quarta-feira, 24 de março de 2010

Hermanfrid Schubart: at the cross-roads of European and Iberian archaeology in the second half of the 20th century

Hermanfrid Schubart: at the cross-roads of European and Iberian

archaeology in the second half of the 20th century*


Susana Oliveira Jorge **

It is an honour and a considerable responsibility to present this eulogy to

Professor Hermanfrid Schubart at the ceremony of conferring the degree

of Doctor Honoris Causa which the University of Porto has rightly decided

to award him. But I must say that it is a real pleasure to do so, precisely

because not only do I admire his work, but I consider that the Iberian

Peninsula in general and Portugal in particular owes him a tribute

which would do justice to his exemplary efforts on behalf of scientific

archaeology in this country.

· Hermanfrid Schubart was born in Kassel, Germany, in 1930. He was a

child at the start of the 2nd World War and an adolescent when it ended.

From 1945 on, it was in the German Democratic Republic that he spent

his teenage years and began his training as an archaeologist.

In 1953 he graduated in prehistoric archaeology at the University of Leipzig.

In 1955, aged only 25, he was awarded his doctorate from the University

of Greifswald, with a thesis on the Early Bronze Age of Mecklenburg; he

was a lecturer at the Institute of Pre- and Proto-History at Greifswald from

1953 to 1955.

He was soon recognised as an outstanding excavator, and worked in the

Archaeological Excavation Service of West Pomerania from 1955 to 1957,

carrying out important excavations in pre- and proto-historic sites.

Between 1957 and 1959, Hermanfrid Schubart’s career took him to East

Berlin, to the Institute of Pre- and Proto-History of the German Academy

of Sciences. Here, under Professor Wilhelm Unverzagt, he carried out

excavations at Bronze and early Iron Age sites in Mecklenburg. It was

during this period that he had the opportunity to travel and to experience

archaeological practices in many European countries, both east and west.

In these early years he was decisively influenced by the archaeological

training he received in German institutions, which, in the post-war years

in both East and West, were rejecting the racist dogma of the so-called

followers of Kossinna. At this period of his career, as a young researcher,

he was strongly influenced by Gordon Childe and by the methods of Hans

Jürgen Eggers, as well as by the historical materialism required in

East German Universities. However, Schubart soon distanced himself

from Soviet-style Marxism, both in his archaeological work and in his

ideological and political stance, and this inevitably led to difficulties

in areas of his professional and political life.

In 1959, aged 28, Schubart made use of the relatively free passage then

possible between East and West Berlin, and, in view of the political

circumstances of the time, decided to move to West Berlin, even though

this meant that he would not be able to return to his native region of

Mecklenburg and his family home in Weimar/Thüringen. With this radical

decision, Schubart brought to a close the first stage of his life, and embarked

on a brilliant career as archaeologist and academic, both in the Federal

Republic of Germany and especially in the Iberian Peninsula.

I shall examine this second stage of his life later, particularly in its

exceptional contribution to the progress of archaeological research in

Portugal and Spain in the second half of the 20th century.

When Schubart introduced himself to the German Archaeological

Institute in West Berlin in 1959, he already had his doctorate and

had published about twenty papers. On joining the Institute,

he asked to be sent to a delegation far from Berlin, preferably in the

Near East. It was with some surprise that he found that he was being

offered a place in Spain, at the Institute’s Madrid headquarters. Spain,

where he had never been before, at the other extreme from the Eastern

Mediterranean which attracted him so much – it was in many ways a

non-stop journey, from east to west.

The late 50s were a boom period in the Federal Republic. In these

golden post-war years, the renowned German Archaeological Institute,

whose authority in Classical and Oriental studies had enabled it to survive

the ideological constraints of the Nazi regime, had impressive resources

at its disposal. Its research policy was directed, more than ever, to the

Near East and to the whole Mediterranean area.

