chapter 02 blanco, mañana, ayan · chapter 16 the archaeological study of san esteban deatán...

Archaeotecture Archaeology of Architecture

Edited by

Xurxo M. Ayán Vila Rebeca Blanco Rotea

Patricia Mañana Borrazás

BAR International Series 1175 2003

This title published by

Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com

BAR S1175

Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture

© the individual authors 2003

ISBN 1 84171 543 3

Printed in England by The Basingstoke Press

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England [email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

i

Contents

List of contributors

iii

Prefacev

Chapter 1 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture

Xurxo M. Ayán Vila, Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Mañana Borrazás1

Chapter 2 Archaeology of Architecture: theory, methodology and analysis from LandscapeArchaeology

Rebeca Blanco Rotea, Patricia Mañana Borrazás & Xurxo M. Ayán Vila17

Chapter 3Archaeological analysis and intervention in historical buildings

Luis Caballero Zoreda41

Chapter 4 Methodology and systems of analysis: The Château at Mayenne

Rob Early61

Chapter 5 House Ethnoarchaeology in Ethiopia. Some elements for the analysis of domesticspace in Benishangul

Alfredo González Ruibal & Víctor M. Fernández Martínez83

Chapter 6 On Architecture & Archaeology. Reading Norberg-Schulz in a prehistoric context

Curry Heimann99

Chapter 7 The Architect in Classical Architecture

Nick Eiteljorg107

Chapter 8 Presenting the Roman Villa:The Villa di Orazio, Licenza, and the Villa delDiscobolo, Capocotta

Martin Goalen & Diane Fortenberry113

Chapter 9The Baths of Odessos as a Space Providing Employment for its Citizes

Anna Haralambieva121

Chapter 10Excavations in the County Gaol of Chaves

Sérgio Carnéiro125

Chapter 11 The Archaeology of Space

Robina McNeil143

Chapter 12 An Estate House at the 15th Excavation Area of the Selitrennoie Site

Emma Zilivinskaya155

ii

Chapter 13An Archaeological Vision of A Medieval Town

Mindaugas Bertašius167

Chapter 14A practical example of the Archaeology of Architecture: Its application within thechronological discussion about the Early-Medieval Hispanic churches

Mª Ángeles Utrero Agudo, Luis Caballero Zoreda & Fernando Arce Sainz173

Chapter 15The medieval monastery of San Andrés de Astigarribia, Mutriku (Gipuzkoa,Spain)

Jesús Manuel Pérez Centeno & Amagoia Pía Aranguren189

Chapter 16The archaeological study of San Esteban de Atán (Lugo-Spain). A Pre-Romanesque, Romanesque or Modern church?

Fernando Arce Sainz & Mª Ángeles Utrero Agudo197

Chapter 17Rethoric and design in premodern buildings

Dragos Gheorghiu205

Chapter 18 The Propylaea project

Harrison Eiteljorg, II213

Chapter 19 Conservation plans and Private Sector Development

Gerald A. Wait219

iii

List of contributors

Fernando Arce Sainz([email protected])

Instituto de Historia,Departamento de Historia Antigua yArqueología,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas(CSIC)Madrid, Spain

Xurxo M. Ayán Vila([email protected])

Laboratorio de ArqueoloxíaInstituto de Estudios Galegos Padre SarmientoConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas(CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA)Galicia, Spain

http://www-gtarpa.usc.es/

Mindaugas Bertašius([email protected])

Department History of ArtsVytautas Magnus UniversityKaunas, Lithuania

Rebeca Blanco Rotea([email protected])



Luis Caballero Zoreda([email protected])

Centro de Estudios Históricos,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas(CSIC)Madrid, Spain

Sérgio Carnéiro([email protected])

Câmara Municipal de ChavesChaves, Portugal

Rob Early([email protected])

Oxford Archaeological UnitOrford, United Kingdom

Harrison Eiteljorg, II([email protected])

CSA, Bryn Mawr, PAUSA

http://csanet.org/

Nick Eiteljorg([email protected])

CSA, Bryn Mawr, PAUSAhttp://csanet.org/

Víctor M. Fernández Martínez([email protected])

Universidad Complutense de MadridMadrid, Spain

Diane Fortenberry([email protected])

Academy Projects (Archaeology • Architecture)LLPLondon, United Kingdom

http://www.academyprojects.com

Dragos Gheorghiu([email protected])

University of Arts Bucharest, Romania /University of Missouri-Columbia, USA

Martin Goalen([email protected])

Academy Projects (Archaeology • Architecture)LLPLondon, United Kingdom

http://www.academyprojects.com

Alfredo González Ruibal([email protected])

Universidad Complutense de MadridMadrid, Spain

Anna Haralambieva([email protected])

Cultural and Historical Heritage BoardVarna, Bulgaria

iv

Curry Heimann([email protected])

Department of ArchaeologyGöteborg University,Box 200, SE - 405 30Göteborg, Sweden.

Patricia Mañana Borrazás([email protected])



Robina McNeil([email protected])

Greater Marchester Arch UnitThe University of ManchesterManchester, United Kingdom

Jesús Manuel Pérez Centeno([email protected])

Department of Historical Archaeology,Society of Sciences AranzadiDonostia-San Sebastian, Euskadi, Spain

Amagoia Pía Aranguren

Department of Historical Archaeology,Society of Sciences AranzadiDonostia-San Sebastian, Euskadi, Spain

Mª Angeles Utrero Agudo([email protected])

Instituto de Historia,Departamento de Historia Antigua yArqueología,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas(CSIC)Madrid, Spain

Dr Gerald A. Wait([email protected])

Associate, Gifford and Partners LtdCarlton House, Ringwood RdWoodland, SouthamptonSO40 7HTUnited Kingdom

Emma Zilivinskaya([email protected])

Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy ofScienceMoscow State UniversityMoscow, Russia

v

Preface

This volume has been produced by the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) as a resultof the contributions presented by different authors during the sessions held under the generalheading of ‘Architectural Archaeology’ in Lisbon (Portugal) in 2000, and in Esslingen (Germany)in 2001, both of which were co-ordinated by the editors of this volume. Archaeotecture:Archaeology of Architecture is a compilation of the majority of the papers presented during thesesessions, organised according to their subjects or the chronological periods they cover. All of themshare a common factor: the study of constructions and architectonic spaces, analysed from anarchaeological perspective.

The interest shown in the communications presented during these EAA sessions with acommon epigraph and complementary focus, together with the need to publicise the studies carriedout within the framework of Architectural Archaeology, has led the organisers to promote thepublication of the details of these different investigations. Its introduction contains texts with anessentially theoretical and methodological content that make it possible to establish anapproximation towards architecture from archaeological perspectives, and then offers a series ofexamples in which these or other methodologies have been put into practice. Most of these studiesfocus on constructions from historical periods, essentially motivated by the fact that an importantpart of our remaining architectonic heritage belongs to these periods, meaning that this is the fieldin which Architectural Archaeology has developed to its fullest extent. In fact, its appearance waspartly motivated by the need to adopt new methodologies that made it possible to study post-classical constructions from an archaeological perspective, as the objects of study were no longersubterranean sites, but instead buildings that were still standing, in many cases still in use, andapplying construction techniques using non-perishable materials. This fact excluded its applicationto other constructions, generally from pre- and proto-historic periods, that were often built usingperishable materials, and concentrated on the study of monumental architecture.

One of the aims of this volume was to gather together the different analyses that have beencarried out into all types of architecture, regardless of their chronology or type, thereforeovercoming the above-mentioned situations. The studies gathered in this volume cover achronological period that starts with Prehistory and continues to the present day, concentratingequally on the analysis of wooden archaeological structures and monumental architecture built instone.

Another of the objectives of these sessions (as explained in Chapter 1) was to demonstratethat investigation and management are two inseparable elements within the study of heritageconstructions, as demonstrated by some of the studies included that discuss the application ofArchitectural Archaeology in Heritage Management. Since holding these sessions, it is now heldthat this is the path the discipline should follow, as the disassociation between basic and appliedinvestigation reduces its potential, and poses a hurdle to making the best use of the results obtainedfrom basic investigation. In this sense, the possibilities for application offered by ArchitecturalArchaeology in designing plans for the direction of old towns, the creation of maps detailingregional techniques, carrying out architectonic restoration projects, the conservation of heritageconstructions or the interpretation of vanished architectonic spaces, should be taken into accountwhen dealing with architectonic studies from this discipline, which are often reduced to merelyusing their methodological instruments.

Although this volume is not a compendium of all of the theoretical and methodologicalapproximations, perspectives and proposals in use today in Architectural Archaeology, it doesoffer a detailed description of the different types of projects that have been carried out in Europe inrecent years.

Xurxo Ayán VilaRebeca Blanco RoteaPatricia Mañana Borrazás

17

2

Archaeology of Architecture:

theory, methodology and analysis from Landscape Archaeology

Rebeca Blanco Rotea; Patricia Mañana Borrazás & Xurxo M. Ayán VilaLaboratorio de Arqueoloxía - Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento (CSIC-XuGA), Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Abstract

In the first part of our paper we propose a theoretic and methodological plan to develop an investigation line inArchaeology of Architecture, orientated from Landscape Archaeology propositions. In this plan we articulate amethodological frame that include analysis techniques from different disciplines: Archaeology, Architecture,Anthropology and Psychology (stratigraphical analysis, formal analysis, perception analysis). This is the theoretical andmethodological frame of the Archaeotecture.The second part includes a example of this kind of analysis, which is integrated into a major project about HeritageManagement of a hillfort in North West of Spain: the Castro of Elviña (A Coruña, Galicia). Our archaeological researchunit and A Coruña Council contracted for develop a Director Plan which put the basis to build an archaeological park inthis site. The plannning included several works among whose was the study of architectonical record. In this context wemake a formal analysis of several domestic buildings and a stratigraphical analysis of one of them. At his point ourresearch allow us know the evolution of domestic space and changes in social patterns from Iron Age untilRomanization. In the same way this work give us a rich information about architecture that was used for a CADreconstruction of the major house dirt in the site. This study not only contribute to identify the different constructiveperiods but also to design an architectonical reconstruction of an Iron Age dwelling into the future archaeological park.

Introduction

ObjectivesThe reason for this paper is to propose new perspectives inthe archaeological and historical investigation ofarchitecture and constructed space. The aim is to overcomethe traditional opinions which still govern these types ofapproximations, and to incorporate theoretical-methodological instruments which make it possible to fullyexamine the socio-cultural logic of an architectonic recordconceived as yet another product of material culture, and aformal mechanism for reproducing social systems.

Considering these positions, this document presents theinitial results of a new line of investigation within theArchaeology of Architecture by the Landscape ArchaeologyInvestigation Group (GIArPa) formed by the Laboratory ofArchaeology of Instituto de Estudios Gallegos PadreSarmiento (CSIC-XuGa), in north-western Spain. This team,directed by Professor Felipe Criado, has developed in recentyears an ambitious investigation plan, based on the study ofcultural landscapes build in prehistoric times in the north-western Iberian peninsula. This perspective attempts toexamine territorial concepts, the way of conceptualisingspace and the construction of landscapes by the differentsocieties which inhabited our country from Palaeolithictimes until the Roman occupation.

Studies carried out to date by the group have beencarried out on a macrospatial scale, giving a clear view ofthe emplacement of inhabited spaces, patterns ofemplacement (which have even led to creating predictivemodels for the position of sites), of the ways in which spaceis occupied, and of environmental and subsistenceconditions. However, as these studies advanced, it became

increasingly obvious that it was necessary to contrast thesemodels through a displacement of the scale with which thestudy material had been treated. And so, with the aim ofdefining and completing the vision of prehistoric landscapeswhich had resulted from our studies, a new line ofinvestigation was proposed to examine the archaeologicalrecord on a microspatial scale, which led to a directconfrontation with the problems associated with studyingfunerary and domestic architecture. The architectonic recordwas essential for interpreting the socio-cultural formationswhich were studied, as this type of register gives anenormous amount of potential information which makes itpossible to see in a new light the factors of individual,social, political-economical, subsistential and symbolicorder which were prevalent in communities from the past.

