Enclosing the Neolithic
Recent studies in Britain and Europe
Edited by
Alex Gibson
BAR International Series 2440
2012
Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of Briish Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2440
Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent studies in Britain and Europe
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012
ISBN 978 1 4073 1039 8
Printed in England by Informaion Press, Oxford
All BAR itles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all itles in print, prices and means of payment is available free
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
Mind the Gap: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Enclosures of South Portugal
António Carlos Valera
Abstract
This paper examines the new data obtained during the last 15 years concerning ditched enclosures in Portugal, particularly the recent
discoveries from the southern part of the country. Some of the problems raised by the recent proliferation of these sites in Western Iberia
will be discussed. After describing their spatial distribution and chronological span, the dissimilarities with walled enclosures (and
amongst ditched enclosures themselves) will be analysed. I shall dispute a homological reductionism and argue in favour of diversified
social roles for these kinds of site. Particular attention will be given to size, landscape relationships (terrestrial and celestial), ditch
filling processes and associated funerary practices. Finally it will be concluded that the diverse ditched enclosures of South Portugal
must be read as an expression of Neolithic cosmogonies. The increasing size and complexity that can be observed in these monuments
during the Chalcolithic is interpreted as a “singing of the swan” (the swan song) of those world views, and its abrupt decline, expressed
by the apparently rapid disappearance of large ditched enclosures and ditched enclosure architecture as a result of that cosmogonic
change.
Keywords: Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Ditched enclosures, Portugal, Cosmogonies
Filling the gap: the archaeological emergence of
ditched enclosures
Being a European phenomenon, ditched enclosures were
absent from the archaeological record of Portugal until the
1980s. In fact, by the end of that decade we knew of only
one ditched enclosure, located in the hinterland of South
Portugal: Santa Vitória in Campo Maior, Évora (Dias,
1996). By 1996 there were just five known in the region.
and they are not always contemporary. As a result, these 23
dates are, in fact, related to specific enclosures, particularly
at Perdigões (where three ditches of the eleven concentric
enclosures have already been dated) and Porto Torrão
(where two ditches were dated from a total number yet to
In the last decade and a half the archaeological record
for ditched enclosures has changed dramatically. From
1997, with the discovery of the Perdigões set of ditched
enclosures (Lago et al, 1998; Valera et al, 2000; Valera et
al, 2007), to the present day, almost thirty new sites have
been discovered as a result of infra-structure projects,
but also in consequence of programmed research. They
concentrate mainly in the South, in the middle Guadiana
river basin, but some have also started to appear in the
Lisbon Peninsula and in Central and North Portugal. The
same has happened in Spain, bringing Iberia definitively
into this phenomenon of European scale.
Today 34 ditched enclosures dating to the Neolithic
and/or Chalcolithic are known in Portugal, spread all
over the country, but with a particular concentration in
the hinterland of Alentejo (Figure 1). Importantly, this
“revolution” in the archaeological record has raised
new questions and stimulated the development of
new approaches to architecture, landscape and social
practices of recent Prehistoric communities in Portuguese
archaeology. Today, they are one of the most significant
topics of research of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Western
Iberia.
Time and space of ditched enclosures in Portugal
At the present time we have 23 radiocarbon dates from the
ditch fills of only six sites, all from Alentejo’s hinterland
(South Portugal) but some sites have more than one ditch
Figure 1: neolithic and chalcolithic ditched and
Walled encloSureS in portugal.
165
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Figure 2: radiocaBon dateS For the neolithic and chalcolithic ditched encloSureS
in portugal.
be determined). This raises the problem of the dynamics
and growth of some enclosures through time while others
present a much more restricted chronology. This will be
considered later.
The material culture and the absolute chronologies
available demonstrate that the oldest ditched enclosures
known in South Portugal belong to the Late Neolithic and
are dated from the second half of the 4th millennium BC,
and especially from the last 400 years of that millennium
(Figure 2). These early sites comprise the inner ditches
(ditch 6 and trench 1) of Perdigões, Juromenha 1 (in Évora
district), Ficalho and ditch 1 of Porto Torrão (in Beja
district). Similarly early enclosures without an absolute
chronology, but with identical material culture, are known
at Torrão, Moreiros 2 (Portalegre district), Malhada das
Mimosas, Águas Frias and Ponte da Azambuja (all in
Évora district).
In the 3rd millennium BC, during the Chalcolithic,
the number of ditched enclosures seems to increase in
South Portugal, although currently only four sites have
radiocarbon dates: Perdigões, Porto Torrão, Torre do
Esporão and Horta do Albardão 3. Based on relative
chronologies, however, several others can be included:
Santa Vitória, Outeiro Alto 2, Xancra, Monte do Olival,
Luz 20, Monte da Ribeira, Salgada, Paraíso (all in Alentejo)
and Alcalar (in Algarve). Most seem to be abandon during
the millennium, after relatively short periods of use. In
some cases (Perdigões and possibly Porto Torrão) the final
occupation appears to extend to the first half of the 2nd
millennium BC.
The great majority of these enclosures are concentrated
in the middle Guadiana Basin or in the adjacent basins of
Tagus (to the North) and Sado (to the West), in Alentejo´s
hinterland. In the South, only in Algarve do we find a
ditched enclosure (Alcalar) near the coast.
The greatest concentration is in the inland South but in the
last few years ditched enclosures have also started to appear
in Central and North Portugal. Although few and scattered,
they have a wider distribution not just in the hinterland
(like that near Sabugal) but also in coastal areas and the
Lisbon peninsula such as Gonçalvinhos (Sousa, 2010),
Forca (Valera and Rebuge, 2008) and Angra do Castro in
Aveiro (Almeida, in press). The most interesting example
is still being excavated near Coimbra (Central Portugal).
At Sra. da Alegria, located in the transitional area between
the coastal plain and the high Central Mountains, there is
a sequence of ditched and probably palisade enclosures
dating from the Early/Middle to the Late Neolithic. The
166
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
earliest ones cut earlier Early Neolithic occupation areas
(with “cardial” decorated pottery) and are associated with
sub rectangular houses. Although they have not been dated
yet, the stratigraphy and associated materials suggest a
chronology from the Early Neolithic/Middle Neolithic
transition (late 5th/early 4th millennium BC). This is
therefore the oldest ditched/palisade architecture presently
known in western Iberia, following the examples of East
and Northeast Spain, where ditched enclosures dating
from the 6th and 5th millennium BC are known in the
Valencia region (Bernabeu Auban et al, 2003; Köhler
et al, 2008) and Navarra (Garcia Gazolaz and Sesma
Sesma, 2007). According to the present data, therefore, we
can anticipate a future increase in the number of ditched
enclosures in Central/North Portugal (as is happening in
Central Iberia) and perhaps earlier sites in the South.
Ditched enclosures are therefore a recent, but increasing,
archaeological phenomenon adding to the well known
walled enclosures. This raisesaan obvious question.
Are ditched and walled enclosures similar realities?
Ditched and walled enclosures share the same general
space and if walled enclosures are clearly dominant in
the Lisbon Peninsula, in Alentejo’s hinterland the ditched
enclosures prevail. In terms of chronologies, although
both architectures were contemporaneous during the
3rd millennium BC, ditched and/or palisade enclosures
appeared earlier, in the 4th millennium BC or even earlier
(if we take into account the emerging data from Sra. da
Alegria). Ditched enclosures therefore appear first and at
the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC walled enclosures
emerged, after which both types of architecture continued
until the end of the millennium sharing the same general
distribution.