Arriving in Spain in 1959, Professor Schubart was soon appointed to an

important position in the Madrid delegation of the German Archaeological

Institute. From 1967 to 1981 he was deputy director, initially at the time

when the director was still Helmut Schlunk (the first director of the Madrid

delegation from its founding in 1943 and its reopening in 1954), and later,

from 1971 to 1981, in the period when Schlunk was succeeded by Wilhelm

Grünhagen. In 1981, Schubart’s work was recognized by his appointment

as director of the Institute in Madrid, a position he filled until his retirement

in 1994. During this long period, from 1959 to 1994, he involved himself

in all the Institute’s activities of research, publication and co-operation,

with notable efficiency, energy and personal involvement. Particularly

important was his role in the promotion of archaeological excavations

in the Peninsula, at various sites dating from various periods; in revitalizing

the Institute’s magnificent Library as a centre of hospitality and culture

for all who used it; in the continued publication of the essential journal

Madrider Mitteilungen and the monographs of the Madrider Forschungen

and Madrider Beiträge series; in the connections forged between the

Institute and countless Spanish and Portuguese institutions, thereby

creating a lasting place for the Institute as a specialist resource for the

two Iberian countries; and in the training of researchers, especially

those from Portugal and Spain, in the archaeology of the Iberian Peninsula.

Finally, while speaking of his work within the Institute, we cannot

forget the support Schubart gave to the opening of the branch of the

German Archaeological Institute in Lisbon in 1971 and its first two

directors, Drs Philine Kalb and Theodor Hauschild. Until he retired in

1994, he was always attentive and cooperative, a true pillar of the Lisbon

delegation of the Institute.

But Professor Schubart was and is also an admirable researcher and a notable teacher.

In 1971 he was appointed Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy

and Humanities, University of Munich, where he presented an important

research paper on the Bronze Age in the south-west of the Iberian Peninsula

(Schubart, H., 1975). In Munich he was for many years in charge of courses

in the pre-history and proto-history of Western Europe and the


However, if I was asked to summarise, I would venture to say that

Schubart will always be associated with research into the pre- and

proto-historic past of the Iberian Peninsula, research which he has

carried out for 45 years and is still continuing today. Such a career,

connected to research into one particular region, makes Schubart one

of the most valuable elements of the Peninsula’s heritage. His work on the

Iberian past, within the framework of the Mediterranean world, has

been expressed in hundreds of research papers, in innumerable

excavations, and in endless activity as a participant in conferences

and seminars, where, furthermore, he has always excelled as a

speaker. The many distinctions which he has obtained in Germany,

Spain and Portugal reflect the recognition that his work deserves

from many points of view.

As to his research, I shall concentrate briefly on two main aspects:

the historical and conceptual framework which directed his ideas, and

the specific contribution of his work to the development of knowledge

of the pre- and proto-history of the Iberian Peninsula.

· Hermanfrid Schubart, as an archaeologist, is part of the historico-cultural

school of thought, founded in Europe in the first half of the 20th century,

which is still broadly active today in many scientific contexts.

This school, which owes much to Gustaf Kossinna but was further

developed initially by Gordon Childe among others, presupposes

an audacious method of detecting past ‘cultures’ in the anthropological

sense: it correlates discrete distributions of artefacts with boundaries

of territories occupied by ‘peoples’. That is, it equates ‘archaeological

cultures’ with ‘ethnic cultures’. With this step, historico-cultural

thought became the basis of modern archaeological knowledge: the

method of ordering sets of artefacts in space/time, with the aim of

defining ‘cultures’, is applicable in any part of the world. But

historico-culturalism does not rely only on detecting cultures.

It contains its own particular idea of the past, which is still promulgated

today, even by schools of thought which see themselves as different,

and it is this notion of the past which determines the compulsion

to recover ‘what happened in the past’, in all its historical particularity.