We therefore believe that this volume aboutArchaotectura is the most suitable occasion to offer ageneral summary of this investigation programme, and givea preliminary presentation of the initial advances we haveachieved at basic investigation level. We would like to offer,from Galicia, an archaeological experience whichcontributes to the debate about the need to develop andexploit new perspectives in the study of Architecturethrough our discipline, as has already been done throughother social sciences such as Anthropology or Sociology.

ProposalsOur proposal started out with the need to offer new ways oflooking at and thinking about the architecture of pastsocieties. In a previous work (Ayán et el. 2000) the basis forthis proposal was shown, its relationship with theprehistorical and historical research and the arguments tocall it Archaeotecture; the proposal intends to takeadvantage of the information provided by this part of thearcaheological record (the built record) for the

Archaeology of Architecture: theory, methodology and analysis from Landscape Archaeology

18

understanding of preceding social formations, and to showhow archaeology must become a technique which usesspatial and methodological analyses together with socialtheory as an interpretative framework (Samson 1990).

Today the need has been imposed to widen theperspectives of investigation, assimilating new lines whichmake it possible to maximise the information which comesfrom the constructed space.

To do so we have developed open lines of investigationwhich are being optimised in other contexts, although inGalicia these have only appeared in recent years. Thetheoretical and methodological framework used to carry outthis initiative is known as Landscape Archaeology (Criado1999), while the main techniques and methodologies usedform part of the Archaeology of Architecture and anotherarchaeological researches . This discipline, based on thestudy of historical constructions using archaeologicalmethodology, gives a series of analytical models andmethodological instruments which greatly help in the studyof different dimensions of constructed space.

The investigation programme proposed in turn offers aline of applied investigation which is related to theManagement and Appraisal of Archaeological Heritage. It isimportant to mention that traditional archaeology hasbarely tackled the problem of socially publicising historicalknowledge. Digs in archaeological sites usually involveexcavations whose results – which are rarely published - areonly known to specialists and professionals in the field.They have thus become projects of little interest to society,which paradoxically finances these investigations in mostcases. This situation is related to the overly academicperspective used, which forgets the nature and socialfunction of a humanistic discipline like archaeology. Thisexplains the marginalisation (which is often unconscious) ofwork with the socio-cultural product of archaeologicalinvestigation par excellence: Archaeological Heritage.

In general, this ‘purist’ perspective has predominatedinvestigation of prehistory in our country, considerablylimiting taking full advantage of the information obtainedfrom archaeological digs. This perspective has led to adegree of theoretical and methodological conservatism,which has not promoted the application of new strategies,not only in heritage management, but also in basicinvestigation, as is the case with Experimental Archaeology,Ethnoarchaeology or Architectural Archaeology.

ContentsBroadly speaking, the text attempts to demonstrate thebidemensional character of archaeological practice appliedto Architecture using the guidelines of LandscapeArchaeology. This paper is therefore divided into two mainsections; the first one details the theoretical andmethodological aspects of the proposed line ofinvestigation, starting from the critical revision of historicalarchaeological investigations into architecture andconstructed space, developed in the already quotedprevious work, as a way of grasping the social logic andcultural context in which they develop as elements ofmaterial culture. Therefore, we will focus here in sometheoretical aspects concerning the different disciplines

involved in the study of the constructed space, the veryconcept of space and the way i which it is analyzed inArchitecture.

The second part demonstrates the applied aspect of thisinvestigation programme, exploring one importantintervention which have taken place in Galicia: a study ofdomestic architecture in an Iron Age hillfort within thecontext of planning an appraisal project for the site. In it, theArchaeology of Architecture comes into play within integralHeritage Management programmes, giving rise to aquantity of information which is maximised in the studyand social popularisation of this site.

Theoretical proposalsTheoretical proposals are the foundations which allow us tointerpret the social actions reflected in the architectonicregister. If we ask ourselves what the basic concepts are inthe investigation of a construction, then space is the mostfundamental. It is important to explain what is meant byspace, as it is the fundamental objective of architectonicinvestigation, and its appreciation depends on the analyticaltechniques used. An essential part of the investigativestrategy detailed in this study is directly derived from thetheoretical concepts of space, of their interpretation in thefield of architecture, and how they eventually contribute tothe investigation of prehistoric and historic architecture.

The concept of SpaceMankind’s relationship with space has existential roots,derived from the need to acquire vital relationships in thesurrounding environment, in order to bring sense and orderto world of occurrences and actions, as noted by Norberg-Schulz (1980: 9). Most human activities have a spatialaspect, understood as that orientating objects are distributedaccording to spatial relationships (inside-outside, near-far,separate-joined, etc.) Human beings, in order to carry outtheir wishes, must understand spatial relationships, andbring them together in one spatial concept.

Space is therefore considered as one of the fundamentalexistential dimensions for mankind, and as a design for lifehas been the object of study and reflection by philosophersand scientists since the earliest times. Lao-Tsé, Parmenides,Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Descartes, Locke, Newton,Kant, etc..., defined this concept, giving it different valueswithin their philosophical theories. The last revolution inthe concepts of sciences and philosophy appeared withEinstein, who refined the concepts of space which existed inphysics into three main categories (Ven 1981): space as aplace, referring to a small piece of the earth’s surface, with aname (Aristotle); space as a three dimensional field(Euclidean concept); space as the container for all materialobjects; the container may be changed, but the containedspace remains (Newton’s absolute space). With his theory ofrelativity, Einstein gave us the concept of a time-spacecontinuum in four dimensions.

However, away from the world of science, the idea ofspace has acquired other dimensions. The traditional notionof space, in line with bourgeois thinking, had becomereduced to its territorially dimension (somewhere to occupy


19

or exploit), it has been discredited in relation to time(Criado 1993b).

Yet in all of these concepts of space, aspects of spatialexperience are left very much to one side, such as emotionaland symbolic relationships with the environment. Indealing with these essential aspects, C. Norberg-Schulz(1980: 9-12), carrying out a study into the notion of space,differentiated between several concepts:

- pragmatic space, within which physical action takesplace: it integrates man with his natural organicenvironment ;

- perceptive space, of immediate action; fundamental forhis identity as a person;

- existential space, which for mankind forms a stableimage of the surrounding environment, giving asense of belonging to a social and cultural whole;

- cognitive space of the physical world, through whichhe is able to think about space;

- abstract space of purely logical relationships, offeringan instrument to describe to others;

- expressive or artistic space, in which the structure of hisworld is expressed as a real imago mundi. This needsto forge a concept of space which organises thepossible properties of expressive spaces (includingarchitectonic space).

- Architectonic space: directly related to spatial systems,of mankind’s individual and public space.Mankind’s systems are created by influences whichare reciprocal to existing architectonic spaces, andwhen these prove to be confused or too unstable,then he has to change his architectonic space. It maybe finally defined as the fixing of man’s existentialspace.

As may be seen from this glimpse at the differenttheoretical areas which consider the concept of space, thishas become a notion with a single meaning (place, threedimensional space, etcetera), to be evaluatedmultidimensionally, considering both its concept as aphysical matrix, and the perception mankind has of it, andits implicit cultural significance. This multidimensionalspace is directly related to the pattern of rationality, whichLévi-Strauss calls thought, of the society which creates itand lives it out; architecture is also the most evident way ofgiving a physical aspect to the spatial concepts of thisrationality. Perhaps the study of the spatiality of a pastsociety may be the best way of understanding theirrationality, as language, the essential communicator ofthought, does not endure.

The study of space in ArchitectureSince the appearance of modern architecture (in 1890, withArt Nouveau), architects and art historians have started toconsider space as a fundamental concept withinarchitecture. Lao-Tsé is one of the ancient philosophers whohas had most influence in this change of attitude. In histheory, dating from around 550 BC, he established thefoundations of the philosophical and phenomenologicalprinciple of polarity, brought together in a single conceptBeing and Not Being. With regard to space, the expression ofthe superiority of the content of an architectonic space, of

interior space, has been fundamental. This is the firstwritten attempt at interpreting the dividing line as acontinuation of space, emphasising not so much interiorspace as the parts of the construction which transmit itsinterior outwards toward the exterior space (the borders)(Ven 1981:23).

In a study of the concept of space in architecture, J.Sánchez (1998: 90-92) included the theories of the followingart historians and architects. For Schmarsow, architecture iscreated by the human body, seeking its own sense ofmovement and of its extensions into space. He recognisesthree types of spaces: tactile, mobile and visual, which thesenses incorporate in simultaneous and successiveexperiences in space and time. Hildebrand perceives spacein two ways: through pure vision (statically viewed images)and kinetic vision (images received when the viewer ismoving). The theories of the Cubists have also beenfundamental, which after Einstein’s theory of relativityadded the concept of a fourth dimension, a dimensionacquired with the movement of the body (compared to thetraditionally Euclidean dimension, which is static). One ofthe greatest luminaries of modern architecture, LeCorbusier, at first rejected this fourth dimension, claimingthat humanity was only capable of perceiving three;however, he would finally accept it, calling it ineffable space,or an emotional state in which spaces were defined byharmonic series (Sánchez) 1998: 91), leading to a greaterconsideration of the volumetric disposition and circulatoryorder in constructions. In all of these theories, theperception of spaces (with movement as one of its keyelements) is seen as essential for the study of architecture.

Accordingly, various proposals have appeared inmodern architecture concerning space, which act as atheoretical base for the analysis presented in this study.One of the main authors who has helped modernise theconcept of space in architecture has been S. Giedion (seeNorberg-Schulz 1980:13), for whom the process by which aspatial image may be transposed to the emotional sphere isexpressed by the spatial concept, which gives informationabout the relationship between human being and hissurroundings, confronted by a spiritual expression ofreality. The world at his feet is changed by his presence, andforces him to graphically project his own position, if hewishes to relate to it. This coincides with the precepts ofLandscape Archaeology, which considers that by studyingconcepts of spatiality and their structural model, then it ispossible to access the pattern of rationality which createdthem (Criado 1999).

Studies about architectonic space depend on the basicconcept of space which they use. Two types of study prevailin this kind of investigation: those based on thetridimensional space (grammar studies) and those based onthe space as a vital sensation (perception studies).According to a conceptualization of space asmultidimensional and directly related to specific patterns ofrationality(thougth)1, we believe that these two types of

1 The assumption that “activities which take place in relation tospace are coherently organised with the ideal representation of the


20

analysis have a great potential of information (both lie at thebasis of our proposal). However each one of them, takenseparately, are unsatisfactory, so they must be connectedtogether and related to more general patterns ofunderstanding.

To summarise the previous, our proposal seek studybuilt space from a structural, funcional and symbolic pointof view, attending to their multidimensionally,deconstructing it, with the objective to integrate it in ageneral pattern of understanding. We seek a symbioticperspective that maximise this research , investigationwhich answer the demands in Heritage Protection andManagement. We think that this proposal must beintegrated in Architectonic Heritage Management, and thisnot must be reduced to being a interpretative practice, butmust be as a source of information as a technique whichadapts and respond to the problems presented by theexistence of Archaeological Heritage.

Methodological instrumentThe fundamental problem offered by the type ofarchaeological investigation suggested here lies in theprocedure used to carry out the empirical contrasting of thepreviously mentioned theoretical proposal. We considerthat in order to demonstrate spatial models, the most usefulanalytical instruments are those designed in the field ofArchitectural Archaeology.

This discipline embraces different methodologiesdeveloped for the investigation of past societies, both in thedomestic and ceremonial environment. The study of verticalstratigraphy, particularly used in the study of Mediaevalsites, the functional and symbolic analysis of the English school(Clarke, Blanton, Hodder) which recognises the socialfactors and symbolic aspects of architecture, and the studyof the symbolic use of space with non-verbal communicationstudied by Rapoport are all aspects which are dealt with inthe study of the architecture of past societies.

