zooarchaeology in the neolithic and chalcolithic of southern portugal

Zooarchaeology in the Neolithic andChalcolithic of Southern PortugalMaria João Valente, António Faustino Carvalho

Universidade do Algarve, FCHS, Campus de Gambelas, Portugal

Our knowledge of South Portugal’s Neolithic and Chalcolithic subsistence strategies is limited by scarcepalaeobotanical evidence (restricted to the latter period) and irregular zooarchaeological data. Thisframework is also affected by post-depositional biases, unevenly represented sites throughout the territory(i.e. under/over representation of sites according to their functions) and published data with disparateobjectives and analytic methodologies. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that a priori theoreticalassumption dominates over empirically supported arguments on crucial aspects of the Neo–Chalcolithictime period, such as (1) the relative importance of domestic versus wild species at the Neolithic onset (cal≈5500 BC), (2) the supposed predominance of caprines herding and cervid hunting among theeconomic practices of the megalith builders (cal ≈4000–3000 BC) or (3) the real impact of the ‘SecondaryProducts Revolution’ and its chronology (cal ≈3000 BC onwards?). Using existing publications andunpublished reports, we critically organise the available zooarchaeological data according togeographical and ecological sub-regions, in order to discuss it under uniform analytic procedures,evaluate current models and point out directions for future research.

Keywords: Zooarchaeology, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Portugal

IntroductionSince the mid-19th century, Portuguese archaeologyhas largely focused on the excavation of cave sitesand megalithic graves that so widely scatter the land-scape. It is therefore no surprise that the earliest syn-thesis on the megalithic monuments of Portugaldates back to that early period of archaeologicalresearch (Costa 1868). With very few exceptions –

e.g. the fortified settlement of Vila Nova de SãoPedro (Paço and Jalhay 1945) – most of the 20thcentury was also characterised by a strong focus onmegalithism. These early works took place under his-torical–cultural perspectives aiming, on one hand, tocreate an inventory and chronological assignment ofsites according to their architectures and type-fossils,and on the other, to build migration-based expla-nations of culture change. The work carried out bythe German couple Leisner and Leisner (1951) isperhaps the best example of this phase of prehistoricresearch in Portugal.A marked turning point took place in the 1970s and

80s with the excavation of various open-air residentialsites and the systematic recording of empirical evi-dence on subsistence strategies. Studies of these

prehistoric farming sites were influenced by newer per-spectives, such as trends in demography and adap-tation to changing environments. Thezooarchaeological discipline, while nearly ignoredduring the 20th century, was advanced by the publish-ing of some relevant studies related to the Neolithicand Chalcolithic periods: Zambujal (von denDriesch and Boessneck 1976) and Monte da Tumba(Antunes 1987) (see Fig. 1 for location). Extensivelists of faunal remains were classified anatomicallyand taxonomically and published according to strati-graphic units; measurements were taken; taphonomicand human-made alterations on bones were also tenta-tively discussed. The use of these studies in broaderregional or diachronic interpretative models becamea common practice.However, the available data are still limited and

unevenly published. Major gaps in knowledge arestill evident in recent syntheses (e.g. Davis andMoreno-García 2007; in Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeckand Morales Muñiz’ (2012) recent work on IberianNeolithic husbandry, data from Portuguese sites arescant), particularly regarding the overall economicimpact of domesticated animals during neolithisation,detailed characterisation of the real chronology andspecificities of the ‘secondary products revolution’,and trends in regional variability within cultural

Correspondence to: Maria João Valente, Universidade do Algarve, FCHS,Campus de Gambelas, 8000–117 Faro, Portugal. Email: [email protected]

© Association for Environmental Archaeology 2014DOI 10.1179/1749631414Y.0000000022 Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 0 NO. 0 1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

periods. Such gaps are due to the late development ofthe discipline in modern terms (i.e. when analysessurpass simple taxonomic lists; von den Driesch andBoessneck (1976) and Antunes (1987) mark this tran-sition), and to taphonomic or functional limitations of

the known archaeological sites. These limitations arealso the reason why abundant osteological remainspermitting statistical inferences are restricted to thelater, clearly sedentary Late Neolithic/Chalcolithicsites.

Figure 1 Map of Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in Southern Portugal with zooarchaeological data mentioned in text and tables.Geographic areas: A, Estremadura; B, Alentejo; C, Algarve. Sites: 1, Cova do Ladrão; 2, Castelo de Ourém; 3, Caldeirão; 4, Penad’Água; 5, Costa do Pereiro; 6, Cerradinho do Ginete; 7, Columbeira; 8, Castro da Fórnea; 9, Zambujal; 10, Penedo do Lexim; 11,Monte do Castelo; 12, Carrascal de Leceia; 13, Leceia; 14, Encosta de Sant’Ana; 15, Valada do Mato; 16, Monte da Tumba; 17,Juromenha; 18, Perdigões; 19, São Pedro 20, Mercador; 21, Porto das Carretas*; 22, Moinho de Valadares; 23, Porto Torrão; 24,Igreja de São Jorge; 25, Algarão da Goldra; 26, Padrão; 27, Vale Boi. (*) Faunal study not published.

Valente and Carvalho Zooarchaeology in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Southern Portugal

Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 0 NO. 02

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/1749631414Y.0000000022&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=431&h=562

The aim of this contribution is, therefore, to providea critical overview of available data, to discuss majoraspects of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic zooarchaeol-ogy in residential sites (funerary and other ritual con-texts with animals will not be addressed) and tosuggest future directions for these studies in Portugal.

Geographical contextThe focus of the present work is Southern Portugal, asdefined by O. Ribeiro in 1945. This territory is part ofthe Mediterranean biome, corresponding to a biogeo-graphical area with dry summers which is dominatedby xerophilous evergreen species (Costa et al. 1998for details). Within this area, three regions can be dis-tinguished: Estremadura, located between the AtlanticOcean and the Tagus River, with two different sub-areas corresponding to the littoral and the limestonemassif; Alentejo, marked by soft hills and plains, bor-dered by the rivers Tagus in the north and Guadiana inthe east, and by the Caldeirão mountain range in thesouth; and Algarve, the southernmost region of main-land Portugal (see Fig. 1 for these regions’ approxi-mate limits).The majority of Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites

with faunal studies are located in Estremadura (n=14) and around the middle Guadiana valley inAlentejo (n= 9) (Fig. 1). By comparison, theAlgarve sample is quite small (n= 3). These clustersof data result from both favourable conditions forfaunal preservation and more persistent or intensivefield and laboratory research. Other sites are knownto have faunal collections, but their studies have notbeen done or properly published.

General issues regarding species identificationand their abundanceThe faunal spectra found at the sites in question is het-erogeneous –many of the assemblages have herbivoresand omnivores (both wild and domesticated species),carnivores, smaller vertebrates and invertebrates. Thepresent paper will focus on the middle and largesized game as food sources (Table 1), in particularthe relative abundance of main taxa, and of wildversus domesticated species.

Within the taxonomic identification, the followingshould be considered:• Regarding the equids, most (if not all) of the remains

found in the Neo–Chalcolithic timeframe probablybelong to Equus ferus. The domesticated status ofhorses is very difficult to determine and will be dis-cussed later. Two other species are known inPortugal during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene.One is the European ass (Equus hydruntinus)(Cardoso 1993; Antunes 2006; Brugal and Valente2007), which was never clearly identified in the sitespresented here (it has, however, been identified in afew Neo–Chalcolithic sites in Spain; Morales et al.1998). More recently, Cardoso et al. (2013), classifiedone equid tooth from Leceia as donkey (Equus asinus;2080– cal 2060 BC), thus dismissing their first intro-duction in Iberia by the Phoenicians in the 8–9thcentury BC.

• Within the cervids, the most abundant animal is reddeer (Cervus elaphus), but roe deer (Capreolus capreo-lus) is also present, though in limited amounts. Fallowdeer (Dama dama) may have become extinct by theend of the Pleistocene (Cardoso 1989; Brugal andValente 2007), with reintroduction in more recenttimes, eventually with the Romans (Davis andMoreno-García 2007).

• Both wild boar (Sus scrofa) and pigs (Sus domesticus)are present, but their individual classification is oftenvery difficult due to their similar size in WesternIberia. Albarella et al. (2005) have noticed not onlythe general smaller size of wild boars in this territory,but also that many of their teeth and bones sizeoverlap. More recently, Davis and Moreno-García(2007, 60–62) addressed the size and especially theshape variation of the lower third molar (M/3) as away to distinguish wild and domesticated swineremains, but the method requires the presence ofthis particular tooth in the collection, preferably inconsiderable amounts. Additionally, as Albarellaet al. (2005) point out, some swine populations maynot fall easily into wild/domestic status, since inter-breeding occurs frequently.