As we shall see, the success of this school of thought was greatly assisted

by refinements in the methodology of archaeological recording. For

without such sophisticated systems, the record would not yield a complete

historical explanation. The historico-cultural school is always dependent

on illumination from the archaeological record.

However, for this school, cultural change is the direct result of processes

of population diffusion and migration.

In Europe in the first half of the 20th century there were two main

and conflicting views as to the centre of innovation and diffusion which

brought ‘culture and civilisation’. On one side there were positions

supporting an independent European provenance, of which the racist

views of Kossinna were the most important: for him, the region of what

is now Germany was the major central point of diffusion. Racist obsession

with Aryan peoples was used later, of course, by the Nazi regime to

legitimise its political programme. But the dominant idea in Europe

and even in Germany itself was that the real centre of diffusion was

the Mediterranean and the Near East. This idea, first found in Montelius

and expanded by Childe, thrived in most countries and among

most archaeologists of the time. In Germany, the German Archaeological

Institute, devoted to the study of the brilliance of the Mediterranean

and the Near East in Classical times, never really fitted into Nazi

ideology, the aim of which was to use archaeology to highlight the

role of Germanic peoples.

Hermanfrid Schubart himself always defended the position that

the Mediterranean was a centre of diffusion. He was thus linked with

a normative concept of culture which argued that in the past Europe

was colonised from one of its borders - the Near East.

I should also mention the importance, in Schubart’s thought and practice,

of an archaeology based on geography, developed in Germany in the

1950s and 60s. This school of thought was led by Eggers, who in the

50s founded the journal Archaeologica Geografica. Based on a

comprehensive criticism of the interpretative concepts of

Kossinna’s ‘settlement archaeology’ - that is, on a clear rejection

of his ‘ethnic paradigm’ - this school developed cartographic method

as applied to archaeology, with special attention to the relationship

of sites and surrounding space, avoiding any ethnic, much less racist,


When Hermanfrid Schubart arrived in the Iberian Peninsula in 1959,

what was the background of archaeological practice there? This is not

the time to outline the history of archaeology in the two countries in

the 20th century. In fact, in my view, despite everything that has been

produced, especially on Spanish archaeology (Díaz-Andreu, M., 1995,

2002), an in-depth study of the historical and sociological framework

determining the profile and the perceived importance of archaeology

in Spain and Portugal has yet to be written. It is obvious that, in spite

of the generally delayed development of archaeology in the Peninsula

in comparison with the rest of Europe, there was, before the last third

of the 20th century, a marked difference between Portugal and Spain.

In Spain, universities had been training academic archaeologists since

the beginning of the century. Barcelona, for example, led by the outstanding

figure of Bosch Gimpera, provided some of the most significant

archaeologists in Spain. Furthermore, European schools of archaeology,

especially in France and Germany, attracted many young Spanish scholars

in the first half of the century, some of whom later became famous

archaeologists in a variety of institutions. This endogenous growth meant

that in Spain there has always been a strong influence from French, Belgian,

German and also British archaeologists. I may mention the work of the

Siret brothers at the beginning of the 20th century – which so influenced

Schubart’s own research – or, in the 40s and 50s, the exemplary and

important contributions of Georg and Vera Leisner, whose work on

the Iberian megalithic phenomenon is still a landmark in the history

of research into the topic.

In contrast with this animated Spanish picture – despite the political

vicissitudes of the Civil War, the post-war period and the Franco regime,

which were obviously reflected in the institutional use of archaeology

in Spain – in Portugal up to the mid-1970s (with particular exceptions)

there was a long period of stagnation (Arnaud, J. M.(coord.), 2002).

Firstly we should emphasise that, until relatively recently, there was

no academic study of archaeology in Portugal, with the exception of

the University of Coimbra, where archaeology was largely devoted to

the Roman period and concentrated on the excavations at Conímbriga.

The cooperation between the Institute of Archaeology at the University

of Coimbra, under Professor Jorge de Alarcão, and the Museum of

Conimbriga, directed by Dr Adília Alarcão, created a centre of

archaeological research which was absolutely unique in Portugal.