This is the methodological framework to be used in theproposed investigation programme, as it makes availableinstruments which make possible the analysis anddescription of an architectonic element through its ownparameters, and also attempt to reconstruct the originalcontext via the significant spatial relationships identifiedamong the different objects of the record and other codes orlevels of its actual social composition.

This section details some of the analytical techniqueswhich may be used to identify the specific material formswhich form the architectonic record being studied.

Formal analysisUsing analysis of the type of architectonic design (Ching1995; Baker 1994, 1998) an analytical procedure has beendeveloped (Criado 1999) which enables a more satisfactory

world held by the social group which carries them out” (Criado1999:10), meaning it is essential to integrate these analyses within aparticular pattern of rationality, which is one of the final objectivesof the investigation of prehistory.

formal analysis2 of primitive architecture. This formalanalysis is not just focused on a typological and constructiveanalysis (see Vela 1995: 267-72) but essentially on theanalysis of the specific spatial configuration of thearchitectonic register, its pattern of emplacement in thesurrounding area, constructed space, internalcommunication, social function, visibility conditions andvisibilisation conditions, pattern of movement andaccessibility. The formal analysis of each and every one ofthese dimensions makes it possible to establish the formalpattern and then a hypothetical model of the spatialorganisation of the architecture being studied.

As noted by F. Criado (1999: 17) a working methodologyis the way in which it is possible to construct newknowledge. Its definition implies describing the principleworking instruments which make it possible for us to studythe dimensions and thematic elements which form a culture.We go on to offer a brief explanation of the types of analysiswhich should be carried out.

The form of the structures identified in architectonicelements is what defines the constructed space. Architectureappears when the space begins to be shaped and structureby the elements of the form: horizontal and verticalelements are the most essential, with an important influenceby the distribution of solids and spaces within the areabeing studied, integrating an inseparable reality, the unionof opposites (Ching 1995).

The geometric study of spatial organisation is essential,as this is fundamental for the organisation of any structure.It helps to recognise the basic form and spaces createdwithin it, and the transformations it undergoes whenmanipulated and an organisation which satisfies thefunctional and social demands of the programme, as wellthe specific limits and possibilities of the place in question.(Baker 1998)

Considering this, the formal analysis we propose isbased on two types of techniques: stratigraphic analysis andspatial analysis. Both concentrate on the examination ofconstructive elements at micro level: the first studies thestructure as such – something which contains and defines aspace – extracting information from the marks of timewithin it, whereas the second analyses the spaces created bythe structure (internally and externally) and therelationships which exist between them. Finally, both typesof analysis lead to the interpretation of the social changesproduced in the construction, whose formal features takeshape in it both vertically and horizontally.

2 Formal analysis is understood as “the analysis of the specificmaterial forms which make up the landscape, both natural(physiographical) and artificial (elements of Material Culture,monuments etc.), without introducing a meaning which isunrelated to them. It is therefore a deconstructive sort of practicewhich, when successful, describes the object under study fromwithin itself ”. (Criado 1999: 20).


21

Stratigraphic Analysis

We will again attempt to briefly resume the methodologyapplied in stratigraphic mural analysis, indicating the mostimportant points.

Reading parameters, or stratigraphic analysis, is amethodology which attempts to adapt archaeologicalstratigraphic study using the so-called “Harris method” tothe plans of historical constructions, based on two mainpropositions. On one hand, like a site a construction issubject to stratigraphic processes, and on the other, as aconsequence of this, the construction should be treated ashaving the category of an archaeological site. The differencebetween them is that the first (a conventional site) extendshorizontally, while the second does so vertically. It thereforehas to be studied, at this level, using an archaeologicalmethodology which identifies, orders and dates thedifferent stages through which the construction has existed,from its construction up to the time of study, through thedetailed analysis of its stratigraphic units, activities andconstructive processes. We work on the basis that historicalconstructions are stratified units which follow stratigraphicprinciples (Caballero 1995: 38-9), meaning that constructionsare subject to transformations produced by a continuoussuccession of building work which goes on to form astratigraphic sequence, which we have to extract by way ofa stratigraphic parameter reading.

The steps of the working process are as follows3:

Graphically record the construction by hand, drawing aplan, or photographing it; in this way we will recover all ofits volume. The type of documentation we carry out shouldbe in line with our end result, the type of construction andthe material we have available, and above all, must registerall of the available data. This phase is essential beforecarrying out an analytical intervention.

The construction should then be divided into workingsections, only in the name of making analysis easier,particular in the case of complex or large-scaleconstructions.

Direct visual observation of the construction or thesupport of photographs will enable us to carry out adifferential analysis of the units and make a reading of therelationship between them.

In a second phase, we should then go on to differentiatingelements and interfaces (Mural Stratigraphic Units, or MSU),according to stratigraphic criteria, observing the actionswhich created them or their constructive dimension, the re-lationship they have with other units, or their spatial di-mension and temporal sequence or chronological dimen-sion. We will differentiate the contours of all of the homoge-nous stratigraphic units and the relationshipscorresponding to before, after and now between each unit. Asthe stratigraphic units are gradually differentiated, each is

3 It should be said that although we are proposing methodologicalguidelines with the aim of carrying out work systematically and inan orderly fashion, this methodology is particularly flexible, andthese guidelines can be adapted to each particular case we analyse.

given a number to be used as a code for recoveringinformation about the stratigraphic unit, as well as thecorresponding instruments.

The next step is to fill in the analytical record cards foreach stratigraphic unit, which should describe them in greatdetail, together with their relationship with other MSU’s.

Differentiated, numbered and described in the MSUrecord cards, we should then analyse the stratigraphicrelationships which exist between them in order to createthe diagrams which give us the final stratigraphic sequence,necessary in order to interpret the historical process ofconstruction. This stage of the description implies a highlyimportant and delicate analytical operation, as we are tryingto ‘read’ the direction of time in the relationship betweenthe different constructed parts. These relationships have aspatial-temporal dimension. It is very important tounderstand chronological value in order to interpret it andthen create the diagram which reflects the constructive pro-cess and with it, its historical meaning. In the diagram, thesynchronic relationships in each original constructive mo-ment will be reflected in the horizontal steps and verticalfilum, running from bottom to top”, the diachronic evolu-tion of its reconstructions (Caballero 1992: 15). We shouldfirstly create diagrams of elements, then passing on to dia-grams of synthesis, as we will see.

Then come the processes of synthesis and dotation. Byusing them we recover the unity of the construction in orderto comprehend it as a whole, so that the constructiongradually recovers its character as a constructed unit. Weare now dealing with an interpretative process.

We should first reduce the redundant relationships whichexist between units, as the diagram should only representdirect relationships, both horizontally and vertically.

We should then carry out correlations of elements, bygrouping the elements into increasingly complex contexts,until arriving again at the main unit, the construction. Inthis way we will create Activities (A) from the MSU whichmaintain relationships between themselves, then filling inthe analytical record-cards, whose characteristics are similarto those previously described.

Finally, the processes of periodisation will be carried out:we deduce historical periods from the relative chronologyobtained by the situation of the diagrams of elements andinterfaces, further assisted by the chronological indicators,which will give us precise chronologies (Quirós 1994: 145-6).

Historical analysis is the last step of the methodologicalprocess. This is when we should interpret the historicaldata, obtained either through the analysis itself or byturning to other disciplines. As we all know, theArchaeology of Architecture has a mainly historic finality,and until now we have reduced this finality to mainlydeciphering the chronological aspects which defined theactivities of or the construction itself, but withoutconcerning ourselves about what the function was of thoseconstructive process. It is the moment to interrelate the dataobtained from analysis with the historical data, as well aspossible architectonic theories which help us to situate theconstruction in the different historical and artistic periods ithas survived.


22

By combining the data and turning to auxiliarydisciplines, we will end this process by obtaining the

historical interpretation we were seeking from the verybeginning.

Stratigraphic analysis or elevation readings

Object of study Protohistoric and historical architecture

Model “Harris Method”

Objective Identify, organise and date the buildings different stages

A detailed analysis of units and stratigraphic groups

To establish the building’s stratigraphic sequence

Nature Instruments Analytical procedure

Graphic documentation. Planimetry

Differentiation of sectors

Differentiation, numeration and description ofelements

Interpretation of temporal relationships

Creation of diagrams

Reduction, periodisation and correlation

Identification of activities

Simplification of elements

Historical documentation

Synthesis and dating

Creating an archive for compiling information

Methodology

Instrumental

Flexibility

Graphic documentation

Sectors

Numeration

Analytical records

Lists

Diagrams

Publication

Table 1. Diagram that summarises the s Stratigraphic analysis or elevation readings.

Spatial analysis

This is the analysis of the forms acquired by the differentspatial levels which influence in the construction’sconfiguration, and attempting to define a SpecificHypothetical Model of its spatial organisation (Criado 1999:13). This is done using deconstruction4 and description,attempting all the while to not to give them a different(modern) meaning. Analysis continues with thespecification of the relationships established between thedifferent spatial levels, the method and principles whichorganise them, what gives the construction a spatial code orformal model. This takes the shape of plans, illustrations anddiagrams which show the organisation of the differentlevels of spatial distribution, identifying the construction’sstructural axis and organisational structure (relationships ofsymmetry/ asymmetry, the identification of pre-eminentpoints or spatial hierarchies).

In order to carry out this analysis, a zoom mechanismmust be used. This is a methodological and interpretativemodel which allows us to observe and comprehend theformal features of each of the levels identified as differentobjectivisations of the same principles or structural codeswhich give rise to a spatial regularity, manifested in the

4 deconstruction implies breaking down prehistoric social space intoits component levels, with the aim of identifying what its basicelements are and discovering its morphology and internalconfiguration, attempting to avoid the study reproducing thefeatures of intellectuals’ horizon of rationality (Criado 1999).

existence of relationships of compatibility between thedifferent levels and spatial codes which appear inindividual societies or cultures (Criado 1999).

Analysing perceptionThe organisation of a space, as well as responding to formalquestions and architectonic principles, is also adjusted to thepreceptorial order meant to be given to the construction, inwhich the physical elements are recognised by being feltwithin a temporal sequence (Ching 1995). This is one of themost potentially fruitful aspects of the proposed analyses,as it implies studying the life experience of human beingswith the constructions he uses or builds, attempting tograsp a way of thinking or rationality which lies behind theorganisation of both the structures and constructed spaces.

Human perception is made through the senses and bymovement, by experiencing something in relation tosomething we have previously perceived. Two of theanalytical techniques used in the Archaeology ofArchitecture5 for analysing constructions are based on twoactions related to the perception of constructions andconstructed spaces: movement, which has helped in thedevelopment of access analysis and is widely used inconstruction analysis, since the times of its application byFaulkner in the analysis of Scottish houses and castles in

5 These are techniques also used in the analyses developed inLandscape Archaeology for studying prehistoric landscapes(Criado 1999...).


23

1964 (Hillier & Hanson 1984; Sánchez 1998); and the visualperception of spaces and structures, also widely used indifferent fields (psychology, architecture, sociology andarchaeology).

Movement analyses

These form part of syntactic studies of space, developed toanalyse the spatial relationships in a construction throughthe circulation which exists between them, and theunderlying social significance. There are two fundamentaltechniques to be used in this type of analysis: circulationanalysis and gamma analysis.

One of the ways of analysing how a constructed space isperceived is by movement towards it, the path we take tocome close to it and to move from one space to anotherwithin the construction. It is because of this factor that weprefer to denominate this analysis based on individualmovement as circulation analysis compared to accessanalysis, as we are not only trying to evaluate the momentof entering into each space, but to instead integrate it withina transitory system and thus define which are the elementswhich influence the perception of forms and spaces in allthe construction and its surroundings.

According to the architect F. Ching (1995) in hismethodology of architectonic analysis, the perceptive threadwhich joins the different spaces which comprise theconstruction appears in several phases: (1st) approximation tothe construction or a far-off view, where we prepareourselves for the experience, (2nd) the access or entrance tothe internal space, and each of the different spaces within,which may be either subtle (a change in floor level, forexample) or more noticeable (more or less monumentalspaces). Once these phases have been determined, it isnecessary to identify what type of direction and whatsignificance our circulation has, movements influenced bythe architectonic elements which form the different spatiallevels within the tumulus. This is based on the fact that asmovement here is lineal in nature (Ching 1995), there areelements which, because they are different, noticeable orsignificant to the eye (steps, ladders, ramps, benches etc.)may bring about a change in the direction of movement,and therefore be influencing and directing it, as the naturalmovement of human beings tends towards places whichsignify changes 6. This analysis takes the shape of diagramsrepresenting circulation among the different spaces, inwhich it is important to evaluate the type of approximationtowards the structure, the type of access, configuration ofthe route taken, etcetera.

Gamma analysis, developed by Hillier and Hanson(1984), is based on movement through spaces, quantifyingthe depths and permeabilities of spaces, the ease and type ofaccess into them, and evaluating the degree of dependencespaces have with others. This analysis takes shape in theform of permeability diagrams which give values to each

6 this idea is included by Julia Sánchez (1998:93), referring to thework of the G.L.C. Study of 1978. An Introduction to Housing Layout,published by: The Architectural Press, London, to which we havenot had access.

space according to the permeability of each of them withrespect to the entrance. Accordingly, the thresholds whichseparate / communicate the spaces are a key element withinthis analysis, as they act as controllers of movement to aparticular environment. Permeability diagrams are thereforebased on spatial organisation, on the control(symmetry/asymmetry) and quantity and situation ofaccess points (distributed / non-distributed), and on themovement it allows. This analysis makes it possible todiscover the social relationships between the individualswho inhabited a structure, and between them and outsiders.

The analysis of visualisation conditions

This analysis attempts to identify what perceptive order hasbeen implemented in a construction, based on the fact thatspatial perception of a construction is influenced byqualities of light, colour, sound, texture and views from thedifferent spaces (Ching 1995) and on the transpatial qualityof vision, which creates a visual graduation according to theposition of doorways and thresholds which, as dividinglines between the public and the private, may vary thepercentages of visibility (Ven 1981) and thus restrict theaccess to or view of certain areas or individuals within asociety. the analysis of these aspects makes it possible to“work with aspects related to the structure and ideology ofsociety” (Sánchez 1998: 94) and of its imaginarium (Criado1993b, 1999).

Basically, two different types of visibility analysis arecarried out:- One carried out based on the situation of the individual

who perceives, of visibility from a specific point of view,normally defined by a threshold and enclosed spaces(the analysis of the perception of space within andbetween structures), (perception from);

- Another based on the perception or visual impact ofspatial volumes, giving the foundations for thevisibilisation of elements and how these influenceperception; in this type of analysis it is essential torecognise the existing forms (perception of).

How does one carry out a visibility analysis? Accordingto J. Sánchez (1998: 104) in this type of analysis of anarchitectonic space, firstly the situation of the point of viewof the individual perceiving is divided. In a constructionwhich creates enclosed spaces, the point of view is placed inthe centre of each threshold leading to the different spaces,directing the vision as far as the limits imposed byarchitectonic barriers. However, unlike this author, wewould propose that it is not necessary for there to be aphysical threshold through which we should direct ourvision, although we do need a point of view from which wecan observe the construction. This may be given by theanalysis of circulation and access to the construction: thetransitory routes identified at settlement level give a way, aspecific point of view used to detect and approach theconstruction. Furthermore, value is attached to thecharacteristics of the physical and architectonicsurroundings (mircotopography, the existence of otherconstructions, etc.), and the formal characteristics of theelements as a whole, as these create stages which stamp theconstructions with specific characteristics.


24

By using visibilisation analyses it is possible to evaluatethe strategies which configure and give order to thevolumes of an architectonic structure, with the objective ofdetermining if the group of elements is visually uniform orif there are areas more visible than the rest, strategies whichshould be considered as making stages for a particularsociety. It attempts to evaluate what type of visibilisationconditions are present at each spatial level of aphenomenon. The desire for visibilisation may be asconscious and explicit as implicit and even unconscious: it isthe rationality of a social group which determines whichfeatures of the group will be visible. Precisely, one of thebasic assumptions of Landscape Archaeology is thateverything visible is symbolic (Criado 1993b, 1999), and, assuch, different basic strategies of visualisation have beendefined which imply a particular type of rationality:inhibiting, for the complete lack of interest indemonstrating/hiding the presence of social action asproducts, without producing intentional results or effects,although there is a possibility that these may beincorporated within the archaeological record; ofconcealment, the conscious intent to make social actioninvisible, implying a rejection of its existence; of exhibition,the desire that the effects of an action are visible in space; ofmonumentalisation, with the aim, as well as exhibiting anobject in space, that this withstands the trials of time, all ofwhich are recognisable in the architectonic field (Criado1993a).

To conclude this brief methodological suggestions, wemust remember that these techniques will be partial,insufficient, if their results are not put in relation with therest of the elements conforming a given society (or at leasttheir available record); we must always insert the results ina wider interpretative framework, in order to verify to whatextent the model extracted from the mere analysis of thebuilt space is or is not coherent with the model extractedfrom some other ambits of material record, sinceArchitecture, by itself, do not mean anything.

Archaeology of Architecture andapplied investigationWe proposed in the introduction the focus adopted by ourinvestigative group to answer the demands of a newsociopolitical context in which the field of HeritageProtection and Management has gone from strength tostrength in our country. This working strategy takes as itsstarting point the reformulation of conventionalarchaeological practice which began to take shape withinour group thanks to the archaeological projects carried outwithin the framework of the major public works which tookplace in Galicia in the 1990’s, such as the Coruña-Vigo oilpipeline, the motorways connecting Galicia with the rest ofSpain or Galicia’s gas network.

These projects therefore called for a working programmein which basic investigation had to be applied in order tosolve the problem of protecting Heritage elements affectedby public works, at the same time as entering into a detailedstudy of Galicia’s history and prehistory. This programmecontained four consecutive actions: Cataloguing (localisingand documenting archaeological remains), the Evaluation of

Cultural Elements (in their archaeological and heritageaspects), Intervention (prospecting, archaeological follow-up, test drilling and excavation) and Exploitation (appraisaland social communication).

Until now, Landscape Archaeology has been theinvestigative strategy applied in order to develop thisintegral programme. Now, the aim is to also includeArchitectural Archaeology in these projects of appliedinvestigation, thus contributing to the evaluation of thearchaeological record and widening its prospects forappraisal.

Figure 1. Situation of Elviña hillfort, in NW of Spain

The analysis of protohistoric architecture:the Elviña hillfort (A Coruña, Galicia)The Elviña hillfort, excavated in the 1940’s and 50’s (Luengo1954-55, 1966, 1975, 1979), is a fortified settlement in acoastal region which acted as the central point within awide territory. Domestic architecture which has beenuncovered in the site reflects an interesting phenomenon ofthe remodelling of inhabited space, which may be dated tothe transitional period between the second Iron Age and theGalaico-Roman period. The substantial differences whichhave been documented in the buildings makes it possiblefor us to define the two models of spatiality created by asociety undergoing transformation.

Figure 2. View of Elviña hillfort, in 1960 (in Luengo 1979)


25

Figure 3. View of Elviña hillfort, actually

The stratigraphic analysis of constructive elements:the ‘Casa de la Exedra’

The following analysis was carried out in the ‘Casa de laExedra’, the largest and most complex construction whichhas been excavated to date in the hillfort. This reading ofparameters should be completed by a reading of the layout,due to the building’s highly deteriorated condition.

Figure 4. Plan of Casa de la Exedra, digitalized from thediggings of 1983 and 1984

The reading was firstly made of the west-facing interiorsection of the house, and then over the whole layout, whichmeans we should adapt the methodology of takingparametric readings to taking readings of levels, followingthe same steps and procedures described in previous section(Stratigraphic Analysis). We will go on to show the resultsof this reading.

Correlation, simplification and dating.

The next step after differentiating and recording thestratigraphic units (SU) was correlating the SU betweeneach other, to form activities which corresponded todifferent constructive periods (CP). We adduce thesynthesis chart of the Activities (A)7 as proof:

A DescriptionA

CP SU Description of

constructive periods

Chronology

101 Hillfort house(ciruclar)

6001, 6002

Remains of foundationesof a hillfort house, in SWof rectangular house

s. IV to III-IIa. C.

102 House withapsed

3003?, 4002,6003

Remains of the housewith apsed

s. III-II. to s. Ia I a. C.

Building ofrectangularhouse with 103.1

1001, 1003,3001, 3002,4001, 4003,8002

Perimeter of rectangularhouse, with a skirtingsupporting the flooring ofthe dwelling

103 exterior oven 103.2 5002, 5003 Domed oven over 107 end. s. I a. C.

atrium withportico and

103.3 7001, 7002,7003?, 7007

Raised atrium and ¿withportico?

1ª ½ s. I d. C:

access 103.4 5004, 7006 terraced structure builtover retaining wall andstairs

Reforms inthe firstgalaico-roman house

104.1 1006 Dividing wall 103.1 andnew door

104 inner space isdivided and

104.2 2002, 2003,2005, 4004,4005

Buttress in the W interiorfaçade of the newdwelling 2ª ½ s. I d. C.

exterior 104.3 7005? Terraced atrium in the NEexterior house

to s. II d. C.

104.4 1004, 1007 Construction of W façadeof 103.1

105.1 1005, 1008,3004

Collapsed W wall of house

105 Ruin 105.2 8001 Collapsed S façade 1ª ½ s. II d. C.

105.3 2001 Collapse dividing wall s. II d. C:

105.4 5005 Cut in domed structure103.2

106 Movement 7004 Movement of flagstones s. XX

107

Hillfort house 5001

Remains of foundations ofa hillfort house, in NE ofrectangular house

s. IV a III-II a.C.

-

7 Within each activity we found different working stages, which werenot considered as an independent unid as they were secondary, andcorrespond to the same chronological period and the sameconstructive action which created the activity to which they belong.


26

6001-6002 5001

6003-4002 3003

8002 4001-4003-4006 1001-1002-1003 3001-3002

5003

7001-7002-7003-7007

7006 5004

4005-4004 2003 2002-2005

1006

1004-1007

7005

5002

50051005-1008-3004

7004

8001 2001

=

= =

//

////

//

//

//

//

//

=

?

?

GALAICO-ROMAN I

end s. I a. C.1ª 1/2 s. I d. C.

GALAICO-ROMAN II

2ª 1/2 s. I d. C.

ABANDONED

1ª 1/2 s. II d. C.

CONTEMPORARY

s. XX

HILLFORTCULTURE II

II Iron Age s. III-II to s. I a. C.

HILLFORT CULTURE III Iron Age

s. IV to s. III-II

1001

1001

3002

3001

2001

1003

4001 40

02

4004

4003

1001

1001

1001

3004

1007

1001

1001

1001

5003

1001

1001

1001

5004

1001

1001

1001

1006

1001

1001

1001

5005

1001

1001

1001

2005

1001

1001

1001

4005

1001

1001

1001

5001

1001

1001

1001

5001

1001

1001

1001

4006

1001

1001

1001

3003

1001

1001

1001

5002

4002

4001

4003

7001

7002

7003

7004

7005

7006

1001

1001

1001

5001

1001

1001

1001

5002

7007

6001

6002

6003

8001

8002

2002

1001

1001

1001

2003

1003

Figure 5. Plan of Casa de la Exedra; differentiation de SUs and diagram in detail

Figure 6. View of Casa de la Exedra

The following step would be to periodise in phases thedifferent constructive stages of the building, considering allof the previously obtained information. The result of thedocumentary excavation approximately corresponded tothat of the analysis, although with the first we obtainedthree constructive phases, and with the second fourconstructive phases with their consequent substages, as well

as two phases which we could term as destructive, if weconsider the action which created them.

Elsewhere, in the documentary information, there werereferences to the materials which appeared in the differentexcavations of the house, with their subsequentchronological assignation, giving us a series of datingswhich we were able to compare with the results of thestratigraphic reading. The following diagram shows theresulting phases from this reading:

Phases Building Periodisation Date

Phase I Circular buildings Hill Fort Culture I IIª Iron Age

s. IV - III-II a.C.

Phase II Building with an apsed design Hill Fort Culture II IIª Iron Age

s. III-II - I a.C.

Phase III Rectangular building withportico and possible domedoven

Galaico-Roman I End. s. I a.C. -1ª ½ s. I d.C.

Phase IV Reforms on the interior andexterior of the rectangulardwelling

Galaico-Roman II 2ª ½ s. I d.C. -s. II d.C.

Phase V Demolitions within the walls ofthe house

Abandoned 1ª ½ s. II d.C./s. II d.C.

Phase VI Moved from their originalposition the flagstones in theatrium of the entrance to thelarger sized structure

Contemporary s. XX


27

104.1

104.4

105.1

105.1

103.1

1 m

1009

1007

1005

1008

1004

1003

1002

1001

1010

1 m

104.1

104.4

105.1

103.1

o

//

//

1001

1002 1003

1004

1009

1007

1008

1005

1010

//

//

?//

//

o

Stratigraphic Units diagram Activities diagram Periodisation

GALAICO-ROMAN I

end s. I a. C.1ª 1/2 s. I d. C.

GALAICO-ROMAN II

2ª 1/2 s. I d. C.

ABANDONED

1ª 1/2 s. II d. C.

West facing. D ifferentiation of Stratigraphic Units

West facing. D Activitiesifferentiation of

Figure 7. Differentiation of stratigraphic units (SU) and activities (A) of west-facing interior section of the Casa de la Exedra,with the SU and A diagram


28

//

//

//

101 107

102

103.1

103.2

103.3

103.4

104.1

104.2

104.3

104.3

105.2 105.4105.3105.1

106

?

//

103.

4

101

102

106

107

103.

2

104.

2

104.

4

105.

2

105.

3

105.

410

3.1

104.

1

103.

3

104.

3

102

103.

4

105.

1

1 m

GALAICO-ROMAN I

end s. I a. C.1ª 1/2 s. I d. C.

GALAICO-ROMAN II

2ª 1/2 s. I d. C.

ABANDONED

1ª 1/2 s. II d. C.

CONTEMPORARY

s. XX

HILLFORTCULTURE II

II Iron Age s. III-II to s. I a. C.

HILLFORT CULTURE III Iron Age

s. IV to s. III-II

Figure 8. Plan of Casa de la Exedra; differentiation of activities and stratigraphic diagram

Periodisation, constructive characteristics andrestoration

We were therefore able to distinguish six different periodsin the Casa de la Exedra, of which four are constructivephases, and the other two phases of abandonment anddestruction.

Phase I

The remains of the two circular buildings belong to thisphase, divided by a possibly apsed house and later byanother of rectangular shape. We have linked bothstructures to the same chronological period usingtipological-constructive analogies, within the second IronAge, between the IV and III-II centuries BC, which we havedenominated Hill Fort Culture I.

The first structure is situated to the SW of the Casa de laExedra. Approximately half of it remains. It is built ofhorizontally laid stone blocks. Its interior western façadeappears to be mixed in with the south western corner of the

rectangular building, which probably re-used part of thestructure.

The second structure is situated to the north of therectangular dwelling. Its layout is almost complete,although only part of its foundations remain. It is also madeof stone blocks with horizontal courses. It is of particularinterest as at a later date it was possibly used as an oven, aswe shall see later on. Its diameter is divided by therectangular dwelling, although we believe that at an earlierdate it was divided by an apsed dwelling.

Phase II

Here we find the remains of a possible building with anapsed design. The typology of the walls is irregularlychannelled stone blocks, with double facing and a fill ofstone chips and kaolin mortar; the walls are bound with thesame kaolin mortar, and rubble.

The perimeter of the rectangular dwelling would appearto correspond to the layout of the apsed dwelling. We havedated this building to the second Hill Fort Period, withinthe second Iron Age, between the III and II centuries and theend of the I century B.C.


29

Phase III

This corresponds to the construction of a rectangulardwelling of approximately 11 x 5’75 m on the outside, and9’75 x 3’5 m on the inside. The area contains three differentstructures; the actual rectangular structure with atrium, apossible external oven built in to its northern façade, andtwo structures related to accessing the dwelling from otherareas of the hillfort. We will now analyse each of them.

Rectangular building with portico: this is built on thebedrock, with large blocks and smaller stones. The layout isquite regular. It is built of fairly regularly carved granite,particularly in the lower sections. The internal sections areperfectly finished, whereas the outside is slightly moreirregular. On its western, northern and part of its easterninterior façades, there is still a type of skirting which wouldhave supported the flooring of the dwelling. The onlyentrance into the dwelling is in the eastern wall, accessedvia an atrium raised over a podium, which we believe had aportico at one time.

Judging by the material remains found, it had a tiledroof. It is probable that when it was built part of the groundwas levelled, at least in the surrounding area.

Possible domed oven. This structure is semicircular,rising up to a dome. Its foundations are below ground level,and below the foundations of the rectangular dwelling.

It is built over the foundations of a previous circulardwelling which was used in the construction of the oven,

which deduce from it having a scorched interior(Monteagudo 1947 in García 2000). A curved wall was builtover this previous hollow, made of well-fitted stone finishedwith kaolin mortar.

To give further affirmation to this hypothesis, we haveexamined a small wall attached to the northern end of theeastern façade of the rectangular building, of poorer qualitythan the other sections of the building, which would haveserved to enclose the perimeter of the domed structure,which appears to have been built after the actual perimeterof the dwelling itself because of its situation: if at first theintention was to build an oven in this part of the dwelling, itwould have probably been designed within the dimensionsof the façade itself, and not jutting out from it. We thereforebelieve that this is a later addition to the dwelling, and as asecondary element, with a merely structural function, it isnot as well finished as the rest of the enclosure.

Structures related to access with other parts of thehillfort. The building was completed with two exteriorelements which are directly related to it, not only throughphysical contact, but also because they integrate it withinthe circulatory routes around the hill fort, connecting it withother structures: there is a stairway connected to the circularstructure (possible oven) and a raised, terraced structurebuilt over a retaining wall.

We have linked this phase with the Galaico-Roman Iperiod, from between the first century BC and the firstcentury AD.

50016001-6002 6003-4002 3003

= = =?8002 4001-4003-4006 1001-1002-1003 3001-3002

5003 5002

7001-7002-7003-7007

7006 5004

4005-4004 2003 2002-2005

1006

1004-1007

7005

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IVs. IV to III-II a.C. s. III-II to I a.C. 2ª 1/2 s. I d.C.f. s. I a.C. to 1ª 1/2 s. I d.C.

SU diagram

Archaeological record

Hipotetical reconstruction

Doorway Doorway

Atriumwith

portico

Atriumwith

portico

Skirting board

External oven

Retaining wall

Stairs

Atrium with flagstone

pavement

connectedwall

Figure 9. Synthesis of the phases of Casa de la Exedra


30

Phase IV

This phase corresponds to a series of reforms carried out onthe interior and exterior of the rectangular dwelling..

Construction of a dividing wall in the interior of therectangular building. In this period a dividing wall wasbuilt from west to east, splitting the dwelling in two unevensections, smaller to the south. It is built of regularlydistanced stone blocks joined by kaolin mortar. It is less wellmade than the walls which form the dwelling’s perimeter.

Construction of an entrance to the smaller dwelling.The interior partition meant a restructuring of the exteriorspace, by modifying access to the dwelling. Part of theeastern enclosing wall was demolished, and a small wallwas built which separated the two doors andsimultaneously acted as a door post for both of them; thesouthern elevation which enclosed the entrance portico wasalso demolished, and the exterior of the dividing wall wasextended, forming a smaller portico. Two independententrances were created for two areas both on the inside, asthey were not connected, and on the outside, separated bythe extension of the dividing wall.

This entrance atrium to the smaller section would havehad flagstones, and part of the floor which would havepreviously been inside the portico appears to have beenused at that time as a seating area, a space which wassuitable for the group to meet close to the dwelling whichwe believe would have then been an area for day-to-daytasks, judging by the materials found in the area.

Construction of a wall connected to the west-facinginterior elevation of the smaller section. This wall mayhave been joined on with the aim of preserving the westerninterior façade from the fire in the kitchen, supporting ourhypothesis that this area would have served for cooking;however, (and this is less easily demonstrated), we believethat it may also have been a supporting wall not only for theforces exerted by the western wall, but also from thepressure of a supporting beam which could have perhapssupported a second floor. It would therefore have had adouble function, both structural and functional.

This phase would have been included within the secondGalaico-Roman period, between the second half of the firstcentury AD and the second century AD.

Phase V

In this phase we have included a series of demolitionswhich took place within the walls of the Casa de la Exedraand which we believe are connected with the hillfort beingabandoned. Several authors have stated that somestructures were possibly ruined at the same time it wasdeserted, such as the encircling walls. There is no doubt thatonce the settlements were abandoned there was a period ofdeterioration which gradually led to its destruction, withthe different types of collapse due to both reasons. In thiscase we may consider the western and southern walls of therectangular dwelling, the partition wall which divides thetwo sections, and the wall of the domed structure. Thesecorrespond to this period of abandonment, which we havedated at around the first half of the second century AD.

Phase VI

Finally, we have included a contemporary stage whichdetails the different excavations carried out at the site. Weknow that all excavations imply destruction of part of therecord. However, during the excavations which have takenplace in the Casa de la Exedra, several consolidation projectshave been carried out on part of its structure. As we havementioned, a new reading is necessary in order to identifywhich remaining parts respond to contemporaryrestauration and which do not. What we do know is thatthese interventions have affected the flagstones in theatrium of the entrance to the larger sized structure, whichhave been moved from their original position.

This phase corresponds to work carried out in thetwentieth century.

Considering the data obtained from this reading, andthat from the spatial analysis which follows, we willestablish as a conclusion the models of spatiality in thehillfort and Galaico-Roman cultures.

Spatial analysis of inhabited structures

The majority of the structures uncovered at the Elviñahillfort are domestic constructions. The excavated area thusoffers an inhabited space which took advantage of theoptimum conditions offered by the hillfort’s south-southeastern slope; this is the part which is best orientatedat midday, the sunniest and best protected from northerlywinds. The steep slope was subjected to considerablechanges, leading to an artificial terrace on which a series ofdwellings were built, outside of the hillfort’s main walls,enclosed to the south by the wall which precedes the finalconstruction on the site.

Casa de la Exedra

10 m

housewall of Acropolis

wall foundation

househouse

housefountain - cistern

house

house

house

stairs

tower

tower

house

house

phallic temple

sentry box

hillfort structures

Acropolis

Figure 10. Plan of the structures digged in Elviña Hillfort,digitalized from plan of 1983 excavation; marked thesituation of Casa de la Exedra

There is therefore no internal spatial organisation withinthis inhabited space which is based on an urban proposal oforthogonal nature, with pathways around which dwellingswere organised. There is a predominance of an adaptationto the conditions of the landscape, and a clear separationbetween buildings, which were built independently andseparate from the others. Within this context, the domestic


31

buildings define their own architectonic space, leading to aseries of significant relationships. The application of gammaanalyses leads to a graph in which mainly asymmetricspatial relationships may be seen, with the exception of #7.Here we see a distributed spatial organisation (with accessonly possible in one way), which reveals a strict control ofaccess: to reach B from the outside, it is necessary to firstpass through A, which acts as an access filter and a barrierto free circulation inside the dwelling. The atria orbuttresses form a space which greatly increases the degreeof privacy within the building they belong to.