They share the same areas but not the same sites. In fact,
one interesting aspect is that walls and ditches appear side
by side in only two cases (both in Alentejo – Salgadas
and Monte da Ponte) but there is no evidence to suggest
that they were contemporaneous. All the other Portuguese
enclosures are delimited by ditches/palisades or by walls,
but never by both (Figure 1). The same scenario seems
to be the case in Spain and despite the large number of
known enclosures, walls and ditches are both present in
only two cases, Los Marroquiés Bajos and San Blás – the
latter on the Spain/Portugal Guadiana border (Zafra et al,
2003; Hurtado, 2008).
The reality is that several dissimilarities between walled
and ditched enclosures suggest that, in general, they
might have served different purposes, although in some
cases it is possible to argue for similar roles. In a recent
paper (Valera, in press A) some of those differences were
highlighted, such as the rarity of pits in walled enclosure
and the association of ditched enclosures to tens, hundreds
and sometimes thousands of them; the different sizes they
can reach; the diversities in topographical location and
landscape relations; the differences in design, architectonic
dynamics and associated practices; the unequal importance
of cosmological bonds and funerary practices. Based on
those dissimilarities it was argued that these two types of
enclosures could, in general terms, have played different
social roles. Here, I would like to return to some of those
specifics in order to debate the interpretation of ditched
enclosures.
Topography, planning and design: the architecture of
ditched enclosures
One of the interesting aspects of South Iberian ditched
enclosures is that despite a superficial similarity of
appearance, they often have quite different topographical
locations and some individualities in their design.
In terms of topography ditched enclosures can occupy
flat hill tops (like the small enclosures of Santa Vitória,
Outeiro Alto 2, Cortes 1 or Torrão) or crests (like Moreiros
2 or Alcalar). Others are located in the middle of smooth
slopes, usually facing east, like Xancra or Monte do Olival,
while some others were located in natural amphitheaters,
also facing east such as Perdigões or Paraíso. Finally, they
can also occur in open smooth valleys, crossed by streams,
such as Porto Torrão. There is therefore no consistent
topographical pattern, although facing East seems to be
important.
These differences in topography (that do not exist in
walled enclosures which are always located in hill tops
or cliff edges) seem to have a relation with the ways
the ditched enclosures are meant to relate to significant
features in the local landscapes. This can be argued for
several ditched enclosures, but is particularly evident in
the case of Perdigões.
It was the analysis of the plan of Perdigões that, for the first
time in Iberia, tried to understand the specific architectonic
designs of the enclosures in their relation to topography,
including landscape and skyscape (Valera, 2008 A; 2010
A). Based on the information provided by an aerial image
published in 1998 (Lago et al, 1998), later reinforced by
geophysical survey (Márquez Romero et. al, 2011; Valera
et. al., in press B), it was argued that the location of the
site, its architecture and spatial organization could have
considerable cosmogonic significance.
Perdigões is located in a natural amphitheatre opened to
East. For one standing in the middle of the enclosures,
the visibility is restricted to the limits of the amphitheatre
(coincident with the outermost ditch circuit), except to the
East, where the distant horizon is marked by the hill of
Monsaraz and the valley of the Guadiana river. Between
Perdigões and that horizon is the valley of Ribeira do
Álamo, where more than a hundred megalithic monuments
and some menhirs are known. In fact, Perdigões stands at
the “back” (only few monuments are further West) of the
famous megalithic group of Reguengos de Monsaraz and
it was built in a locale and with such an orientation as to
face this megalithic landscape (Figure 3).
167
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Figure 3: geophySical iMage (By helMut BecKer) and topographical proFile oF perdigõeS (aBoVe); location oF
perdigõeS in the riBeira do ÁlaMo SettleMent and Megalithic netWorK (BeloW).
168
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
According to the available data, in the Late Neolithic at
least one ditched enclosure (with earlier or contemporary
palisades) was constructed in the centre of the amphitheatre
and a cromlech where it opens and meets the valley
bottom. Later, in Chalcolithic times, the site grew larger
and incorporated a necropolis in a semi circular area
defined by the double ditches of the outside enclosure.
This necropolis was again located in the Eastern side,
where the topography opens to the valley and near the
earlier cromlech.
This connection with the East and to the rising sun reinforced
by the orientation of the eastern gates of the outside double
ditches towards the sun’s winter and summer solstices and
the western gates to the corresponding sunsets. The inner
enclosures that have gates detectable in the geophysical
image are also orientated towards the m solstice sunrise.
This suggests that the location chosen for the siting of
the enclosure, cromlech, necropolis and the general
architectural designs of the enclosures took into account
both the local megalithic landscape and astronomically
significant events, revealing the progressive construction
of a meaningful cosmogonic landscape in that valley.
This line of inquiry developed into a research project
entitled “Enclosure plans and Neolithic cosmogonies: a
landscape, archaeoastronomic and geophysical approach”
(Valera and Becker, 2010; Valera and Becker, in press;)
that aimed to obtained integral plans of ditched enclosures
through geophysical prospection and, together with other
largely excavated sites, analyse them according to the
criteria described above.
The results revealed an intentional tendency towards the
observance of astronomic phenomena in the location and
design of some ditched enclosures. This is clear in three
enclosure that share a specific pattern of sinuous ditches
(see below). The inner enclosure of Santa Vitória has its
single entrance aligned towards the summer solstice. At
Outeiro Alto 2 the entrance through the only ditch is facing
the winter solstice; the three concentric ditches of Xancra
have their gates perfectly aligned to the winter solstice or
to the near moon standstill (Figure 4). Whilst Santa Vitória
and Outeiro Alto 2 are located on the flat tops of small hills
with a 360º visibility over the local landscape, Xancra has
a topographical position similar to Perdigões and to some
regional cromlechs (such as Almendres or Vale Maria do
Meio). It is located in the middle of a smooth east-facing
slope. The same topographical location occurs at the
enclosure of Monte do Olival 1 or at Paraíso.
Although information is still limited due to the fact that
these enclosures have only recently been briefly surveyed
(with the exception of Santa Vitória and Perdigões), the
observed recurrences suggest that, in several cases, their
architecture and location in the landscape respond to
symbolic needs and incorporate specific cosmogonies,
which are central to understanding their social roles.
Architecture is a social practice that, through the
organization and construction of space, built scenarios
that express the way in which the world is perceived
and we can hardly look to large architectural projects or
building projects as meaningless, ideologically neutral and
simply functional (functionalism is itself an ideology).
Architecture expresses world views at several scales
(landscapes, villages, houses) and all can act as metaphors
for the cosmos or for certain aspects of the cosmogonies
and “world order” that, through dwelling, are maintained
and perpetuated.
This same line of inquiry can also be used to address the
“strange” design that characterizes some ditches. In fact,
a significant number of Portuguese ditched enclosures
exhibit a specific kind of groundplan designated by a
“sinuous ditch” (Figure 4). For some time this was only
known in Santa Vitória (Dias, 1996), the first ditched
enclosure to be discovered and excavated in Portugal, but
in the recent years it has become increasingly recognised
at other sites to the extent that they are present in almost
50% of the ditched enclosures of South Portugal, with a
particular concentration in the Guadiana basin (although
they are also present in the Algarve and in South Spain).
On the contrary, the phenomenon is relatively rare in
the rest of Europe, suggesting that this kind of design is
particular to Iberia and, in some cases, a specific to South
Portugal.
Traditional interpretations considered these sites as simple
fortified settlements envisaging associated earth banks
or palisades, even when no empirical evidence for these
was present. It was considered that the design copied
the bastions of walled enclosures (Dias, 1996). This was
due to the similarity of the plans and because at the time
the walled enclosures were considered to be the oldest.