• Wild and domesticated bovines (Bos primigenius andBos taurus) have been identified, with their distinctionbased in osteo-odontometric data.

• Finally, both domesticated sheep (Ovis aries) andgoats (Capra hircus) are present in the studied sites.

Table 1 Main taxa mentioned in the text and their general abundance across the periods

TaxonCommonname

EarlyNeolithic

MiddleNeolithic

LateNeolithic

Pre-Bell BeakerChalcolithic

Bell BeakerChalcolithic

Equus sp. (ferus?) Horse + + +S. scrofa Wild boar +++ ++ ? + +S. domesticus Pig ? ? +++ +++ +++C. elaphus Red deer ++ +++ ++ ++ ++C. capreolus Roe deer + + +B. primigenius Auroch ? ? + +B. taurus Cattle ++ + +++ +++ ++O. aries Sheep +++ +++ +++ +++ +++C. hircus Goat ++ ? + ++ ++


Environmental Archaeology 2014 VOL. 0 NO. 0 3

Distinguishing between these two species remainsquite difficult and requires well-preserved bones orteeth. Many of the studies referenced in this paperdo not present species classification, referring onlyto caprines, particularly when the collections aresmall and badly preserved. In the cases where this dis-crimination has been made, sheep seem to prevail.This preponderance is regular in Iberian archaeologi-cal contexts as shown by Davis (2006, Table 7). As towild goat (Capra pyrenaica), identification is proble-matic when the contexts also yield domesticatedgoat – the two species are very difficult to differen-tiate. To our knowledge its identification was only ten-tatively made at Monte da Tumba (Antunes 1987).

The database presented in Table 2 group together allthe assemblages, organising them by area, period andquantification of Number of Identified SPecimens(NISP). The quantification covers several variables:wild versus domesticated (or unknown); all the con-sidered taxa; and the total NISP. The NISP is highlyirregular between collections – some reach thousandsof specimens, while others have less than one dozen.As often discussed by literature (e.g. Lyman 2008,29–38), relying on NISP has several disadvantages,especially when used alone in the calculation of taxaabundances. However, most studies display it (see

notes to Table 2 for exceptions), while other units arenot used with regularity and the description ofmaterials does not allow their calculation.

Other data, such as age of death or bone modifi-cation patterns, are not going to be addressed – atleast not in a systematic way – since some of the refer-enced studies, namely the ones dealing with smaller orless preserved fauna, do not display them.

Faunal abundance by periodIn Portugal, Neolithic and Chalcolithic are generallydivided into five sub-periods (Table 3), and thefaunal data will be described according to them.Issues and trends will be discussed as they arise. Siteswith better faunal collections will have more in-depth discussion and their contexts will be describedwhen necessary.

Early NeolithicDating from cal 5500–4500 BC, the Early Neolithic inSouthern Portugal is characterised by the appearanceof ceramics and the introduction of domesticatedanimals and (probably, since direct evidence islacking) of domesticated plants – for a discussion,see Carvalho et al. (2013, 37–41); exceptions maycome from recently studied botanical remains from

Table 2a Faunal abundance by periods and contexts (cont.)

Site Area Period Wild Domest Unknow E CE CC S SS SD

Valada Mato ALE EN 2 2 1 2 1Padrão ALG EN 2 4 0 2Vale Boi ALG EN 18 44 4 16 2Caldeirão EST EN 112 40 ? 13 3 96?Cerr. Ginete EST EN 1 0 6 1Cova Ladrão EST EN 2 4 12 2 8Enc. Sant’Ana EST EN 4 8 20 4 14Pena d’Água (1) EST EN 21 17 28 21 13Algarão da Goldra ALG MN 0 10 18 18Costa do Pereiro EST MN 47 9 16 47 13Pena d’Água EST MN 22 61 0 22Ig. São Jorge ALE LN 3 16 10 1 2 10Juromenha ALE LN 14 20 29 14 29M. Valadares ALE LN 21 28 10 2 19 10Perdigões ALE LN 22 22 34 3 19 28Carr. Leceia EST LN 0 7 20 2Leceia (2) EST LN 32 684 0 7 269 (+) (+++)P. Lexim EST LN 4 963 0 4 473Mercador (2) ALE preBB 234 1185 0 53 131 1 846 (+) (+++)Mte. da Tumba (3) ALE preBB 74 232 12 4 43 1 0 25 115Perdigões ALE preBB 140 234 501 26 113 460Porto Torrão (4) ALE preBB 4·37 90·1 0 1·46 2·19 0·36 0·36 42·50São Pedro (5) ALE preBB 296 112 256 35 249 4 256Castelo de Ourém EST preBB 2 7 21 1 1 20Ctr. da Fórnea (6) EST preBB 36 84 0 11 20 3 45Columbeira EST preBB 36 84 59 6 29 1 59Leceia (2) EST preBB 561 14,623 0 4 155 4958 (+) (+++)P. Lexim EST preBB 27 2974 0 1 26 1464Zambujal EST preBB 3252 61,555 0 315 2281 17 429 22,884Mte. da Tumba (3) ALE BB 13 17 0 9 4 5Porto Torrão (4) ALE BB 32·41 65·26 0 4·29 23·04 0·38 3·90 33·00Monte do Castelo EST BB 0 4 0Zambujal EST BB 591 8280 0 33 375 2 135 3381



two unpublished archaeological sites located in thevicinities of Lisbon (Lopez-Doriga and Simões2012). Both features seem to have been the result ofa pioneer migration process by seafaring groups.These originated from the Western Mediterraneanand settled first in the Western Algarve andEstremadura (Zilhão 2000; Carvalho 2010). Only sub-sequently did the Neolithic spread into more interiorterritories. The known settlements are size limited –

whether in caves, rock shelters or open air – and prob-ably do not correspond to fully sedentary commu-nities, but rather to small, relatively mobile humangroups. Indeed, large ditched enclosures or lakesidesettlements, such as Mas d’Is or La Draga, located

in the Alicante and Catalonia provinces of Spain(Bernabeu et al. 2003; Bosch et al. 2000) respectively,are still undocumented in the Early Neolithic ofPortugal.In Southern Portugal, there are eight assemblages

with fauna dating from the Early Neolithic. TheNISP is very limited in most of them, with the excep-tion of Pena d’Água, Caldeirão and Vale Boi (Fig. 2,Table 2).The domesticated animals found in this period are

caprines – sheep and goats – and cattle. Most swineremains have uncertain status or have been provision-ally considered as wild (see discussion below regardingCaldeirão’s specimens).

Table 2b Faunal abundance by periods and contexts

Site B BP BT C OA CH Total NISP References

Valada Mato 2 5 Diniz (2007) (report by Valente)Padrão 1 3 6 Carvalho (2008) (report by Dean)Vale Boi 4 41 3 66 Dean and Carvalho (2011)Caldeirão 20 14 6 152 Rowley-Cowny (1992)Cerr. Ginete 6 7 Carvalho et al. (2004); also report by ValenteCova Ladrão 4 4 18 Neves et al. (2008)Enc. Sant’Ana 6 8 32 Muralha and Costa (2006)Pena d’Água (1) 15 ? 17 66 Valente (1998b); Carvalho et al. (2004); Carvalho (2008)Algarão da Goldra 7 3 28 Straus et al. (1992)Costa do Pereiro 3 7 2 72 Carvalho (2008) (report by Valente and Davis)Pena d’Água 61 83 Valente (1998a); Carvalho (2008); Luís et al. (2013)Ig. São Jorge 2 14 29 Cardoso (1994)Juromenha 19 1 63 Valente (1998b)M. Valadares 8 20 59 Valente (2013)Perdigões 6 22 78 Cabaço (2010)Carr. Leceia 18 7 27 Cardoso (2009)Leceia (2) 221 (+) (+++) 197 21 1 716 Cardoso and Detry (2001/2002)P. Lexim 17 440 30 3 967 Sousa (2010); Moreno-García and Sousa (2013)Mercador (2) 7 123 199 52 7 1419 Moreno-García (2013)Mte. da Tumba (3) 12 1 19 33 60 5 318 Antunes (1987)Perdigões 41 1 90 133 4 7 875 Costa (2010a, 2010b)Porto Torrão (4) 28·65 17·70 0·85 0·40 ? Arnaud (1993) (report by Driesch)São Pedro (5) 8 48 64 (664) Davis and Mataloto (2012)Castelo de Ourém 1 7 30 Carvalho et al. (2010/2011)Ctr. da Fórnea (6) 2 25 8 2 4 120 von den Driesch (1973)Columbeira 24 60 179 Carvalho et al. (2010/2011)Leceia (2) 3080 (+) (+++) 6184 701 102 15,184 Cardoso and Detry (2001/2002)P. Lexim 79 1372 58 1 3001 Sousa (2010) (report by Moreno-García)Zambujal 210 15,809 20511 1681 670 64,807 von den Driesch and Boessneck (1976)Mte. da Tumba (3) 1 7 4 30 Antunes (1987)Porto Torrão (4) 0·80 18·51 12·25 0·70 0·80 ? Arnaud (1993) (report by Driesch)Monte do Castelo 3 1 4 Cardoso et al. (1996)Zambujal 46 1721 2873 190 115 8871 von den Driesch and Boessneck (1976)