We may ask ourselves why other ancient institutions did not take

the opportunity to change with the times in the mid-20th century.

The fact is that during the first half of the century, and especially

in the post-war period, Portuguese archaeology was dependent

on individual, though important, contributions by foreign archaeologists,

such as Jean Roche and Georg and Vera Leisner. There is only the isolated

figure of Eduardo da Cunha Serrão, economist and amateur archaeologist,

whose excavations in the 50s and 60s broke the pattern of general lack

of scientific recording, to represent a country where the Salazar regime,

unlike other totalitarian governments, always marginalised archaeology,

depriving it of any political and institutional weight.

It was in this Iberian context that Hermanfrid Schubart carried out his

research from the beginning of the 1960s. We can therefore understand why,

in pre- and proto-historic studies, particularly in Portugal for obvious

reasons, but in Spain too, there is a pre-Schubart and a post-Schubart

period. Schubart’s studies in the German Archaeological Institute started

a true revolution in the practice of archaeology in the Peninsula. After his

practical work at some significant sites, such as Zambujal, Atalaia or

Fuente Álamo, it became clear that archaeology was only worth doing if

certain thresholds of rigour and questioning were reached. Schubart and

his disciples – the school of Schubart – laid the foundations of a modern

archaeology interested in the reconstruction of Iberian pre- and


Throughout 45 years of research, Schubart has dealt with four major

themes: the so-called ‘fortifications’ of the Chalcolithic (3rd millennium

BC); the ‘South-western Bronze Age’, a cultural entity which he himself

postulated (2nd millennium BC); the Argaric Bronze Age of south-eastern

Spain (2nd millennium BC); and Phoenician colonisation (1st millennium


On all these fronts, Schubart acted consistently according to two basic

principles: - any theoretical paradigm can only be maintained through

exhaustive fieldwork carried out in full and methodical excavations, - in

the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC the Iberian Peninsula was colonised, or at

least strongly influenced, by peoples from the eastern Mediterranean.

In some ways Schubart extended to the pre- and proto-history of the

Peninsula the philosophy underlying the activities of the German

Archaeological Institute in other parts of the Mediterranean and the

Near East: Europe was the heir of the Mediterranean world, not only

from the Classical period, but from at least the 3rd millennium BC.

Schubart was thus arguing for an extended cultural tradition which

would have favoured the emergence of successive ‘cultures’ in the far

west of the Mediterranean.

- The theme of the ‘Chalcolithic fortifications’ of the 3rd millennium was

based archaeologically on the excavations of the castro of Zambujal

(Torres Vedras) from 1964 to 1973. These extensive excavations, of such

a large site dating from such an early period, were the first of their kind

in the entire Peninsula. They functioned as an excavating school for

students from 14 different countries, including more than a hundred

from Germany, Portugal and Spain. The methods used were so

revolutionary for the time that they served as a model in many Peninsular

excavations in the following decades.

Schubart’s associate in this work was Edward Sangmeister of the

Institute of Pre- and Proto-history at the University of Freiburg; he

was supported, as ever, by the German Archaeological Institute in Madrid,

and in this case also by the Portuguese Ministry of Education.

Fernando de Almeida, then Professor of Archaeology at the University

of Lisbon, a cosmopolitan person despite being a supporter of the Salazar

regime, made direct contact with the government in order to help set up

the excavations. It is thanks to these people that Portugal will always

be connected with one of the most fascinating prehistoric sites in Europe.

After publication, with Sangmeister, of the full report on the Zambujal

excavations (Sangmeister, E. & Schubart, H., 1981), there was a long period

of inactivity at the site. The fact that excavation began again in 1994

(coordinated by Michael Kunst) was once again due to the efforts of

Schubart - a kind of final official gesture from the director of the Madrid

delegation, dedicated to Portugal and its archaeology.