Subsequently, when it became clear that some ‘wavy’
enclosures were earlier, the design was naturally seen as an
anticipation of walls with bastions (Mataloto and Costeira,
2008).
The form of the enclosures can generally be defined as a
wavy in outline, for the whole or part of a ditch’s perimeter
and there are different types (Valera, in press b). There
may be single ditch enclosures or examples with multiple
ditches. These latter sites generally have the ditches
arranged concentrically and may also appear alongside
simple linear ditches. The available data indicates that
they started to be built in the Neolithic during the second
half of the 4th millennium BC (Juromenha 1, Malhada das
Mimosas, Águas Frias) and continued into the Chalcolithic
(Xancra, Santa Vitória, Outeiro Alto 2, Perdigões E,
Alto do Outeiro), lasting until the second half of the 3rd
millennium BC (Horta do Albardão).
Some plans comprise a regular pattern of semi circular
lobes (such as Monte do Olival 1, Santa Vitória, Outeiro
Alto 2 e Xancra, the last three with clear astronomically
orientated gates – Figure 4), while others have a more
wavy or irregular outline (such Perdigões C and E, Águas
169
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Figure 4: Sequence oF encloSureS at perdigõeS (1). geophySical iMage oF xancra By helMut BecKer (2).
geophySical iMage oF MoreiroS 2 By helMut BecKer (3). aerial photograph oF Santa Vitória (Miguel lago)
(4). aerial photograph oF outeiro alto 2 (paulo MarqueS) (5).
170
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
Frias or Moreiros 2). The regularities of the first are far
from random. Outeiro Alto 2 and Santa Vitória (inner
ditch), share the same general plan and size, with six lobes
and gates respectively aligned on the winter and summer
solstice. Xancra has a numeric sequence of lobes (4, 12,
27) that is quite close to solar calendar numbers, or lunar
calendar number if the entrances are taken into account
(Valera and Becker, 2011 and in press).
No precise functional interpretation can be read into this
design. There is no gain in defensive strategy and yet
there is a considerable amount of work in the construction
of these wavy ditches when compared to straight ones.
Rather than protect and simply enclose, the reasons for
these designs must lie elsewhere, in other dimensions of
architecture. They seem to relate to earlier projects that
respect the circle and principles of concentricity common
to the ditched enclosure architecture of the period, but they
appear to introduce a sort of movement suggested through
wavy lines, reinforcing the bond between the building and
living nature characterized by meandering paths. In other
words, these architectural designs seem to be impregnated
with ideology and to respond to certain cosmogonies:
It is not the right angle that attracts me neither the
straight line, hard, inflexible, created by man. What
attracts me is the free and sensual curved line, the
curve that I found in the mountains of my country, in the
sinuous path of its rivers, in the waves of the sea, in a
woman’s body. From curves is made the Universe – the
infinite curved universe of Einstein (Oscar Niemeyer –
my translation).
In fact, if the architectural design incorporates meanings,
perspectives of the world and of its perceived organization,
we should expect that many of the “world’s shapes” and
certain dimensions of the human way of experience may be
represented in these enclosures. The sinuous ditches have
been stressed as an important element in the construction
and experience of the monumentalized Neolithic landscape
(as suggested, for instance, for the connection between
Durrington Walls and Stonehenge). In Portugal, the wavy
line is also present in another dimension of the human
symbolic behaviour, namely the rock and megalithic art
or in pottery decoration. Are there bridges between these
deferent dimensions of human representation that allow us
to treat them in an integrated way?
Meaning is a difficult thing to deal with in Prehistory,
but it becomes harder when, through our approach, we
separate what is a transversal expression of a certain
social environment and cosmogonical perception. Ideas,
beliefs, perspectives of reality, meanings that conform
and motivate action, can be expressed in quite diversified
ways and in different dimensions of the social life and of
the human achievements. The designs of the architectural
elements of ditched enclosures are, in this respect, a
written text in the landscape. But the encoded meaning is
also expressed by the contextual specifics of those sites
(what they enclose), their landscape relationships and by
the historical dynamics that they reveal.
Dynamics of growth: a new scale for Portuguese (an
Iberian) prehistoric sites
One of the main facets of ditched enclosures is that some
of them grew to become large sites enclosing several
hundred hectares and with almost two thousand years of
occupation, while others stay quite small and existed for
short periods of time.
The approach to size and growth dynamics of ditched
enclosures, however, deals with two general problems.
Firstly there are few sites where we have an image of
the general plan and secondly for those that have such an
image and have several ditches, we have little information
about their chronological sequences.
At the moment, and for all 34 ditched enclosures recorded in
Portugal, there are available plans that allow an estimation
of the areas of Xancra, Monte do Olival 1, Perdigões,
Moreiros 2, Luz 20 (through geophysical prospection
– Figures 3 and 4) and Santa Vitória and Outeiro Alto
2 (through archaeological excavation – Figure 4). For
the rest we only have a general idea of their sizes by the
distribution surface materials or by partial and restricted
archaeological surveys.
Figure 5 examines the known areas of those ditched
enclosures with total or almost total plans (all from
Alentejo), associated to the available absolute or relative
chronologies. The majority of enclosures (59%) are small
areas, corresponding to less than one ha. We can observe
that Outeiro Alto 2 and the inner enclosures of Monte do
Olival 1, Xancra and Santa Vitória are extraordinary small
(and all present a similar plan), with areas that oscillate
between 0,02 and 0,06ha. The only three enclosures in
this corpus that can be assigned to the Late Neolithic
(Perdigões B and Moreiros A and B) are included in this
group of less than a hectare, but they are not the smallest.
This seems to suggest that the Late Neolithic enclosures
were relatively small, but also reveals that small enclosures
were still present in the first half of the 3rd millennium. In
fact, only the third enclosure of Xancra (which according
to the homogeneity of the general plan of the site can be
considered contemporaneous with the inner smaller ones)
and the larger enclosures of Moreiros 2 and Perdigões
have more than 1ha. There is a cluster between 1 and 2ha
(Xancra C; Moreiros 2 C and Ca; Perdigões D), another
between 2 and 5ha (Moreiros 2 D and E; Perdigões E
and F) and a third over 13ha, corresponding to Perdigões
H. Therefore, only at two sites do we have enclosures
that have areas larger than 2ha, but the larger enclosure
circuit at Perdigões reaches more than 16ha and through
surface traces and rapid surveys we know that Alcalar and
especially Porto Torrão must have been larger, the latter
probably reaching areas in excess of 100ha, as is known
for some of the South Spanish ditched enclosures.
171
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Figure 5: the calculated areaS For SoMe portugueSe ditched encloSureS (aBoVe);
ditch SectionS oF SoMe portugueSe encloSureS (BeloW).
From the available data it appears that during the 3rd
millennium BC some ditched sites grew larger, with the
construction of new ditches, usually concentric to the
earlier ones which, although totally or partially filled,
would still have been perceptible. The best evidence of this
expansion comes, again, from Perdigões, where at least 11
roughly concentric ditches define 9 enclosures (Figure 4).