Values are based on NISP. Rows organized by period, area and name of the site. Columns correspond to: area= ALE, Alentejo;ALG, Algarve; EST, Estremadura. Period= EN, Early Neolithic; MN, Middle Neolithic; LN, Late Neolithic; pre-BB, pre-Bell BeakerChalcolithic; BB, Bell Beaker Chalcolithic. Taxa= E, most probably E. ferus (see text for discussion); CE, C. elaphus; CC, C.capreolus; S, swine (no species classification); SS, S. scrofa; SD, S. domesticus; B, bovines (no species classification); BP, B.primigenius; BT, B. taurus; C, caprines (no species classification); OA, O. aries; CH, C. hircus.Notes:(1) Pena d’Água: C. elaphus includes some non-classified cervid.(2) Leceia and Mercador: Regarding swine and/or bovines taxa, no NISP for species is given in the references. However, in bothcases, it is considered that domestic species are a very large majority. For presentation reasons only (i.e. figures), we considerthat ≈5% of the taxa (Sus sp. and Bos sp.) belongs to the wild species (S. scrofa and B. taurus).(3) Monte da Tumba: C. elaphus includes some cf. D. dama; caprines include 13 specimens originally considered C. pyrenaica(but probably they are domesticated caprines).(4) Porto Torrão: The only available data are in percentages (%NISP related to the full mammal collection). Numeric values remainunpublished. Most percentage values are given in Arnaud (1993), some others are inferred from Graphic 2 within the samereference.(5) São Pedro: Values do not correspond to NISP, but to another quantitative unit of abundance (PoSAC) used by S. Davis.(6) Castro da Fórnea: Equids were originally considered Equus caballus by von den Driesch (1973).



Without a local ancestor, sheep surely arrived toIberia with the first Neolithic settlers. As for goats,genetic data indicate an Eastern Mediterraneanorigin, perhaps transported in relatively small flocksthat interbred at the regional scale with otherNeolithic flocks (namely from North Africa)(Fernández et al. 2006). Recent genetic data of cattlepoint to a mix between African cattle and breeds dom-esticated in the Near East; intermixing with some localwild animals may also be possible (Beja-Pereira et al.2006). Whether cattle mixes date to the Neolithicremains to be confirmed, but it is probable.In Estremadura, both Pena d’Água and Caldeirão

are located in the limestone massif. The first is a

rock shelter on its eastern edge. It has a long sequenceencompassing all Neolithic stages and yielded animportant, though very fragmented, faunal collection(Valente 1998a; Carvalho et al. 2004; Carvalho2008). Caldeirão is a small cave that contains severaloccupations, one of them dating to the EarlyNeolithic (Rowley-Cowny 1992).

If swine are considered wild, both sites display ahigh percentage of wild game (50–73%), with signifi-cant amounts of wild boar and cervids (Table 2,Fig. 2). However, swine status is presently unsure; ifwild boar is removed from the equation, huntingdependence of Estremadura’s Neolithic communitiesis greatly reduced (13–31%).

Originally, Rowley-Conwy (1992) classifiedCaldeirão’s remains as wild boar, although withsome reservations, since very few measurements werepossible and data for comparison was scant. In 2002,Davis compared these measurements with those frommodern Portuguese wild boar, Mesolithic swine fromMuge and medieval pigs from England. He thenreclassified them as domestic pig. More recently,Albarella et al. (2005) further discussed the issue,using a wider range of measurement comparisons(namely wild boar from Mesolithic and Chalcolithicsites in Portugal); they concluded that, due to thesize variation in swine bones and teeth, Caldeirão’sremains should (for now) remain unclassified regard-ing their domestic/wild status.

That said, in Estremadura’s Early Neolithic, undis-puted domesticated species are proven by the presenceof caprines (some specifically identified as sheep) andcattle. Aurochs, on the other hand, seems to be absentor rare, with only one tooth (classified with reser-vations) at Pena d’Água (Carvalho 2008).

Vale Boi, in Algarve, is an open air site located 2 kminland from the modern coast. The Early Neolithicoccupation was found on the terrace of a stream. Ithas a small but very diversified faunal collection:besides ungulates, there are remains of birds, reptiles,microfauna and fish (Dean and Carvalho 2011).

Table 3 Neolithic and Chalcolithic sub-periods in Portugal

PeriodChronology(cal BC) Main characteristics

Early Neolithic ≈5500–4500 First ceramics, the oldestwith cardial decoration.Introduction ofdomesticated animalsand (probably)domesticated plants

MiddleNeolithic

≈5000/4500–3200

First megalithicconstructions. Limitedknowledge given the lackof residential sites(funerary sites are betterknown)

Late Neolithic ≈3200–3000 Considered the pinnacle ofmegalithic building. Fullysedentary settlements(e.g. ditched enclosures)make their appearance.Highly diversified materialculture

Pre-Bell BeakerChalcolithic

≈3000–2400 Ditched and walledenclosures. Copper andgold metallurgies.Emergence of ‘complexsocieties’?

Bell BeakerChalcolithic

≈2400–2000 Abandonment of manyditched and walledenclosures; replacementby smaller, temporarycampsites. Bell-Beakerceramics

Figure 2 Early Neolithic faunal abundance: wild versus domesticated and main taxa.




Regarding the ungulates, Vale Boi shows a high abun-dance of domesticated animals (66%), namely caprines(most of the remains belong to unclassified species, buta few have been identified as goat) (Table 2, Fig. 2).Bovids may also be domestic, although no definitivespecies classification was made (in nearby Padrão,also dated from the Early Neolithic, one remain hasbeen identified as domesticated cattle; Carvalho2008). As in Estremadura, red deer is the mostcommon hunted species (24%).Finally, the absence of equids during this period

should be noted, a trend that will continue duringthe Middle Neolithic.

Middle NeolithicDated to cal ≈4500/5000–3200 BC, the MiddleNeolithic in Portugal encompasses the building ofthe first megalithic tombs. Unfortunately, knowledgeof this period is thinned by the lack of data from habi-tation sites, a limitation which is due to two mainfactors: uncharacteristic pottery productions (plainvessels dominate, thus preventing their indisputableattribution to the period in surface surveys) and thetraditional focus of the research in megalithic con-structions. However, a few residential sites have beendiscovered recently across the land showing the samesimple characteristics of those known in the EarlyNeolithic, a fact that pushed scholars to similar under-standings. The Leisner and Leisner (1951) influentialinterpretation of megalith distribution as a result oftranshumance and hunting practices during theNeolithic also played a significant role in currentinterpretations (e.g. Gonçalves 2000/2001).Accordingly, faunal data for the Middle Neolithic

are much slimmer – only three contexts with faunalpreservation are known (Table 2). The most interestingsites are located in the Estremadura limestone massif:the already mentioned Pena d’Água (Valente 1998a;Carvalho et al. 2004; Carvalho 2008) and its neigh-bouring site Costa do Pereiro (Carvalho 2008, withstudies by Valente and Davis, currently in revision).Costa do Pereiro yielded an infant child burial (dated

≈4000 BC); its dwelling structures (namely a fireplace)and large amounts of artefacts are testimony to a moreor less sedentary occupation.These two sites show contrasting patterns where

herding of caprines and hunting of red deer taketurn in abundance (Table 2, Fig. 3), apparently provid-ing empirical support to the Leisners’ model (see Datasummary and discussion).Further south the data are even thinner, confined to

the small cave of Algarão da Goldra in Algarve lime-stone region. Its small collection does not providemuch information (Straus et al. 1992): a relativemajority of swine remains (status unknown), alongwith some remains of domesticated caprines andbovines (Table 2, Fig. 3).

Late NeolithicMajor changes in site type and settlement seem tooccur by the end of the 4th millennium BC (cal≈3200–3000 BC): large ditched enclosures, of differentsizes, make their appearance in the Alentejo hinterland(for a recent general overview on the phenomenon inPortugal, see Valera 2009). Throughout the landscape,open air settlements are found in hilltop locations nearfertile soils, yielding numerous grindstones. This emer-ging pattern has led prehistorians to point to the LateNeolithic as the period when a full productioneconomy associated with a sedentary lifestyle finallyreplaced the older, more mobile subsistence strategies(Jorge 2000; Gonçalves 2000/2001). The sameauthors also consider that the earliest signs of the ‘sec-ondary products revolution’ are dated to this period,preluding the establishment of the typicalChalcolithic economic system and social organisation.These sedentary settlements normally produce

larger faunal collections, even when only partiallystudied, such as the Alentejo’s sites of Juromenha(Valente 1998b), Moinho de Valadares (Valera 2000;Valente 2013) and Perdigões (Cabaço 2010). InEstremadura, the studies are more complete, especiallyin Leceia (Cardoso and Detry 2001/2002) and Penedodo Lexim (Moreno-García and Sousa 2013).

Figure 3 Middle Neolithic faunal abundance: wild versus domesticated and main taxa.




Unlike Moinho de Valadares, Juromenha,Perdigões and Leceia are large settlements, with sur-rounding ditches in the first two cases; their assem-blages revealed large quantities of artefacts, faunalremains and location strategies aiming for access topotentially rich environments (arable land, riverineecosystems, etc.). Leceia (see description in the nextsection) and Perdigões are well studied and published.The latter site is found in an extensive plain that con-stitutes a well-established megalithic territory, in anatural amphitheatre open to the east. Valera’s(2009) description implies that Perdigões was a‘central place’ in several ways (social, ideological, cos-mological) in addition to the purely economic ones.Distinct features were detected at Penedo do Lexim,in Estremadura. Here, the field record indicates aLate Neolithic–Chalcolithic succession, scattered inseveral topographically differentiated sectors. Eachsector was probably used for different activities(Sousa 2010; Moreno-García and Sousa 2013) andmay exhibit different faunal profiles.Compiled data show some differences between

Alentejo and Estremadura animal usage strategies.Alentejo’s main collections – Juromenha, Moinhode Valadares and Perdigões – display similartrends, in which red deer hunting plays an importantrole (22–36%) (Table 2, Fig. 4). It remains to be seenwhether this is reflective of local availability of good-sized herds in Alentejo, or whether it can also beconnected to preferential subsistence behaviourfrom these human communities. Swine are alsonumerous (17–49%), but their status – wild, domesticor simply tamed – is still uncertain. Caprinescomprise the most abundant domesticated animal(28–34%), while bovines appear in a much smallerquantity (0–14%).In Estremadura, Leceia and Penedo do Lexim are

the most significant sites; Carrascal de Leceia seemsto be a satellite site of the larger Leceia settlement,and only a small faunal sample was studied(Cardoso 2009). Regarding hunting, this region

displays opposite characteristics to those ofAlentejo, since wild game is almost absent (<5%)and domestic animals – caprines (sheep being morenumerous than goats), cattle and pig – clearly dom-inate the collection (Table 2, Fig. 4). Consequently,Estremadura settlements show higher adaptation tohusbandry and much less reliance on wild game. Itis also interesting to note that while in Leceiabovines dominate the assemblage in terms of meatweight, in Penedo do Lexim they are residual(<2%). Moreno-García and Sousa (2013) mentionthe possibility of the studied locus not being repre-sentative of all the settlement (e.g. different areaswere used for specific functions, therefore yieldingdiverse faunal representation), even if it waslocated in the centre of the site.

During this period two other features should beemphasised. First, the existence of larger faunal collec-tions in Estremadura (>700 NISP) allowed a moreprecise classification of the swine: in Leceia andPenedo do Lexim most of them have been considereddomestic pigs (Cardoso and Detry 2001/2002;Albarella et al. 2005; Moreno-García and Sousa2013). As mentioned before, assessing pig domesti-cation is very complicated, especially in smaller collec-tions. Albarella et al. (2005) underline that generalscarcity of data from Neolithic Portuguese sites, andthe overlapping size of Western Iberian wild boarand pig, are obstacles to the exact determination ofwhen their domestication occurs. However, after ana-lysing all the metrical data, they conclude that mostswine from Leceia are domestic (they also detail thatthere is a size decrease of domestic pigs duringthe Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic transition, and theinverse happens to wild boar, which is bigger in theChalcolithic).

Secondly, we can also verify the identification of avery small number of equid remains, all in Alentejo.Horse domestication itself presents a new round ofquestions, which will be addressed in the Datasummary and discussion.

Figure 4 Late Neolithic faunal abundance: wild versus domesticated and main taxa.




Pre-Bell Beaker ChalcolithicIt should be stressed that the differentiation betweenthe Pre-Beaker and the Beaker Chalcolithic is farfrom being clear-cut: it is more conventionallymarked than the periodisation within the Neolithicperiod, and serves as an analytic approach only. ThePre-Beaker Chalcolithic, ca. cal 3000–2400 BC, wit-nesses the continuing rise of large ditched enclosures(e.g. Perdigões, Porto Torrão, Alcalar) and fortifiedor simply walled settlements (e.g. Monte da Tumba,São Pedro, Castro da Fórnea, Columbeira, Leceia,Penedo do Lexim, Zambujal, Vila Nova de SãoPedro). Commensurate with these are a variety ofnew material culture items such as textiles (as indirectlyevidenced by the finds of loom-weights) and copper orgold artefacts. The artefacts and more complex settle-ments indicate long-distance exchange networks andhighly hierarchised settlement systems, reflecting anincrease in social complexity (for a recent synthesison the Chalcolithic of Portugal, see Cardoso 2007).Settlements such as Vila Nova de São Pedro, in theEstremadura region, or Alcalar, in the Algarve,revealed the earliest botanical remains of domesticspecies known in Southern Portugal (see Paço 1954;Morán 2001, respectively), thus attesting to what areconsidered true farming societies by some authors(Jorge 2000; Gonçalves 2000/2001). Better establishedhierarchical settlement systems imply the existence ofmore or less well-defined social and economic terri-tories, with ‘central places’ aroundwhich smaller settle-ments orbited. Some case studies of ‘central places’versus small settlements illustrate this conclusion:Leceia versus Carrascal de Leceia in Estremadura(Cardoso 2004, 2009) and Porto das Carretas versusMercador in Alentejo (Moreno-García and Valera2007; Soares 2011; Moreno-García 2013). The strat-egies of animal exploitation should reflect such apattern of land use; however, the scarcity of datalimits further assessments on the topic.Regarding faunal collections, this is the timeframe

for which more site studies have been published

(n= 11). The most substantial are located inEstremadura: Leceia (NISP= 15000+) andZambujal (64000+).Leceia is a walled, fortified settlement. Like many

similar sites, its earliest occupation dates back to theLate Neolithic but extends to the Beaker period,being walled during the Chalcolithic. It is located ona promontory overlooking a stream, which meets theocean about 5 km south. A large faunal assemblagewas recovered from Late Neolithic (see the previoussection) and pre-Bell Beaker Chalcolithic layers. Itwas published in detail by Cardoso and Detry(2001/2002).Like Leceia, Zambujal is a walled fortification built

near a stream only a few kilometres inland. Its exca-vation took place in the 1960–70s under the directionof a German team, and is currently under excavationagain. Although the main concern was the study ofthe fortification and its evolution through time, largeamounts of faunal remains were recovered andprovide very important information regarding thepre-Beaker and Beaker strategies on animal exploita-tion in Portuguese Estremadura (von den Drieschand Boessneck 1976).Both sites show a clear predominance of domesti-

cated animals, largely pigs and/or caprines, withfewer cattle (Table 2, Fig. 5). Leceia maintains atrend similar to the Late Neolithic, with a slightincrease of caprines, to the detriment of pigs andespecially bovines. Penedo do Lexim displays a veryclose pattern to its Late Neolithic collection: a largeamount of pigs and caprines and a much smaller pres-ence of bovines (Sousa 2010). In all three sites –

located in lower lands, close to the coast – wild gameevidence is minimal.In the limestone massif sites of Estremadura (Castro

da Fórnea, Columbeira), hunting is an importantactivity, with red deer still showing as the main game(20–30%) (von den Driesch 1973; Carvalho et al.2010/2011) (Table 2, Fig. 5). The one exception tothis pattern is Castelo de Ourém; however, only a