Figure 11. Gamma analyses and internal circulatory routesof the main domestic structures of the Elviña hillfort

These constructive elements may be interpreted as thematerial manifestation of a strategy of impermiability ininhabited space, which also makes use of other architectonictools which actively intervene in the functioning of theinternal circulatory routes, such as the steps up to theentrance door. Similarly, control of access appears to beemphasised by the paving of the atria, or the presence ofperfectly defined thresholds, using large, perfectly finishedgranite slabs.

Accordingly, although there is no sign of spaces whichwould have distributed circulation, to be expected instructures with considerable internal division, there is ahigh degree of control over the only possible route throughthe inhabited structures. This indicates the restrictionestablished by the social unit in order to preserve inhabitedspace.

We shall see how these dwellings in the Elviña hillfortare an individualised and enclosed architectonic group,

formed by three fundamental spaces which may be definedas public, semipublic/semiprivate, and private. Here thevisibility analysis demonstrates the perceptive articulationof the controls of access which define these three spaces.The different degrees of visibility from the exterior aredefined by the position and size of the entrance doorway, aswell as by the wall facings themselves.

Regrettably, we do not have a detailed record of themicrospatial distribution of the archaeological materialsremoved from the inside of the dwellings, which wouldmake it possible to contrast this hypothetical spatialdifferentiation which has been produced only from aperceptive angle.

Concerning the circular buildings in the Elviña hillfort,the impossibility of carrying out this kind of analysis hasobliged us to use the formal characteristics whichgenerically define circular hillfort dwellings as a reference.In this type of construction no architectonic elements similarto the previous have been documented, which clearlycondition access to the dwelling. It is only the presence ofvestibules, particularly in the southern part of Galicia,which would indicate this type of controlled access, bybuilding an architectonic space which acts as a space forsemi-public transition, between the outside and the inside ofthe dwellings.

Figure 12. Visibility analysis of the main domesticstructures of the Elviña hillfort


32

Domestic space. Evolution and change.

The model of spatiality in hillforts

The framework used by protohistorical investigation todefine the pattern of spatiality formed by domestic hillfortarchitecture is inscribed within the traditional historical-cultural movements. From this perspective, the mainhabitational model in pre-Roman sites is constructed fromthe following characteristics:

- Hillfort communities took advantage of stoneresources from the area surrounding the settlement.

- The habitat appears to be defined by the generalpresence of circular buildings, small in size (3 to 5metres in diameter) , where the doorway is the onlyopening for light and ventilation within thestructure. The structure would have been coveredwith a conical straw roof, chosen as the most suitableprotection from the rainy climate of the Iberiannorth-west.

- The hearth was generally placed in the center of thedwellings, with the other spaces used for differentdomestic activities radiating outwards from it.

- The groups of buildings demonstrate a clearadaptation to the morphology of the landscape,although in some sites this was modified by the useof terraces.

- A marked individualism in the dwellings, whichnever share walls with others. This isolation, in thecase of the circular structures, was due to the use ofconical roofs; this system made dividing wallsimpractical, as they would make the normalevacuation of water impossible, which happened allthe way round the dwelling’s perimeter. In turn,together with the climatic and topographicalconditions, the predominance of this circular shapeprevented a distribution of buildings according to amore or less orthagonal network. There does notappear to have been a preconceived plan, but insteada spontaneous type of urbanism which was the resultof adapting to the topography of the landscape andclimatic conditions.

- The evolution of constructed space takes shape in thegradual change in the ground plans of the dwellings;circular constructions would give way to ovalstructures with rounded corners, eventually arrivingat structures with different levels. Finally, the Romanconquest would lead to the systematic appearance ofbuildings with square floor plans, with sharplydefined and/or rounded corners, which co-existedwith the traditional, autochthonous circulardwellings.

The sociological interpretation of this spatial pattern hasonly focused on the fact that this group of architechtonicsolutions was adopted to find isolation and independencefor domestic family units. The lack of dividing walls and theconstant presence of empty spaces between buildingsimplies zero maximisation of inhabited space, as practicessuch as joining buildings together were avoided, whichwould have meant greater savings and simplicity whenconstructing. Here the model of construction in hillforts

constrasts sharply with the spatial organisation whichgoverned other geographical spaces in the Iron Age, as isthe case with the Iberian culture.

If we extend this point, it is possible to hypothesise thatthe types of building found in hillforts may not be reducedto a simple architechtonic object, conditioned by a materialcontext: on the contrary, they should be analysed as livingentities which carried out an active role in the socialformation of the archaeological reality. From thisperspective it is possible to deal with the social andsymbolic undercurrents which are hidden behind the modelof spatiality seen in the interior of these walled enclosures.

At the moment we are far from defining a conceptualmodel for domestic space in the Iron Age of the north-western Iberian peninsula; however, it is possible to sketchsome hypotheses about the spatial model described, intowhich it is possible to fit the pre-Roman level of the Elviñahillfort.

Firstly, it is important to consider the enormous stability ofthe internal scheme of organisation in hillfort settlements, whichremained unchanged throughout the second Iron Age andprobably originated from the beginning of the firstmilennium BC. It is a constant repetition of a plan forinhabitation which is systematically marked by the presenceof a well-defined type of circular dwelling; the remodellingwhich is documented for these settlements at this time leadto an expansion of inhabited space and a reconstruction ofthe dwellings, using stone, but always reproducing thesame design of building. It appears that there was a processof consolidation and stability for a model of settlement – thehillfort or permanent settlement – which perfectly respondsto the socio-economic needs of a growing peasantcommunity, definitively connected with the territory whichit worked on.

At this time there was a notable demographic increasewhich would have implied an increase in the level ofcompetition for workable land, creating a gradual process ofsocial segmentation. This process is characterised by adynamic which defines all peasant societies (Wolf 1982): theideal of autarchy which lays down the foundations forfamily unity (a unit of production and consumption) facingup to the need for social cohesion within the settlementimposed by a series of defensive needs and the collectivetasks of a subsistence economy.

Within this context, the stability of the model mayexplain the need to legitimise this continuity within thesettlement; the repetition of the type of dwelling would beone of the architechtonic ‘tools’ used to legitimise acontinuity of inhabitation in a time characterised by anincrease in social competivity. In this way theindividualisation of the family units contrasts, apparentlyparadoxically, with the role of the settlement itself as a pointof reference which created a social identity. This is one wayof explaining the enormous regularity which may be seen inthe articulation of constructed space, from which it ispossible to infer a high degree of cultural integration andharmony when respecting the rules and values of daily lifewithin the community.

Therefore, in the hillfort culture there is an obviousarchitechtonic model, accepted by the collective, which was the


33

result of a cultural tradition which was respected by thecommunity. Domestic hillfort architecture has definingcharacteristics which have come to be referred to inAnthropology as primitive architecture (Guidoni 1989;Rapoport 1972). In this type of sociocultural formation, withan important emphasis on tradition, the process ofarchitechtonic design was based on technical knowledgewhich was within the reach of all of the members of thecommunity, meaning that any member of the group wasable to build his own dwelling. However, there is always apreviously written model, which makes it possible orimpossible to do certain things, and which fits the majorityof demands, whether these be cultural, physical or for thepurpose of maintenance. This is a completely uniformmodel, which offers few innovations and gives rise to astrong persistence of forms. According to A. Rapoport(1972: 15-6) this constructive technique is characterised by:

- A total lack of theoretical or æsthetic pretentions.- Unspecialised and open type of work, based on an

adaptation to the conditions imposed by the sitechosen and the microclimate.

- Total respect towards the other buildings present- The existence of a common inheritence and a

hierarchy of values which the business ofconstruction adapted to point by point.

In this way, in primitive societies – even in traditionalpeasant societies – cultural tradition imposes a discipline orstrict control over the construction of dwellings, configuringa commonly known model which would explain the lack ofdesigners or specialists. Similarly, in these communitiesthere was no differentiation between magic and work, thereligious and the secular, ritual and use of space; all of themanifestations of material culture reflect in one way oranother the cosmovision which was accepted and shared bythe collective. Domestic architecture and constructed spacesare the physical incarnation of this pattern of rationality andtradition. The living space and the daily activities whichtook place within it symbolically express the ontological andmetaphorical foundations of the particular cosmovision ofits inhabitants (Richards 1990; Parker and Richards 1994a,1994b).

We therefore believe that the architectonic configurationof the circular hillfort dwelling with its central fireplacewould have been fundamentally determined bysociocultural factors. Their permanence as dwellings mayonly be understood by considering the vigour of a strongcultural tradition which perpetuated this architectonic styleby responding perfectly to the social and symbolic needs ofhillfort culture. Only in this way is it possible to explainwhy this type of building continued to be used until late onin this period; the arrival of the Romans and the gradualabandonment of local traditions which upheld this modelwould lead to the substitution (although not whollydefinitive) of this type of structure for another which wasquite different.

The symbolic component of this constructive traditionescapes us for the moment. However, there are somefeatures in hillfort dwellings which may shed some light ona sociocultural interpretation.

The small size of these circular dwellings would seem toindicate a cohabitational group comprising a reducednumber of individuals which, according to an analysis ofclassical sources, would correspond to the anthropologicalmodel of the nuclear family or simple extended family (twoor three generations under the same roof).

The lack of dividing walls within the dwelling means thatthere is no differentiation between shared spaces; thisregular use of the interior reflects a high degree of internalcohesion within the parental unit, and no considerationwhatsoever for the privacy of its members. In turn, theexistence of a single space in which all daily activities tookplace indicates scant socio-economical complexity. Thedwelling is presented as a habitational unit, for productionand consumption; the majority of daily tasks took placeinside it or directly around it.

The possible areas of activity (food preparation, fabricationof domestic utensils, storage, sleeping space etcetera) areradially placed within the dwelling. The hearth was thecentral point of both the dwelling and its inhabitants’ lives,acting as a basic reference point according to which peopleand objects were situated and oriented; the hearth gave thenecessary light and heat for the activities of domestic life.

In pre-industrial societies, the fire in the hearth whichburns continually is associated with unity, the protection ofproperty, rememberance of predecessors and the welfare ofits inhabitants, giving it an important symbolic content,even attaining a supernatural and mythological significance.Everthing seems to indicate that protohistoric communitiessuch as the hillfort culture would have shared beliefs andcarried out rituals aimed at maintaining the beneficialpower of the hearth. Although we lack data which couldconfirm this hypothesis, it is true to say that it played anessential role in the construction of the dwelling.Reconstruction of some dwellings has been seen, where thehearth remained in the same position, which may be theresult of it being a domestic symbol.

Lines of movement inside the dwelling would have beenconditioned by the area lit by the doorway and the centralhearth; coming close to the dwelling, one would have firstseen the hearth; once the threshold had been crossed, theinternal organisation of space would have only beenpartially visible due to the smoky atmosphere. The angle ofvisibility from the threshold, as well as artificialillumination, establish from a perceptive point of view adivision into two areas:

- A central area, around the hearth, with betterlighting and visible from outside, which could beconsidered as a public area in which the mostimportant activities took place.

- A partially dark area, invisible from outside, whichcould be defined as a highly private space (withregard to the outside), where the inhabitants sleptand kept domestic materials.

This spatial structuring or topological scheme has beendocumented in circular dwellings from Recent Prehistoryand the Iron Age in different parts of Britain (Richards 1990;Hingley 1990) which have the same formal characteristics asthe circular hillfort dwellings. This division of internaldomestic space has led, in the mentioned contexts, to a


34

structuralist interpretation which focuses on the spatialreflection of gender relationships and of social organisationwithin the family unit; this specific topology would in turndefine a conceptual segmentation of space, defining aspecific space for women apart from another predominantlymale space.

In the case we are dealing with, the limitations of therecord impede this kind of approximation of the spatialorganisation imposed on individuals from the hillfortculture depending on their gender. Investigations into therole of women in the Iron Age in north-western Spain havenot yet been proposed. However, it is possible to offer somedata about the relationship between women and domesticspace, as is the case in other contexts such as the Iberian(Guérin 1999: 90-1) and Celtiberian world (Ortega 1999: 108-14). Anthropological analysis has thus demonstrated theexistence of two constant elements in primitive andtraditional societies:

- The hearth is the basic nucleus or focal point of thefamily unit (without a hearth domestic space doesnot exist).

- The domestic chores which take place in this area arealways carried out by the female members of thecohabitational group.

In fact, in the interior of hillfort dwellings there has beena systematic documentation of archaeological remains(kitchen ceramics, “fusaiolas”) which refer us to all of theprocess of preparation and cooking of foodstuffs and toother domestic activities such as the weaving of cloth. Hereit is possible to present women as having a dominant role inthe domestic environment and subsistence economies ofthese communities. Classic sources also underline theimportance of women in the process of economicproduction and their importance in the transmission ofgoods and the articulation of the system of land-ownership.

Figure 13. Kinship and transmission of goods in NW IberianPeninsula prerromans people (Bermejo 1978; GarcíaQuintela 1999)

Here we are not denying the existence of a possibledifferentiation of spaces according to gender within theliving space. Even though the archaeological record doesnot reveal it as such, this does not mean that there was nosymbolic distinction of space, which would have differentsignificances for each group according to age and sex8.What is more reasonable to defend for the time being is theimportant position of women in the home at least in thesecond Iron Age; at this time there is no sign of spatialsegregation between men and women, with both sexesliving together and working within the family nucleus, witha relatively high degree of equality between both groups. Itis possible to suggest a hypothetical evolutionary processfrom the Bronze Age onwards, when there could have beena spatial/social separation and more subjection of women.The eventual consolidation of a fully functional peasantsociety, such as that characterised by written sources (withan uxorilocal system of residence) would lead to animportant increase in the power of women within thedomestic environment, and consequently within theeconomic infrastructure of these communities from thesecond Iron Age.

As previously mentioned, anthropological investigationhas commented on the fact that the home, inpremodern/preindustrial societies, is of great symbolicimportance for those who live in it; it is not just a roof, butinstead something which expresses and represents, like amicrocosmos, the vision which the inhabiting communityhas of the organisation of its society and its world (Lévi-Strauss 1991; Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995). Archaeologicalinvestigation has unravelled some of these symbolic andcosmological aspects in different prehistoric contexts,reflected in the ritual orientation of dwellings and theirhearths, or in the localisation of a pattern of spatialitydefined through a binary scheme which reproducescosmological themes.

With regard to domestic hillfort architecture, there is animportant empirical problem in attempting to arrive atcosmological interpretations of this style; however, thearchitechtonic form reproduced by circular dwellings, theresult of a strong cultural tradition, may be proposed as areflection at microspatial level of social hillfort space. It ispossible for there to be a correspondence between thedifferent spatial environments which form the hillfortlandscape:

- Space within the dwelling.- The model of spatiality shown in the interior of the

community

8 Some dwellings have a small bench which runs along the innerwall around the central hearth (another example of radialdistribution around the focal point of the ‘lareira’ (hearth)).Strabonian references bring to mind meals where the members ofthe group would sit along this bench according to a heirarchydefined by age. It refers to a specific spatial organisation and groupcomposition within the dwelling when carrying out collectiveactivity such as eating. The overriding spatial scheme, which we areunaware of, could symbolically reprodue the internal socialarticulation of the family group.


35

- The model of economic territory which forms andarticulates the settlement.

- Symbolic space.

The circular dwelling would act as a microcosmos, ametaphorical representation of the spatial organisation ofthe community’s territory, articulated in the model ofconcave landscape, proposed in the investigative field ofLandscape Archaeology which we share (Criado 1989, 1993;Parcero 1993, 1995a, 1995b). The circular shape of thedwelling is the same as the walled hillforts themselves,which in turn coincide with the territory which thecommunity works upon with the economic activities ofsubsistence: working the land, pasture for animals, areaswhere prime materials are extracted, etcetera. The hillfort, amonumental element, built to see and be seen, occupies thecentral point around which radiate the different spatialspheres of economic action which integrate the territorydirectly controlled by the settlement. This model oflandscape thus defines two spatial areas: a central areaformed by the settlement, pasture and farmland, and aperiferal area of empty land which acts as a frontier with theterritory of other communties.

We therefore believe that hillfort socity created a processof territorialisation and domestication of the landscape,which it used to define a circular spatial model to structurematerial reality and which could be a basic structuralprincipal within the society. This conceptual model couldhave been applied in the spatial organisation of theterritory, defining a series of relevant opposites: settlement –community (us) –central area-culture-life (you) periphery-frontier communities (them) –nature-death. In this way thesocial space of the hillfort culture was articulated viastrategies which distinguished the identity and the cohesionof the community with respect to the exterior: visibility andmonumentality of the settlement, access restricted by a wallwhich, in turn, hid and isolated internal habitational spacefrom the exterior, etcetera.

This model would be reproduced in the objects whichformed the domestic space: the circular dwelling acts as amicrocosmos (in the same way as the hillfort acted as animago mundi), as a negative of social space, although thedichotomy which is now reflected is of the oppositionbetween the family unit and the community. Thearchitectonic solutions which were adopted, independentlyof environmental conditioning factors, were aimed atachieving a total isolation of the dwelling. Hillfort dwellingsare the physical incarnation of an ideal environment: thepeasant ideal of autarchy which reigns over the life of afamily unit conceived as an entity of production andconsumption. In turn, the hillfort was the physicalexpression of this same ideal: the settlement as anidentifying framework of a peasant society closed in uponitself. Both served to perpetuate and facilitate this ideal,reflecting the cosmovision and the way of life whichsupported it.

This is what makes it possible, for the time being, to talkabout the symbolic nature of hillfort architecture.

The Galaico-Roman model of spatiality

We have seen how the domestic architecture from the IronAge in north-western Iberia, and the spatial organisationwhich it caused, is the result of a cultural tradition whichestablishes a very uniform constructive model. It is a type ofarchitecture built by all, with practically only one type ofdwelling, with no place for originality or innovation; thisstrong conservative feeling made practically all hillfortdwellings the same, and meant that the architecture fromthe second Iron Age has a practically non-chronologicalnature. This architectonic model only started to undergosignificant changes with the gradual process of introducingculture under Roman rule.

The Elviña site perfectly demonstrates the mostimportant changes which took place of this type. Firstly,there was a gradual appearance of square or rectangulardesigns in domestic buildings; curved sections wereswapped for perfectly defined corners. It was the end of thepredominance of circular shapes within these populations,although there would be a period of joint existence of bothtypes of construction until late on, as seen in the Galico-Roman settlement of Viladonga.

There was a noteable change in building methods; therewas widespread use of iron implements in quarrying work(instead of bronze), and important improvements incarpentry techniques. The fitting of stone blocks in wallswas more carefully accomplished, with mortar being usedin some cases. The internal walls were also better finished,and plastering became more common. New architechtonicsolutions appeared at this time, such as roof tiles being usedfor rectangular dwellings (tiled roofs gradually becamepopular alongside straw coverings).

These architectural changes were in turn accompaniedby novelties in the domestic contents of the dwellings:circular millstones appeared, Roman table ceramicsappeared (both common and terra sigillata), or the presenceof amphorae for storage in the interior of the dwellings, areall clear examples of new tendencies in daily domestichabits.

However, the most outstanding feature of this process ofchange was the gradual modification of the scheme ofspatial organisation defined by pre-Roman domesticarchitecture. Here there are a series of significant variations:

- The use of four-sided buildings meant amaximisation of the dwelling’s interior space; weshould not forget that circular constructions do notmake best use of habitational space. Straight linesmade possible a more orderly distribution ofdwellings, making it possible for them to be builtalongside each other using dividing walls. This allresulted from an increased rationalisation ofconstructed space in line with the Mediterraneanurban model.

- Rectangulal shapes equally favour the appearance ofinternal divisions within domestic constructions. Thesharing of internal space implies defining differentareas, the presence of physical spatial limits, andconsequently a greater degree of privacy, maintainedby a high degree of control over access to these areas.The segmentation of domestic space indicates a


36

noteworthy socio-spatial complexity with regard tothe single space of circular dwellings.

- There is no direct access from the outside to theinterior of the domestic space; architechtonicstructures now appear which control and limit freecirculation, acting as mechanisms which control thespace of the entrance. This function is carried out bydifferent constructive elements, such as atria,vestibules, stone steps or buttresses which precedeand define the entrance door.

- Another novel aspect to consider is the breakdown ofthe radial emplacement of areas of activity around apoint defined by the central hearth. These came to besystematically placed next to the wall, either to oneside of the door or in front of it.

- There was an increase in the settlements ofearthmoving work and preparation of the ground,and circulation was improved inside the area thanksto ramps, stairs and small paved pathways. Also,public buildings appeared, which were clearlydifferentiated from the other constructions.

These changes underline the gradual configuration of anew model of spatiality within hillfort settlements whichwere still inhabited when the Galaico-Roman society wasbeing formed. They are therefore cleas signs of theappearance of culture within an indigenous society whichwas affected by the socio-economic politics of Rome.Nevertheless, this process of cultural change developeddifferently according to the geographical region: in thenorth of Galicia and in coastal settlements, like Elviña, therewas a profound urban and architechtonic change, whereasin other areas of the conventus lucensis the local traditionscontinued, although they incorporated innovations broughtby the Romans.

Here it is possible to see a process of continuity andrupture at this time of change: on one hand, the architecturefound in Galaico-Roman settlements from the period(Elviña, Santa Trega, etc...) began to demonstrate thetransformation which was happening within the pattern ofrationality and social structure of these communities: on theother, they also reflect the persistence of a strong localarchitechtonic tradition. This phenomenon should thus bedealt with in two ways.

It is possible that at the time there was a generalcontinuation of the pre-Roman conceptual model ofdomestic space. The changes which resulted from contactwith Rome changed domestic architecture and buildingmethods: however, the circular hillfort dwelling, the shapeand type of settlement, were still used although the culturewhich used them and gave them meaning was graduallychanging9. This explains the co-existence of traditional

9 Anthropology gives us cases where the change from a circular to arectangular building covered over a continuity in the basicorganisation of space. For example, in some areas of western Africathe process of colonisation led to the abandonment of circulardwellings: the new rectangular houses came to be the expression,via a different way of life, of the preceding conceptual/spatialmodel (Hingley 1990: 135-6).

dwellings with others which included new features; thereplacement of old architechtonic styles was in many casesdue to the prestige value and quality of construction of thenew buildings, more than because of a lack of suitability of away of life which still existed.

Elsewhere, this habitational co-existence reveals(although more clearly in some sites than others, such asElviña), the beginnings of a break with the traditionalmodel. Rural societies were beginning to form part of a neweconomic framework, characterised by the extension ofagricultural activity based on cereals, an increase in thework of artesans, and the opening up of commercial routeswhich would take advantage of the new roads built by theRomans in the region. However, there was also anintegration of new institutional, religious and ideologicalcontexts. The process of adopting the Roman model meant aprofound transformation or remodelling of the cosmovisionand family structure of the hillfort culture.

As we have already mentioned, the family organisationin the Iron Age in the north west, according to classicsources, would have tended towards the consolidation oflarge families and matrilocality. According to Strabo,married sons left the family home and received the dowryfrom their sisters, who possessed the right to make to fulluse of the land. The importance the role of womencorresponded to the lack of segmentation of domestic spaceaccording to gender. In contrast to this system ofrelationships, Roman culture emphasised the power of themale in family units (in accordance to the patrilineal andpatrilocal Latin model), which unlawfully occupied theproperty of the means of production, as part of a process ofprivatising the land. A new model appeared seen in ruralfamilies from the high Middle Ages, ideologicallysanctioned by Christian doctrine since the fourth century.

We therefore believe that the changes in the internalorganisation of domestic space obeys a transformation inthe economic and family structure; the breakdown of asingle, collective domestic space may perhaps demonstratea different concept of the individual. The breaking down ofspace, organised in different areas, would reflect greatereconomic specialisation (different areas of activity), and asegmentation in the interior of the family unit (highlyprivate spaces). The home, which was more integratedwithin the urban organisation of the settlement, is evenmore defined as a nucleus for identity, with more severecontrol and restriction on access to it. misma.

These are gradual but stubstantial changes, the productof a process of cultural changes, which graduallyundermined the legitimacy and stability of the seeminglyunmovable pre-Roman architechtonic tradition. Thedefinitive consolidation of the new spatial model wouldoccur with the integratory politics developed by the Flaviandynasty, which became a real factor for social change bypromoting measures such as the concession of the Ius Latii,the imposition of a new type of tributary politics (censo) orthe privatising of lands. The configuration of this new socio-politico-economic framework would be accompanied by theorganisation of rural populations according to the villae andthe subsequent abandonment of the hillfort - and its spatialorganisation- as the principal model of settlement (end of 1A.D. – beginning of the II century).


37

In this contect, the archichtonic tradition has lost itsimpetus and its legitimacy; the way of life in a hillfort hadchanged definitively, to the point where its architechtonicform, its model of spatiality, made no sense in a differentsocial, political and economic reality, such as the RomanGallaecia.

BibliographyBaker, G.H. 1994. Le Corbusier: análisis de la forma. México:

Gustavo Gili. (5ª ed. amp., ed. or. 1985. Le Corbusier.An analysis of form. UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold).

Baker, G.H. 1998. Análisis de la forma: urbanismo yarquitectura. México: Gustavo Gili (2ª ed. amp., ed. or.1989. Desing Strategies in Architecture. An approachto the analysis of form. Second edition. UK: VanNostrand Reinhold).

Bermejo Barrera, J. C. 1978. La sociedad en la Galicia castreña.Santiago: Follas Novas.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1992. Sobre el análisis arqueológico deconstrucciones históricas. La experiencia llevada acabo en Santa Eulalia de Mérida, La Torre de Hérculesen La Coruña y S. Pelayo de Arlanza. En III Encuentrossobre Arqueología y Patrimonio de Salobreña. Arqueologíadel monumento. Forthcoming.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1995. Método para el análisisestratigráfico de construcciones históricas o “lectura deparamentos”. Informes de la Construcción, 453: 37-46.Madrid.

Carsten, J. and Hugh-Jones, S. 1995. About the house. Lévi-Strauss and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ching, F. 1995. Arquitectura: forma, espacio y orden. México:Gustavo Gili. (10ª ed., ed. or. 1979. Architecture: Form,Space and Order. Nueva York: Van NostrandReinhold).

Clarke, D. L. 1977. Spatial Information in Archaeology. InClarke, D. L. (ed.). Spatial Archaeology: 1-32. London:Academic Press.

Criado Boado, F. 1989. Asentamiento megalítico yasentamiento castreño. Una propuesta de síntesis.Gallaecia, 11: 109-37. A Coruña.

Criado Boado, F. 1993a. Límites y posibilidades de laarqueología del paisaje. Spal, 2: 9-55. Sevilla.

Criado Boado, F. 1993b. Espacio monumental y paisajesprehistóricos en Galicia. En Asociación Galega deHistoriadores (ed.): Concepcións espaciais e estratexiasterritoriais na Historia de Galicia: 23-54. Santiago:Tórculo Edicións.

Criado Boado, F. 1993c. Visibilidad e interpretación delregistro arqueológico. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 50: 39-56.Madrid.

Criado Boado, F. 1995. El control arqueológico de obras detrazado lineal: plantamientos desde la arqueología delpaisaje. En Actas del XXII Congreso Nacional deArqueología (Vigo, 1993), I: 253-59. Vigo: Consellería deCultura/Concello de Vigo.

Criado Boado, F. 1996a. La Arqueología del futuro, ¿elFuturo de la Arqueología?. Trabajos de Prehistoria 53 (1):15-35. Madrid.

Criado Boado, F. 1996b. La arqueología del paisaje comoprograma de gestión integral del patrimonioarqueológico. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del PatrimonioHistórico, 14: 15-9. Sevilla.

Criado Boado, F. 1996c. Hacia un modelo integrado deinvestigación y gestión del Patrimonio Histórico: lacadena interpretativa como propuesta. Boletín delInstituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 16: 73-9.Sevilla.

Criado Boado, F. 1999. Del Terreno al Espacio: Planteamientosy Perspectivas para la Arqueología del Paisaje. CAPA(Criterios y Convenciones en Arqueología del Paisaje), 6.Santiago: Grupo de Investigación en Arqueoloxía daPaisaxe, USC.

Criado Boado, F. (dir.). 1991. La Arqueología del Paisaje enGalicia. El área Bocelo-Furelos entre los tiempos paleolíticosy medievales. (Campañas de 1987, 1988 y 1989).Arqueoloxía/Investigación, 6. Santiago: Xunta de Galicia.

Criado Boado, F. and González Méndez, M. 1994. La puestaen valor del patrimonio arqueológico desde laperspectiva de la arqueología del paisaje. En VV.AA.:Conservación arqueológica. Reflexión y debate sobreteoría y práctica. Cuadernos del Instituto Andaluz delPatrimonio Histórico, III: 58-75. Sevilla.

García Fernández Albatát, B. 2000. Expediente del Castro deElviña: Primeras campañas. Plan Director del Castro deElviña. Santiago de Compostela: Laboratorio deArqueoloxía e Formas Culturais, ITT, USC.

García Quintela, M. V. 1999. Mitología y mitos de la HispaniaPrerromana, III. Madrid: Akal.

González Méndez, M. 1996. El ocio y el reciclado: laconversión del vestigio arqueológico en producto deconsumo. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del PatrimonioHistórico, 14: 24-7. Sevilla.

González Méndez, M. 2000. Investigación y Puesta en Valor delPatrimonio Histórico: Planteamientos y Propuestas desde laArqueología del Paisaje. (Tesis doctoral). Departamentode Historia I, Facultade de Xeografía e Historia, USC.Santiago de Compostela. Unpublished.

Guérin, P. 1999. Hogares, Molinos, Telares... El Castellet deBernabé y sus ocupantes. Arqueología Espacial, 21: 85-99. Teruel.

Guidoni, E. 1989. Arquitectura primitiva. Madrid: Aguilar.

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. 1984. The social logic of space.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hingley, R. 1990. Domestic Organization and GenderRelations in Iron Age and Roman-British Households.En Samson, R. (ed.). The Archaeology of houses: 125-47.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1977. Some New Directions in the SpatialAnalysis of Archaeological Data at the Regional Scale(Macro). In Clarke, D. L. (ed.) Spatial Archaeology: 233-351. London: Academic Press.


38

Hodder, I. and Orton, C. 1990. Análisis espacial enArqueología. Barcelona: Crítica.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1991. Maison. En Bonte, P.and Izard, M.(eds.): Dictionnaire de l’ethnologie et de l’anthropologie.Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Luengo Martínez, J. Mª. 1954-55. Noticia sobre lasexcavaciones del Castro de Elviña (La Coruña).Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico, III-IV (1-3): 90-101.Madrid.

Luengo Martínez, J. Mª. 1966. La fuente-aljibe del CastroCéltico de Elviña (La Coruña)”. Revista del Instituto‘José Cornide’ de Estudios Coruñeses, 1: 155-60. A Coruña.

Luengo Martínez, J. Mª. 1975. El Castro Celta de Elviña. ElParaíso del Turismo. A Coruña.

Luengo Martínez, J. Mª. 1979. El tesoro de Elviña y trestorques coruñeses. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 36: 213-46.Madrid.

Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980. Existencia, espacio y arquitectura.Barcelona: Ed. Blume.

Ortega, J. 1999. Microespacio y Microhistoria. LaArqueología del espacio doméstico. ArqueologíaEspacial, 21: 101-15. Teruel.

Parcero Oubiña, C. 1993. Estudio del emplazamiento ydistribución de castros en la provincia de A Coruña. El casode la zona de Ferrol. (Tesis de Licenciatura). Grupo deInvestigación en Arqueoloxía da Paisaxe,Departamento de Historia I, Facultade de Xeografía eHistoria, USC. Santiago de Compostela. Unpublished.

Parcero Oubiña, C. 1995a. Aproximación al espacio social enel mundo castreño”. En Actas del XXII CongresoNacional de Arqueología (Vigo, 1993), II: 185-8. Vigo:Consellería de Cultura/Concello de Vigo.

Parcero Oubiña, C. 1995b. Elementos para el estudio de lospaisajes castreños del Noroeste peninsular. Trabajos dePrehistoria, 52 (1): 127-144. Madrid.

Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, S. C. 1994a. Ordering theworld: perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time. InParker Pearson, M.; Richards, C. (eds.): Architecture andOrder. Approaches to Social Space: 1-37. London:Routledge.

Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, S. C. 1994b. Architectureand order: spatial representation and Archaeology. InParker Pearson, M.; Richards, S. C. (eds.): Architectureand Order. Approaches to Social Space: 38-72. London:Routledge.

Quirós Castillo, J. A. 1994. Contribución al estudio de laarqueología de la Arquitectura. Arqueología y territoriomedieval, 1: 141-58. Jaén.

Rapoport, A. 1972. Vivienda y cultura. Barcelona: GustavoGili.

Richards, S. C. 1990. The Late Neolithic House in Orkney. InSamson, R. (ed.). The Archaeology of houses: 111-24.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Samson, R. (ed.) 1990. The social Archaeology of houses.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Sánchez, J. 1998. La Arqueología de la Arquitectura.Aplicación de nuevos modelos de análisis a estructurasde la Alta Andalucía en época ibérica. Trabajos dePrehistoria, 55 (2): 89-109. Madrid.

Sanz Gallego, N. 1993. Para una lógica social del espacio enPrehistoria. Complutum, 4: 239-52. Madrid.

Vela Cossío, F. 1995. Para una prehistoria de la vivienda.Aproximación historiográfica y metodológica alestudio del espacio doméstico prehistórico.Complutum, 6: 257-76. Madrid.

Ven Van de, C. 1981. El espacio en arquitectura. La evolución deuna idea nueva en la teoría e historia de los movimientosmodernos. Madrid: Cátedra.

Wolf, E. R. 1982. Los campesinos. Barcelona: Labor.


39

IllustrationsTable 1. Diagram that summarises the s Stratigraphic

analysis or elevation readings.

Figure 1. Situation of Elviña hillfort, in NW of Spain

Figure 2. View of Elviña hillfort, in 1960 (in Luengo 1979)

Figure 3. View of Elviña hillfort, actually

Figure 4. Plan of Casa de la Exedra, digitalized from thediggings of 1983 and 1984

Figure 5. Plan of Casa de la Exedra; differentiation de SUsand diagram in detail

Figure 6. View of Casa de la Exedra

Figure 7. Differentiation of stratigraphic units (SU) andactivities (A) of west-facing interior section of theCasa de la Exedra, with the SU and A diagram

Figure 8. Plan of Casa de la Exedra;differentiation ofactivities and stratigraphic diagram

Figure 9. Synthesis of the phases of Casa de la Exedra

Figure 10. Plan of the structures digged in Elviña Hillfort,digitalized from plan of 1983 excavation; marked thesituation of Casa de la Exedra

Figure 11. Gamma analyses and internal circulatory routes ofthe main domestic structures of the Elviña hillfort

Figure 12. Visibility analysis of the main domestic structuresof the Elviña hillfort

Figure 13. Kinship and transmission of goods in NW IberianPeninsula prerromans people (Bermejo 1978; GarcíaQuintela 1999)

Xurxo M. Ayán Vila([email protected])

Rebeca Blanco Rotea([email protected])

Patricia Mañana Borrazás([email protected])

Laboratorio de ArqueoloxíaInstituto de Estudios Galegos Padre SarmientoConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) –Xunta de Galicia (XuGA)Galicia, Spain.


chapter 02 blanco, mañana, ayan · chapter 16 the archaeological study of san esteban deatán...

Documents