The colonial paradigm, inherent in the theory of ‘Chalcolithic

fortifications’, is perhaps the most long-lasting common paradigm in

Iberian prehistory. During the 1960s and 70s, researchers such as

Sangmeister, Blance, Kalb, Savory, Arribas, Martinez Santa-Olalla

and many others argued that these walled sites resulted from

Mediterranean ‘colonists’, in search of Iberian copper, settling in

this foreign country (Jorge, S. O., 1994, 2003). Quite early on,

however, Schubart, bearing in mind the data from the Zambujal

excavations, used to warn of the care necessary in the use of the

term ‘colony’ when applied to this type of site. His preference for the

term ‘factory’ is related to the discomfort that he felt with the use of

an excessively anachronistic model. Later, during the 1980s, under

the auspices of a research programme (in collaboration with German

geologists) to discover ancient coastlines, Schubart, using the discovery

that these prehistoric sites were very near the sea, interpreted them as

some sort of “fortified harbours” (Schubart, H. 1990). The paradigm

of ‘Chalcolithic fortifications’, perhaps one of Schubart’s earliest visions,

is still alive today: the search for a point, far back in time, when the first

great military structures were built in the Peninsula, fruit of a wide-ranging

cultural transfusion among Mediterranean peoples of the 3rd millennium.

- The theme of the ‘South-western Bronze Age’, a 2nd-millennium culture,

occupied Schubart’s fieldwork between 1962 and 1970. During this period

most of the necropolis of Atalaia, in the lower Alentejo, was the subject

of large-scale excavation. In 1975 Schubart published an extensive

monograph on this ‘culture’, a work which soon became a source of

reference for research into the Bronze Age in the Peninsula (Schubart,

H., 1975).

The definition of the ‘South-western Bronze Age’ is based on the cartography

and ordering of a number of contexts and artefacts confined to the 2nd

millennium in the south-west of the Peninsula, particularly those of a

funerary nature. The excavation of the necropolis at Atalaia, also

unprecedented in Portugal, was to be fundamental in supplying a

first picture of the architecture of this kind of necropolis and of its

funerary rites.

In the context of other regional Bronze Age studies, the chief novelty

in Schubart’s construct is that it helps dismantle the supposed cultural

unity of the Peninsula in the 2nd millennium. Based on the restriction

of the so-called Argaric culture to south-eastern Spain, Schubart

(following Tarradell, for example) aims to detect in the south-west

another cultural entity which, while showing Mediterranean influence,

certainly (among the cultures he studied) shows the most indigenous

cultural traits.

- The theme of the ‘Argaric Bronze Age’ from south-eastern Spain, another

2nd-millennium ‘culture’, occupied Schubart’s fieldwork from 1977 to 1999.

The site chosen for large-scale activity was Fuente Álamo (Almeria), which

Schubart studied in association with Oswaldo Arteaga. By the end of the

century it had become one of the most important prehistoric sites in the

Peninsula, as Zambujal had been in the 60s and 70s.

Following in the footsteps of the Siret brothers from the late 19th century,

Schubart carried out, in the final decades of the 20th century, one of the

most ambitious excavations ever attempted in the Iberian Peninsula,

making use of sophisticated methods and new theoretical arguments.

At Fuente Álamo, a settlement with a stratigraphy of potentially 10 metres,

he made practical use of the stratigraphic paradigm in its full splendour.

Furthermore, the large-scale excavations revealed much about funerary

rites, economy, proto-urbanism and many other aspects of the life of the

site in the context of Argaric ‘culture’.

In 2001, in collaboration with Oswaldo Arteaga and Volker Pingel, Schubart

published a memorable monograph on the Fuente Álamo excavations

(Schubart, H., Pingel, V. & Arteaga, O., 2001). In 2003, in association with

Thomas Schuhmacher, he published an extensive study on the ceramics

from the site (Schuhmacher, T. & Schubart, H., 2003).