Figure 5 Pre-Bell Beaker Chalcolithic faunal abundance: wild versus domesticated and main taxa.




very small collection (NISP= 30) has been studiedthere (Carvalho et al. 2010/2011). These sites alsoyielded an interesting quantity of domesticatedanimals – caprines, bovines and presumably pigs,although the studies do not specifically indicate theirswine status.In Alentejo (Mercador, Monte da Tumba,

Perdigões and Porto Torrão) swine – in all likelihood,pigs – are very abundant, followed by caprines andbovines (Table 2, Fig. 5). Perdigões’ faunal collectionrepresents this period well (Costa 2010a, 2010b):Comparing with the Late Neolithic occupation, pigsand bovines become more prominent and caprinesless so; hunted deer and equids (presumed to bewild) decrease to 16% (from 28% during the LateNeolithic). Monte da Tumba and Mercador displaysimilar values, with ≈15 and 14%, respectively(Antunes 1987; Moreno-García 2013).Porto Torrão and São Pedro reveal different collec-

tions. The first is probably the largest Chalcolithic sitediscovered so far in the Portuguese territory, but only avery preliminary faunal analysis is known (Arnaud1993). Here, wild game only comprises about 5% ofthe ungulate collection. It also includes bovines inabundance, in values even higher (>28% of globalNISP; see Note (4) to Table 2) than the ones observedfor the bigger settlements in Estremadura. By com-parison, the smaller site of São Pedro shows a contrast-ing pattern, with a high percentage of wild game(≈24%), both deer and horse (Davis and Mataloto2012).To summarise the animal data, this period is essen-

tially marked by three tendencies: (1) variabilitybetween sites – i.e. the (larger) littoral versus the(smaller) limestone sites in Estremadura and the het-erogeneity showed by Alentejo’s settlements; (2) theincrease of pig and cattle husbandry in Alentejo(with diminishing values for caprine species); and (3)the general decrease of wild game. These faunaltrends, especially the first and last, may be associatedwith different phenomena: ecological, reflecting the

availability of distinct local resources (e.g. more deerin forested areas); and socio-demographic, mirroringthe settlements’ variable sizes and features – i.e.bigger settlements (Zambujal, Leceia, Porto Torrão)with a higher density of people would require subsis-tence strategies (a higher level of husbandry) differentfrom smaller settlements (relying on wild gamehunting and the husbandry of smaller species).

Bell Beaker ChalcolithicAccording to all syntheses (e.g. Soares and Silva 1998,2010; Jorge 2000; Cardoso 2007), important changesoccurred at the end of the Chalcolithic, during thesecond half of the 3rd millennium BC. Most walledsettlements and ditched enclosures were abandonedor contracted their perimeters. A return to moremobile strategies of land use seems to emerge out ofthe fragmentation of former sedentary settlementsystems. The existence of long-distance exchanges isno longer as evident in the archaeological record asbefore. All of these changes become more perceivablewhen later Bell Beaker styles, whether local (Palmelastyle) or incised typologies, emerge in SouthernPortugal. Most authors (e.g. Cardoso 2004; Soaresand Silva 2010) suggest that this process will culminatein the emerging of warrior lineages at the beginning ofthe Bronze Age.

While four faunal contexts from this time periodhave been studied, only one displayed a high numberof remains (Table 2, Fig. 6): Zambujal inEstremadura (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1976).Monte da Tumba (Antunes 1987) and Porto Torrão(Arnaud 1993) in Alentejo show small or unknownNISP amounts and their data should be consideredwith caution.

All these sites were occupied during the previousperiod. The information obtained shows a slightdecrease of bovines in Zambujal, with a similarincrease of pig; caprines maintain their relative abun-dance. Wild game continues to be rare.

Figure 6 Bell Beaker Chalcolithic faunal abundance: wild versus domesticated and main taxa.




Alentejo, however, exhibits a different patternduring the Beaker period: both Porto Torrão andMonte da Tumba display a clear increase of wildanimal remains (33–43%). This is most visible inPorto Torrão (Fig. 7). Here we can observe thechanges between the two periods of occupation –

before and during the Beaker period – with wildspecies increasing and domestic animals diminishing.Therefore, even if the available data do not show sig-

nificant changes between periods in Zambujal, the pre-liminary data for Alentejo’s faunal collections seem tocorroborate the ideas displayed above: during theBeaker period, some level of disintegration of the pre-vious sedentary settlement systems eventually led tohigher mobile strategies, in which hunting became amore regular activity.Further investigations already taking place in these

areas will be of the most importance to betteraddress the social and economic changes within thistimeframe, and to understand probable regionalasymmetries.

Discussion and conclusionThe collected data described in the previous sections,while highly useful, present some limitations. This isparticularly obvious when the faunal assemblagesshow very low NISP, as in the Early and MiddleNeolithic and the Alentejo sites from the Beakerperiod (Table 2). In such cases, any interpretationshould be regarded with extreme caution untilfurther data are acquired by new research. For thisreason, the following discussion will focus primarilyin the assemblages that present a NISP of at least 60.Regarding the periods in discussion, we have

reliable data for two different areas: Estremaduraand Alentejo. Although some zooarchaeological

studies are available for Algarve, they presentminimal amounts of material for valid interpretations.During the Early Neolithic there is evidence for

caprine and, to a lesser extent, cattle herding. Swineherding is an unverified possibility. Some assemblages,such as Pena d’Água and especially Caldeirão, showan important amount of swine, but no definitivedata are available for their domesticated or wildstatus. In fact, this has been a topic of discussion inseveral publications (Rowley-Conwy 1992; Davis2002; Albarella et al. 2005). Hunting also seems tobe an important activity during the Early/MiddleNeolithic, in variable abundances, with higher impor-tance of red deer.These communities seem to be hunter-shepherds

(goatherds and/or cowherds), since direct evidencefor agriculture is presently nonexistent.In this regard, we should bear in mind that ‘absence

of evidence’ cannot be considered ‘evidence ofabsence’. As stated by Zilhão (1997), if thePortuguese data are put in their broad Iberiancontext (e.g. Peña Chocarro and Zapata 2012), agri-culture must have been present in the Early andMiddle Neolithic subsistence strategies. According toCarvalho et al. (2013), the most likely farmingregime must have relied on a cereal-fallow rotation,therefore, a shifting agriculture. Even though the siterecords of Costa do Pereiro and Pena d’Água arestrongly suggestive of a specialisation in the huntingof cervids and herding of caprines in the MiddleNeolithic, there is nothing in the archaeological andzooarchaeological data pointing to established trans-humant practices as proposed by Leisner and Leisner(1951) and followed by later researchers (e.g.Gonçalves 2000/2001). Current evidence points toherding practices embedded in the shifting agriculture

Figure 7 Fauna from Porto Torrão (Alentejo) during the Chalcolithic periods (modified from Arnaud 1993, Graphic 2). Notes: pre-BB, Pre-Bell Beaker Chalcolithic; BB, Bell-Beaker Chalcolithic. In grey, domesticated species; in black, wild species.




as described above. Such farming economy is usuallyconsidered typical of egalitarian societies, perhaps ofsegmentary organisation, and based in kinship as abasic structuring principle.Swine, both wild and domesticated, are a very

important animal resource across time. Althoughthe exact moment of swine domestication is difficultto verify, pig husbandry seems to be well establishedin the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic. One possi-bility is that semi-domesticated or tamed animalsmay have been exploited, as in today’s traditional‘montados’ of Alentejo, in the case of pigs(e.g. Ribeiro 1945). Similar practices have beenrecorded and studied in other areas of Iberia(Hadjikoumis 2012). This complicates swine classifi-cation and the understanding of domesticationprocesses taking place.Domesticated cattle appear at the onset of the

