: 24

Otero,

Soeiro, 1988: 43, fig. XIII.2

Unpublished

Carballo 1985

Arceo,

4

Smoothed outer surface.

No data

5

Well-shaped and fired clays. Fine compact textures. Predominant temper on the surface is mica and feldspar, abundant and regularly distributed. Reduction firing. Black fracture colour. Medium smoothed surface (interior and exterior)

Dark brown (irregular surface variations)

Concave subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with rounded lip; spherical body (II.2.) and curved spherical base (III.4.).

6

Compact, uniform clay with abundant fine temper.

Light brown

Small fragment of start of a rim, probably horizontal, and start of a belly.

ND: 138

Dark brown (irregular surface variations)

Flat oblique rim (I.3.) ending with curved lip; body with slightly carinated centre (II.4.) with a single bridge-shaped handle and slightly curved, spherical base (III.4.).

MD: 146 ND: 105 H: 106 RW: 32 S: 6,3-7,5 C: 800

Dark brown (irregular surface variations)

Oblique rim (I.3.), flat, spherical body (II.2.) with a side handle in bridge-shape with oval section, and flat base starting with a gradual transition point from the body (III.2.).

MD: 137 ND: 93 H: 93,6 RW: 28,4 S: 5,5-8 C: 600

Illustration: Suárez Otero, 2003: fig. 9 Unpublished description.

Dark brown (irregular surface variations)

Flared roughly edged rim with nearly flat oblique orientation (I.3.), with rounded lip. Spherical body (II.2.) with short, very narrow neck. Transition with right-angled belly with thick section in interior. Single finger handle, bridge-shaped with oval section on side of upper half of body. Curved, spherical base (III.4.).

MD: 171 ND: 102 H: 110 RW: 33 S: 5,6-12,8 C: 1200

Unpublished

7

8

9

Fine compact textures. Fine mica temper, mainly on the surface, abundant and distributed regularly (interior and exterior). Medium smoothed finish (interior and exterior). Sandwich fracture: orange/black/orange. Abundant soot on inside, especially on area opposite the hand, suggesting it was laid on its side with the remains that were accumulated in this area when they were burned. Highly chipped on inside and outside. Restored: the colour may not be the original. Fine compact textures. Fine mica temper, mainly on the surface, abundant and distributed regularly (interior and exterior). Medium burnished finish (interior and exterior). Sandwich fracture: orange/black/orange. Abundant soot on inside, especially on area opposite the hand, suggesting it was laid on its side with the remains that were accumulated in this area when they were burned. Horizontal marks of instrument used for the finish. Fine compact textures. Fine mica temper, mainly on the surface, abundant and distributed regularly (interior and exterior). Medium smoothed finish (interior and exterior). Unknown fracture: the vessel is complete and so it cannot be seen. Large amount of soot inside, especially in the area opposite the central part of the belly suggesting it was laid on its side with the remains that were accumulated. Highly chipped on inside and outside. Restored: the colour may not be the original.

10

Monochrome clay, porous with fine temper, mainly mica, irregularly distributed. Reduction firing. Unknown finish. Remnants of soot on outside of rim.

11

Porous medium textures. Mica surface temper and quartz in fracture, medium calibre, abundant and irregular. Rough finish. Sandwich fracture: orange/black/orange.

Report from the Escola Superior de Conservación e Restauración de Bens Culturais de Galicia, 2011 Chao Alvárez & Álvarez Merayo, 2000: 58 Illustration: Calo Lourido & Sierra Rodríguez, 1983: fig. 10 Unpublished description.

Black

Fragment of a flat horizontal rim (I.1.) with rounded lip and 5 mm vertical flange, and very worn handle attachment point.

MD: 179 ND: 95 RW: 40 S: 6.3-8.3

Photo and description of decoration: López Cuevillas et al., 1930: 77, plate VII Unpublished drawing and description

Orange

Flat sub-vertical rim (I.4.), oval body with slight shoulders (II.3.) on which are two side handles, with a probably flat base (III.3.). Semi-circular handle with oval section for two fingers, starting at rim down to the bottom half of the vessel.

MD: 210 ND: ±182 H: 99 RW: 19 S: 5.8-8 C: ±2.000

Prieto, 2007

                                                                MD: mouth diameter; ND: neck diameter; H: height; RW: rim width; W: width; C: capacity.   Only refers to the existing technical and graphic information for the vessels. 

163

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

  VESSEL

CLAY/FIRING/FINISH

COLOUR

SHAPE

Black

Flat oblique rim (I.3.), slightly convex. Neck with flaring straight walls. Exterior transition with belly at right angles, and interior with sharp edge. Belly has curved carinated walls (II.4. ?). No remnants of base.

Black

Fragments of a nearly flat oblique rim (I.3.). Neck with flaring straight walls. Exterior transition with belly at right angles, and interior with sharp edge. Belly has curved carinated walls (II.4. ?). No remnants of base.

12

Fine porous textures. Mica temper on surface and in fracture, fine calibre, abundant and irregular. Medium burnished finish. Monochrome fracture.

13

Fine compact textures. Mica surface temper and quartz in fracture, fine calibre, abundant and irregular. Rough burnished finish. Monochrome fracture.

14

Medium compact textures. Mica surface temper and quartz in fracture, medium calibre, abundant and irregular. Medium burnished finish. Bichrome fracture: black/brown.

Black

15

Fine rugged textures. Mica surface temper and granite in fracture, fine calibre, abundant and irregular. Rough finish. Sandwich fracture: black/red/black.

Black

16

Fine compact texture. Small amount of mica temper on surfaces, virtually invisible in fracture, with regular distribution. Medium smoothed finish. Sandwich fracture: black/orange/black.

Dark brown

Concave horizontal rim (I.1.) with tapered lip, body in biconical shape with pronounced carination (II.4.), and probably flat base.

17

Relatively uncompact and uneven clay, with fine quartz and mica temper. Reduction firing, burnished surface.

Light brown

Oblique rim (I.3.) with rounded lip, spherical body (II.2.) and nearly flat, very open base (III.2.). Attachment point of side handle on upper three-quarters of the body. Perforation on belly made before firing.

Fragments of a slightly convex subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with strongly pronounced nearly straight flange. Neck with short diverging walls. Exterior transition with belly at right angles, and interior with sharp edge (II.4.?). No remnants of belly and base Fragments of a probably horizontal rim (I.1.). Neck with straight developed walls. Exterior transition with belly at right angles, and interior with sharp edge (II.4.?). Simple curved walls. No remnants of base.

18

Very smooth surfaces, but very worn

Brown

Horizontal concave rim (I.1.) with protruding lip, spherical body (II.2.) and curved oval base (III.1.).

19

Uniform clay, smoothed surfaces, stained and covered in soot.

Dark brown

Slightly concave oblique rim (I.3.) with round lip, oval body (II.1.) and flat base (III.2.).

Smoothed surfaces, covered in soot.

Dark brown

Flat horizontal rim (I.1.) ending with pronounced flange protruding towards the interior; oval body (II.1.) with ribbon handle starting slightly beneath the rim, and curved oval base (III.1.).

20

21

Fine clay but with large grain and well smoothed surfaces.

Brown

Slightly concave subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with protruding lip and scotia close to internal edge. Spherical body (II.2.) with curved, spherical base (III.4.).

22

Clay with large white grains and stained surfaces, well smoothed and covered in soot.

Brown

Nearly flat subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with slightly protruding lip, open oval body (II.1.) and curved oval base (III.1.).

23

Stained surfaces, well smoothed and covered on the outside and top of the inside surface with soot.

Brown

Subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with nearly straight protruding lip, open oval body (II.1.) and curved oval base (III.1.).

                                                                  MD: mouth diameter; ND: neck diameter; H: height; RW: rim width; W: width; C: capacity.   Only refers to the existing technical and graphic information for the vessels. 

164

MEASURE MENTS (mm/cm3)) MD: 150 ND: 110 H: ±90 RW: 22 S: 5.3-7.1 C: ±700 MD: 180 ND: 126 H: ±114 RW: 35 S: 5.6-8.4 C: ±1.500 MD: 178 ND: 129 H: ±114 RW: 35 S: 5.8-9.8 C: ±1.500 MD: 178 ND: 113 H: 117? S: 7.6-14.2 C: 1.200? MD: 205 ND: 138 H: 182? RW: 36 S: 5.2-11.4 C: 2800? MD: 147 ND: 106 H: 93 RW: 23 S: 4-14 C: 700 MD: 185 ND: 121 H: 109 RW: 36 S: 7.4-12 C: 1.000 MD: 151 ND: 114 H: 82 RW: 21 S: 5-7.7 C: 700 MD: 165 ND: 108 H: 87 RW: 26 S: 6-8 C: 500 MD: 180 ND: 124 H: 122 RW: 33 S: 6-10.3 C: 1.500 MD: 186 ND: 135 H: 99.8 RW: 29 S: 8.8-10.8 C: 900 MD: 40 ND: 110 H: 89.7 RW: 19 S: 6.7-8.6 C: 600

REFERENCES

Unpublished

Eguileta Franco, 1987:40, fig. 10 (32) Fuente Andrés, 1988: 237

Soeiro, 1988: 3839, fig. VI (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VII (3)

Soeiro, 1988: 38, fig. V (2)

Soeiro, 1988: 38, fig. V (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VII (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VII (2)

SUMMARY 

CLAY/FIRING/FINISH

VESSEL

COLOUR

SHAPE

24

Well-smoothed surfaces, outside covered in soot.

Brown

Flat oblique rim (I.4.), oval body (II.1.) and flat base (III.3.) starting with a pronounced transition point from the belly.

25

Uniform sandy clay, with surfaces covered in soot.

Dark brown

Small sub-vertical rim (I.4.), closed oval body (II.1.) and curved base (III.1.).

26

Surfaces covered in soot

Brown

Small, flat horizontal rim (I.1.), oval body (II.1.), and curved base (III.1.).

27

Smoothed surfaces, stained from firing and covered in soot.

Brown

Very irregular profile with rough sub-horizontal rim (I.2.), vertical handle at midway point, oval body (II.1.), and nearly flat base (III.2.).

28

Stained and blackened surfaces, covered in soot.

Brown

Fine, flat oblique rim (I.3.), oval body with very slight shoulder on top (II.3.), and flat base (III.2.).

29

Smoothed surfaces.

Brown

Concave sub-vertical rim (I.2.) with chamfer on inner edge, oval body (II.1.) and curved base (III.1.).

30

Smoothed surfaces.

Brown

31

Clay with large grains and smoothed surfaces, both covered in soot.

Brown

32

Sandy clay, smoothed surfaces, covered in soot.

No data

33

Uniform sandy clay with well-smoothed surfaces, both covered in soot.

Dark grey, nearly black

Rim with elaborate, sub-horizontal profile (I.2.), slightly convex as it ends with a lip that protrudes outwards; oval body (II.1.) and flat base (III.2.).

34

No data

No data

Subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with rounded lip, oval body (II.1.) where there is no handle, and curved base (III.1.).

35

Projecting tempers and surfaces with black stains

Brown

Concave horizontal rim (I.1.) with handle starting beneath it.

Flat/slightly concave sub-vertical rim (I.4.), closed spherical body (II.2.) and small flat base (III.2.).

Convex oblique rim (I.3.) with split handle starting beneath it, oval body with slight shoulder (II.3.) and slightly curved spherical base (III.4.). Slightly concave oblique rim (I.3.), with handle starting beneath it, oval body (II.1.) and curved base (III.1.).

 MD: mouth diameter; ND: neck diameter; H: height; RW: rim width; W: width; C: capacity.   Only refers to the existing technical and graphic information for the vessels. 

165

MEASURE MENTS (mm/cm3)) MD: 164 ND: 125 H: 110 RW: 24 S: 7-11.2 C: 1.200 MD: 124 ND: 102 H: 84 RW: 12 S: 7.2-11.7 C: 400 ND: 131 H: 91 RW: 17 S: 8.2-11.5 C: 800 MD: 114 ND: 84 H: 76 RW: 24 S: 8-11.3 C: 300 MD: 188 ND: 135 H: 108 RW: 28 S: 6.4-11 C: 1.300 MD: 144 ND: 108 H: 91 RW: 19 S: 6-9.2 C: 600 MD: 118 ND: 90 H: 84.4 RW: 18 S: 6.5-9 C: 400 MD: 142 ND: 96 H: 83.5 RW: 27 S: 6.2-7.5 C: 500 MD: 148 ND: 102 H: 96 RW: 28 S: 7.8-11.2 C: 600 MD: 155 ND: 124 H: 82 RW: 17 S: 5-7.7 C: 700 ND: 99 H: 81.7 RW: 26 S: 7.2-8 C: 300 MD: 151 ND: 87 H: 61.5? RW: 33 S: 7.5-10

REFERENCES

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. IX (2)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VIII (4)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VIII (3)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VIII (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. IX (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. VIII (2)

Soeiro, 1988: 39, fig. IX (3)

Soeiro, 1988: 36, fig. III (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 36, fig. III (2)

Soeiro, 1988: 36, fig. IV (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 37, fig. II (1)

Soeiro, 1988: 36, fig. II (2)

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

CLAY/FIRING/FINISH

VESSEL

36

Clay with large grains and irregular fabric.

COLOUR

Chestnut

SHAPE

Convex subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with thick lip, oval body (II.1.) and curved base (III.1.).

37

Smoothed surfaces.

Brown

Very elaborate profile. Flat horizontal rim (I.1.) ending with a very pronounced curved flange towards the interior; biconical body with carination on midline (II.4.), vertical handle, and nearly flat base (III.2.). The belly has an orifice that was made before firing.

38

Fine clay with fine calibre mica temper. Smoothed surfaces with black stains on exterior (soot?)

Brown

Sub-vertical rim (I.4.), spherical body (II.2.) with wide handle starting from the rim, and flat irregular base starting from a gentle transition point from the belly (III.2.).

39

No data

No data

Oblique rim (I.3.), oval body (II.1.) with side handle starting from bottom of neck, and curved, spherical base (III. 4.). Flat oblique rim (I.3.) with two small side handles starting beneath it, on an oval body (II.1.) with curved base, open and spherical (III.4.).

40

Clay with quartz temper, with signs of polishing.

Brown on surface and black in fractures

41

Clay with quartz temper, with signs of polishing .

Brown on surface and black in fractures

Small sub-vertical rim (I.4.), oval body (II.1.) with side handle, small, narrow neck, and curved oval base (III.1.).

42

Rough clays with mica temper. Nearly all have a black crust (soot) on the inside and outside, on the part opposite the handle.

Ochre

Flat horizontal rims (I.1.) with slight ridge on edge, except on vessel no. 2. Vessels 4 and 5 have a ridge around the edge and profile of the mouth. Oval body (II.1.) and curved base (III.1.). Six of the vessels have handles that start from the body.

42

43

No data

No data

44

No data

No data

45

Clay with some grains, well fired, with smoothed surfaces covered in soot.

Brown

MEASURE MENTS (mm/cm3)) MD: 173 ND: 121 H: 97 RW: 26 S: 11.3-13 C: 700 MD: 185 ND: 122 H: 123 RW: 39 S: 7.9-9.7 C: 1.200 MD: 115 ND: 82 H: 90 RW: 22 S: 4-6.5 C: 400 MD: 145 ND: 104 H: 112 RW: 22 MD: 226 ND: 179 H: 160 RW: 22 S: 4.2-7.1 C: 4.400 MD: 184 ND: 175 H: 150 RW: 8.5 S: 4.2-6.5 C: 2.800 Vessel 6 MD: 215 ND: 125 H: 110 RW: 45 S: 5 Vessel 7 MD: 145 ND: 85 H: 90 RW: 30 S: 6 Vessel 8 MD: 165 ND: 105 H: 85 RW: 30 S: 5

MEASUREMENTS Vessel 1- MD: 190; ND: 120; H: 90; RW: 35; S: 7. Vessel 2- MD: 155; ND: 95; H: 90; RW: 30; S: 7. Vessel 3- MD: 140; ND: 90; H: 70; RW: 25; S: 6. Vessel 4- MD: 140; ND: 90; H: 65; RW: 25; S: 6. Vessel 5- MD: 225; ND: 145; H: 110; RW: 40; S: 7 The only vessels that have been published to date seem to have slightly inclined, horizontal or sub-horizontal rims, oval bodies and curved or nearly flat bases. Flat horizontal rim (I.1.), oval body (II.1.) open with curved, spherical base (III.4.). Flat horizontal rim (I.1.) ending with pronounced flange, oval body (II.1.) and slightly flat base (III.2.). Vertical handle beneath rim, and orifice on bottom part.

 MD: mouth diameter; ND: neck diameter; H: height; RW: rim width; W: width; C: capacity.   Only refers to the existing technical and graphic information for the vessels. 

166

REFERENCES

Soeiro, 1988: 36, fig. II (3)

Soeiro, 1988: 43, fig. XII

Parga Pondal, 1955: 406-407 Own illustration and description Almeida Fernandes, fig. 5

& 2007:

López Cuevillas & Lourenzo Fernández, 1930: 18 Suárez Otero, 2002: fig. 7 López Cuevillas & Lourenzo Fernández, 1930: 19 Suárez Otero, 2002: fig. 7

Cardozo, 76-78

Sampaio et 2008: fig. 9

1936:

al.,

Silva, 1993: fig. 2 (11) MD: 172 ND: 113 H: 150 RW: 33 S: 5.1-9 C: 700

Soeiro, 1988: 44, fig. XIV (1)

SUMMARY 

    CLAY/FIRING/FINISH

COLOUR

Compact uniform texture, with tempers with grains of quartz, feldspar and mica in a smaller amount, in small and medium calibres. Smoothed surfaces. Signs of fire on surface of rims.

Mainly brown, some grey

VESSEL

46-51

SHAPE

Horizontal or subhorizontal rims (I.1., I.2.), mainly flat, although in some cases they are slightly concave or.

MEASUREMENTS Vessel 46- DB 166; ND: 224; RW: 32. Vessel 47- MD: 188; RW: 27. Vessel 48- MD: 159; RW: 24. Vessel 49- MD: 166; ND: 123; RW: 24 Oblique rim (I.3.), barely insinuated neck and probably spherical body (II.2. ?). Small handle (not conserved), which based on the impressions on the body was positioned between the upper part of the body and the edge of the rim.

52

Refined clay with plenty of mica temper. Finely smoothed, even surfaces

53

Compact texture, plenty of irregularly distributed medium sized mica temper. Monochrome clay with reduction firing and rough finish.

Black

Oblique rim (I.3.), tending towards sub-vertical, with rounded lip, very narrow concave neck; oval body (II.1.) with simply curved walls, and probably flat base (III.3.?). Handles positioned on central part of belly.

54

No data

No data

Subhorizontal rim (I.2.), slightly concave.

Fine compact textures. Fine surface temper, sparse and irregular. Medium burnished finish. Sandwich fracture, brown/black/brown.

Light brown

Very wide, flat oblique rim (I.3.), very small, narrow concave neck. Right-angled belly with compound walls, carinated (II.4.). No remnants of base.

Fine compact textures Medium burnished finish Sandwich fracture, brown/black/brown.

Dark brown

Probably oblique rim (I.3.?), very narrow concave neck. Right angle transition with belly. No remnants of belly and base.

55

56

57-64

Rough and medium texture sandy clays, with smoothed finishes and signs of soot on the rim.

No data

Dark brown black (only 1 vessel)

Horizontal or sub-horizontal rims (I.1., I.2.) mainly flat, concave or even slightly convex, with apparently oval bellies (II.1.).

MEASURE MENTS (mm/cm3)) Vessel 50 MD: 143 ND: 109 RW: 25 Vessel 51 MD: 156 RW: 25

MD: 144 ND: 100 RW: 24,5 S: 7,1-8,1 MD: 143 ND: 128 H: 90 RW: 10 S: 4.4-7.8 C: 800 MD: 198 ND: 160 RW: 23 MD: 310 ND: 230 RW: 61 H: ±140 S: 5.3-13.5 C: 3.9505.200 ND: 210 S: 7,5 Vessel 62 MD: 170 RW: 32 Vessel 63 MD: 209 RW: 23 Vessel 64 ND: 220 RW: 26

REFERENCES

Jorge, 1988: 2731, 34-38, fig. 36 (1-2) & 39 (1-4)

Suárez Otero, 2002: 97, fig. 5 (1)

Lima Oliveira & Prieto Martínez, 2002: 45-55, fig. 32 Soeiro, 1988: 44, fig. XIV (2)

Irujo Prieto 2005

Ruiz & Martínez,

Unpublished

Bettencourt, 2000

MEASUREMENTS Vessel 57- MD: 128; ND: 75; RW: 34. Vessel 58- ND: 129; RW: 24; Vessel 59- ND: 83; RW: 29. Vessel 60- MD: 136; ND: 81; RW: 32. Vessel 61- MD: 180; RW: 31 MD: 140 ND: 101 H: ±140 RW: 22 S: 5.1-8.4 C: 600 MD: 160 ND: 97 H: 88 RW: 33 S: 10-20 C: 500

65

No data

Dark brown

Oblique rim (I.3.) slightly convex with enhanced lip. Oval body with shoulders (II.3.), short curved neck and curved, spherical base (III.4.).

66

Clay with large white grains, mica, and surfaces stained by firing and covered in soot

Brown

Thick flat subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with rounded lip. Spherical body (II.2.) with handle beneath it, and curved oval base (III.1.).

Brown

Very elaborate profile. Flat oblique rim (I.3.) with a strongly pronounced, nearly straight flange, strongly carinated biconical body, (II.4.) and handle that starts just beneath the rim. Base is missing.

MD: 169 ND: 115 RW: 35 S: 6.2-11.5

Soeiro, 1988: 4445, fig. XV

Light brown

Flat, oblique rim (I.3.), spherical body (II.2.) and very flat base (III.3.). Vertical side handle inserted in belly beneath the rim at the height of the lugs, with sub-cylindrical section.

MD: 100 ND: 66 H: 82 RW: 15 S: 6,5-11 C: 300

Sanches, 1982: 5758, fig. 2 (A)

67

Hard, very smooth clay

68

Compact texture clay with very fine mica and quartz tempers (mainly mica). Smoothed surfaces. Two enormous black stains on the walls.

                                                              MD: mouth diameter; ND: neck diameter; H: height; RW: rim width; W: width; C: capacity.   Only refers to the existing technical and graphic information for the vessels. 

167

Suárez Otero, 2002: fig. 11

Soeiro, 1988: 44, fig. XIII (2)

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

  CLAY/FIRING/FINISH

VESSEL

COLOUR

SHAPE

69

Clay with fine compact texture, with abundant mica and feldspar tempers, regularly distributed. Medium smoothed finish. Black monochrome fracture. Black stains (remnants of soot?) on interior.

Dark brown

Frieze type sub-horizontal lip, sub-horizontal flared rim (I.2.), short, narrow neck, compound body with insinuated carination, (II.4.) and curved oval base (III.1.). Square ribbon handle.

70

Fine porous texture clay with irregularly distributed micra temper. Very worn surface. Rough finish. Sandwich fracture in black/black-brown

Light brown

Subhorizontal rim (I.2.) with tapered lip.

71

Medium compact texture clay with large amounts of fine, regularly distributed mica temper. Medium smoothed finish on exterior, rough finish on interior. Black fracture. Remnants of soot in the bottom.

Dark brown

Horizontal rim (I.1.) with flat lip. Biconical body with carination (II.4.) in middle part, with high, straight neck, and a flat handle with semicircular section. Curved base, tapered oval (III.1.).

72

Uniform clay with medium/fine size quartz temper. Smoothed surfaces and reduction firing.

Brown with darker patches

Thickened, concave oblique rim (I.3.) spherical body (II.2.) with side ribbon handle beneath rim; curved base (III.4.).

73

No data

No data

Nearly flat subhorizontal rim (I.2.), probably oval body (II.1. ?).

74

Clay with protruding grains

Brown

Flat subhorizontal rim (I.2.), nearly cylindrical oval body (II.1.) no handle, flat base (III.3.)

75

Medium compact textures. Mainly mica temper on the surface (largest size 3mm) and quartz, abundant and irregularly distributed. Medium smoothed finish (interior and exterior). Sandwich fracture: dark brown/black/dark brown. Soot covering large part of its inner surface

Irregular dark brown

76

Medium compact textures. Mainly mica and feldspar temper on surface, abundant and irregularly distributed (surface and fracture). Medium smoothed finish (interior and exterior). Fracture in red monochrome. No soot inside. Burn remnants on exterior, and around the handle. Large number of chips on the base.

Dark reddish brown inside and red on outside

Rounded lip with vertical strip. Sharp edged, flared rim with oblique orientation (I.3.). Short, very narrow neck. Right-angled transition with belly. Body with simple, oval walls (II.1.). Flat base with gradual transition on inside and outside to belly (III.2.). Handle for 2 fingers, bridge shaped with ribbon section. Flat lip. Flared, rough edged rim, with oblique orientation (I.3.). No neck. Right-angled transition with belly in interior. Hemispherical belly with simple walls (II.2.). Convex base (III.1.). Handle for 1 finger, bridge-shaped with oval section.

Table 1. Description of the vessels included in the catalogue.

                                                              MD: mouth diameter; ND: neck diameter; H: height; RW: rim width; W: width; C: capacity.   Only refers to the existing technical and graphic information for the vessels. 

168

MEASURE MENTS (mm/cm3)) MD: 170 ND: 104 H: 104 RW: 30 S: 4,5-6,2 C: 1000 MD: 218 ND: 141 H: 82 RW: 38,5 ND: 118 H: 103 RW: 38 S: 6,2-6,9 C: 700 ND: 94 H: 97 RW: 34 S: 7 MD: 180 ND: 121 RW: 33 S: 5,6-9,1 MD: 167 ND: 126 H: 87 RW: 22 S: 5,6-9 C: 700 MD: 310 ND: 226 H: 178 RW: 38 S: 6,1-9,6 C: 6400 MD: 141 ND: 97 H: 102 RW: 20 S: 5-9,3 C: 700

REFERENCES

Unpublished

File from Museum of A Coruña, no. 1130 Soeiro, 1988: fig. XI (3)

Soeiro, 1988: fig. XI (4)

Unpublished

SUMMARY 

 

IN RELATION TO THE CONTEXTS

IN RELATION TO THE DIMENSIONS & CAPACITIES

IN RELATION TO THE PROFILES

MAIN (PRIMARY) FEATURES Simply shaped bodies: oval, sometimes with a pronounced shape due to having shoulders on their upper parts; or spherical. Bodies without handles, or with a side handle starting just beneath the rim. Curved or slightly tapered oval base, or spherical. Horizontal, oblique or sub-horizontal rims. Presence of flanges systematically associated with horizontal or subhorizontal rims. Rim widths between 17-36 mm, with recurrent measurements of between 22 and 26 mm. Neck diameter between 75-129 mm. Height of between 82-114 mm, although most frequently between 82-92 mm. Capacity of between 300-800 cm3, although most frequently between 600-800 cm3. Domestic: mainly horizontal rims. Widths mainly between 22-26 mm. Cists: mainly sub-horizontal rims. Widths mainly between 17-21 mm. Tumuli: mainly oblique rims in tumuli. Widths mainly between 32-36 mm.

SIGNIFICANT (SECONDARY) FEATURES

Compound shaped body with carination or suggested carination, on the middle or top of the vessel. Flat or nearly flat bases starting with a gentle transition point from the body.

Wide rims: between 37-41 mm. Neck diameter between 130-140 mm & 174-184 mm. Height of between 60-70 mm & 115125 mm. Capacity of between 900 and 1600 cm3.

Sub-vertical rims are the minority in all contexts, and between 07 - 26 mm.

ISOLATED/DISTINCTIVE (TERTIARY) FEATURES Biconical bodies with very pronounced carination. Bodies with double handles. Handles that start directly from the rim. Flat bases starting from a pronounced transition point from the body. Sub-vertical rims

Wide rims: between 07-16 mm, 42-46 mm or 57-61 mm. Sub-vertical rims have the smallest widths. Neck diameter between 64-74 mm, 141162 mm & 207-239 mm. Height of between 71-81 mm, 137-169 mm, & 170-180 mm. Varying capacity of between 2000-2200 cm3, 2600-2800 cm3, 4400-4600 cm3 and 6200-6400 cm3.

Domestic: sub-vertical rims absent.

Pits: mainly horizontal rims? Widths frequently between 22-26 mm.

Table 3: Summary of features of vessels studied.

169

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

VESSEL 1 2 3

5

6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20

MOTIFS Rim: metope decoration with alternating horizontal and vertical lines, and one horizontal line beneath which is a series of small oblique lines. Carinated section: two horizontal lines. Base: two parallel horizontal lines. Incised motif made using a comb, organised into groups of parallel lines in a metope distribution on the rim, and incisions on the lip. Wide grooves and finely incised line marking the start of the tongue. 5 incised parallel lines on the rim (using a comb), which join on the inner raised section via a series of short parallel lines perpendicular to them. On the upper third of the belly, the decorative elements are organised horizontally: a series of 3 printed circular marks using a toothed instrument (a comb or a shell), delimiting a series of concentric semicircles (4 in each) which seem to be incised, although they may be from a stamping die (the restoration process has made it impossible to identify the decorative technique). Beneath the semi-circles are another two parallel lines printed using the same technique as the others, and more semi-circles. These have an outer diameter of approximately 5 mm. A series of stamped concentric circles on the rim and at least 6 incised parallel lines using a fine tooth-comb where the rim joins the belly. 2 grooved lines close to the edges of the rim on the most visible interior part, which act as decoration and emphasise the shape of the rim. 2 grooved lines (2 mm wide) close to the edges of the rim on their most visible interior part, which act as decoration and emphasise the shape of the rim. Rim: border with 7 incised lines made using a comb, and a stamped row of concentric circles. Outside of neck: metope design with horizontal groove, beneath which a series of small continuous triangles are printed using comb teeth. Beneath these is a stamped horizontal line of concentric circles, delimited by 5 incised vertical lines. Horizontal and parallel lines on the inner part of the rim. Horizontal and parallel lines on the inner part of the rim. 2 decorative elements: incised horizontal and parallel lines, and a row of simple stamped circles on the inside of the rim. 2 decorative elements: an incised horizontal line, and a row of simple stamped circles on the inside of the rim. Printed decoration made using unidentified instruments covering the rim and the upper half of the body, as far as the carinated section. Very faint burnished metope Slightly burnished herringbone. Groups of wide grooves in opposite positions, forming metopes on the rim.

DECORATE D PARTS

TECHNIQUE

Rim, body, base

Incision

Rim

Incision

Rim

Grooving, incision

Rim, body

Combing, printing, stamping

Rim, body

Incision, stamping

Rim

Grooving

Rim

Grooving

Rim, body Rim Rim Rim Rim Rim, body

Printing

Rim Rim

Burnishing Burnishing

Rim

Incision

Rim

Incision

40

Shallow but wide incised decoration with oblique and parallel lines forming metopes delimiting spaces occupied by incisions, with an ungulated appearance, distributed in parallel rows perpendicular to the lip or in herringbone patterns. The scotia also has varying groups of similar incisions. Fine, deeply incised decoration in metopes, with a continuous progression of vertical lines/herringbone lines/horizontal lines. Deep incisions using double herringbone designs. Metope decoration on the rim consisting of irregular groups of burnished circles Decoration on the rim using parallel burnished lines between incised herringbones flanking the edges of the rim. Rim decorated with slightly burnished grooves. Rim with deeply incised grooves in a simple metope composition. Four strips on the rim delimited by incised grooves, two of which alternate and are decorated with similar motifs, also used on the back of the handle in a metope composition. On the top of the vessel, three printed rows of oblique lines, apparently made using a comb. Rim decorated with a printed line and 4 incised lines (?) Decoration on upper half of body with oblique lines and lugs. Wide acacia leaf motifs, lightly printed on the rim.

42

Vessels 1, 4, 6 & 7 have mainly incised decoration on the rim.

Rim

44 45

Herringbone incisions along the rim. Incisions on the lip, followed by a metope composition of incisions between grooves and lines. Vessel 46: Short spatulated herringbone designs Vessel 48: Spatulated herringbone design Vessel 49: Short, fine incisions creating a horizontal herringbone sequence Vessel 50: Vertical spatulated designs alternating with horizontal designs in a metope sequence Vessel 51: Vertical prints creating two lines running parallel to the rim in a horizontal sequence. Two lines of wide incisions Complex Penha-type decoration. Mainly combing technique, with some punch marks. 4 decorative elements: wavy lines, horizontal lines, vertical lines in metopes and continuous vertical lines. Partial location on inside of rim and upper third of exterior. Simple Penha-type decoration. Combing technique. One decorative element: straight horizontal lines. Partial location on inside of rim and upper third of exterior.

Rim Rim

21 22 23 31 32 34 35 37 39

46-51 54 55 56

59-64

Incisions, prints or burnishing, sometimes organised in metopes (vertical lines alternating with horizontal lines), incised horizontal and parallel lines (57), or printed acacia leaf motifs (63).

170

Combing, stamping, printing Incision Combing Combing, stamping Combing, stamping

Rim

Incision

Rim Rim

Incision Burnishing Incision, burnishing Burnishing Incision

Rim Rim Rim Rim, body, handle Rim, body Rim

Rim Rim Rim, body

Incision, printing Moulding, combing, printing Printing *Incision, printing, moulding Incision Incision 46: Spatulated 48: Spatulated 49: Incision 50: Spatulated 51: Printing Incision Combing, moulding, printing

Rim

Combing

Rim

59: Burnishing 60: Incision, printing 61: Combing 62: Combing, printing 63: Incision, printing 64: Burnishing, printing

SUMMARY 

  VESSEL 66

MOTIFS

DECORATE D PARTS

TECHNIQUE

Rim

Incision, burnishing

Irregular burnished design arranged in a metope and delimited by two grooves.

Finely incised lines on the rim. The top of the vessel and base of the handle has rows of incisions Rim, body Incision, stamping (combed) alternating with simple circular stampings. Line of lugs at the height of the handle Body Moulding 68 11 incised combed lines inside the rim, followed by 1 printed line made using a punch with an ovalshaped tip. Combing, 5 printed strips on the top of the belly, consisting of 3 horizontal lines made with a toothed Rim, body 69 printing, stamping instrument (shell?), 1 line with double stamped circles, 2 horizontal lines, 1 row of double circles, and 3 horizontal lines. The handle has printed horizontal lines (7 counted on the remaining piece). Combed incised border on the rim, with 10 horizontal lines on the outside and 4 on the inside, Rim Combing 70 delimiting 4 wavy lines Horizontal border on the rim and upper half of the body. On the inside of the rim, grooving delimiting a complex printed decoration, organised in the following way: 1 printed horizontal line, 1 Rim, body, Grooving, printing strip of printed oblique lines and 2 printed lines. On the body, 3 horizontal printed lines delimiting 71 handle (white clay) the top and bottom of a series of triangles delimited by oblique lines, filled in with 6 oblique lines. Handle decorated with 22 printed lines. White clay encrusted in the recesses in the decoration. Rim decorated with transverse combed print ending in a ribbon with herringbone decoration Rim Printing 72 delimiting the internal diameter Three printed lines forming acacia leaf motifs. Rim Printing 73 * We cannot be certain that these three techniques are combined on the same vessel, as we were unable to directly verify these vessels from Faísca. 67

Table 6. Description of the motifs and decorative techniques VESSEL 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 31 32 34 35 37 39 40 42 42-1 42-2 42-3 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 54 55 56 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 67 69 70 71 72 73

PARALLEL LINES X X X X ? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? X X X X X X X

PERPENDICULAR LINES X X

OBLIQUE LINES X

WAVY LINES

ACACIA LEAVES

THORNS

SEMICIRCLES

CIRCLES

CORD

LUGS

PLAITS

METOPE X X

X X

X

X X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X

X ? X

X

X X X X X

X

X ?

X ? X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X X

X X X

X X

Table 7. Decorative elements and motifs documented on the rims

171

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

VE SS EL

1 5 6 10 15 16 37 39 55 56 67 68 69 71

PARALLEL LINES

X X X X X X X X X X X

PERPENDICULAR LINES

OBLIQUE LINES

WAVY LINES

ACACIA LEAVES

THORN S

SEMICIRCLES

CIRCLES

CORD

LUGS

PLAITS

X

? X

X X

X X

X

X

X X X X

X

METOPE

X X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

Table 8. Decorative elements and motifs documented on the bodies (see Figure 8) Types of decorative designs D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

Level of complexity of the decoration Simple Simple Complex Complex Highly complex Highly complex

Decorative structure

No. of vessels

%

Horizontal bands Metopes Horizontal bands Metopes Horizontal bands Metopes

15 1 12 11 6 6

29.41% 1.96% 23.53% 21.57% 11.76% 11. 76%

Table 10. List of types of decorative designs according to their complexity and structure

Technique no. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17

Decorative technique

Vessel code

Grooving Grooving+ incision Grooving+printing+white clay Incision Incision+stamping Incision+burnishing Incision+printing Combing Combing+stamping Combing+printing Combing+stamping+printing Moulding Moulding+combing+printing Printing Burnishing Burnishing+printing Spatulated

07, 08 03 71 01, 02, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35, 44, 45, 49, 54 06, 67 32, 66 37, 42, 60, 63 13, 56, 61, 70 14,15 62 10,69, 05 68 39, 55 16, 40, 51, 72, 73 18, 19, 31, 34, 59 64 46, 48, 50

Table 11. Combinations and numbers of decorative techniques124

124 This table does not include the combination of the three techniques of incision, printing and moulding, as this only applies to one of the vessels from the Faísca site. However, we were not able to directly observe these vessels to verify this.

172

SUMMARY 

 

VESSEL

DECORATIVE ELEMENTS ON THE RIM

DECORATIVE ELEMENTS ON THE BODY

TYPE OF DESIGN125

DESIGN NO.

02

Parallel horizontal and vertical lines

-

C/M

D1

Incision

T4

Parallel horizontal and vertical lines

Parallel horizontal lines and semicircles

HC/HB

D5

-

S/HB -

D1 -

-

S/M

D2

Burnishing

T15

-

C/HB

D3

Burnishing

T15

-

C/M

D4

Incision

T4

-

HC/M

D6

Incision

T4

-

HC/M

D6

Incision

T4

-

C/HB

D3

Incision

T4

26

Horizontal lines Slightly curved parallel vertical and oblique lines Oblique parallel lines (herringbone) Parallel horizontal and vertical lines Parallel horizontal, vertical, oblique lines (herringbone) Parallel horizontal, vertical, oblique lines (herringbone) Oblique parallel lines (herringbone) -

-

-

-

-

-

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

C/M

D4

Burnishing

T15

-

C/HB

D3

33

Parallel horizontal and vertical lines Parallel vertical and oblique lines (herringbone) -

-

-

-

Burnishing, incision -

34

Parallel vertical lines

-

S/HB

D1

Burnishing

T15

36

-

-

-

-

39

-

C/M

D4

T13

-

HC/M

D6

Combing, moulding, printing Incision, printing (?)

-

Parallel horizontal and oblique lines, and lugs

-

C/HB

D3

Incision

T4

08 09 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

GROUP I

TECH. NO.

Combing, stamping printing Grooving -

05

31 32

42 44 45 57 59

Parallel horizontal and vertical oblique lines Oblique parallel lines (herringbone) Parallel horizontal and vertical lines Parallel horizontal and vertical lines

T11 T1 -

T6 -

T7

-

HC/HB

D5

Incision

T4

-

-

-

-

-

-

C/M

D4

Burnishing

T15

Incision, printing Burnishing, incision

60

Parallel horizontal lines

-

S/HB

D1

65

Parallel, horizontal and vertical oblique lines Parallel vertical lines and herringbone -

-

-

-

-

C/M

D4

-

C/HB

D3

Printing

T14

-

-

-

-

-

66 72 74

Table 12.

                                                             125

TECHNIQUE

S: simple; C: complex; HC: highly complex; M: metopes; HB: horizontal bands.

173

T7 T6

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

VESSEL

GROUP II IIIA

DESIGN NO.

TECHNIQUE

TECH. NO.

Horizontal and oblique lines (?)

HC/M

D6

Incision

T4

-

S/HB

D1

Grooving

T1

12

Parallel horizontal lines

?

S/HB

D1

Incision

T4

13

Parallel horizontal lines Horizontal parallel lines and concentric circles Horizontal parallel lines and concentric circles Vertical lines and “plaits” Horizontal and parallel lines, and oblique lines

?

S/HB

D1

T8

?

S/HB

D1

Horizontal lines and concentric circles Parallel oblique lines Slightly twisted horizontal and parallel lines, and oblique lines

C/HB

D3

HC/HB

D5

HC/HB

D5

67

Parallel horizontal lines

Horizontal lines and simple circles

HC/HB

D5

69

Parallel horizontal and vertical lines

Parallel horizontal lines and concentric circles

HC/HB

D5

71

Parallel horizontal and oblique lines

Oblique and horizontal lines forming triangles

HC/HB

D5

Combing Combing, stamping Combing, stamping Printing Incision, printing Incision, stamping Combing, stamping printing Grooving, printing, white clay

11 24 30 38

-

-

25

-

-

41

-

-

11 40 53

Acacia leaves -

-

C/HB

D3

55

Horizontal, vertical, wavy lines

Horizontal, vertical, wavy lines

C/M

D4

56 68

-

Lugs

S/HB S/HB

D1 D1

15 16 37

IIIB

TYPE OF DESIGN126

4 7

14

IIIC

DECORATIVE ELEMENTS ON THE BODY

Horizontal, vertical, parallel and oblique lines Parallel horizontal lines

1

IV

DECORATIVE ELEMENTS ON THE RIM

Printing

Combing, moulding, printing Combing Moulding

T9 T9 T14 T7 T5 T11 T3

T14

T13 T8 T12

Table 12. List of morphological groups in the catalogue indicating the elements and decorative techniques, and how they are organised on the vessels.

126

S: simple; C: complex; HC: highly complex; M: metopes; HB: horizontal bands.

174

SUMMARY 

SELECTED FIGURES TRASLATED IN ENGLISH (Figures: 16, 17, 29, 38)

.

175

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

.

176

SUMMARY 

.

177

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

Figure 38. The WHR vessel as a marker of the cultural identity of the northwest Iberian Peninsula

178

BIBLIOGRAFĺA

ABAD GALLEGO, X. C. (1995): “Un ejemplo de readaptaciones constructivas en un enterramiento tumular: Cotogrande nº 5”, Minius 4, Universidade de Vigo, pp. 13-30.

ATAÍDE, A; TEIXEIRA, C. (1940): “A necrópole e o esqueleto de S. Paio de Antas e o problema dos vasos de largo bordo horizontal”, Congresso do Mundo Português, 1, pp. 669-683.

ABARQUERO MORAS, F. J. (2005): Cogotas I. La difusión de un tipo cerámico durante la Edad del Bronce, Arqueología en Castilla y León Monografías 4, Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Cultura y Turismo, Valladolid.

BELKAȈD, N.; GUERRAOUI, Z. (2003): “La transmission culturelle. Le regard de la psychologie interculturelle”. EMPAN, 51, pp. 124-128. BETTENCOURT, A. M. S. (1991-1992): “O povoado da Sola, Braga: noticia preliminar das escavações de 1991-92”, Cadernos de Arqueologia, Série II, 8-9, Unidade de Arqueologia da Universidade do Minho, Braga, pp. 97-118.

ÅBERG, N. (1921): La civilisation énéolithique dans la Péninsule Ibérique, Uppsala. ABOAL FERNÁNDEZ, R.; AYÁN VILA, X.; PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M. P. (2002): Arqueología en la ACEGA 1: El yacimiento galaicorromano de Agro de Ouzande (Silleda, Pontevedra). CAPA 16. Santiago de Compostela.

(1997): “Expressões funerárias da Idade do Bronze no Noroeste peninsular” in Actas do II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular, 2, Zamora, 1996 (R. Balbín Berhmann y P. Bueno Ramírez coord.), Fundación Rei Afonso Henriques, Zamora, 621-632.

ALMEIDA, C. A. B. (1986): “Carta Arqueológica do Concelho de Esposende”, Boletim Cultural de Esposende, 9-10, Esposende, pp. 39-59.

(2000): O povoado da Idade do Bronze da Sola, Braga, Norte de Portugal, Cadernos de Arqueologia, Monografías, 9, Unidade de Arqueologia da Universidade do Minho, Braga.

(1989): “Carta Arqueológica do Concelho de Esposende”, Boletim Cultural de Esposende, 15-16, Esposende, pp. 91-101. ALMEIDA, C. A. F. (1974): “Cerâmica castreja”, Revista de Guimarães, 84 (1-4), Guimarães, pp. 171-197.

(2001): O povoado da Santinha, Amares, Norte de Portugal, nos finais da Idade do Bronze. Cadernos de Arqueologia, Monografias, 12. Universidade do Minho.

ALMEIDA, P. B.; FERNANDES, F. (2007): “A escavação arqueológica no Povoado das CimalhasFelgueiras”, Oppidum, 2, Câmara Municipal de Lousada, pp. 115-123.

(2009): “A Pre-História do Minho. Do Neolítico a Idade do Bronze”, in Pereira, P. (coord.): Minho. Traços de Identidade, Braga, Ed. Conselho Cultural da Universidade do Minho, pp. 70-113.

(2008): “O Povoado da Idade do Bronze da Cimalha”, Oppidum, nº especial, Câmara Municipal de Lousada, pp. 29-44.

(2010): La Edad del Bronce en el NO de la península Ibérica: un análisis a partir de las prácticas funerarias”, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 67 (1), pp. 139-173.

ALONSO, F.; BELLO, J.M. (1997): “Cronología y periodización del fenómeno megalítico en Galicia a la luz de las dataciones por Carbono 14” in O Neolítico Atlántico e as Orixes do Megalitismo (A. Rodríguez Casal, coord.), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

(2011): “Estruturas e Práticas funerárias do Bronze Inicial e Médio do Noroeste Peninsular” in P. Bueno, A. Gilman, C. Martín Morales, F. J. Sánchez Palencia (eds.): Arqueología, Sociedad, Territorio y Paisaje. Estudios sobre Prehistoria Reciente, Protohistoria y transición al mundo romano, en homenaje a Mª Dolores Fernández Posse, CSIC, Madrid, pp. 115-139.

AMARO, G. DE CARVALHO (2012): La cerámica con decoración acanalada y bruñida en el contexto precampaniforme del Calcolítico de la Extremadura portuguesa. Nuevos aportes a la comprensión del proceso de producción de cerámicas en la Prehistoria Reciente de Portugal. BAR S2348. Archaeopress. Oxford.

BETTENCOURT, A.M.S.; MEIJIDE CAMESELLE, G. (2009): “Agro de Nogueira, Melide, A Coruña: novos datos e novas problematicas”, Gallaecia, 28, pp. 3340. BETTENCOURT, A. M. S; DINIS, A.; SOUSA E SILVA, I.; CRUZ, C.; PEREIRA, A.; MARTINS, J. (2000-2001): “A estação arqueológica dos Penedos Grandes, Arcos de Valdevez (Norte de Portugal): noticia preliminar”, Portugalia Nova Série, 26-27, pp. 201-217.

AMBRUSTER, B.; PARREIRA, R. (1993): Inventário do Museu Nacional de Arqueologia. Colecçaõ de ourivesaria, 1º volume. Do Calcolítico à Idade do Bronze, Lisboa SEC/IPM.

179

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

BLAS CORTINA, de M.A. (2006): “La arquitectura como fin de un proceso: una revisión de la naturaleza de los túmulos perhistóricos sin cámaras convencionales en Asturias”, Zephirus, Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología, 59, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 233-255.

CASTRO PÉREZ, L. (1997): “Brazalete de bronce de Santo Tirso”, Santo Tirso Arqueológico, série II, 1, pp. 5-11. COBAS FERNÁNDEZ, I et PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M. P. (1998): “Regularidades espaciales en la cultura material: la ceramica de la Edad del Bronce y de la Edad del Hierro en Galicia”, Separata de Gallaecia, 17, pp. 151-175.

BOUZA-BREY, F. (1936): “Vaso tumular de Gendive”, Boletín de la Real Academia Gallega, 31 (nº 261), pp. 236-241.

COMENDADOR REY, B. (1997): Los inicios de la metalurgia en el noroeste de la península Ibérica. Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Área de Prehistoria, Dpto. de Historia I., p.413.

BRUN, P. (1991): « Le Bronze atlantique et ses subdivisions culturelles : essai de définition » in Le Bronze Atlantique. Ses faciès, de l’Ecosse à l’Andalousie et leurs relations avec le Bronze continental et la Méditerranée (dir. C. Chevillot, A. Coffyn), 1er colloque du Parc archéologique de Beynac, 10-14 sept. 1990, Association des musées de Sarladais, p.18.

COSTA, M. A. (1930): “Relatório da Secção de Arqueologia Pré-histórica 1929-1930”, Arqueologia e Histoira, 9, Lisboa, pp. 142-145.

(1998) : « Le complexe culturel atlantique : entre le cristal et la fumée » in Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico ? (dir. S.O. Jorge), Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 10, pp. 40-51.

CRIADO BOADO, F.; VÁZQUEZ VARELA (1982): La cerámica campaniforme en Galicia. Cuadernos do Seminario de Sargadelos, 42, Ediciós do Castro, Sada, 2ª edición, 1993.

CABREJAS DOMÍNGUEZ, E. (2003): Control arqueolóxico da urbanización do entorno da Praza da Constitución de Cuntis, Laboratorio de Patrimonio, Paleoambiente e Paisaxe, Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento, Memoria Técnica inédita depositada na Dirección Xeral do Patrimonio Cultural.

CRIADO BOADO, F.; VAQUERO LASTRES, J. (1993): “Monumentos, nudos en el pañuelo. Megalitos, nudos en el espacio”, Espacio, Tiempo, Forma, Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueología, t. 6, pp. 205-248. CRIADO BOADO, F., AMADO REINO, X., MARTÍNEZ LÓPEZ, M. C., COBAS FERNÁNDEZ, I. y PARCERO OUBIÑA, C. (2000): Programa de Corrección del Impacto Arqueológico de la Gasificación de Galicia. Un ejemplo de gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico. Complutum, 11, pp. 63-85.

CALO LOURIDO, F.; SIERRA RODRÍGUEZ, X. C. (1983): “As orixes do Castrexo no Bronce Final” in Estudos de Cultura Castrexa e de Historia Antigua de Galicia (G. Pereira Menaut coord.), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, pp. 19-85. CAMILLERI, C.; KASTERSZTEIN, J.; MARC LIPIANSKY, E.; MALEWSKA-PEYRE, H.; TABOADA-LEONETTI, I.; VASQUEZ, A. (1990): Stratégies identitaires. PUF, Presses Universitaires de France, Psychologie d’aujourd’hui.

CRUZ, D.J. (1992): A mámoa 1 de Cha de Carvalhal (Serra da Aboboreira). Conimbriga, Anexos 1. Instituto de Arqueología, Faculdade de Arqueología de Coimbra. (1998): “O grupo de tumuli da Casinha Derribada (Concelho de Viseu). Resultados preliminares da escavação arqueológica dos monumentos 3, 4 e 5”, Conimbriga, vol. XXXVII, Faculdade de Letras, Instituto de Arqueologia, Universidade de Coimbra, pp. 5-76.

CANO PAN, J. A. (1991): Las industrias líticas talladas en la costa de la Guardia a Baiona, Excma. Diputación Provincial de A Coruña, A Coruña. (1997): “La cadena operativa lítica en el yacimiento de Portecelo (O Rosal, Pontevedra)”, Gallaecia, 16, pp. 191-200.

CRUZ, D. J.; GONÇALVES, A. A. HUET B. (19981999): “A necrópole de –Agra de Antas- (S. Paio de Antas, Esposende, Braga)”, Portugalia Nova Série, vol. 19-20, Porto, pp. 5-27.

CARBALLO ARCEO, X.L. (1985): Carta arqueoloxica do Concello de Silleda. Trabajo inédito. CARDOZO, M. (1936): “Novas urnas de largo bordo horizontal. Um tipo regional da cerâmica primitiva”, Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia, 8 (1), Porto, pp. 65-87.

CHAO ÁLVAREZ, F. J.; ÁLVAREZ MERAYO, I. A. (2000): “A Madorra da Granxa: ¿O túmulo máis grande de Galicia”, Brigantium, vol. 12, Museu Arqueolóxico e Histórico Castelo de S. Antón, Concello de A Coruña, pp. 41-63.

CASTILLO, A. (1928): “Hallazgo de hachas de piedra pulimentada”, Boletín de la Real Academia Gallega, 17-18 (nº 205), pp. 30-32.

DELIBES DE CASTRO, G. y RODRÍGUEZ COLMENERO, A. (1971): “Una necrópolis de inhumación individual de la Edad del Bronce en

180

BIBLIOGRAFÍA 

  Villalmanzo (Burgos)”, Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología (BSAA), tomo 37, pp. 407-418.

(1905/1908b): “Vasos em forma de chapéu invertido (Villa do Conde)”, Portugalia, vol. 2, Porto, pp. 662665.

DENOUX, P. (1994): “Pour une définition de l'interculturation" in Perspectives de l'interculturel (dir. L. Blomart et B. Krewer), Paris, L'Harmattan, p. 78.

(1909): “Gaya no passado” in Mea villa de Gaya, Porto, pp. 9-28. FUENTE ANDRÉS, F. (1988): “El material cerámico”, in. Aproximaciones a la cultura material del megalitismo gallego: la industria lítica pulimentada y el material cerámico (R. Fábregas Valcarce y F. de la Fuente Andrés coord.), Arqueohistórica nº 2, Serie de Monografías de Prehistoria, Arqueoloxía e Historia Antiga, Departamento de Historia I, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

DINIS, A; BETTENCOURT, A. M. S. (2004): “Sondagens arqueológicas no Monte da Ola, Vila Fria, Viana do Castelo (Norte de Portugal)”, Portugália, 25, pp. 75-89. EGUILETA FRANCO, J. M. (1987): “Catálogo dos materiais ergolóxicos depositados no Museo de Ourense procedentes de túmulos pré-históricos”, Boletín Auriense, 17, Museo Arqueolóxico Provincial, Ourense, pp. 9-98.

GARCÍA-LASTRA, M. (1984): “Primeros resultados de la campaña de excavaciones arqueológicas 1982, en el yacimiento de O Fixón (Hío, Cangas de Morrazo, Pontevedra)”, Pontevedra Arqueológica 1, 113-144.

(2003): Mámoas y paisaje, muerte y vida en Val de Salas (Ourense). El fenómeno megalítico en un valle de montaña. Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade de Vigo, 55, Vigo.

GARRIDO-PENA, R. (2005): “El Laberinto Campaniforme: Breve hsitoria de un reto intelectual” in El Campaniforme en la Pénínsula Ibérica y su contexto europeo. (Manuel A.Rojo-Guerra, Rafael Garrido-Pena, ĺñigo García-Martínez de Lagrán coord.), Arte y Arqueología, n°21, Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 29-44.

FÁBREGAS VALCARCE, R. (1991): Megalitismo del Noroeste de la Península Ibérica. Tipología y secuencia de los materiales líticos, Aula Abierta, 58, UNED, Madrid, pp. 329-331.

GOMEZ DE SOTO, J. (1995): Le Bronze Moyen en Occident. La culture des Duffaits et la Civilisation des Tumulus. L’âge du Bronze en France, 5, Picard.

(1995): “La realidad funeraria en el noroeste del Neolítico a la Edad del Bronce” in Arqueoloxía da Morte na Península Ibérica desde as Orixes ata o Medievo (R. Fábregas Valcarce, F. Pérez Losada, C. Fernández Ibáñez coord.), Excmo. Concello de Xinzo de Limia, pp. 97-125.

(2006): “Le groupe de Haguenau, la culture des Tumulus nord-alpins et les cultures du Bronze moyen de France occidentale. Quelle vision en 2006 ?”, L’isthme européen Rhin-Rhône dans la Protohistoire. Approches nouvelles en hommage à JacquesPierre Millotte, Colloque international, Besançon, 16-18 oct., préactes, p. 30.

FÁBREGAS VALVARCE, R; VILASECO VÁZQUEZ, I. (1998): “Prácticas funerárias en el Bronce del Noroeste” in R. Fábregas Valcarce (ed.): A Idade do Bronce en Galica: Novas perspectivas, Cadernos do Seminario de Sargadelos, 77, Edicios do Castro, Sada (A Coruña), pp. 191-219.

GONZÁLEZ MÉNDEZ, M. (1991): “Yacimientos del III milenio AC: Entre la problemática del Calcolítico y un pasado huidizo” in Arqueología del Paisaje. El área Bocelo-Furelos entre los tiempos paleolíticos y medievales (dir. F. Criado Boado), Arqueoloxía/Investigación, 6, Xunta de Galicia, Consellería de Cultura e Xuventude, pp. 147-157.

FARIÑA BUSTO, F. (2001): “Xarra Cerámica. Enxoval dunha cista da Praia da Rola (Mugueimes, Muiños)”, Peza do Mes, Museo Arqueolóxico Provincial de Ourense. FERREIRA, O. V. (1971): “Algumas considerações sobre os chamados vasos de largo bordo horizontal ou chapéu invertido e a sua distribuição em Portugal”, Arqueologia e História, 9ª série, vol. 3, Lisboa, Associação dos Arqueólogos Portugueses, pp. 9-20.

(2000): La revalorización del patrimonio arqueológico. La definición de un programa para el Ayuntamiento de Toques (A Coruña), Arqueoloxía/Investigación, 8, Xunta de Galicia, Consellería de Cultura, Comunicación Social e Turismo, pp. 212-214.

FILGUEIRA VALVERDE, J.; GARCÍA ALÉN, A. (1977): “Inventario de Monumentos Megalíticos. Catalogación Arqueológica y Artística”, El Museo de Pontevedra, 31, pp. 48-130.

GONZALEZ REBOREDO, X. M. (1971?): “Vaso tumular de Buriz”, Cuaderno de Estudios Gallegos, t. XVI, fasc. 78, pp. 39-41.

FORTES, J. (1905/1908a): “Dúas joias arcaicas”, Portugalia, vol. 2, Porto, pp. 412-416.

GORGOSO LÓPEZ, L.; FÁBREGAS VALCARCE, R.; ACUÑA PIÑEIRO, A. (2011): “Desmontando La Mesa de Montes (Cangas do Morrazo, Pontevedra). Aproximación arqueohistórica a un asentamiento

181

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

calcolítico en altura”, Zephyrus, LXVII, Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 111-128.

Labarotario de Patrimonio, Paleoambiente e Paisaxe, Santiago de Compostela.

GUIMARÃES, G. (1983): “Notas bibliográficas para o estudo do povoamente pré-castrejo do concelho de Vila Nova de Gaia”, Arqueologia, 8, Porto, pp. 36-44.

LOBATO, M. J. F. (1995): “A necrópole romana de Gulpilhares (Vila Nova de Gaia)”, Portugalia, vol. XVI, Porto, pp. 31-110.

IRUJO RUĺZ, D. J.; PRIETO MARTINEZ, M.P. (2005): “Aplicación del 3D en cerámica prehistórica de contextos arqueológicos gallegos: un estudio sobre percepción visual”, Arqueoweb-Revista sobre Arqueología en Internet, 7 (2), Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

LÓPEZ CUEVILLAS, F. (1930): “Novas cerámicas das antas galegas”, Trabalhos da Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia, vol. 4, fasc. 3, Porto, pp 263-282. (1947): “Los vasos semiovoides y la cronología de los vasos de ancho borde horizontal”, Boletín de la Comisión Provincial de Monumentos Históricos y Artísticos de Orense, 16, fasc. 1, Orense, pp. 1-12.

JORGE, S. O. (1980): “A Estação Arqueológica do Tapado da Caldeira (Baião)”, Portugália Nova Série, I. Porto, pp. 29-50.

(1955): “El comienzo de la Edad de los Metales en el noroeste peninsular”, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, 10, pp. 05-39.

(1983): “Duas datas de C14 para a Sepultura I da Estaçao da Caldeira (Baiâo)”, Arqueologia, 8, Porto, pp. 55-56.

(1959): “La época megalítica en el Noroeste de la Península”, Caesaragusta, 13/14, pp. 21-77.

(1983-1984): “Aspectos da evolução pré-histórica do Norte de Portugal”, Portugalia, 4-5, Porto, pp. 97-107.

LÓPEZ CUEVILLAS, F.; BOUZA BREY, F. (1931): “La civilización neo-eneolítica gallega, Archivo Español de Arte y Arqueología, 19, Madrid, pp. 10-28.

(1988): O povoado da Bouça do Frade (Baião) no quadro do Bronze Final do Norte de Portugal, Monografias Arqueológicas, 2, Grupo de Estudos Arqueológicos do Porto, Porto.

F.; FRAGUAS, A.; LÓPEZ CUEVILLAS, LORENZANA P. (1930): “As mámoas do Saviñao. A anta de Abuime e a necrópole do Monte da Morá”, Arquivo do Seminario de Estudos Galegos, 5, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 69-91.

JORGE, V.O. (1980): “Escavação da Mámoa 1 de Outeiro de Gregos, Serra da Aboboreira, Baião”, Portugalia, Nova Série, I, Porto, pp. 9-28.

LÓPEZ CUEVILLAS, F.; LOURENZO FERNÁNDEZ, X. (1930): Vila de Calvos. Notas etnográficas e folklóricas, Seminario de Estudos Galegos, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 16-28.

(1982): “Le mégalithisme du Nord du Portugal: un premier bilan”, BSPF, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 79/1, pp. 15-22.

LOPES DA SILVA, E. J.; MAIA MARQUES, J. A. T. (1983): “Escavação de uma cista en Lordelo (AnhaViana do Castelo”, Revista de História, 1, pp. 53-72. LUENGO MARTÍNEZ, J. M. (1974-1975): “Piezas del Museo Histórico Arqueológico de La Coruña. Objetos pétreos de la Primera Edad de los Metales”, Revista del Instituto José Cornide de Estudios Coruñeses, años 10-11, pp. 131-142.

(1983): “Escavação das Mámoa 2 e 4 de Meninas do Crasto, Serra da Aboboreira, Baião”, Arqueologia, 7, Porto, pp. 23-39. LANTES SUÁREZ, O.; PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M.P.; MARTÍNEZ CORTIZAS, A. (2010): “Caracterización de la pasta blanca incrustada en decoraciones de campaniformes gallegos. Indagando sobre su procedencia”, in Saiz Carrascoi, M. E., López Romero, R., Cano Díaz-Tendero, M. A. y Calvo García J. C. (eds.): Actas del VIII Congreso Ibérico de Arqueometría (Teruel, España, 19-21 de octubre 2009), Seminario de Arqueología y Etnología Turolense, Teruel, pp. 87-99.

MANEN, C.; SALANOVA L. (2010) : “Les impressions de coquilles marines à front denté dans les décors des céramiques néolithiques”, Premières sociétés paysannes de Méditerranée occidentale. Structure des productions céramiques (C. Manen; F. Convertini ; D. Binder; I. Sénépart, dirs.), Paris, Mémoire LI de la SPF, pp. 58-64.

LEMOS, F. S.; MARTINS, M.; DELGADO, M. (1981): Actividade arqueológica 1976-1980. Unidade de Arqueologia da Universidade do Minho, Campor Arqueológico de Braga, pp. 32-36.

MEDEIROS, A. C.; TEIXIERA, C.; LOPES, J. T. (1975): Carta geológica de Portugal na escala 1/50.000. Notícia explicativa da Folha 5B. Ponte da Barca, Lisboa, Serviços Geológicos de Portugal.

LIMA OLIVEIRA, E.; PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M. P. (2002): La arqueología en la gasificación de Galicia 16: Excavación del yacimiento de Monte Buxel, TAPA-Traballos de Arqueoloxía e Patrimonio, 27,

MEIJIDE CAMESELLE, G. (2011): “La necrópolis del Agro de Nogueira (Toques, A Coruña)” in Las Comunidades Campaniformes en Galicia. Cambios

182

BIBLIOGRAFÍA 

  sociales en el III y II milenios BC en el NO de la Península Ibérica (M. P. Prieto Martínez and L. Salanova coords.), Pontevedra, Diputación de Pontevedra, pp. 133-138.

(2005): “Ceramic style in Bronze Age societies in Galicia (NO Iberian Peninsula). Similarities and differences in patterns or formal regularity” in XIVth Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. (2-8 septiembre 2001, Liège). Section 11- l’Âge du Bronze en Europe et en Méditerranée/ The Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean. General Sessions and Posters. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1337, pp. 99-107.

NAVIERO LÓPEZ, J. L.; CANO PAN, J. A. (2011): “Capítulo 9: La cerámica” in J. A. Cano Pan (autor), Punta de Muros: un poblado fortificado de finales de la Edad del Bronce, vol II, A Coruña, Arqueoloxía do Noroeste S.L.U., pp. 557- 628.

(2007): “Volviendo a un mismo lugar: recipientes y espacios en un monumento megalítico gallego (Noroeste de España), Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 10 (2), Lisboa, pp. 101-125.

NONAT, L., (2010) : Âge du Bronze: les enterrements en ciste non monumentale de Galice. Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, 2 volumes, Mémoire inédit de Master 1.

(2008): “Bell beakers communities in Thy. The first Bronze Age society in Denmark”, Norwegian Archaeological Review 41 (2), pp. 115-158.

(2011) : Les manifestations funéraires de l’âge du Bronze en Galice : tumulus et fosses. Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, Mémoire inédit de Master 2.

(2009): “Capter V. From Galicia to the Iberian Peninsula: Neolithic ceramicsand traditions” in G. Dragos (ed.): Early framers, late foragers, and ceramic traditions. On the beginning of pottery in Europe, Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 116-149.

(en preparación) : Le monde funéraire de l’âge du Bronze de la façade nord de l’Espagne jusqu’au sudouest de la France : identités et espaces. Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour et Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, tesis em preparación.

(2010): “Transformaciones en la alfarería antigua. Desde el Neolítico hasta la Edad Media” in Reconstruyendo la historia de la comarca del UllaDeza (Galicia, España). Escenarios arqueológicos del pasado (M. P. Prieto Martínez y F. Criado Boado coord.), Tapa. Traballos de Arqueoloxía e Patrimonio, 41, Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento, CSIC-Xunta de Galicia, pp. 121-127.

PAÇO, A. (1933): “Vaso de bordo horizontal, de Vila Fria”, in Homenagem a Martins Sarmento, Guimarães, Sociedade Martins Sarmento, pp. 272-276. PARGA PONDAL, S. (1955): “Nota sobre un vaso de la colección Parga”, III Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Santiago 1953, Zaragoza 1995, pp. 406409.

(2011): “Vasos troncocónicos y cerveza en contextos campaniformes de Galicia: la cista de A Forxa como ejemplo” in Las Comunidades Campaniformes en Galicia (M. P. Prieto Martinez Y Laure Salanova coord.). Diputación de Pontevedra, Pontevedra, pp. 119-125.

PENEDO ROMERO, R. (1995): “Escavación arqueolóxica na Mámoa 1 de A Cruz, Alperiz (Lalín, Pontevedra)”, Arqueoloxia-Informes 3, Campaña 1989, Xunta de Galicia, Consellería de Cultura, Dirección Xeral de Patrimonio Histórico e Documental, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 179-182.

PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, MP.; LANTES SUÁREZ, O.; MARTINEZ CORTIZAS, A. (2009): “Dos enterramientos de la Edad del Bronce de la provincia de Ourense”, Congresso transfronteiriço de arqueologia, Montealegre, Outubre de 2008, Revista Aqua Flaviae, 41, pp. 93-105.

PEREIRA, F. A. (1902): “Um passeio archeológico no concelho de Arcos de Valdevez”, O Archeologo Português, vol. 7, Lisboa, pp. 193-209. (1904): “Acquisições do Museu Ethnologico Português”, O Archeologo Português, vol. 9, Lisboa, pp. 37-39.

PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M. P.; SALANOVA, L. (2009): “ Coquilles et Campaniforme en Galice et en Bretagne : mécanismes de circulation et stratégies identitaires”, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 106 (1), pp. 73-93.

PINTO, R. S. (1928): “Concelho da Póvoa de Varzim. Apontamentos arqueológicos” in Voz do Crente, 66, p.4, Póvoa de Varzim, 6 de julho de 1928.

REY CASTIÑEIRA, J. (1993) : “Cerámica indígena de los castros costeros de Galicia occidental: Rías Baixas. Valoración del contexto general de la cultura castreña”, Castrelos III-IV, pp. 141-163.

(1932): “A Cividade de Terroso e os castros do Norte de Portugal”, Revista de Guimarães, 42 (1-2), Guimarães, pp. 81-91.

REY GARCÍA, J. M. (1995): “Escavación arqueolóxica no illote de Guidoiro Areoso (Vilanova de Arousa, Pontevedra)”, Arqueoloxia-Informes 3, Campaña 1989, Xunta de Galicia, Consellería de Cultura,

PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M. P. (2001): La cultura material ceramica en la Prehistoria Reciente de Galicia: yacimientos al aire libre, Tapa. Traballos de Arqueoloxía e Patrimonio, 20, Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento, CSIC-Xunta de Galicia.

183

EL VASO DE LARGO BORDO HORIZONTAL: UN TRAZADOR CULTURAL DEL NOROESTE DE LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA EN EL II MILENIO BC (THE WIDE HORIZONTAL RIM VESSEL: A CULTURAL MARKER FROM THE NORTH‐WEST IBERIAN PENINSULAR IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC)

  Dirección Xeral de Patrimonio Histórico Documental, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 15-18.

e

SAMPAIO, H. A.; BETTENCOURT, A. M. S (2011): “Produção e práticas metalúrgicas da Idade do Bronze no NO portugués: o caso do Pego (Braga)” in 1º Congresso Internacional Povoamento e Exploração dos recursos mineiros na Europa Atlântica Ocidental (C. M. Braz Martins, A.M.S. Bettencourt, J. Ignacio, F. P. Martins, J. Carvalho coord.), Braga, 10 e 11 de dezembro de 2010, CITCEM, pp. 391-405. OCID.

(2011): “Guidoiro Areoso (Illa de Arousa, Pontevedra). Un pequeño islote con una intensa ocupación entre el Neolítico Final y la Edad del Bronce”, in Las Comunidades Campaniformes en Galicia (M. P. Prieto Martinez y Laure Salanova coord.), Diputación de Pontevedra, Pontevedra, pp. 203-210.

(2014): “Between valleys and the hill top. Discoursing on the spatial importance of Pego’s Bronze Age necropolis, Braga, (Northwest of Portugal)”, Estudos do Quaternário, 10, Braga, pp. 45-57.

REY GARCÍA, J.M.; VILASECO VÁZQUEZ, X.I. (2012): “Guidoiro Areoso. Megalitic Cementery and Prehistoric Settlement in the Ria de Arousa (Galicia, NO Spain)” in A. Campar Almeida, Ana M.S. Bettencourt, D. Moura, Sérgio Monteiro-Rodrigues and Maria Isabel Caetano Alves (eds.): Mudanças Ambientais e interação humana na fachada atlântica occidental, APEQ, CITCEM, CEGOT, CGUP, CCT, pp. 243-258.

SANCHES, M. J. (1980): “Alguns vasos cerâmicos inéditos do Museu de Antropologia do Porto”, Arqueologia, 1, Porto, pp. 12-19. (1982): “Vasos da estação do Corvilho – Stº Tirso”, Arqueologia, 5, Porto, pp. 56-61.

RODRÍGUEZ COLMENERO, A. (1971): “La cultura megalítica en el Alto Bubal”, Boletín Auriense I (1), pp. 51-56.

(1997): A Pré-história recente de Trás-Os-Montes e Alto Douro. Porto. Sociedade Portuguesa de Antropologia e Etnologia.

RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PREIGO, M. L. (1984): La Península Ibérica y sus relaciones con el círculo cultural Atlántico. Colección Tesis doctorales, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

SANTARÉM, C. M. F. (1956): “Algumas peças inéditas do Museu Abade Pedrosa”, O Concelho de Santo Tirso. Boletim Cultural, vol. IV (2), Santo Tirso, pp. 169-177.

SALANOVA, L. (1992): “Le décor à la coquille dans le Campaniforme du sud-Finistère”, Revue archéologique de l’Ouest 9, pp. 79-81.

SARMENTO, F. M. 1901: “Materiais para a archeologia do concelho de Guimarães”, Revista de Guimarães, 18 (fasc. 3 y 4), Guimarães, pp. 118-127.

(2000) : La question du campaniforme en France et dans les Iles anglonormandes: productions, chronologie et rôles d'un standard céramique. Paris, coédition Société Préhistorique Française et Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques.

SAVORY, H. N. (1951): “A Idade do Bronze Atlântico no Sudoeste da Europa”, Revista de Guimarães, 61 (3-4), Guimarães, pp. 323-377. (1974): Espanha e Portugal, Ed. Verbo (col. “Historia Mundi”, vol. 14), Lisboa (Versión original publicada en 1968).

SALANOVA L., PRIETO MARTÍNEZ M. P. (2011): “Capítulo 32. Una aproximación al empleo de la concha para decorar la cerámica campaniforme en Galicia” in Las Comunidades Campaniformes en Galicia. Cambios sociales en el III y II milenios BC en el NO de la Península Ibérica (M. P. Prieto Martínez and L. Salanova coords.), Pontevedra, Diputación de Pontevedra, pp. 297-307.

SIERRA RODRIGUEZ, J.C. (1980): “O Marco do Camballón (Oirós)”, Arqueología, 79, Madrid, p. 186. SILVA, A. C. F. (1993): “A Idade do Bronze em Portugal” in Pré-história de Portugal (dir. de A. C. F. Silva), Universidade Aberta, Lisboa, pp. 235-283.

SAMPAIO, H. A., AMORIM, M.J., BOAS, L.V. Y BRAGA, A.C.G. (2014): “Contributo para o estudo dos contextos funerários do Noroeste português: O caso de estudo da Quinta do Amorim 2, Braga”, Estudos do Quaternário, 10, Braga, pp. 35-43.

SILVA, A. C. F. da, LOPES, A. B. et MACIEL, T. P. (1983): “A necrópole do Bronze Inicial da Chã de Arefe (Durrães, Barcelos)-Primeira notícia”, Arquivo do Alto Minho, 26, pp. 2-14. SILVA, E. J. L.; MARQUES, J. A. T. M. (1986): “Escavação arqueológica da Mamoa de Chafé – Viana do Castelo (Notícia preliminar)”, Arqueologia, 13, Porto, pp. 207-208.

SAMPAIO, H. A.; BETTENCOURT, A. M. S.; BARBOSA, R.; DINIS, A.; CRUZ, C. (2008): “A importância do povoado do Pego no Bronze Final do NO de Portugal” in E. Ramil Rego (ed.): 1er Congreso Internacional de Arqueoloxía de Vilalba, 11-14 de xuño de 2008. Férvedes, 5, Museo de Prehistoria e Arqueoloxía de Vilalba (Lugo), pp. 227-233.

SILVA, M. A. (1994): “A cista do Gorgolão (Vila de Ponte, Montalegre)”, Portugalia Nova Série, vol. 15, pp. 137-145.

184

BIBLIOGRAFÍA 

SOEIRO, T. (1988): “A propósito de quatro necrópoles proto-históricas do concelho de Esposende”, Actas do Colóquio Manuel de Boaventura, 1985. Arqueologia, vol. 2, Esposende, Câmara Municipal de Esposende, pp. 35-62.

TABOADA CHIVITE, X. (1971): “Notas arqueológicas de la región del Támega (Verín)”, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 26, pp. 45-63. THAUVIN-BOULESTIN, E. (1997): “Approche du Bronze Ancien et Moyen dans les Grands-Causses et les Causses du Quercy”, BSPF, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 94/4, pp. 551-572.

SUÁREZ OTERO, J. (1983): “Os abrigos da Cunchosa. Novos datos sobre tipos de asentamentos e complexos ergolóxicos na prehistoria galega”, Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, vol. XXXIV, 99, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 51-86.

VASCONCELLOS, J. (1905): “Notice sommaire sur Le Musée Ethnologique Portugais”, O Archeologo Português, vol. 10, 3-5, Lisboa: Museu Ethnologico Português, pp. 65-71.

(1986): A Idade do Bronce en Galicia: Aspectos ceramolóxicos. O Bronce Inicial. Memoria de licenciatura inédita, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

(1915): História do Museu Etnológico Português, Lisboa.

(1993): “O Fixón: una perspectiva del Bronce Inicial en Galicia”, in Actas del XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Vigo, 1993), vol. II, Vigo, pp. 57-68.

VÁZQUEZ LĺZ, P.; PRIETO MARTÍNEZ, M. P. (2011): “Los yacimientos de A Devesa de Abaixo y os Torradoiros: áreas de actividad campaniforme”, in Las Comunidades Campaniformes en Galicia. Cambios sociales en el III y II milenios BC en el NO de la Península Ibérica (M. P. Prieto Martínez and L. Salanova coords.), Pontevedra, Diputación de Pontevedra, pp. 212-225.

(1995): “Escavación de urxencia no Fixón-Hío (Cangas de Morrazo, Pontevedra), ArqueoloxiaInformes 3, Campaña 1989, Consellería de Cultura, Xunta de Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 159163.

VÁZQUEZ LIZ, P.; NONAT, L.; PRIETO MARTINEZ, P. (e. p.): “Modelos funerarios funerarios en el NO de la peninsula Ibérica durante el III y II milenios BC: dinamismo y complejidad”, in M. P. Prieto Martínez y L. Salanova (cords.): Current researches on Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the 15th International Bell Beaker Conference: From Atlantic to Ural.5th - 9th May 2011 Poio (Pontevedra, Galicia, Spain).

(1997a): “Del yacimiento de A Cunchosa al Neolítico en Galicia. Primera aproximación al contexto cultural de la aparición del megelitismo en Galicia”, in O Neolítico Atlántico e As Orixes do Megalitismo (A. Rodríguez Casal, ed.), Actas do Coloquio Internacional (Santiago de Compostela, 1-6 de abril de 1996), Consello da Cultura Galega, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, pp. 485-506. (1997b): “O Vaso de Martul (Outeiro de Rei, Lugo) e o problema dos vasos de borde revirado no Noroeste hispánico”, Croa. Boletin da Asociación de Amigos do Castro de Viladonga, 7, pp. 22-29.

VAZQUEZ VARELA, J. M. (1980): “Enterramientos en cista de la Edad del Bronce en Galicia”, Pontevedra nº 0, Publicación Semestral de la Excma. Diputación Provincial, pp. 23-40.

(1997c): “A Idade do Bronce en Galicia”, in VV.AA., Galicia Castrexa e Romana, Galicia Terra Única, vol. 1, Xunta de Galicia, Conselleria de Cultura e Comunicación Social, pp. 54-61.

VIDAL LOJO, M. (2011) : “La estrutura tumular de Sta. Catalina. Utilización social de un espacio tumular por grupos campaniformes”, in Las Comunidades Campaniformes en Galicia (M. P. Prieto Martinez y Laure Salanova coord.), Diputación de Pontevedra, Pontevedra, pp. 111-118.

(1998): “Cerámicas e cultura na Idade do Bronce en Galicia”, in A Idade do Bronce en Galica: Novas perspectivas (ed. de Ramón Fábregas Valcarce), Cadernos do Seminario de Sargadelos, 77, Edicios do Castro, Sada (A Coruña), pp. 81-103.

VINSONNEAU, G. (2002a): L’identité culturelle. París, Armand Collin. (2002b): “Le développement des notions de culture et d’identité: un itinéraire ambigu”, Carrefours de l’éducation, 14, pp. 03-20.

(2002a): “El puñal de . Metalurgía y cultura en el Bronce Final gallego”, Gallaecia, nº 21, pp. 87-114. (2002b): “Die Bronzezeit in Galicien”, Madrider Mitteilungen, nº 43, p. 1-21. SUÁREZ OTERO, J.; CARBALLO ARCEO, X. (19911992): “O Castro das Orelas (Silleda). Novos datos sobre o vaso campaniforme na Galiza interior”, Cadernos de Arqueologia, Série 2, 8-9, Braga, pp. 6795.

185