For Schubart, the relationships between the south-east of the Peninsula

and the eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd millennium remain indisputable.

They explain the changes in the region from the Chalcolithic ‘culture’ of Los

Millares to the Argaric ‘culture’ of the Bronze Age. Even allowing for an

independent origin for the Argaric peoples, Schubart considers that the

main changes seen in population, artefacts, funerary rites etc. could

only have been due to intense commercial activity in the Mediterranean.

The closeness of Argaric sites to the coast in the 2nd millennium is also a

powerful argument in favour of this degree of interaction and even of

cultural dependence between the two ends of the Mediterranean.

- Finally I shall mention the theme of Phoenician colonisation, fieldwork

on which occupied Schubart between 1964 and 1984 (Schubart, H., 1982,

1999, 2003). Excavations in Phoenician ‘colonies’ on the Mediterranean

coast of the Peninsula, such as Toscanos and Morro de Mezquitilla, opened

the way for further research into the first urban ‘culture’ of Mediterranean

origin, with writing, in the Iberian Peninsula. The degree of interaction of

the Phoenicians with indigenous ‘cultures’ in the south of the Peninsula,

such as the Tartéssic and the Iberic, is the object of continued study today.

With the Phoenicians, Schubart could undeniably claim that “exchange

unites peoples and contributes to the shape of their cultures” (Schubart, H.,

1989, p. 47). In fact Schubart has tried throughout his life to prove that this

maxim is applicable not only to peoples with writing, but also to prehistoric Mediterranean peoples.

Ÿ If I was asked to choose one particularly innovative aspect of Schubart’s

research, even at the European level, I would unhesitatingly opt for his

notion of space. This is because he introduced into excavations of prehistoric

Iberian sites such as Zambujal and Fuente Álamo a strategy of large-scale

excavation, aiming to give the widest possible picture of these places. This

is a costly option: it presupposes that there is a works yard available at

the site, staffed by dozens of technicians and labourers. It also presupposes

excellent archaeological organisation, since work is going on in different

places, requiring central coordination and practically simultaneous


Large-scale excavation, which replaced excavation conducted only by

trial trenches, has left its mark in Peninsular prehistory. Los Millares,

which was excavated by a disciple of Schubart, Fernando Molina of the

University of Granada, is a good example of the success of this paradigm

of large-scale excavation to enable large-scale analysis. The extensive

excavation of the burial mounds of northern Portugal, carried out in the

1970s and 80s by Vítor Oliveira Jorge in the Serra de Aboboreira, was

also to some extent a result of what he had learnt at the castro of Zambujal

in the late 60s.

Furthermore, the sites which Schubart studies are always important for

the specific landscape in which they are positioned: the topography of

the sites in their relation to the geomorphology of the surrounding area,

to the hydrographic network, and to their distance from the coast. This

appetite of Schubart’s for looking at archaeological sites as they relate to

space predates, in the Peninsula, many studies in so-called ‘landscape

archaeology’ which have appeared from the 1980s onwards. With Schubart

we learn a fundamental technique of archaeological knowledge: that of

alternately raising and lowering the scale. This is an interactive game in

which it is as important to go down as close as possible to the artefact or

structure to be unearthed and carefully recorded, as to fly over the region

in order to observe the set of natural possibilities which conditioned the

inhabitants of the past, to interpret the various available maps in order to

place sites within a network of possibilities for the exchange and exploitation of resources, thus giving them historical density.

In this sense, Schubart anticipated by decades a ‘prehistory of space’,

even though this expression now has a great variety of meanings.

Ÿ In closing this eulogy, I must pay tribute to Professor Schubart’s

outstanding human qualities. A mixture of great generosity and tolerance

with invincible optimism and amazing vitality gives his personality a very

special luminosity and power. Being in his company, at a scientific

meeting, a study visit or simply talking about life, we are always touched

by his profound humanity.