As we have already seen, the inner enclosures of Perdigões
A and B are characterized by a possible palisade and ditch
(ditch 6) that have been dated to the Late Neolithic from
the second half of the 4th millennium BC (Figure 1). In
the central area of the site, a double ditched enclosure
(Perdigões E) is defined by ditches 3 and 4. Ditch 3 has
dates from the first half of the 3rd millennium BC for the
lower half of the fill and a date from middle 3rd millennium
172
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
BC for the upper half. Ditch 4, dug just two and half meters
inside ditch 3, was dated from top to bottom to the middle
3rd millennium (an older date – Beta 285099 – from the top
deposits is from old bone), which suggest that it was built
when ditch 3 was already half full. This is consistent with a
significant change in the filling process in the middle fills
(Valera, 2008 B) and with the faunal taphonomic evidence
(Costa, 2011). Finally, the larger double ditched enclosure
(Perdigões H) is defined by ditches 1 and 2. Only ditch 1
was surveyed, but the results of the dating programs (one
by radiocarbon made by Málaga University and another by
optical stimulated luminescence made by the Portuguese
Nuclear Technological Institute) are not yet published.
Nevertheless, the filling materials of the bottom date to the
Chalcolithic and the OSL preliminary dating suggests that
the ditch was still partially open in the first half of the 2nd
millennium BC, corresponding already to the Bronze Age.
This is consistent with artefacts and other preliminary
OSL results for a late stone structure in the centre of the
enclosure.
What the actual chronology available for Perdigões
suggests is that the site started with a small Late Neolithic
enclosure in the centre of the natural amphitheatre formed
by the slope (possibly contemporaneous with the cromlech
situated to the East, where the slope meets the plane of
the Ribeira do Álamo valley) and then grew progressively
larger throughout the 3rd millennium and was still partially
in use in the Bronze Age. Of course we still don’t know the
chronologies (absolute or relative) of all the other ditches
present at Perdigões, and the fact that two pit graves from
the Late Neolithic were detected near ditch 4, associated
with the cromlech to the East, makes us exercise caution in
estimating the size of the areas occupied during Neolithic
times. The general plan, however, suggests expansion
during the 3rd millennium BC.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough information
about the largest enclosures of South Portugal to start to
understand their spatial and architectural developments
through time. Porto Torrão seems to have covered more
than 100ha and to have had several ditches, with at least
one dating from the Late Neolithic and others from the
Chalcolithic (Figure 2), but no general plans are available.
A similar situation is found at Alcalar (Algarve). But
what is now clear is that some ditched enclosure in South
Iberia (Perdigões, Porto Torrão and Alcalar in Portugal;
Pijotilla, San Blás, Valencina de la Concépcion and
Marroquiés Bajos in Spain) reach large dimensions during
the 3rd millennium BC. They also enclose a density and
complexity of occupation never seen before and that is
unusual in the European enclosures of the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic. Why did some of these enclosures continue
to be occupied for such long periods of time and grow
to such sizes and complexity whilst others didn’t? Are
all ditched enclosures to be interpreted in a similar way?
What can internal arrangements tell us?
What is inside? Ritualized social practices of
deposition?
Traditionally, these ditches are interpreted in terms of
defensive structures (usually associated with banks and
palisades) or as drainage structures, associated with
domestic settlements (villages). But the evidence does not
always support this claim.
There are significant differences noticeable in the size and
especially the ditches of these enclosures. These differences
are not just in the form of the perimeters (as described
above) but also in their deepness and width (Figure 5).
Ditches can vary from less than 1m deep and 1.5m wide
as at Torrão, to ditches of 1m-2m deep and 2m to 4m wide
(Santa Vitória, Outeiro Alto 2, Perdigões ditches 6, 3 and
4), and even to ditches that are more than 3m deep and 6
or 7m wideth (Perdigões ditch 1 and Porto Torrão ditches
1 and 2). Unpublished sites such as Porto Torrão may have
even larger ditches. The differences can be remarkable and
the available statistics for Perdigões serve to demonstrate
this. When the length of the perimeter is combined with
the estimated volume of rock removed from the surveyed
ditches we have totals of 745m3 for the Late Neolithic
ditch 6, 1838m3 and 2416m3 from ditches 4 and 3 and
14232m3 from ditch 1. All ditches date to the Chalcolithic.
Enclosures such as Santa Vitória A and Outeiro Alto 2
produce values of 127m3 and 303m3, while Torrão would
not have exceeded 100m3. This implies quite different
social investments in the building of these structures and
other inherent implications. It seems that throughout the
3rd millennium the ditches of some sites were getting
larger and deeper, while in other contemporary sites they
kept the dimensions smaller and similar to the earliest
enclosures. Was there a different functionality expressed
by ditch size? Small ditches, like the ones of Torrão, Ponte
da Azambuja, Alto do Outeiro, Cortes 1 and others are not
real barriers and there is no evidence for the existence of
associated banks. On the other hand, ditches upwards of
9m wide and 3 to 6m deep (Perdigões or Porto Torrão) are
far too big for the same general function (especially when
we consider the effort needed in their construction). In
fact, there are ditches too small to be considered defensive,
while others are disproportionately large to fulfill this need.
One interesting point, though, is that the largest ditches are
related to the largest enclosures.
Another problem with the defensive or drainage theories
is the fact that the ditches are filled, not with the original
weathered bedrock that had used to build an accomanying
bank, or by strata clearly related to water circulation and
accumulation, but mostly with anthropogenic layers. At
Perdigões, for example, the lower levels of the ditches
reveled structured deposits of stones usually associated
with large amounts of pottery and faunal remains. Only
in some of the upper layers do we find evidence of fills
resulting either from natural processes or unstructured
human origin. In some cases, again, like Perdigões, or
Santa Vitória or Porto Torrão there is evidence for pits,
hearths or stone structures within the ditch fills (Figure
173
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
6). Other sites (e.g. Alcalar) have important deposits of
articulated animal remains or human bone (such as at
Porto Torrão and Perdigões E). Nothing inside the ditch
fills suggests the existence of deposits derived from an
associated bank: there is no evidence for the bedrock
that was extracted during their initial construction. Some
ditches seem to suggest rapid filling processes related to
human activity, while others have phases of slow silting.
At Perdigões ditch 3, the faunal remains reveal that the
silting process was slow enough to enable soil formation
(Costa, 2011). Basically, ditches of various sizes seem to
have been constructed, the resulting excavated bedrock
seems to have vanished and the ditches subsequently filled
over time but mainly through human action.
The erosion theory, then, is far from satisfactory and
it cannot explain the disappearance of tons of bedrock
and, of course, for everything else that was inside these
enclosures. Neither does topography since at sites like
Perdigões, Porto Torrão, Paraíso, Xancra, Monte do Olival
1, sitting in natural hollows, the erosion would have
been towards the inside, and the inside would have been
protected.
The majority of excavated and published sites enclose
only negative features. At Santa Vitória, Outeiro Alto 2,
Alto do Outeiro, Ponte da Azambuja, Horta do Albardão 3
only pits or ditches survive. In the large enclosures, such as
Perdigões or Alcalar, small walls, possibly of huts, made
Figure 6: Section oF ditch 6 at perdigõeS (1). Stone Structure in the BottoM oF ditch 6 at perdigõeS (2).
Section oF ditch 3 at perdigõeS (3). Structured depoSit oF StoneS, pottery and Faunal reMainS in
ditch 3 at perdigõeS (4).
174
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
of stone or clay were recorded, suggesting that during the
Chalcolithic these large sites could have enclosed standing
structures. Evidence such as this is scarce, however, and in
Perdigões they were certainly affected by deep ploughing.
They are exceptions to the general rule that a significant
number of ditched enclosures (contrary to what can be
observed in walled enclosures or in open sites) enclosed
no standing structures.
The traditional argument used to explain this observation
is, as said above, erosion but this has been challenged in
recent years (Márquez Romero, 2003; Márquez Romero
and Jiménez, 2008) in an Iberian context, where it has been
argued that the structure of deposition inside the pits and
ditches and the total absence of evidence for significant
erosion either inside or outside the enclosures makes this
theory unviable. Instead they claim that these sites should
be integrated into the wider European tradition of placing
structured deposits in negative contexts.
Indeed, inside the smaller South Portugal Late Neolithic
and Chalcolithic ditched enclosures there are only negative
features (pits and graves). But it is also important to notice
that during the Chalcolithic (in the middle/3rd quarter of
the 3rd millennium BC according to the dated contexts of
the central sector at Perdigões) there is internal evidence
for a positive stone structure suggesting that during the
later phases of the sites that attain large proportions the
conditions of use may have been different from those of
the earlier moments. It is also in these larger enclosures,
and especially during the 3rd millennium BC, that funerary
practices seem to gain particular importance.
A similar connection with surrounding clusters of
Chalcolithic hypogea and tholoi can be seen at Porto
Torrão (Valera, 2010 B; Valera et al., in press c), where
the known monuments do not reach the scale of Alcalar,
but they are much more numerous and seem to concentrate
in larger areas (Figure 7). But, even with a large number
of surrounding graves, funerary contexts are also well
represented inside the enclosures, with pit graves (Nuno
Neto, personal information) and burial deposits within the
ditches (Filipa Rodrigues, personal information) located in
the albeit relatively restricted areas excavated in advance
of development.
Again, it is in the Perdigões enclosure that these
connections are more evident due to the fact that the
surrounding megalithic monuments have been the focus of
research since the mid 20thC and, since 1998, the site has
been the focus of a permanent research program.
Perdigões, as we have seen, stands in an amphitheater
open to the East, facing towards the valley of Ribeira do
Álamo, where more than a hundred megalithic dolmens
are known. Very few funerary monuments are located
‘behind’ the enclosure or outside of the corridor of visibityt
established between the site and the valley. Considering
the topography, location, the design of the enclosures,
the astronomic orientation of the entrances, the presence
of a cromlech and the specific viewshed, we can argue
that Perdigões is clearly part of a “megalithic landscape”,
intended as a cosmological organization of space where
funerary practices played an important role. The Perdigões
enclosures simply cannot be understood outside that
meaningful landscape.
Enclosures and funerary practices
A specific connection between some ditched enclosures
and funerary contexts has been recently been noted
(Valera, in press; Valera and Godinho, 2009; 2010). The
relationship can be seen in two ways: in the dialog that
enclosures establish with megalithic landscapes and in the
incorporation of funerary contexts and practices inside
the enclosures. This is especially evident in the large
enclosures of South Portugal, such as Perdigões, Alcalar
and Porto Torrão, and in the large enclosures of South
Spain (Pijotilla, San Bás, Valencina or Marroquiés).
Alcalar (Móran and Parrerira, 2009) is famous for its
areas of clustered megalithic cemeteries, with orthostatic
dolmens, hypogea and tholos monuments from the Late
Neolithic and Chalcolithic. These cemeteries surround the
Chalcolithic enclosures (Late Neolithic ditches have not yet
been recorded at the site, but they are to be expected) and
each have been considered as the necropolis of a “macro
village”. The excavated areas inside the enclosures and
of their negative structures are, however, quite restricted
and it would be dangerous to produce a definitive model
based on such limited data. Nevertheless, a pit grave was
recorded in the surveyed area, suggesting that funerary
practices can have an important internal expression, just
like in the other large South Iberian enclosures.
At the enclosure itself, however, the funerary practices
comprise a relevant and diversified activity throughout
the lifetime of the site. From the Late Neolithic there are
pit graves with primary deposits. During the Chalcolithic
scattered human bones were deposited in the ditches, a
necropolis of tholos monuments with secondary deposits
was constructed and framed within a semi circular area
formed by the outside ditches (further monuments have
also been identified by geophysical survey, between this
necropolis and the cromlech) and deposits of cremated
remains were made in pits or in open areas (Valera et al.,
2000 and 2007; Valera and Godinho, 2009; Valera and Silva,
2010). Archaeometric studies (Dias et al, 2008) suggest
that the tholoi might have received secondary depositions
of human remains provenance from the surrounding
territory. In fact, the dimension and diversity of funerary
practices at Perdigões, associated with the highlighted
characteristics regarding location and architecture, suggest
that the site was a space of social aggregation for ritualized
practices during a significant period of time, and that
sepulchro-ritual activities comprised some of the main
activities taking place, participating in the construction of
the meaning of the place and in the role of the place in
the construction of the symbolic organization of the local
landscape.
175
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Figure 7: porto torrão. eStiMated area oF the encloSure (1) and peripheral graVeS (hypogea and tholoi), With
carraScal 2 (2). BottoM leFt, a ditch uSed aS an acceSS corridor to SeVeral lateral
hypogea. BottoM right (loWer) a depoSit oF creMated huMan BoneS at carraScal 2.
the concentrated area at
176
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
If this relationship between funerary practices, architecture
and landscape is particularly evident in the large
enclosures, especially during the 3rd millennium BC, it
is not restricted to them. Very few small enclosures have
been extensively surveyed, so there is currently insufficient
empirical evidence on which to base any analysis of these
kind of connections. Nevertheless, some older research
interventions and some recent evidence from emergency
archaeology are quite suggestive.
At Torrão (Lago and Albergaria, 2001), there is a small
ditched enclosure located on the top of a small hill. Just
at the SW limit of the ditch there was a cromlech also
formed by small menhirs and, 100 meters way in the
same direction, a proto-megalithic grave. The grave, the
cromlech and the enclosure seem to be conected in the
construction of a meaning for this local place.
Outeiro Alto 2 (Valera and Filipe, 2010) presents us with
another interesting situation, since no direclyt related
funerary contexts are known, but the site links through time
two different funerary uses of the same place (Figure 9).
It is a single sinuous-ditched enclosure with the entrance
orientated to the winter solstice and has been dated to the
Chalcolithic It is located on a flat hilltop. On the same
hilltop we have two clustered necropolis areas, one dating
from the Late Neolithic and other from the Bronze Age.
The Late Neolithic area comprises three hypogea and a pit
grave surrounding what seems to be a small timber circle
(the first to have identified in Iberia). Close by, another
group of hypogea and pit graves date from the Bronze Age.
No chronological relation exists between these three nuclei
(Neolithic graves, Chalcolithic enclosures and Bronze Age
graves), but it is most significant that this symbolic use
of a hill continued for a period of almost 2000 years. The
necropolis and enclosure united to construct and express
the continuity of use of a sacred and symbolic space
through different cultural periods in which the earlier
activity is a condition and attraction to the later, not just
in a physical way, but also in a meaningful one. This has
already been observed at several other megalithic areas in
Portugal).
Just 5km northwest of Outeiro Alto, survey of the hilltop
of Cortes (Valera et al. in press a) revealed a very small
circular enclosure with a menhir in the centre. Nearby
a large number of pits and a hypogeum dating from the
Chalcolithic with fragments of a broken menhir were
recorded. The emergency excavations were limited, but
once more we have a spatial relationship between an
enclosure, funerary contexts and evidence for a cromlech
(just like at Perdigões and Torrão), suggesting that those
different elements participated in the structuring of a
specific symbolic and ritualized space.
Although information is wanting for most of the ditched
enclosures in South Portugal, there is a picture emerging
that suggests that there was a strong connection between
these kinds of site, burials and related funerary practices
and other ritual constructions (such as menhirs and
cromlechs) in the creation of localized highly symbolic
places in wider cosmogonic landscapes.
Filling the gap. Perspectives in dispute
Reaching this point it is now time to ask how the Iberian
gap in the distribution of ditched enclosures has been
filled. In other words, how is the emerging data being
interpreted? The answer is that ditched enclosures are the
centre of a conjectural dispute, based on different questions
and different theoretical approaches.
In Portugal (as in general in Iberia) the traditional view
of enclosure architecture (walled enclosures) can be
summarised in two words: fortified settlements. Although
some debates focussed on problems such as planning and
sequences of construction, usually in the context of diffusion
versus localism, little attention was paid to the nature of
the designs of the enclosures and their relationships with
landscape. When ditched enclosures started to appear in
the archaeological record, they were naturally read within
the same matrix. Historical Culturalism, Functionalism
and Historical Materialism are the dominant theoretical
frameworks in Iberia and diffusion, resource exploitation,
product circulation and the emergence of social inequality
are still the major research topics in Recent Prehistory.
So, if the “truth” is to be provisionally established by
the consensus of the majority of the scholars, in Iberia
ditch enclosures would be (provisionally) unquestionably
interpreted as domestic fortified settlements. The largest
ones would provide evidence for a pristine form of
state and of core – periphery dependencies or centres of
territorial hierarchical settlement networks controlled by
local elites. Perdigões, Porto Torrão and Alcalar would be
seen as examples of “macro-villages” or political centres
(the Portuguese equivalents of the Spanish Pijotilla, San
Blás, Valencina or Marroquiés) and the smaller ditched
enclosures (and walled) as sedentary fortified settlements
integrated in (and protecting) these territorial units, ruled
from one of those centres.
It has already been pointed out that in this theoretical
framework those aggregation models are based on
redistributive or classicist social relations (Valera, 2009).
The motivation is usually the agrarian intensification
and demographical growth, but a special role is reserved
to control the labour force (based on coercion or
persuasion), regarded as crucial to an increase in surplus
in technologically primitive societies, and the control
of circulation and distribution of critical resources and
products considered central to reinforce dependency and
increase inequality. The size of the settlements, their
monumentality, their location, strategies relating to resource
availability and differences in the amount of prestige goods
(such as metals or products with a large circulation) are all
indicators of the system. These indicators are regarded as
revealing ranked or classicist social organization and the
larger sites (the so called “macro-villages”) are interpreted
as political and economic centres that rule large territories
protected by smaller fortified settlements and supported
177
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Figure 8: perdigõeS encloSure. late neolithic pit graVeS (1 and 2). tholoi type toMBS FroM the eaStern necropoliS
area (3 and 4). Stone Structure With open depoSitS oF creMated huMan reMainS (5). pit With a conical depoSit oF
creMated huMan reMainS (6).
by agrarian intensification, control of extraction areas or
commercial routes. Monumental architecture, reflecting a
large labour mobilization, is considered to express social
asymmetry.
In Iberian terms, the standard interpretation outlined
above has been criticised over the last decade by Málaga
university (Márquez and Jiménez, 2010), suggesting that
there are specific and contextual recurrences that might
support other interpretations. They advocated a European
scale approach focussing on the general phenomenon of
structured deposition in pits and ditches. The rarity or
absence of archaeological material and structures other
than negative features is highlighted as an argument in
favour of these practices. Nevertheless, this approach
still did not pay sufficient attention to the nature of the
architectural designs and topography. The theoretical
discourse was concentrated on the function attributed to
the negative features.
Considering both approaches, I assume the structural
role of ideology (in its ontological and cosmological
dimensions) as the main framework in which to understand
the emergence and development of the ditched enclosures
178
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
Figure 9: outeiro alto 2. a SerieS oF late neolithic hypogea Surrounding a poSSiBle tiMBer circle (a). Bronze age
hypogea and pit graVe (B). chalcolithic ditched encloSure (c).
of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. To be clear in my
statement, I am arguing that ditched enclosures emerged
as an expression of Neolithic cosmogonies and that they
also disappeared with them.
1. That ditched enclosures appear before walled sites.
2. That they tend to share a more patterned design.
3. That they emerge simultaneously with the floruit
of megalithic passage graves (if not with the emergence of megalithism, as Sra. da Alegria seems to
suggest).
4. That they seem to share the same general landscape
semantics and be related to the same general celestial phenomena.
5. That they have strong spatial relationships with
megalithic monuments (funerary or not).
In South Portugal, ditched enclosures are very different
monuments from walled enclosures. They differ in
chronology, in location, in design, in architecture, in
enclosed contexts and associated practices and also in the
sizes that they can reach.
We must take into consideration several facts.
179
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
6. That they integrate and diversify funerary practices
connected with megalithic monuments and landscapes.
7. That they incorporate, as one of their most specific characteristics, the absence or rarity of lasting
positive structures and the proliferation of negative
structures associated with ritualized structured deposition.
With these facts in mind, we get a quite different picture
from the one that we have for the 3rd millennium walled
enclosures. The architectural designs of ditched enclosures
are full of cosmogonic meaning. We have an extraordinary
diversity of plans, all framed by the general tendency
towards circularity and concentricity and by reverence to
East. The topographical locations and relations established
with landscapes reflect what we may call a megalithic
landscape organization and cosmogony, structured on
dichotomies associated with the sun’s rising and setting in
the East and West. In fact, the architecture, the location and
the dialogue established with the landscape noted at several
ditched enclosures where their plans are known, clearly
relates them to the ideology expressed by megalithism in a
way that is not visible in the walled enclosures.
The majority of ditched enclosures demonstrate the
importance of cosmology to the way prehistoric
communities spatially organized themselves and to the
way they developed their architecture to emphasise their
cosmogonies and to gain control of their world. The
architecture and landscape organization seem to present
themselves as forms of mapping the cosmos. Through them
phenomena and associated stories are communicated, lived
and remembered, encrypted in buildings, territories and
natural elements. In a way, they highlight the inadequacy
of sacred / profane dichotomies traditionally used in the
approach to these communities.
In this context, the theory that ditched enclosures
were essentially community meeting places for social
aggregation, identity management, reproduction of the
social status and preservation of cosmological order, where
a diversified set of ritualized practices were performed in
negative structures, seems more attractive.
The enclosure at Perdigões can serve as a paradigm for this
thesis, as it clearly utilises the form of the local landscape
in the design of the enclosures and in the way that they
embrace funerary practices. The location of a necropolis
between the entrances that were orientated towards the
solstices and by that way is incorporated into the complex
is an important statement. At Perdigões, as in other Iberian
large enclosures (Costa Caramé et al., 2010), the notion of
a necropolis as a well bounded and specific area of burial
during the Chalcolithic is starting to be questioned, and is
being replaced by a scene of generalized and diversified
funerary practices. This is not coherent with the notion of
a “macro-village” with its specific and separate graveyard
area.
Funerary activity can hardly be approached in isolation
from other social practices because its symbolic and
social roles lie behind the simple ritualized disposal of
the dead. It is part of a series of relationships with other
performed ritualized practices that together participate
in the construction of the site over time. As I suggested
elsewhere, this is not a resurrection of the ritual/functional
or meaningless argument. As Whittle suggested (Whittle,
1998 a and b), the discourse should move away from the
need to strictly categorize a place or a practice as ritual or
domestic, and aim to establish the degree of rituality and
the meaning of the actions that give sense to a place. The
ensemble of those actions and meanings would gradually
construct the significance of each enclosure.
But this building of meaning over time also raises an
important question. Why did some enclosures grow to
became incredibly large and complex by the end of the
3rd millennium and others did not? Can we assume the
same general “function” throughout the life time of those
long-lived sites?
These questions are difficult to answer at the present
moment, where we still have little information about the
dynamics of the large ditched enclosures. But if we dare to
answer, even hypothetically, once again we have to turn to
Perdigões or to the “several” Perdigões that we can already
detach from the conglomerated image.
What is evident is that the symbolic dimension expressed
by location, by the orientation of the architectural design,
by the relationship with the megalithic landscape, and
by the presence of funerary contexts, was there at the
very beginning in the Late Neolithic (second half of the
4th millennium BC). During the 3rd millennium the site
grew, but seems to have maintained the same general
logic, and the later enclosure is also perfectly adapted
to the topography of the chosen location, developing
a concentric relationship to the older enclosures and
maintaining, through the orientation of the entrances and
the framing of the necropolis, the existing visual dialog
with the megalithic landscape of the valley and with the
astronomically significant events related to the rising
and setting of the sun. Funerary practices diversified and
seem to have spread inside the enclosure, suggesting that
the site became a large funerary chamber open to East as
was usual in megaliths. What Perdigões seems to tell us
is that the site grew, but kept the same general logic, and
the small evidences that we have for some stone structures
built outside negative structures during the Chalcolithic or
the Bronze Age are not enough to question this general
hypothesis. In fact, some of the stone structures are
themselves clearly related to funerary contexts.
What apparently happens at Perdigões is that in the
3rd millennium BC, specifically in the second half the
millennium, the ideological fundamentals behind the
site were being emphasised, but mixed with some new
elements (such as cremation rites or the manipulation of
new transregional symbolic objects). How do we interpret
180
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
this exuberance that seems to characterize Perdigões in the
later centuries of its life?
Once again answering this question is dangerous. The
end of these large enclosures throughout Iberia seems
to have been abrupt at the end of the Chalcolithic /
beginning of the Bronze Age and ditched enclosures cease
to be constructed. The general character of the collapse
means that it cannot be attributed to localized events yet
there is no evidence for a large scale catastrophe. The
reasons must lie in changes that were occurring in the
deep structure of society: a change in cosmogonies that
had been developing at least since the middle of the 3rd
millennium BC and that can be seen as the death of the
world views of the Neolithic and emergence of new
Bronze Age cosmogonies, individuality expressed in death
by such devices as orthogonal architecture, new icons and
symbolisms, the affirmation of an hierarchic society, and
the emergence of the warrior image.
It is suggested here that ditched enclosures were deeply
linked to Neolithic cosmologies, that they built them
at the same time that they were expressing their world
views, and that the disappearance of this architecture is
coincident with the fall of those ways of perceiving and
experience the world. This change that marks the end of
Neolithic ideology also marks, naturally, the end of ditched
enclosures architectures. They simply lost their reason
to be, and like the cathedrals of late medieval times, the
exuberance presented by some enclosures in the late 3rd
millennium BC can be read as the “singing of the swan”.
References
Almeida, F., Moura, R., Constantino, F. and Tareco, H.
(in press). Prospecção geofísica na Angra do Crasto,
Aveiro), Proceedings of the IX Congresso Ibérico de
Arqueometria, Lisboa.
Bernabeu Auban, J., Orozco Köhler, T., Díez Castillo,
A., Gomez Punche, M. and Molina Hernández, F. J.
2003. Mas D’Is (Penàguila, Alicante): aldeãs y recintos
monumentales del Neolítico Inicial en el valle del
Serpis. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 60, n.2, 39–59.
Costa, C. 2011. Problemática do enchimento dos Fossos 3
e 4 (Sector I) dos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz)
com base na análise estratigráfica dos restos faunísticos.
Estudos do Quaternário, 6, Porto, APEQ, 113–124.
Bradley, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization
of the domestic sphere in Later Prehistoric Europe.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 13:1, 5–23.
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and domestic life in Prehistoric
Europe, London: Routledge.
Calado, M. and Rocha, L. 2007. As primeiras sociedades
camponesas no Alentejo Central: a evolução do
povoamento. In Cerrillo Cuenca, E. and Aladés Sierra,
J-M (eds.), Los primeros campesinos de La Raya:
aportaciones recientes al conocimiento del Neolitico
y Calcolítico en Extremadura y Alentejo, 29–46.
Cáceres: Museo.
Costa Camaré, M.E., Díaz–Zorzita, M., García Sanjúan, L.
and Wheatley, D. W. 2010. The copper age settlement
of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain):
demography, metallurgy and spatial organization.
Trabajos de Prehistoria, 67 (1), 85–117.
Dias, A. M. M. C. 1996. Elementos para o estudo da
sequência estratigráfica e artefactual do povoado
calcolítico de Stª Vitória, Dissertação de mestrado
apresentada à FLUP, Policopiado.
Dias, M.I., Valera, A. C., Lago, M. and Prudêncio, M.
I. 2008. Proveniência e tecnologia de produção de
cerâmicas nos Perdigões. Proceddeings of the III
Encontro de Arqueologia do SW (Aljustrel, 2006),
Vipasca, Nº 2, 2ª Série.
Edmonds, M. 1993. Interpreting causewayed enclosures
in the past and the present. In Tilley, C. (Ed.),
Interpretative Archaeology, 99–142. Oxford: Berg.
Fernández Gómez, F. and Oliva Alonso, D. 1986. Valencina
de la Concepción (Sevilla): excavación de urgencia.
Revista de Arqueologia, 58, 19–33.
Garcia Gazolaz, J. and Sesma Sesma, J. 2007.
Enterramientos en el poblado neolítico de Los Cascajos
(Los Arcos). La tierra te sea leve. Arqueología de la
muerte en Navarra, 52–58.
Grilo, C. 2007. O povoado pré–histórico do Alto do
Outeiro, Baleizão, Beja. Vipasca, Nº 2, II Série, 95–
106.
Hurtado, V. 2008. Los recintos com fosos de la Cuenca
Media del Guadiana. ERA Arqueologia, 8, 182–197.
Köhler T.O., Bernabeu Aubán, J., Molina Balanguer, L. and
Diez Castillo, A. 2008. Los recintos Neolíticos como
expresión de poder en el Mediterráneo Peninsular. ERA
Arqueologia,8, 172–182.
Lago, M. and Albergaria, J. 2001. O Cabeço do Torrão
(Elvas): contextos e interpretações prévias de um lugar
do Neolítico alentejano. Era Arqueologia,4, 39–62.
Lago, M., Duarte, C., Valera, A., Albergaria, J., Almeida,
F. and Carvalho, A. 1998. Povoado dos Perdigões
(Reguengos de Monsaraz): dados preliminares dos
trabalhos arqueológicos realizados em 1997. Revista
Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 1:1, 45–152.
Márquez, J. E. 2003. Recintos Prehistóricos Atrincherados
(RPA) en Andalucía (España): una propuesta
interpretativa. In Jorge, S.O. (Ed.) Recintos murados
da Pré–história recente, 269–284. Porto: Universidade
do Porto.
Márquez, J. E. and Jiménez, V. 2008. Claves para el
estudio de los Recintos de Fosos del sur de la Península
Ibérica, ERA–Arqueologia, 8, 158–171.
Márquez, J.E and Jiménez, V. 2010. Recintos de Fosos.
Genealogía y significado de una tradición en la
Prehistoria del suroeste de la Península Ibérica (IV–III
milenios a.C.). Malaga: Servicios de publicaciones de
la Universidad de Málaga.
Márquez, J.E., Valera, A.C., Becker, H., Jiménez, V.
and Suárez, J. 2011. El Complexo Arqueológico
dos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal).
Prospecciones Geofísicas – Campaña 2008–09.
Trabajos de Prehistoria, Madrid.
181
encloSing the neolithic: recent StudieS in Britain and europe
Mataloto, R. and Boaventura, R. 2009. Entre vivos e
mortos nos IV e III milénios a.n.e. do Sul de Portugal:
um balanço relativo do povoamento com base em
datações pelo radiocarbono. Revista Portuguesa de
Arqueologia, 12:2, 31–77.
Morán, E. 2008. Organização espacial do Povoado
Calcolítico de Alcalar (Algarve, Portugal). ERA
Arqueologia, 8, 138–147.
Morán, E. and Parreira, R. 2009. La exhibición del poder
en el megalitismo del suroeste: tres casos de studio en
el extreme Sur de Portugal. Cuadernos de Prehistoria
y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, 19, 139–
162.
Nocete, F. 2001. Tercer milenio antes de nuestra era.
Relaciones y contradiciones centro/periferia en el Valle
del Guadalquivir. Barcelona: Ediciones Bellaterra.
Santos, F., Soares, A., Rodrigues, Z., Queiroz Valério,
P. and Araujo, M. F. 2009. Horta do Albardão 3: um
sítio da Pré–História Recente, com fossos e fossas,
na encosta do Albardão (S. Manços, Évora). Revista
Portguesa de Arqueologia, 12:1, 53–71.
Soares, A. M. 1996. Datação absoluta da estrutura neolítica
junto à Igreja Velha de S. Jorge (Vila Verde de Ficalho,
Serpa). Vipasca, 5, 51–58.
Sousa, A. C. 2010. O Penedo do Lexim e a sequência do
Neolítico Final e Calcolítico da Península de Lisboa.
Dissertação de doutoramento, FLUL, policopiado.
Valera, A. C. 2008a. Mapeando o Cosmos. Uma abordagem
cognitiva aos recintos da Pré–História Recente. ERA
Arqueologia, 8, 112–127.
Valera, A. C. 2008b. Recinto Calcolítico dos Perdigões:
fossos e fossas do Sector I, Apontamentos de
Arqueologia e Património 3, 19–28. ERA Arqueologia.
Valera, A. C. 2009. Cosmological bonds and settlement
aggregation processes during Late Neolithic and
Copper Age in South Portugal. In Thurston, T. L. and
Salisbury, R. B. (Eds), Reimagining Regional Analyses:
The Archaeology of Spatial and Social Dynamics, 234–
265. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Valera, A. C. 2010a. Mapping the Cosmos – A cognitive
approach to Iberian prehistoric enclosures. In Valera,
A. C. and Evangelista, L. S. (Eds.), 2010, 99 - 108
Valera, A. C. 2010b. Gestão da morte no 3º milénio AC
no Porto Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo): um primeiro
contributo para a sua espacialidade. Apontamentos de
Arqueologia e Património, 5, 57–62. Lisboa, NIA–
ERA Arqueologia.
Valera, A. C. (in press a). Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic
in South Portugal: aspects of the new agenda. In Kunst,
M., Gauβ, R., and Bartelheim, M. (eds.), Vom Erz zum
Kupferartefakt. Metallurgie des 3. Jahrtausends in
Zambujal und im Südwesten der Iberischen Halbinsel,
Madrid: Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut.
Valera, A. C. (in press b). Fossos sinuosos na Pré–História
Recente do Sul de Portugal: ensaio de análise crítica.
Actas do V Encontro de Arqueologia do SW Peninsular.
Valera, A. C. (in press C). Ditches, pits and hypogea:
new data and new problems in South Portugal Late
Neolithic and Chalcolithic funerary practices. Gibaja,
J. F., Carvalho, A. F. and Chambom, P. (Eds.) Funerary
practices from the Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic of
the Northwest Mediterranean, British Archaeological
Reports.
Valera, A. C. and Becker, H. 2011. Cosmologia e recintos
de fossos da Pré–História Recente: resultados da
prospecção geofísica em Xancra (Cuba, Beja).
Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 7, 23–32.
Lisboa, NIA–ERA Arqueologia.
Valera, A. C. and Becker, H. (in press). Arqueoastronomia,
geofísica e recintos de fossos e recintos de fossos da
Pré–História Recente no Sul de Portugal, Actas do 8º
Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve, (2010), Silves.
Valera, A. C. and Evangelista, L. S. (Eds.) 2010. Session
WS29: The Idea of Enclosure in Recent Iberian
Prehistory, Proceedings of the XV UISPP World
Congress (Lisbon, 4–9 September 2006). BAR.
International Series S2124. Oxford: Hadrian Books.
Valera, A. C. and Filipe, I. 2004. O povoado do Porto
Torrão (Ferreira do Alentejo): novos dados e novas
problemáticas no contexto da calcolitização do
Sudoeste peninsular. Era Arqueologia, 6, 28–61.
Valera, A. C. and Filipe, V. 2010. Outeiro Alto 2 (Brinches,
Serpa): nota preliminar sobre um espaço funerário e
de socialização do Neolítico Final à Idade do Bronze.
Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património, 5, 49–56.
Valera, A. C. and Godinho, R. 2009. A gestão da morte
nos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz): novos dados,
novos problemas. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras,
17, 371–387.
Valera, A. C. and Godinho, R. 2010. Ossos humanos
provenientes dos fossos 3 e 4 e gestão da morte nos
Perdigões. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património,
6, 29–40.
Valera, A. C., Lago, M., Duarte, C. and Evangelista, L. S.
2000. Ambientes funerários no complexo arqueológico
dos Perdigões: uma análise preliminar no contexto
das práticas funerárias calcolíticas no Alentejo. ERA
Aqueologia, 2, 84–105.
Valera, A. C., Godinho, R., Calvo, E., Moro Berraquero,
J., Filipe, V. and Santos, H. (in press a). Um mundo em
negativo: fossos, fossas e hipogeus entre o Neolítico
Final e a Idade do Bronze na margem esquerda do
Guadiana (Brinches, Serpa). Actas do 4º Colóquio de
Arqueologia do Alqueva, Beja (2010).
Valera, A. C, Márquez, J. E., Becker, H., Jiménez, V. and
Suárez, J. (in press b). O Complexo Arqueológico
dos Perdigões: nova imagem e novos problemas
proporcionados pela prospecção geofísica” Actas do 8º
Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve, (2010), Silves.
Valera, A. C., Santos, H., Figueiredo, M. and Granja, R.
(in press C). Contextos funerários na periferia do Porto
Torrão: Cardim 6 e Carrascal 2. Actas do 4º Colóquio
de Arqueologia do Alqueva, Beja (2010).
Valera, A. C. and Silva, A. M. 2011. Datações de
radiocarbono para os Perdigões (1): contextos com
restos humanos nos Sectores I e Q. Apontamentos de
Arqueologia e Património, 7, 7–14.
182
antónio carloS Valera: Mind the gap: neolithic and chalcolithic encloSureS oF South portugal
Whittle, A. 1988a. Contexts, activities, events – aspects
of neolithic and copper age enclosures in central
and western Europe. In Burgess, C., Topping, P.,
Mordant, C. and Maddison, M. (Eds.), Enclosures and
defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, 1–19.
BAR International Series S403(i). Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
Whittle, A. 1988b. Problems in Neolithic Archaeology.
New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zafra de la Torre, N., Castro López, M. and Hornos
Mata, F. 2003. Sucesion y simultaneidad en un gran
asentamiento: la cronologia de la macro–aldea de
Marroquiés Bajos, Jaen. C.2500–2000 CAL ANE.
Trabajos de Prehistoria, 60:2, 79–90.
183