Neolithic, but are never abundant during this period.This seems to change during the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, supporting the traditional view of the‘secondary products revolution’ (Sherratt 1981). Withrespect to this, we should also consider Vigne andHelmer’s (2007) recent proposal that milking ofcaprines and cattle was already well established bythe Early Neolithic communities, thus pushing intothis period Sherratt’s model on the use of dairying.The role of dairying during the Neolithisation inEurope was recently put in evidence by Rowley-Cowny (2011) in a stimulating and far-reaching texton pioneer colonisation processes.In Portugal, the use of cattle as draught animals

seems to be established later on, from the end of the4th millennium BC onwards. At Zambujal andMercador, some pathologies displayed in metapodialsand phalanxes may be related to traction work (vonden Driesch and Boessneck 1976, 25–26; Morenoand Valera 2007). At the Escoural open-air rock art‘sanctuary’ in Alentejo, Gomes et al. (1983) recognisedthe depiction of a wheeled car associated with a sche-matic bovid (‘bucranium’). Despite a number of objec-tions to this rock art interpretation (e.g. Jorge 1990),some Portuguese scholars accepted it as an indirecttestimony of such a role being played by bovids inthe Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic.From the Late Neolithic onwards, both in

Estremadura and Alentejo, differences seem to occuraccording to site types in which the ‘central’ one dis-plays lower amounts of wild species. However, in thesouthern region, hunting is more widespread, appar-ently growing in importance during the Beaker period.As for equids, they are either absent or very scarce

during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Portugal.Their domestic status is still under discussion; propo-sals suggest a possible Iberian domestication thatmay have occurred around Beaker times or later.

In Portugal, data show a significant decline in thehorse population during the Pleistocene/Holocenetransition, since Magdalenian and Mesolithic siteshave a very scarce amount of horse remains(Cardoso 1993; Brugal and Valente 2007; Davis andMoreno-García 2007). Most likely, this is concomitantwith deglaciation, climatic improvement and growingdeciduous forests. During the Early and MiddleNeolithic, horses are absent from the Portuguesefauna collections, either becoming extinct in the terri-tory or not being hunted. Their appearance during theLate Neolithic/Chalcolithic might be due to humanreintroduction as domesticated animals (by autochtho-nous or allochthonous processes) or to natural reintro-duction of the agriotype by expansion from other areasof Iberia. Supporting this last hypothesis is the factthat horses continue to be regularly found, albeit insmall numbers, during the Neolithic inMediterranean Spain (Morales et al. 1998). This hasalso been confirmed by Boyle (2006) when compilingavailable data between 6000 and 5000 BP in WesternEurope (i.e. cal ≈4950–3700 BC).

The domestication of horses in western Europe hasbeen widely discussed in literature (see Bendrey(2012) for a recent perspective on the subject). Someauthors (Gimbutas 1979; see also Cardoso 1995)relate domestic horse arrival to the Bell Beaker wide-spread ‘culture’ throughout most of Europe duringthe Late Chalcolithic. Uerpmann (1995), on theother hand, proposes a local domestication occurringduring the 3rd millennium BC in southern Spain,Portugal and southern France. This latter proposalmay be supported by recent genetic data: Warmuthet al. (2011) found significantly high levels of geneticdiversity in breeds from Iberia, suggesting that thegenetic contribution of the wild horses of the IberianPeninsula to local domestic stock may have been con-siderable. They also explain that the Iberian openlandscape would have served as a refugium for wildhorses in the early and middle Holocene. However,as the authors further point out, the means by whichdomestication itself developed – i.e. whether knowl-edge of how to successfully capture, tame and breedhorses reached Iberia through cultural transmissionor was acquired independently – is still unresolved.

In all, present data (or rather a lack of it) maintainthe wild versus domesticated status of horses duringthe Neolithic/Chalcolithic in Portugal (i.e. the exacttimeframe of their domestication) as an open debateuntil more substantial assemblages are found andtheir study has been carried out. Nonetheless, it ispossible that given the small numbers of equidsduring the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic in SouthernPortugal (<5% of NISP in Alentejo; even lowervalues in Estremadura), this species was not fully dom-esticated during this timeframe. We may, therefore, be



in the presence of hunted and/or tamed wild animals.Cardoso (1995) proposes a similar hypothesis. He alsosuggests that the introduction of domestic horsesduring the Bell Beaker Chalcolithic period takesplace in the context of the rise of a ‘warrior elite’, prob-ably of chiefdom type (Cardoso 2004, 152). It shouldbe noted that from this period onwards, equids weremostly used as transportation and traction animalsand rarely as food; during the previous periodsthere’s no evidence supporting such usage.It is therefore clear that during the Bell Beaker

period important economical and social changesoccurred. An increase of social complexity is alsonoticeable in other evidences, such as human gravesbuilt for individual inhumations with associatedgrave goods including daggers, spear points(‘Palmela’ points) and prestige items (e.g. goldadornments).

Future researchThe building of a general model for subsistence strat-egies in Southern Portugal during this timeframe (cal≈5500 and 2000 BC) should incorporate severalareas of research:• Special attention should be directed to the domesti-

cation of swine and horses, trying to define their time-frame and processes.

• Continuing records of the age of death and paleo-pathologies of ungulates, verifying patterns and theirchange through time and geographical areas, arecrucial for the understanding of herd managementstrategies.

• The different functions of carnivores, lagomorphs andother small animals (e.g. birds, fish, molluscs) andtheir importance for Neo–Chalcolithic communitiesshould be verified. Regarding animal roles, it willalso be important to find patterns and meanings foranimals in funerary and other ritual contexts.

• Taphonomic processes must be addressed, namely toassess differential preservation and diverse anthropo-genic actions. This is of greatest importance forsmall animals like lagomorphs.

• Finally, the integration of zooarchaeological datawith other research lines aiming for a full reconstitu-tion of subsistence strategies and their changes –

both through time and according to ecological con-straints – must be pursued. Perhaps the most criticalof these is agricultural (direct and indirect) evidence,exploitation of marine, estuarine or riverine resources,and stable isotopes from human remains.

AcknowledgementsWe thank our colleagues João Luís Cardoso, CleiaDetry and Marta Moreno-García for informationregarding their studies in Leceia, Mercador, Penedodo Lexim; Ana Cristina Araújo and FernandaTorquato for their help on solving some bibliographic

issues; Laura Dorsch for her help translating German;and Carol DeLancey for her editing of this paper. Wewould also like to acknowledge two anonymousreviewers for their helpful comments.

ReferencesAlbarella, U., Davis, S. J., Detry, C. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 2005.

Pigs of the ‘Far West’: the biometry of Sus from archaeologicalsites in Portugal. Anthropozoologica 40(2), 27–54.

Antunes, M. T. 1987. O povoado fortificado calcolítico doMonte daTumba. IV – Mamíferos (nota preliminar). SetúbalArqueológica VIII, 103–44.

Antunes, M. T. 2006. The Zebro (Equidae) and its extinction inPortugal, with an Appendix on the noun zebro and themodern “zebra”, pp. 210–235 in Equids in Time and Space(Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference). Oxford: OxbowBooks.

Arnaud, J. M. 1993. O povoado calcolítico de Porto Torrão(Ferreira do Alentejo): síntese das investigações realizadas.Vipasca 2, 41–60.

Beja-Pereira, A., Caramelli, D., Lalueza-Fox, C., Vernesi, C.,Ferrand, N., Casoli, A., Goyache, F., Royo, L. J., Conti, S.,Lari, M., Martini, A., Ouragh, L., Magid, A., Atash, A.,Zsolnai, A., Boscato, P., Triantaphylidis, C., Ploumi, K.,Sineo, L., Mallegni, F., Taberlet, P., Erhardt, G., Sampietro,L., Bertranpetit, J., Barbujani, G., Luikart, G. and Bertorelle,G. 2006. The origin of European cattle: evidence frommodern and ancient DNA. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 103(21), 8113–8.

Bendrey, R. 2012. From wild horses to domestic horses: a Europeanperspective. World Archaeology 44(1), 135–57.

Bernabeu, J., Orozco, T., Díez, A., Gómez, M. and Molina, F. J.2003. Mas d’Is (Penàguila, Alicante): aldeas y recintos monu-mentales del Neolítico inicial en el valle del Serpis. Trabajosde Prehistoria 60(2), 39–59.

Bosch, À., Chinchilla, J. and Tarrús, J. (eds.) 2000. El poblat lacustreneolític de La Draga. Excavacions de 1990 a 1998. Girona:Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya.

Boyle, K. V. 2006. Neolithic wild game animals in Western Europe:the question of hunting, pp. 10–23 in Serjeantson, D. and Field,D. (eds.), Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe.Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Brugal, J. P. and Valente, M. J. 2007. Dynamic of large mammalianassociations in the Pleistocene of Portugal, pp. 15–27 in Bicho,N.F. (ed.), From the Mediterranean Basin to the PortugueseAtlantic Shore. Papers in Honor of Anthony Marks. Faro:Universidade do Algarve.

Cabaço, N. 2010. Restos faunísticos em contexto do Neolítico final doSector Q do recinto dos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz).Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património 5, 27–30.

Cardoso, J. L. 1989. Le daim dans le Pléistocène du Portugal.Comunicações dos Serviços Geológicos de Portugal 75, 111–8.

Cardoso, J. L. 1993. Contribuição para o conhecimento dos grandesmamíferos do Pleistoceno Superior de Portugal. Oeiras:Câmara Municipal de Oeiras.

Cardoso, J. L. 1994. Os restos de grandes mamíferos do povoadoneolítico da Igreja de S. Jorge (Vila Verde de Ficalho, Serpa).Vipasca 3, 51–5.

Cardoso, J. L. 1995. Os ídolos falange do povoado pré-histórico deLeceia (Oeiras). Estudo comparado. Estudos Arqueológicos deOeiras 5, 213–32.

Cardoso, J. L. 2004. A Baixa Estremadura dos finais do IV milénioa.C. até à chegada dos romanos: um ensaio de História regional.Oeiras: Câmara Municipal de Oeiras.

Cardoso, J. L. 2007. Pré-História de Portugal. Lisboa: UniversidadeAberta.

Cardoso, J. L. 2009. O povoado pré-histórico do Carrascal (Oeiras)e os rituais associados a grandes bovídeos, pp. 357–70 inCardoso, J. L. (ed.), Volume comemorativo do XX aniversáriodo Centro de Estudos Arqueológicos do Concelho de Oeiras,1988–2008. Oeiras: Câmara Municipal de Oeiras.

Cardoso, J. L. and Detry, C. 2001/2002. Estudo arqueozoológicodos restos de ungulados do povoado pré-histórico de Leceia(Oeiras). Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 10, 131–82.

Cardoso, J. L., Norton, J. and Carreira, J. R. 1996. OcupaçãoCalcolítica do Monte do Castelo (Leceia, Oeiras). EstudosArqueológicos de Oeiras 6, 287–99.



Cardoso, J. L., Vilstrup, J. T., Eisenmann, V. and Orlando, L. 2013.First evidence of Equus asinus L. in the Chalcolithic disputes thePhoenicians as the first to introduce donkeys into the IberianPeninsula. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(12), 4483–90.

Carvalho, A. F. 2008. A neolitização do Portugal meridional. Osexemplos do Maciço Calcário Estremenho e do Algarve ociden-tal. Faro: Universidade do Algarve.

Carvalho, A. F. 2010. Le passage vers l’Atlantique: Le processus denéolithisation en Algarve (sud du Portugal). L’Anthropologie114(2), 141–78.

Carvalho, A. F., Gibaja, J. F. and Cardoso, J. L. 2013. Insights intothe earliest agriculture of Central Portugal: sickle implementsfrom the Early Neolithic site of Cortiçóis (Santarém).Comptes Rendus Palevol 12(1), 31–43.

Carvalho, A. F., Nunes, A., Gonçalves, C. and Pereira, J. 2010/2011.A ocupação calcolítica do Castelo de Ourém: contextos, culturamaterial, zooarqueologia, cronologia absoluta e integraçãoregional. Estudos Arqueológicos de Oeiras 18, 407–18.

Carvalho, A. F., Valente, M. J. and Haws, J. 2004. Faunasmamalógicas do Neolítico antigo do Maciço CalcárioEstremenho: análise preliminar de dados recentes.Promontoria 2, 143–55.

Costa, C. 2010a. Os restos faunísticos de animais vertebrados doSector I dos Perdigões (fossas e fossos 3 e 4). Apontamentosde Arqueologia e Património 6, 53–74.

Costa, C. 2010b. Problemática do enchimento dos fossos 3 e 4(Sector I) dos Perdigões (Reguengos de Monsaraz) com basena análise estratigráfica dos restos faunísticos, pp. 113–24 inBettencourt, A. M. S., Alves, M. I. C. and Monteiro-Rodrigues, S. (eds.), Variações paleombientais e evoluçãoantrópica na Quaternário do Ocidente peninsular. Braga:APEQ/CITCEM.

Costa, F. A. P. 1868. Noções sobre o estado prehistórico da Terra e doHomem seguidas da descripção de alguns dolmins ou antas dePortugal. Lisboa: Academia Real das Sciencias.

Costa, J. C., Aguiar, C., Capelo, J. H., Lousã,M. and Neto, C. 1998.Biogeografia de Portugal Continental. Quercetea 1–56.

Davis, S. J. M. 2002. The mammals and birds from the Gruta doCaldeirão, Portugal. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 5(2),29–98.

Davis, S. J. M. 2006. Faunal remains from Alcáçova de Santarém,Portugal. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia.

Davis, S. J. M. and Mataloto, R. 2012. Animal remains fromChalcolithic São Pedro (Redondo, Alentejo): evidence for acrisis in the Mesolithic. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 15,47–85.

Davis, S. J. M. and Moreno-García, M. 2007. Of metapodials,measurements and music: eight years of miscellaneous zooarch-aeological discoveries at the IPA, Lisbon. O ArqueólogoPortuguês 25, 9–165.

Dean, R. M. and Carvalho, A. F. 2011. Surf and turf: the use ofmarine and terrestrial resources in the Early Neolithic ofCoastal Southern Portugal, pp. 291–302 in Bicho, N. F.,Haws, J. A. and Davis, L. G. (eds.), Trekking the shore.Changing coastlines and the antiquity of coastal settlement.Springer: New York.

Diniz, M. 2007. O sítio da Valada do Mato (Évora): aspectos daneolitização no Interior/Sul de Portugal. Lisboa: InstitutoPortuguês de Arqueologia.

von den Driesch, A. 1973. Tierknochenfunde aus dem kupferzeitli-chen Castro da Fórnea, pp. 55–63 in Spindler, K. and Gallay,G. (eds.), Kupferzeitliche siedlung und begräbuisstätten vonMatacães in Portugal. Madrid: Madrider Beitrage.

von den Driesch, A. and Boessneck, J. 1976. Die fauna vom Castrodo Zambujal. München: Institut für Palaeoanatomie,Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Tiermedizin derUniversität München.

Fernández, H., Hughes, S., Vigne, J.-D., Helmer, D., Hodgins, G.,Miquel, C. and Taberlet, P. 2006. Divergent mtDNA lineagesof goats in an Early Neolithic site, far from the initial domesti-cation areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103(42), 15375–9.

Gimbutas, M. 1979. The three waves of the Kurgan People into OldEurope, 4500–2500 BC, pp. 113–37 inMenk, R. and Gallay, A.(eds.), Anthropologie et Archéologie: le cas des premiers âges desMétaux. Actes du Symposium de Sils-Maria. Genève: ArchivesSuisses d’Anthropologie Générale.

Gomes, R. V., Gomes, M. V. and Santos, M. F. 1983. O santuárioexterior do Escoural. Sector NE (Montemor-o-Novo, Évora).Zephyrus XXXVI, 287–307.

Gonçalves, V. S. 2000/2001. O trigo, a cobre, a lã e o leite: um guiabibliográfico e uma curta introdução às sociedades camponesasda primeira metade do 3° milénio no centro e sul de Portugal.Zephyrus 53–54, 273–92.

Hadjikoumis, A. 2012. Traditional pig herding practices in south-west Iberia: questions of scale and zooarchaeological impli-cations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 353–64.

Jorge, S. O. 1990. A consolidação do sistema agro-pastoril,pp. 102–62 in Alarcão, J. (ed.), Nova História de Portugal.Portugal: das origens à romanização. Lisboa: Presença.

Jorge, S. O. 2000. Domesticating the land: the first agriculturalcommunities in Portugal. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 2,43–98.

Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1951. Antas do Concelho de Reguengos deMonsaraz. Materiais para o Estudo da Cultura Megalítica emPortugal. Lisboa: Instituto para a Alta Cultura.

Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C. and Morales Muñiz, A. 2012. Lastransformaciones económicas del Neolítico en la PenínsulaIbérica: la ganadería, pp. 107–28 in Rojo, M., Garrido, R.and García, Í. (eds.), El Neolítico en la Península Ibérica y sucontexto europeo. Madrid: Cátedra.

Lopez-Doriga, I. and Simões, T. 2012. Early Neolithic Agriculturein Portugal: the evidence from plant macro-remains. Poster pre-sented to the Association for Environmental Archaeology,Autumn Conference 2012 – Environmental Archaeologies ofNeolithisation. University of Reading (UK), 10–12 November2012.

Luís, S., Correia, F. and Fernandes, P. V. 2013. Middle NeolithicZooarchaeology at the Pena d’Água Rock-shelter (PortugueseEstremadura). Paper presented to the VI Jornadas de Jóvenesen Investigación Arqueológica (7–11th May 2013). Barcelona:Universitat de Barcelona.

Lyman, R. L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Morales, A., Albertini, D., Blasco, F., Cardoso, J. L., Castaños, P.,Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck, C., Montero, S., Nadal, J.,Nicolas, E., Perez, M., Pinouria, B. and Riquelme, J. A.1998. A preliminary catalogue of Holocene equids from theIberian Peninsula, pp. 65–82 in Atti del XIII CongressInternational Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences– UISPP (Forli, Italia, 1996), Vol. 6, Issue 1. Forlí:A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni.

Moreno-García, M. 2013. Estudo arqueozoológico dos restosfaunísticos do povoado calcolítico do Mercador (Mourão),pp. 319–49 in Valera, A. C. (ed.), As sociedades agropastorisna margem esquerda do Guadiana (2a metade do IV aos iníciosdo II milénio AC). N.p.: EDIA/DRCALEN.

Moreno-García, M. and Sousa, A. C. 2013. A exploração de recur-sos faunísticos no Penedo do Lexim (Mafra) no Neolítico Final,pp. 67–76, in Gonçalves, V. S., Diniz, M. and Sousa, A. C.(eds.) 5° Congresso do Neolítico Peninsular. Cascais: CâmaraMunicipal de Cascais.

Moreno-García, M. and Valera, A. C. 2007. Os restos faunísticos devertebrados do sítio do Mercador (Mourão). Vipasca –Arqueologia e História, 2 (Actas do III Encontro deArqueologia do Sudoeste, 26–28 October 2006, Aljustrel),139–52.

Morán, E. 2001. Aproximación al estudio geoarqueológico deAlcalar (Portimão, Algarve, Portugal) en el III milénio a.n.e.:evidencias arqueológicas de la existencia de una sociedad cla-sista inicial. Revista Atlántica-Mediterránea de Prehistoria yArqueología Social 4, 169–205.

Muralha, J. and Costa, C. 2006. A ocupação neolítica da Encosta deSant’Ana (MartimMoniz, Lisboa), 157–69 in Bicho, N.F. (ed.),Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular. DoEpipaleolitico ao Calcolítico na Peninsula Ibérica. Faro:Universidade do Algarve.

Neves, M. J., Aubry, T., Almeida, M., Basílio, L. and Gabriel, S.2008. Cova do Ladrão: cronoestratigrafia e enquadramentona ocupação holocénica do Baixo Mondego (Portugal), pp.290–7 in Hernández, M.S., Soler, J.A. and López, J.A. (eds.),Actas del IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular, I. Alicante:Museo Arqueológico de Alicante.

Paço, A. 1954. Sementes pré-históricas do castro de Vila Nova deS. Pedro. Lisboa: Academia Portuguesa de História.

Paço, A. and Jalhay, E. 1945. El castro de Vilanova de San Pedro.Actas y Memorias de la Sociedad Española de Antropología,Etnografía y Prehistoria XX, 5–93.

Peña-Chocarro, L. and Zapata, L. 2012. Las transformacioneseconómicas del Neolítico en la Península Ibérica: la agricultura,



pp. 95–106 in Rojo Guerra, M.A., Garrido Pena, R. and GarcíaMartínez de Lagrán, I. (eds.), El Neolítico en la P. Ibérica y suContexto Europeo. Cátedra: Madrid.

Ribeiro, O. 1945. Portugal, o Mediterrâneo e o Atlântico. Lisboa: Sáda Costa.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1992. The Early Neolithic bones from Gruta doCaldeirão, pp. 231–57 in Zilhão, J. (ed.), Gruta do Caldeirão.O Neolítico antigo. Lisboa: Instituto Português do PatrimónioArquitectónico e Arqueológico.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 2011. Westward Ho! The spread of agriculturefrom Central Europe to the Atlantic. Current Anthropology52(Suppl.), 431–51.

Sherratt, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondaryproducts revolution, pp. 261–305 in Hodder, I., Isaac, G. andHammond, N. (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies inHonour of David Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Soares, J. 2011. Transformações sociais durante o III milénio AC nosul de Portugal. O povoado do Porto das Carretas. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa.

Soares, J. and Silva, C. T. 1998. From the collapse of theChalcolithic mode of production to the development of theBronze Age societies in the South-West of IberianPeninsula, pp. 231–45 in Jorge, S. O. (ed.), Existe uma Idadedo Bronze Atlântico? Lisboa: Instituto Português deArqueologia.

Soares, J. and Silva, C. T. 2010. Campaniforme do Porto dasCarretas (médio Guadiana). A procura de novos quadros dereferência, pp. 225–62 in Gonçalves, V. S. and Sousa, A. C.(eds.), Transformação e mudança no centro e sul de Portugal:o 4.° e o 3.° milénios a.n.e. Actas do colóquio internacional.Cascais: Câmara Municipal de Cascais.

Sousa, A. C. 2010. O Penedo do Lexim e a sequência do Neolíticofinal e Calcolítico da Península de Lisboa. Unpblished PhD dis-sertatio, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa.

Straus, L. G., Altuna, J., Ford, D., Marambat, L., Rhine, J. S.,Schwarcz, J.-H. P. and Vernet, J.-L. 1992. Early farming inthe Algarve (Southern Portugal): a preliminary view from twocave excavations near Faro. Trabalhos de Antropologia eEtnologia XXXII, 141–61.

Uerpmann, P. H. 1995. Domestication of the Horse: Where, When,and Why?, pp. 15–29 in Liliane, B. (ed.), Le cheval et les autreséquidés: aspects de l’histoire de leur insertion dans les activitéshumaines. Liège: Université de Liège.

Valente, M. J. 1998a. Análise preliminar da fauna mamalógica doAbrigo da Pena d’Água (Torres Novas). Campanhas de1992–1994. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 1(2), 85–96.

Valente, M. J. 1998b. Juromenha 1, Alandroal. Estudo preliminar dafauna mamalógica da “Sondagem 1”, “Sector 1”. Unpublishedreport. Faro: Universidade do Algarve.

Valente, M. J. 2013. Moinho de Valadares, Mourão. Estudo dafauna mamalógica das sondagens 1, 2 e 3 (Campanha de1999), pp. 353–60 in Valera, A. C. (ed.), As sociedades agropas-toris na margem esquerda do Guadiana (2a metade do IV aosinícios do II milénio AC). N.p.: EDIA/DRCALEN.

Valera, A. C. 2000. Moinho de Valadares 1 e a transição NeolíticoFinal/Calcolítico na margem esquerda do Guadiana: umaanálise preliminar. Era Arqueologia 1, 34–7.

Valera, A. C. 2009. Cosmological bonds and settlement aggregationprocesses during late Neolithic and Copper Age in SouthPortugal, pp. 234–65 in Thurston, T. L. and Salisbury, R. B.(eds.), Reimagining Regional Analyses: The Archaeology ofSpatial and Social Dynamics. Newcastle: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing.

Vigne, J. D. and Helmer, D. 2007. Was milk a “secondary product”in the Old World Neolithisation process? Its role in the domes-tication of cattle, sheep and goats. Anthropozoologica 42(2),9–40.

Warmuth, V., Eriksson, A., Bower, M. A., Cañon, J., Cothran, G.,Distl, O., Glowatzki-Mullis, M., Hunt, H., Luís, C., do MarOom, M., Yupanqui, I. T., Zabek, T. and Manica, A. 2011.European domestic horses originated in two Holocenerefugia. PloS One 6(3), e18194.

Zilhão, J. 1997. Maritime pioneer colonisation in the Early Neolithicof the West Mediterranean. Testing the model against the evi-dence. Porocilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitikav Sloveniji XXIV, 19–42.

Zilhão, J. 2000. From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the IberianPeninsula, pp. 144–82 in Price, T. D. (ed.), Europe’s FirstFarmers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



zooarchaeology in the neolithic and chalcolithic of southern portugal

Documents