But at the same time, contact with Schubart has the quality of inspiring

all those who enter his orbit with an aura of confidence in their creative

possibilities, which is truly the mark of a great spirit. There is a human

greatness in Schubart which is certainly based on his research work,

but which both surpasses and strengthens it. Hermanfrid Schubart is

like a powerful switch-board: he has the rare quality of making real

connections between people, schools of thought, institutions.

The University of Porto, in awarding the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa

to Professor Hermanfrid Schubart, is not only paying homage to a great

scientific figure, but is also itself honoured and enriched by being able

henceforth to include Professor Hermanfrid Schubart in its ranks.

It is my fervent hope that Doctor Schubart’s fraternal relationship with

Portugal will grow ever stronger. I am sure that this ceremony will

contribute to the lasting enrolment in our community of a renowned

researcher and of his exceptional scientific work.

In this way, we shall certainly become even more aware of the

unparalleled contribution of Professor Hermanfrid Schubart in the

construction of modern Iberian and Portuguese archaeology –

an archaeology able to question the Past, so as to know how to

produce the Future.

Porto, 28 January 2005


-Arnaud, J. M. (coord.), 2002, Arqueologia 2000. Balanço de um século de

investigação arqueológica em Portugal, “Arqueologia e História”, vol. 54.

-Blech, M., 2002 Las aportaciones de los arqueólogos alemanes a la arqueologia

española, Historiografia de la Arqueología Española. Las Instituciones. “Série

Cursos y Conferencias”, 3, Madrid, Museo de San Isidro, pp. 83 – 117.

-Díaz-Andreu, M., 1995, Archaeology and nationalism in Spain, Nationalism,

Polities and the Practice of Archaeology (ed. Philip L. Kohl e Clare Fawcett),

Cambridge University Press, pp. 39 – 56.

-Díaz-Andreu, M., 2002, Historia de la Arqueologia em España. Estudios,

Madrid, Ediciones Clásicas.

-Härke, H., 1991, All quiet on the western front? Paradigms, methods and

approaches in west german archaeology, Archaeological Theory in Europe.

The last 13 decades (ed. Ian Hodder), London, Routledge, pp. 187 – 222.

-Härke, H., 1995, “The Hun is a methodical chap”. Reflections on the German

Tradition of Pre-and Proto-history, Theory in Archaeology. A world perspective

(ed. Peter J. Ucko), London, Routledge, pp. 46 – 60.

-Jorge, S. O., 1994, Colónias, fortificações, lugares monumentalizados. Trajectória

das concepções sobre um tema do Calcolítico peninsular, Revista da Faculdade

de Letras, IIª série, vol. XI, pp. 447 – 546.

-Jorge, S. O., 2003, Revisiting some earlier papers on the late prehistoric walled

enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula, Journal of Iberian Archaeology, vol. 5,

pp. 89 – 135.

-Leisner, G. & V. , 1956, 1959, 1965, Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halbinsel,

Der Westen, 4 vols., Berlin, “Madrider Forschungen

-Martínez Navarrete, M. I., 1989, Una revisión crítica de la prehistoria española:

la Edad del Bronce como paradigma, Madrid, Siglo XXI de España Ed.

-Sangmeister, E. & Schubart, H., 1981, Zambujal Die Grabungen 1964 Bis 1973,

Madrider Beiträge”, Band 5, Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Phillipp von Zabern.

-Schubart, H., 1965, As duas fases de ocupação do túmulo de cúpula do Monte

do Outeiro, nos arredores de Aljustrel, Revista de Guimarães, LXXV, nº 1 – 4,

pp. 195 – 204.

-Schubart, H., 1969, Las fortificaciones eneolíticas de Zambujal y Pedra do Ouro

en Portugal, Xº Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia, Zaragoza, pp. 197 – 204.

-Schubart, H., 1971 a, O Horizonte de Ferradeira. Sepulturas do Eneolítico Final

no Sudoeste da Península Ibérica, Revista de Guimarães, LXXXI, nos 3 – 4,

pp. 189 – 215.

-Schubart, H., 1971 b, Acerca de la ceramica del Bronce Tardio en el Sur y Oeste

Peninsular, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 28, pp. 3 – 32.

-Schubart, H., 1975, Die Kultur der Bronzezeit in Südwestern der Iberischen

Halbinsel, “Madrider Forschungen”, 9, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter.

-Schubart, H., 1982, Asentamientos fenicios en la costa meridional de la Península

Ibérica, Huelva Arqueológica, VI, pp. 71 – 99.

-Schubart, H., 1986, El asentamiento fenicio del s. VIII a. C. en el Morro de

Mezquitilla (Algarrobo, Málaga), Los Fenícios en la Península Ibérica, pp. 59 –


-Schubart, H., 1989, Significación historico-cultural de la costa meridional de

la Península Ibérica, desde la Edad del Cobre hasta la colonización fenicia,

Discurso de Investidura de Doctor “Honoris Causa”, Madrid, Ed. Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid, pp. 23 – 47.

-Schubart, H., 1990, Almizaraque y Zambujal como plazas portuarias de la Edad

del Cobre, Verdolay, Revista del Museo de Murcia, nº 2, pp. 19 – 25.

Schubart, H., 1999, La forja fenicia del hierro en el Morro de Mezquitilla,

La cerámica fenicia en Occidente, Iº Seminário Internacional sobre temas

fenícios, Guardamar de Segura, pp. 241 – 256.

-Schubart, H., 2003, Toscanos y Alarcón. El asentamiento fenicio en la

desembocadura del Río de Vélez. Excavaciones de 1967 – 84, Barcelona,

“Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea”.

-Schubart, H. et al, 1969, Toscanos: la factoría paleopúnica en la desembocadura

del río Vélez, Madrid, “Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España”, 66.

Schubart, H. & Maass Lindemann, G., 1984, Toscanos. El asentamiento fenicio

occidental en la desenbocadura del Río de Vélez. Excavaciones de 1971,

Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico, 18, pp. 41 – 205.

-Schubart, H. & Sangmeister, E., 1984, Zambujal. Un asentamiento fortificado de

la Edad del Cobre en Portugal, Revista de Arqueologia, nº 37, pp. 20 – 33.

-Schubart, H. & Ulreich, H., 1991, Die Funde der Südoestspanischen Bronzezeit

aus der Sammlung Siret, “Madrider Beiträge”, Band 17, Mainz am Rhein,

Verlag Phillipp von Zabern.

-Schubart, H., Pingel, V. & Arteaga, O., 2001, Fuente Álamo. Las excavaciones

arqueológicas 1977 – 1991 en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce, Junta de

Andalucía. Consejería de Cultura.

-Schuhmacher, T. X. & Schubart, H., 2003, Fuente Álamo. Die Siedlungskeramik

der Grabungen 1985 – 1991. Stratigraphisch geordnete Keramik der El Argar-

Zeit aus den Grabungen 1977 – 198,. “Iberia Archaeologica”, Mainz am Rhein,

Verlag Phillipp von Zabern.

-Shennan, S., 1989, Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity,

Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (ed. S. J. Shennan), London,

Unwin Heinemann, pp. 1 – 32.

-Trigger, B. G., 1992, Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico, Barcelona, Ed.


-Veit, U., 1989, Ethnic concepts in German prehistory: a case study on the

relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity,

Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (ed. S. J. Shennan),

London, Unwin Heinemann, pp. 35 – 56.


* Eulogy given at the ceremony

conferring the degree of Doctor Honoris

Causa of the University of Porto

* Department of Heritage, Faculty of Arts (DCTP-FLUP), University of Porto.



Paper published in JIA 7, 2005

Sem comentários: