heritage

Article Was There a Pre-Roman Occupation in Coimbra, Portugal? The Contribution of Rua Fernandes Thomaz, 72–74 for Understanding Occupation of the Territory of Aeminium during the Transition from the Iron Age to the Roman Era

Jorge Pinho 1,* and Susana Henriques 2

1 Independent Researcher, 2635-528 Sintra, Portugal 2 Independent Researcher, 2805-345 Almada, Portugal; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +351-968965821



Received: 28 November 2018; Accepted: 8 January 2019; Published: 14 January 2019


Abstract: Iron Age studies are scarce for the city of Coimbra, besides the findings from the Machado Castro Museum, and therefore this intervention has revealed an important heritage collection. The recovered artefacts, which can be associated with the indigenous world, reveal regional parallels with Conimbriga, the Aeminium Forum and Lomba do Canho. There is clear evidence of region-wide homogenisation of pottery morphologies, surface treatments and production processes. A structure dated from the period of the Roman emperor Augustus aligned with the steep natural geological profile, with unobstructed views over the Mondego river, was found in the interior of a medieval defensive wall, making it possible to deconstruct the chronological periods of the locale, which is consistent with an Iron Age occupation, since at least the second century B.C. More importantly, it is necessary to understand the spatial contextualisation of this archaeological site through morphological analysis of the pottery in a local and regional context and comprehend the chronological hiatus and settlement between the archaeological sites located in the estuary mouth, from other sites found upstream along the Mondego river.

Keywords: Coimbra; pottery; Iron Age; Roman Era; Aeminium

1. Introduction Besides the occasional findings throughout the inner-walls of the city of Coimbra [1–6], few interventions have revealed such an important set of heritage items as that found in the Rua Fernandes Thomaz. The archaeological remains from the Rua Fernandes Thomaz, by virtue of their rarity and the oldest items uncovered, merit disclosure for further debate in the scientific community. For this reason, the results of this archaeological intervention intend to close a gap in the knowledge of Iron Age realities and the first contact with the Roman world, creating a base for future studies. In addition to the findings in the Machado de Castro Museum, namely the monumental cryptoportico that supported the Aeminium Forum, the Patio of the University of Coimbra and the Colégio da Trindade sites, few places in the city reveal signs of Roman occupation. In terms of pre-Roman presence, the signs are even rarer, only visible in the levels of destruction that were carried out in order to build the Aeminium Forum, namely the presence of a pre-Roman alignment, a possible dwelling expropriated by the Roman administration to build the administrative seat of the city [4] (first century A.D.). Already in the site of the Patio of the University, an intervention has identified

Heritage 2019, 2, 184–206; doi:10.3390/heritage2010014 www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 2

alignments of walls at the level of its foundations, which may well date back to pre-Roman Heritageoccupation,2019, 2 but already quite destroyed, and another set of alignments associated with a possible 185 thermal complex. In the Colégio da Trindade, a set of structures was found, associated to a Roman occupation similar to that found in the Patio of the University of Coimbra [5]. alignmentsRegarding of walls the at chronological the level of its contexts foundations, covered, which the maycity of well Coimbra date back has tofew pre-Roman material vestiges, occupation, butconsidering already quite that destroyed, during the and 1950s, another during set ofconstruction alignments of associated the university with city, a possible massive thermal earthworks complex. In thewere Col carriedégio da out, Trindade, altering a set the of physiognomy structures was of found, the city associated and destroying to a Roman almost occupation all evidence similar of to thatchronological found in the occupation. Patio of the The University first reference of Coimbra to the existence [5]. of Aeminium appears in the Antonine Itinerary,Regarding that thesought chronological to identify contextsthe points covered, of passage the of city Roman of Coimbra roads on has the fewmap material of the current vestiges, consideringPortuguese that territory. during The the map, 1950s, published during construction at the beginning of the of universitythe third century city, massive A.D., located earthworks the city were carriedof Aeminium out, altering about the16 kilometres physiognomy north of of the Conímbriga city and. destroyingBoth Aeminium almost and allConímbriga evidence (Figure of chronological 1) were occupation.crossed by a The Roman first road, reference which linked to the Olisipo existence (the name of Aeminium given by theappears Romans in to the present-day Antonine Lisbon) Itinerary, to Bracara Augusta (present-day city of Braga) [7]. The ancient city expanded in the fifth century A.D., that sought to identify the points of passage of Roman roads on the map of the current Portuguese more precisely between the years 465 and 468, when the neighbouring town of Conimbriga was sacked territory. The map, published at the beginning of the third century A.D., located the city of Aeminium and destroyed by the Suevi, a group of Germanic peoples who dominated part of the Iberian about 16 kilometres north of Conímbriga. Both Aeminium and Conímbriga (Figure1) were crossed by a Peninsula between 409 and 585 A.D. Olisipo Bracara RomanBefore road, whichthe invasion linked of the Suevi,(the many name inhabitants given by theof Conímbriga Romans to settled present-day in Aeminium Lisbon), a city to that Augustapreviously(present-day functioned city as ofa civitas Braga) capital, [7]. The i.e., ancient the seat city of expandeda political-administrative in the fifth century division A.D., of the more preciselyconimbrense between territory. the years Due to 465 displacement and 468, when of the the previous neighbouring inhabitants town of of ConímbrigaConimbriga thewas number sacked of and destroyedinhabitants by the of Aeminium Suevi, a group increased, of Germanic leading peoples to its growth who dominated and greater part prosperity. of the Iberian This growthPeninsula betweeneventually 409 andled to 585 Aeminium A.D. being renamed: in the sixth century it was renamed Coimbra.

Figure 1. Location of Coimbra (Aeminium) and Conimbriga. (google Earth) Figure 1. Location of Coimbra (Aeminium) and Conimbriga. (google Earth). The data presented is the result of a combined study conducted by the two authors, collected duringBefore the the urban invasion requalification of the Suevi, works many which inhabitants uncovered of importantConímbriga archaeologicalsettled in Aeminium artefacts,, thereby a city that previouslyproviding functioned clearer evidence as a civitas of the capital,pre-Roman i.e., presence the seat in of this a political-administrative city, opening new discussions division in the of the conimbrensearchaeologicalterritory. community. Due to displacement of the previous inhabitants of Conímbriga the number of inhabitantsThis ofstudyAeminium discussesincreased, a pottery leading sample, to itsthe growth biggest and so far greater discovered prosperity. in the This city growthof Coimbra, eventually in ledconjunction to Aeminium withbeing the renamed:article published in the sixthfor the century diagnosis it was of the renamed archaeological Coimbra. dig conducted in this buildingThe data [6]. presented is the result of a combined study conducted by the two authors, collected during the urban requalification works which uncovered important archaeological artefacts, thereby 1.1. Methodological Basis providing clearer evidence of the pre-Roman presence in this city, opening new discussions in the archaeologicalAt the methodological community. level, the rare findings presented in this analysis are based on the intrinsic factorsThis of study the fragments discusses identified, a pottery i.e., sample, on the the characteristics biggest so farpresent discovered in the pulp, in the the city internal of Coimbra, and in conjunctionexternal surface with and the the article production published process. for the The diagnosis factors ofextrinsic the archaeological to the ceramics dig (location conducted in inthe this buildingexcavation [6]. area, stratigraphic provenance, and functionality) are also mentioned. The external features associated to the functionality of the items, in particular the edges, have been classified into 1.1.separate Methodological groups. Basis At the methodological level, the rare findings presented in this analysis are based on the intrinsic factors of the fragments identified, i.e., on the characteristics present in the pulp, the internal and external surface and the production process. The factors extrinsic to the ceramics (location in the excavation area, stratigraphic provenance, and functionality) are also mentioned. The external features associated to the functionality of the items, in particular the edges, have been classified into separate groups. Heritage 2019, 2 186

We analysed the internal and external surfaces in terms of their homogeneity and treatment. The homogeneity of the surfaces was subdivided into homogeneous and non-homogenous, and the treatment was subdivided into categories, according to the applied technique, namely smoothing, polishing, burnished and washing. In rare cases, the application of varnish occurs in ceramic fragments that are exogenous to the area. Smoothing means the uniformity of the surface of the item, created using a semi-hard object (e.g., piece of leather, hand, fine comb, etc.) giving a matte appearance and revealing marks of the objects used that are imprinted on the wet paste. For example, a number of thin and irregular parallel marks appear, denoting some flexibility, conveying the idea that a type of comb or brush made from an organic material (vegetable fibres, animal hair, etc.) was used. The polished surfaces have a shiny appearance, resulting from friction using a hard, smooth object (pebble, bone, horn, etc.) on the semi-dry pulp. In relation to burnishing, the technique is the same as polishing, but occurs at a later stage of drying the item, assuming a much brighter and homogenous appearance. This action, when carried out carelessly, leaves spatulated surfaces with horizontal faceted glare, showing the edges left by the instrument used. The washing or slaking process is the application of a liquid coating, of a clayish nature, which is applied after drying and before firing the item. This action can be carried out simply by passing a wet hand over the workpiece to smooth it out, causing non-malleable elements to be covered by a thin layer of clay [8]. Although documented for common ceramic manufacture during the Roman era, this characteristic is found in all the Iron Age fragments found in the Rua Fernandes Thomaz nº72/74, in which the washing technique was identified. It is important to define the treatments of surfaces identified in this ceramic set, whose starting point is the assumptions adopted by Raquel Vilaça [9] in her PhD thesis, although referring to previous chronological realities, they can be applied to the ceramic set from the late Iron Age identified in Coimbra (from the fifth century B.C. to the second century B.C.). The study, at a more comprehensive level, respects the methodological assumptions defined by Clive Orton [10]. The characteristics of the pulp were analysed considering the following assumptions: structure (homogeneous or stratified), type of inclusions (quartz, mica, calcite, ceramics, coal, gold mica, feldspar, black particles and ferruginous elements), size (very fine 0.0–0.1 mm, fine 0.1–0.25 mm, medium 0.25–0.5 mm and large 0.5–1 mm), frequency (uncommon, frequent, very frequent) form (round or angular), distribution of inclusions (regular or irregular) and finally baking of the paste (oxidant, reducer, oxidant with reducing cooling and reducer with oxidant cooling). By the following present cooking it is understood that oxidising (Ox) cooking has a uniform colouration within the shades of orange, red and yellowish brown. Reducing cooking (Re) has grey, dark brown and black tones. Oxidising cooking with reducing cooling has a lighter core than the rest of the item, while an oxidising cooling reducing cooker has a darker core. This analysis was conducted at a macroscopic level and for all the Iron Age ceramic fragments (edges, backgrounds, bulges, wings, decorated fragments).

1.2. Geomorphological Introduction The building in the Rua Fernandes Thomaz 72–74 is located in the western area of the city (Figure2), overlooking the River Mondego, on a steep slope, with a natural propensity for the implantation of a strong line of defense [11]. It is situated between the Porta de Belcouce and the Almedina Arch. The back of the building is constituted by part of a defensive structure. Heritage 2019, 2 187 Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 4

Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 4

Figure 2. Localisation of the building and the medieval wall of Coimbra (google earth). Figure 2. Localisation of the building and the medieval wall of Coimbra (google earth). Figure 2. Localisation of the building and the medieval wall of Coimbra (google earth). Geologically the area is inserted in the western part of the Meso-Cenozoic sedimentary basin, whereGeologically sandstone, the limestone, area is inserted dolomitic in lime the and western sands part are the of thepredominant Meso-Cenozoic sedimentary sedimentary formations basin, Geologically the area is inserted in the western part of the Meso-Cenozoic sedimentary basin, where(Figure sandstone, 3) [12]. limestone, dolomitic lime and sands are the predominant sedimentary formations where sandstone, limestone, dolomitic lime and sands are the predominant sedimentary formations (Figure(Figure3)[ 3)12 [12].].

Figure 3. Geological Map of Coimbra Region (19-D) (http://geoportal.lneg.pt/geoportal/egeo/DownloadCartas/images/19-D.pdf ) Figure 3. Geological Map of Coimbra Region (19-D) Figure 3. Geological Map of Coimbra Region (19-D) (http://geoportal.lneg.pt/geoportal/egeo/ (http://geoportal.lneg.pt/geoportal/egeo/DownloadCartas/images/19-D.pdf ) 2. DownloadCartas/images/19-D.pdfArchaeological Results ). 2. ArchaeologicalThe archaeological Results intervention in this space is due to the rehabilitation of the building. During 2. Archaeologicalthe diagnostic stage Results [13] several structures were found, mainly part of a defensive wall, probably The archaeological intervention in this space is due to the rehabilitation of the building. During medieval, part of the back wall of the building and a wall reused during construction of the medieval theThe diagnostic archaeological stage [13] intervention several structures in this spacewere found, is due tomainly the rehabilitation part of a defensive of the building.wall, probably During wall, in an L shape. This L-shaped wall has Roman characteristics, possibly from the imperial period, themedieval, diagnostic part stage of the [13 back] several wall of structures the building were and found,a wall reused mainly during part construction of a defensive of the wall, medieval probably the type of stone and opus (caementicium) used suggest the presence of a building and not only for medieval,wall, in an part L shape. of the backThis L-shaped wall of the wall building has Roman and characteristics, a wall reused duringpossibly construction from the imperial of the period, medieval the purpose of habitation [11]. Its topographic implantation is equally suggestive, we may be in the wall,the in type an Lof shape. stone and This opus L-shaped (caementicium) wall has used Roman suggest characteristics, the presence possibly of a building fromthe and imperial not only period, for presence of a possible public building related to surveillance of the river. Located in a steeply-sloping the purpose of habitation [11]. Its topographic implantation is equally suggestive, we may be in the thearea, type with of stone unobstructed and opus views(caementicium) to the front usedand back suggest (Figure the 4), presence making ofit reasonable a building to and presume not only the for presence of a possible public building related to surveillance of the river. Located in a steeply-sloping thepresence purpose of of a habitationdefensive wall [11]. in Its this topographic location [11,14]. implantation is equally suggestive, we may be in the presencearea, with of a unobstructed possible public views building to the relatedfront and to back surveillance (Figure 4), of making the river. it reasonable Located in to a steeply-slopingpresume the presence of a defensive wall in this location [11,14]. area, with unobstructed views to the front and back (Figure4), making it reasonable to presume the presence of a defensive wall in this location [11,14].

Heritage 2019, 2 188 Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 5 Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 5

Figure 4. Altimetric map (DTM) of the city of Coimbra Figure 4. Altimetric map (DTM) of the city of Coimbra Figure(http://mapas.dgterritorio.pt/viewer/index.html) 4. Altimetric map (DTM) of the city of Coimbra (http://mapas.dgterritorio.pt/viewer/index. (http://mapas.dgterritorio.pt/viewer/index.html) html).

Furthermore, a pebble pavement associated with this roman wall was found (Figure5), Furthermore, a pebble pavement associated with this roman wall was found (Figure 5), located Furthermore, a pebble pavement associated with this roman wall was found (Figure 5), located locatedabove above the foundation the foundation of the ofwall, the making wall, making it possible it possible to presume to presume it belonged it belonged to the occupational to the occupational levels above the foundation of the wall, making it possible to presume it belonged to the occupational levels levelsof this of thissame same period. period. of this same period.

Figure 5. Plant [15] of the habitation with medieval wall, Roman wall unit [11] and pebble Figure 5.FigurePlant 5. [15 Plant] of [15] thehabitation of the habitation with medieval with medieval wall, wall, Roman Roman wall wall unit unit [11] [11] and and pebble pebble pavement pavement unit [5]. unit [5]. pavement unit [5].

Heritage 2019, 2 189

HeritageDuring 2019 the, 3 FOR archaeological PEER REVIEW work it was possible to interpret that the units below the surface [ 62 ,4] Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 6 were in fact secondary deposits. These stratigraphic units had Iron Age pottery, together with two rim During the archaeological work it was possible to interpret that the units below the surface [2,4] fragmentswereDuring in offact italic thesecondary archaeological amphorae, deposits. class work These of Dresselit was stratigraphic possible 1. to units interpret had Ironthat theAge units pottery, below together the surface with [2,4]two wererimIn fragments lightin fact of secondary the of above,italic amphorae, deposits. we can These interpret class ofstratigraphic Dressel these findings,1. units had assumed Iron Age as partpottery, of thetogether Roman with influence two in therim territoryfragmentsIn light of of ofthe Coimbra, italic above, amphorae, we in can fact interpret class they of constitute Dressel these findings, 1. part of assumed the first as contacts part of the between Roman the influence indigenous in populationthe territoryIn light and ofof Romanthe Coimbra, above, soldiers. wein factcan interpret Onthey the constituteother these findings, hand, part of analyses theassumed first of contacts as the part stratigraphic of between the Roman the profile influenceindigenous and inthe potterythepopulation territory sample and haveof Coimbra,Roman enabled soldiers. in us fact to concludetheyOn the constitute other that theyhand, part constitute ofanalyses the first secondaryof contactsthe stratigraphic deposits,between theprofile since indigenous the and artefacts the werepopulationpottery highly sample fragmented and Roman have enabled andsoldiers. show us On to taphonomic the conclude other hand, that alterations. they analyses constitute Therefore, of the secondary stratigraphic we are deposits, in profile the presence since and the of a de-contextualisationpotteryartefacts samplewere highly have of fragmented units enabled in addition us and to show conclude to others, taphonomic that associated they alterations. constitute to the Therefore, Roman secondary era. we deposits, are in the sincepresence the artefactsofThis a de-contextualisation situation were highly was fragmented also of identifiedunits andin addition show in the taphonomic to Machado others, associated alterations. Castro Museum to Therefore, the Roman [4], wherewe era. are in pottery the presence has been identifiedof a de-contextualisationThis from situation this first was phase also of units identified of contacts in addition in between the to Machado others, the indigenous associated Castro Museum to population the Roman[4], where and era. thepottery Romans, has been as well indigenousidentifiedThis structures situationfrom this was first that also phase were identified of reused contacts in during the between Machado the Romanthe Castro indigenous administration, Museum population [4], where in and this pottery the case Romans, tohas build been as the cryptoporticiidentifiedwell indigenous from [16]. this structures first phase that ofwere contacts reused between during thethe indigenousRoman administration, population andin this the case Romans, to build as welltheBesides cryptoportici indigenous these twostructures [16]. stratigraphic that were units reused a regular during pavement the Roman was administration, identified, made in this from case pebble to build stones the cryptoporticiBesides these [16]. two stratigraphic units a regular pavement was identified, made from pebble and limestone tuff [17], providing hardness to this structure. This became crucial to the chorological stonesBesides and limestone these two tuffstratigraphic [17], providing units a hardness regular pavementto this structure. was identified, This became made crucial from pebble to the understanding of this space, since there were some doubts whether these structures were from the stoneschorological and limestone understanding tuff [17], of this providing space, since hardness there to were this some structure. doubts This whether became these crucial structures to the Roman period or before. Analysis of the imperial Roman wall, unit [11], enables us to understand that chorologicalwere from the understanding Roman period of or this before. space, Analysis since thereof the wereimperial some Roman doubts wall, whether unit [11], these enables structures us to thewereunderstand pebble from pavement the that Roman the coveredpebble period pavement the or before. foundations covered Analysis ofthe theof foundations the structure imperial (Figuresof Roman the structure6 wall, and 7unit ).(Figures [11], enables 6 and 7). us to understand that the pebble pavement covered the foundations of the structure (Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6. Schematic representation of the stratigraphic relations [5,11,12]. Figure 6. Schematic representation of the stratigraphic relations [5,11,12]. Figure 6. Schematic representation of the stratigraphic relations [5,11,12].

Figure 7. North section. Representation of the stratigraphic deposit relations units [1,2,3,5,6,11,12] Figure 7. North section. Representation of the stratigraphic deposit relations units [1,2,3,5,6,11,12] Figure 7. North section. Representation of the stratigraphic deposit relations units [1–3,5,6,11,12]

Heritage 2019, 2 190

Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 7 Even though there were fragments of pre-Roman pottery recovered in the stratigraphic units Even though there were fragments of pre-Roman pottery recovered in the stratigraphic units above level [5], chronological units [5,11] are framed in an established Roman reality. The recovery and above level [5], chronological units [5,11] are framed in an established Roman reality. The recovery identification of Iron Age and Roman Republican (Dressel 1 amphora) pottery is but a secondary deposit and identification of Iron Age and Roman Republican (Dressel 1 amphora) pottery is but a secondary of the sediments. Interpreted as levels of regularisation of the area during medieval times, probably deposit of the sediments. Interpreted as levels of regularisation of the area during medieval times, associatedprobably with associated the medieval with the defensive medieval wall defensive [11], highlighting wall [11], highlighting the intense perturbations the intense perturbations caused during its construction.caused during Despiteits construction. reusing Despite a pre-existing reusing Romana pre-existing structure Roman unit structure [11] it is unit possible [11] it tois possible envision a massiveto envision alteration a massive to the alteration terrain, in to an the attempt terrain, toin buildan attempt a uniform to build platform a uniform for aplatform better circulation. for a better circulation.It was not possible to ascertain whether we were in fact in the presence of a defensive Roman wall, sinceIt was we not can possible only observe to ascertain part of whether the interior we were of the in fact medieval in the presence wall. This of coulda defensive lead to Roman another discussion,wall, since namely we can the only reusing observe of part classic of the pre-existing interior of Roman the medieval structures wall. in This a later could period, lead to as another occurred in thediscussion, Roman worldnamely starting the reusing from of theclassic third pre-existing century A.D. Roman In thestructures area around in a laterAeminium period, asit occurred is possible to verifyin the Roman this situation world starting in Conimbriga from the[18 third,19]. century As well A.D. in RuaIn the Fernandes area around Thomaz Aeminium 58–66, it is “Casapossible das Talhas”to verify [20], this evidence situation was in found Conimbriga of the [18,19]. foundations As well a Roman in Rua defensiveFernandes structure, Thomaz 58–66, which “Casa would das have theTalhas” same layout [20], evidence as the medieval was found structure, of the foundations overlapping a Roman it in some defensive places. structure, which would have theIt same was also layout possible as the medieval to identify structure, levels of overlapping backfill associated it in some with places. structure unit [5], stratigraphic unit [6],It with was pottery also possible related to withidentify an indigenouslevels of backfill occupation associated of the with area. structure The sediments unit [5], stratigraphic under unit [5] unit [6], with pottery related with an indigenous occupation of the area. The sediments under unit can be considered to be secure, interpreted as levelling deposits for the construction of the pebble [5] can be considered to be secure, interpreted as levelling deposits for the construction of the pebble pavement unit [5] and the wall unit [11]. Most of the pre-Roman artefacts were recovered in this level, pavement unit [5] and the wall unit [11]. Most of the pre-Roman artefacts were recovered in this level, whose chronological period can be established as Roman. The fact that Iron age pottery is found in whose chronological period can be established as Roman. The fact that Iron age pottery is found in this level reveals that the levels above unit [6] confirm the Roman occupation of this area. This leads this level reveals that the levels above unit [6] confirm the Roman occupation of this area. This leads us tous theto the conclusion conclusion that that the the pre-Roman pre-Roman occupation occupation of the city of of Coimbra Coimbra extended extended from from the the hilltop hilltop (the(the University, University, Machado Machado Castro Castro Museum) Museum) toto thethe RuaRua FernandesFernandes Thomaz, Thomaz, to to the the west, west, where where the the MondegoMondego river river played played an important an important part in part the continuity, in the continuity, mastery and mastery establishment and establishment of communities of in acommunities long period in of a occupation. long period of occupation.

3. Analysis3. Analysis of of the the Artefacts Artefacts TheThe sample sample presented presented herein herein is is part part ofof aa universeuniverse of 390 fragments fragments which which are are possible possible to tobe be framedframed within within a single a single chronological chronological moment moment (Section (Section4). Firstly, 4). Firstly, we classified we classified the production the production process of theprocess pottery—handmade of the pottery—handmade or wheel-thrown. or wheel-thrown. A predominant A predominant presence presence of handmade of handmade pottery pottery over wheel-thrownover wheel-thrown pottery pottery was evident was evident in all thein all stratigraphic the stratigraphic units units (Chart (Chart1). 1).

180

160

140

120

100 Mould Wheel-thrown 80 Handmade 60

40

20

0 [2]/[7] [4] [5] [6]

ChartChart 1. 1.Distribution Distribution of of pottery pottery by by the thestratigraphic stratigraphic units [21]. [21].

Heritage 2019, 2 191

Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 8 Another aspect taken in account was the firing process. Four types were predefined, making it possibleAnother to verify aspect that oxidised taken in firingaccount was was mainly the firing used process. in handmade Four types pottery, were slightlypredefined, more making frequently it thanpossible reduction to verify firing. that However, oxidised firing in the was case mainly of wheel-thrown used in handmade pottery, pottery, reduction slightly firing more predominated. frequently Althoughthan reduction both processes firing. However, coexist in the a balanced case of wheel-thrown manner in this pottery, sample, reduction Late Bronzefiring predominated. Age traditions continueAlthough to be both present processes with coexist a huge in representation a balanced manner of firing in this in asample, reduction Late environment, Bronze Age traditions in both the continue to be present with a huge representation of firing in a reduction environment, in both the handmade and wheel-thrown pottery. handmade and wheel-thrown pottery. Reduction firing, with oxygenated cooling and oxidised baking, with reductive cooling, Reduction firing, with oxygenated cooling and oxidised baking, with reductive cooling, are are predominant in the handmade pottery, revealing uneven surfaces. It is difficult to explain this predominant in the handmade pottery, revealing uneven surfaces. It is difficult to explain this irregularityirregularity in in the the baking. baking. One One possible possible interpretationinterpretation is is that that faults faults were were caused caused by by the the makeshift makeshift kilnskilns or theor the fuel fuel used used during during the the firing firing process. process. ReductionReduction firing firing has has a along long tradition, tradition, it itis isusually usually interpretedinterpreted as intentional,as intentional, furthermore, furthermore, with with the the presence presence of of burnished burnished surfaces surfaces followingfollowing thethe legacy of theof Late the BronzeLate Bronze Age pottery.Age pottery. Reduction Reduction firing firing with with oxidised oxidised cooling cooling could could result result from from thethe presencepresence of organicof organic material material pre-baking pre-baking [22]. [22]. The The data data shows shows (Chart (Chart2) that 2) that these these fabrics fabrics are are predominant predominant over over the oxidisedthe oxidised ones with ones reduction with reduction cooling. cooling. The intention The intention behind behind reduction reduction firing isfiring present is present in the insertionin the of organicinsertion material of organic in the material clay,present in the clay, in most present of the in most fragments of the studied,fragments to studied, obtain a to darker obtain clay. a darker On the otherclay. hand, On iron the other elements hand, that iron work elements in the that opposite work direction in the opposite were also direction identified, were producing also identified, orange andproducing red tones orange on the and surface red tones of the on pottery. the surface of the pottery.

140

120

100

80 Handmade 60 Wheel-Thrown

40

20

0 Ox Re Re/Ox Ox/Re

ChartChart 2. 2.Distribution Distribution of offiring firing typestypes by production processes. processes.

TheThe groups groups were were determined determined in function in function of the of morphology the morphology found found in the rimsin the of rims the 33 of fragments, the 33 whichfragments, can beclassified which can into be aclassified universe into of 39. a Thisuniverse study of does39. This not aimstudy to does formulate not aim a morphologic to formulatetable a morphologic table but instead reveals the sample, by focusing on its functionality. It was possible to but instead reveals the sample, by focusing on its functionality. It was possible to identify 3 groups: identify 3 groups: storage vessels, pots/pans and bowls. storage vessels, pots/pans and bowls. Of the small number of base fragments, 12 in total, it was possible to classify 11, that can be Of the small number of base fragments, 12 in total, it was possible to classify 11, that can be divided into 3 groups: flat bottoms, with a triangular section and with an omphalus. dividedAn into important 3 groups: aspect flat bottoms, of this classification, with a triangular which section is normally and withthe starting an omphalus point. of a study such asAn this, important is the division aspect between of this open classification, and closed which recipients. is normally Following the the starting line of pointreasoning of a studyestablished such as this,by is R. the Mataloto, division open between recipients open and are closedthose that recipients. allow access Following to their the interior, line of reasoningwhereas the established opposite by R. Mataloto,occurs with open closed recipients recipients, are i.e., those the thatdiameter allow of access the rim to does their not interior, allow whereasaccess to the interior opposite [23]. occurs with closedIn this recipients, case, for i.e.,this thesample, diameter it was of more the rimimportant does not to allowestablish access functional to the interiorgroups, by [23 virtue]. of theIn dimension this case, forof everyday this sample, usage, it was then more present important a division to establishestablished functional by parameters groups, that by make virtue sense of the dimensionfor such ofa small everyday sample. usage, For the then closed present recipients a division we have established included bythe parametersstorage vessels that and make pots/pans, sensefor in the open recipients we included the bowls and some elements of the pots/pans (Chart 3).

Heritage 2019, 2 192 such a small sample. For the closed recipients we have included the storage vessels and pots/pans, in theHeritage open 2019 recipients, 3 FOR PEER we REVIEW included the bowls and some elements of the pots/pans (Chart3). 9

60%

50%

40% Storage Vessels 30% Bowls Pots 20%

10%

0%

ChartChart 3. 3.Ceramic Ceramic groups.

In addition to the rims and bases, we also analysed 5 fragments of handles and 4 decorated In addition to the rims and bases, we also analysed 5 fragments of handles and 4 fragments. decorated fragments. Concerning the storage vessels, we analysed 12 fragments—10 of which were handmade and 2 Concerning the storage vessels, we analysed 12 fragments—10 of which were handmade and wheel-thrown. There is a great morphological variety, wherein it is not possible to make a link 2 wheel-thrown. There is a great morphological variety, wherein it is not possible to make a link between the production process and form. Seven elements were identified with a developed flat rim between(RFTH72/74.085, the production RFTH72/74.089, process and RFTH72/74.092, form. Seven elements RFTH72/74.101, were identified RFTH72/74.130, with a developed RFTH72/74.118, flat rim (RFTH72/74.085,RFTH72/74.165), RFTH72/74.089, 1 fragment with RFTH72/74.092, a pending rim RFTH72/74.101, (RFTH72/74.129) RFTH72/74.130, and 2 with extroverted RFTH72/74.118, rims RFTH72/74.165),(RFTH72/74.119, 1 RFTH72/74.164). fragment with In a the pending internal rim part (RFTH72/74.129) of the rim it was possible and 2 withto identify extroverted a possible rims (RFTH72/74.119,area for a lid (RFTH72/74.130, RFTH72/74.164). RFTH72/74.165), In the internal the part last of fragment the rim italso was has possible an incision to identify on the external a possible areawall, for ain lid the (RFTH72/74.130, connection between RFTH72/74.165), the rim and neck the (Figures last fragment 8 and 9). also has an incision on the external wall, in the connection between the rim and neck (Figures8 and9).

Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 10

Heritage 2019, 2 193

Figure 8. Handmade storage vessels. Figure 8. Handmade storage vessels.

It wasIt was also also possible possible to to verify verify the the presence presence ofof aa handlehandle in the the storage storage container container RFTH72/74.092, RFTH72/74.092, that,that, although although fractured, fractured, is is clearly clearly the the initial initial sectionsection of the lip lip of of the the rim. rim.

HeritageHeritage2019, 22019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 11194

Figure 9. Handmade and wheel-thrown storage vessels. Figure 9. Handmade and wheel-thrown storage vessels.

In theIn group the group of Pots/Pans of Pots/Pans it wasit was possible possible to to identify identify 13 13 handmade handmade fragmentsfragments and and 5 5 wheel-thrown wheel-thrown fragments,fragments, in a totalin a total of 18 of fragments.18 fragments. Contrary Contrary to to the the situation situation with with the the storagestorage containers, there there is is no no majormajor morphological morphological variety. variety. It is It possible is possible to to classify classify all all the the fragments fragments asas pots/panspots/pans with with an an S-profile. S-profile. However,However, there there are some are some differences differences which which are important are important to mention. to mention. There There are 5 fragments are 5 fragments that present that an S-profilepresent (RFTH72/74.103, an S-profile (RFTH72/74.103,RFTH72/74.105, RFTH72/74.093, RFTH72/74.105, RFTH72/74.131, RFTH72/74.093, RFTH72/74.179). RFTH72/74.131, TwoRFTH72/74.179). of these have a more Two visible of these neck have and a a moreshorter visible rim (RFTH72/74.102, neck and a shorter RFTH72/74.180), rim (RFTH72/74.102, another one alsoRFTH72/74.180), has a visible another neck but one with also ahas more a visible marked neck rim but (RFTH72/74.090). with a more marked Two rim fragments (RFTH72/74.090). have an outward rim (RFTH72/74.091, RFTH72/74.155), and two others have a flat rim (RFTH72/74.160,

Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 12 Heritage 2019, 2 195 Two fragments have an outward rim (RFTH72/74.091, RFTH72/74.155), and two others have a flat rim (RFTH72/74.160, RFTH72/74.163). Fragment RFTH72/74.166, has a flat rim with an incision for a RFTH72/74.163).lid, and fragment Fragment RFTH72/74.134, RFTH72/74.166, has a flat has lip awith flat a rim neck with that anturns incision inwards for (Figures a lid, and 10 and fragment 11). RFTH72/74.134, has a flat lip with a neck that turns inwards (Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 10. Handmade and wheel-thrown pots/pans. Figures 10. Handmade and wheel-thrown pots/pans.

There are 3 fragments for which it is not possible to discern a precise form, because we only have the part of the rim (RFTH72/74.132, RFTH72/74.161, RFTH72/74.181). Heritage 2019, 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 13

There are 3 fragments for which it is not possible to discern a precise form, because we only have Heritagethe part2019 ,of2 the rim (RFTH72/74.132, RFTH72/74.161, RFTH72/74.181). 196

FigureFigures 11. 11.Handmade Handmade and and wheel-thrown wheel-thrown pots/pans and and bowls. bowls.

For the group of bowls, there are only 3 fragments, one is handmade, another wheel-thrown and the last one made using a mould. All of them present different characteristics. The handmade fragment presents a not very developed rim (RFTH72/74.106). The wheel-thrown fragment shows a rim with a square shape (RFTH72/74.162), although it is fractured. The bowl that appears to be made using a mould is slightly symmetrical with a triangular rim (RFTH72/74.135) (Figure 11). Heritage 2019, 2 197

The small presence of this form and the absence of plates in this archaeological site mirrors the situation found in the sites of Castelo (Arruda dos Vinhos) [24] and Castelo (Santa Catarina, Caldas da Rainha) [25]. The universe of pottery bases is linked with the rims identified in this archaeological site. In this context, there is a noticeable tendency for large, flat bases (RFTH72/74.95) or with a triangular section (RFTH72/74.94, RFTH72/74.138 and RFTH72/74.168). There is only one fragment with a bottom with an omphalus (RFTH72/74.182) which means it could belong to the group of pots, or the group of bowls. Flat bases are only documented in handmade fragments (3 in total). The base with a triangular section, deriving from the tradition of the Roman republican periods, are present in 6 handmade fragments and 2 wheel-thrown fragments. Such bases were also found in the archaeological site of Arruda dos Vinhos (Castelo), dating from the Late Iron Age [26]. Fragments from the same period have also been found in the archaeological site of Castelo de Santa Catarina, in Caldas da Rainha [25] (Figure 12). The few fragments of handles are all handmade, and although they are not very expressive in the sample discovered in the site, fragment RFTH72/74.169 was applied to the exterior surface of the vessel, introducing a decorative element to the container (Figure 13). In the Roman redware of Conimbriga most of the handles start at the rim [8]. In Lomba do Canho (Arganil) the same situation occurs in small pots and jugs of fine greyware with burnished decoration [27]. This seems like a general panorama for the Mondego region, since it is also found in the archaeological site Rua Fernandes Thomaz with the fragment RFTH72/74.92 (Figure8). Most of the italic pottery is found in the stratigraphic unit [2]. One fragment is from the group of pots/pans (RFTH72/74.105) and has a glaze in both surfaces, made with clean clay, black sand and an oxidised firing. Two fragments of Dressel 1 (RFTH72/74.110) were also identified, which seem to belong to the production of Campania, indicated by the inclusion of the typical black sands in the clay. There is also a fragment in stratigraphic unit [4] (RFTH72/74.127), with the application of a glaze in the external surface, clean clay mixed with the black sands, and an oxidised baking. All the fragments belonging to italic importations have several key characteristics—such as the presence of oxidised baking and the introduction of black sands of volcanic origin in the clay. In terms of decorated pottery, there is special relevance for fine greyware with burnished decorations (“ornatos brunidos”)—two fragments were identified in the site belonging to this type of pottery (RFTH72/74.144, RFTH72/74.172—Figure 13). The first fragment presents vertical lines, and on the top part there is a horizontal line, delineating the decorated area. The same happens to the second fragment with a middle area decorated with triangular zig zag (ˆˆˆˆˆˆ), with no apparent order, defined by two burnished horizontal surfaces, on the top area a diagonal burnished decoration from right to left, in dents. This type of decoration in fine greyware dates from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., meaning that they correspond to a relatively late stage in the production of fine greyware in Orientalised contexts. However, it is still found in archaeological sites until the first century A.D. This continuity is very well documented in the context of the city of Lisbon [28,29]. They also appear in Roman republican contexts, in the Castle of São Jorge and Sé cathedral, in Lisbon [30]. Some fragments were identified in the Rua de São João da Praça in Lisbon, in a stratigraphic unit where the first italic importations are absent, presenting a new perspective in chronological terms, between the end of the third century B.C. and beginning of the second century A.D. [31]. HeritageHeritage2019 2019, 2 , 3 FOR PEER REVIEW 15 198

FigureFigure 12. Bases.

ThisThis type type of of decoration decoration onlyin fine appears greyware in dates a late from moment the fifth of and the Orientalisedfourth centuries production B.C., meaning of fine greyware,that they and correspond only the to external a relatively surfaces late stage are decorated,in the production indicating of fine that greyware they pertained in Orientalised to closed recipients.contexts. The However, elements it is identified still found in in Lisbon archaeological have parallels sites until with the those first discovered century A.D. in ConimbrigaThis continuityfor the periodis very around well thedocumented second/first in the century context BC of [ 29the]. city of Lisbon [28,29]. They also appear in Roman republicanPolished contexts, fine greyware in the withCastle burnished of São Jorge decoration and Sé cathedral, was also identifiedin Lisbon [30]. in the Some Roman fragments villa of were Freiria, in contextsidentified belonging in the Rua to de the São second/first João da Praça century in Lisbon, B.C. untilin a stratigraphic the first century unit A.D.where [ 32the]. Thefirst authorsitalic claim that this decoration has its roots in the northern zone of the territory occupied by modern-day

Portugal [33], however it is important to emphasise that this type of pottery is very well documented in the Lisbon Peninsula and corresponds to an orientalised tradition. Heritage 2019, 2 199

This type of pottery is also found in late Iron Age settlements (second/first century BC) without an orientalised tradition, such as Castelo (Arruda dos Vinhos). The elements identified in this site can be dated to the Iron Age, including characteristically Roman elements, such as silver denarius. The burnished decoration is present in a jug with a trifold rim [34], showing that this type of decoration primarily appears in closed vessels. It has a lozenge-shaped decoration which is common with this type of ceramic. For the region associated to our archaeological site, this type of ceramic element was identified in the Roman military camp of Lomba do Canho (Arganil) [35] Conimbriga [19] and the Aeminium Forum (Coimbra) [36]. The fragments found in Rua Fernandes Thomaz are similar to those identified in Conimbriga and the Aeminium Forum, especially in terms of the decoration found on the external surfaces, in closed recipients. This decoration pattern indicates an organisation of the container by individual spaces, using lines or burnished surfaces with spaces of burnished decoration (“reticula/ornatos burnidos”). According to P. Carvalho this pattern primarily appears next to the rim, and is less present in theHeritage middle 2019 and, 3 FOR end PEER section REVIEW of the fragment [36]. The same evidence is present in the fragments 17 (LC509 and LC576) identified in Lomba do Canho [35].

Figure 13. Decorated pottery and handles. Figure 13. Decorated pottery and handles.

In the treatment of the pottery surfaces it was possible to verify a certain level of care, especially in the external surfaces, by burnishing or polishing. In some items the internal surface of the rim also had the same type of treatment. The burnish is only located in the area of the rim or lip, internally or externally, it was not applied in any other areas of the container. The same was identified in the site of Conimbriga, where some fragments are burnished in the internal and external surface only on the top part of the vessel [41]. In the handmade items there was more careful treatment of the surfaces. However, the surfaces of certain fragments (internal and external) were burnished in a careless manner, revealing the marks of the action, with a faceted glow, providing evidence of the instrument used. This situation has already been documented by V. Correia [42]. There are clear similarities with the ceramic items identified in Conimbriga, in terms of the treatment of the surfaces and the type of clay used. The group defined by J. Alarcão as quartz- micaceous has the following parameters: clay from the southeast area of Conimbriga, no decoration, polishing of the external surfaces next to the rim but rarely on the internal surfaces, intense glow

Heritage 2019, 2 200

Although this type of decoration is linked with fine greyware in Rua Fernandes Thomaz, it appears in a fragment of redware, with clean clay (RFTH72/74.142). This element presents a lozenge decoration, achieved with burnished lines in a smooth surface. This decoration is present in the settlement of Pedrão (Setúbal) [37], in greyware, in Chibanes in greyware [38], in Castelo of Arruda dos Vinhos, also in greyware [39] and in Conimbriga [40]. This decorative pattern—lozenge-shaped—is common, and in this site appears in redware instead of the usual greyware. A burnished fragment was also identified, with black surfaces with a decoration pattern (>>>>>) made with a stamp over a slight carinate (RFTH72/74.143—Figure 13). It was not possible to identify any parallels with this decoration pattern. In the treatment of the pottery surfaces it was possible to verify a certain level of care, especially in the external surfaces, by burnishing or polishing. In some items the internal surface of the rim also had the same type of treatment. The burnish is only located in the area of the rim or lip, internally or externally, it was not applied in any other areas of the container. The same was identified in the site of Conimbriga, where some fragments are burnished in the internal and external surface only on the top part of the vessel [41]. In the handmade items there was more careful treatment of the surfaces. However, the surfaces of certain fragments (internal and external) were burnished in a careless manner, revealing the marks of the action, with a faceted glow, providing evidence of the instrument used. This situation has already been documented by V. Correia [42]. There are clear similarities with the ceramic items identified in Conimbriga, in terms of the treatment of the surfaces and the type of clay used. The group defined by J. Alarcão as quartz-micaceous has the following parameters: clay from the southeast area of Conimbriga, no decoration, polishing of the external surfaces next to the rim but rarely on the internal surfaces, intense glow revealing rough edges made by a poor burnishing action [41], identical to the situation found in the Rua Fernandes Thomaz. The parameters that define the quartz-micaceous pottery of Conimbriga are all present in the ceramic group studied in this article. The origin of the production process has not yet been determined, however on the basis of J. Alarcão’s description, the production process used in the Conimbriga group and the sample studied here are identical. It is interesting to verify that the surfaces of the handmade pottery items reveal the greatest care. In the group of pots/pan careful treatment is found in both surfaces (RFTH72/74.90, RFTH72/74.091, RFTH72/74.103, RFTH72/74.105, RFTH72/74.132, RFTH72/74.160, RFTH72/74.163, RFTH72/74166, RFTH72/74.179, RFTH72/74180 and RFTH72/74.181) or just on the internal surface (RFTH72/74.93 and RFTH72/74.161). Functionally, we can deduce, from the combination of the type of pottery (pots/pans) and the surface treatment, that they were used for the preparation of food, both solid and liquid, serving food, and even hygiene. The pots/pan with a straight rim (RFTH72/4.160 and RFTH72/74.163) and with careful treatment in the internal and external surface, e.g., burnishing, indicate that they contained liquids and, therefore, better waterproofing of both surfaces was required. The straight rim helps the consumption and pouring of the liquids. In the storage vessels, it is possible to verify that a treated external surface is never found in the wheel-thrown ceramic elements—they only have a light characteristic smoothing, the external surfaces are smooth (RFTH72/74.118) or polished (RFTH72/74.119 and RFTH72/74.164). The handmade storage vessels reveal a better treatment of the surfaces, both externally and internally, burnishing of the external surfaces (RFTH72/74.101, RFTH72/74.129, RFTH72/74130 and RFTH73/74.165) and internal (RFTH72/74.89 and RFTH72/74.129). However, there are also elements that have an internal polished surface (RFTH72/74.101 and RFTH72/74.130). It is important to point out that the treatment of surfaces is usually limited to the rim, lip and beginning of the neck. Therefore, it is difficult to make assumptions about the type of food that these containers would be used for—liquids or solids. The fact that this treatment is limited to a specific area Heritage 2019, 2 201 of the vessel could be related to the type of food that it contained, with questions of hygiene, or even could be an aesthetic element. The containers with bigger volumetric capacity are used for the storage of food, and therefore have bigger walls in order to prevent humidity. For the category of bowls, the handmade pottery sherds have burnished surfaces (RFTH72/74.106), the wheel-thrown ones have a light wash on the internal surface (RFTH72/74.162), these vessels were probably used for food consumption. Analysing the pottery sherds reveals that the biggest group is constituted by pottery items in which both the internal and external surfaces are smooth. The second biggest group is formed by items with burnished external surfaces and smooth internal surfaces. These items do not present a function correlated with the confection of food or storage, but rather with the aesthetic elements of the object, suggesting the tradition of the late Bronze Age. The same reality is inferred for the third biggest group, withHeritage polished 2019, 3 external FOR PEER surfaces REVIEW and smooth internal surfaces (Chart4). 19

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

ChartChart 4. 4.Surface Surface treatments treatments externallyexternally and and internally. internally.

TheThe light light wash wash on on the internal internal surface surface is related is related with withboth of both the ofsherds the belonging sherds belonging to the Dressel to the Dressel1. However, 1. However, there there are othersare others fragments fragments in the in the Pots Pots group group with with a wash a wash on on the the internal internal surface surface (RFTH72/74.103(RFTH72/74.103 and and RFTH72/74.108), RFTH72/74.108), once suggesting suggesting that that they they were were used used as ascontainers containers of liquids. of liquids. At this stage it is important to point that the ceramic elements presented in this study are part of At this stage it is important to point that the ceramic elements presented in this study are part a second phase of a construction plan undertaken in this site. The first phase identified an array of of a second phase of a construction plan undertaken in this site. The first phase identified an array archaeological artefacts, in which the ceramic sherds are relevant, since they represent the same of archaeological artefacts, in which the ceramic sherds are relevant, since they represent the same situation as the one studied here [6]. Both studies complement each other although the chronological situationconclusions as the may one differ. studied here [6]. Both studies complement each other although the chronological conclusions may differ. 4. Stratigraphic and Chronological Interpretation 4. Stratigraphic and Chronological Interpretation Analysis of this sample reveals a homogeneous group, which is only presented in the stratigraphicAnalysis of units this sample with Iron reveals Age aceramics, homogeneous although group, they whichare not is secure only presented contexts. The in the stratigraphic stratigraphic unitsunits with [2,4,7] Iron are Age in ceramics,secondary althoughdeposits, but they are are contemporaneous not secure contexts. with the The ceramic stratigraphic found in units the unit [2,4 ,7] are[6]. in secondary However, deposits, they are butfound are above contemporaneous stratigraphic withunits the dated ceramic from found the Roman in the imperial unit [6]. era However, (not theyproved are found artefactually), above stratigraphic wherein it unitsis only dated possible from to the understand Roman imperial the stratigraphy, era (not proved with the artefactually), intrusive whereinaction it that is only occurred possible during to understand construction the of stratigraphy, the medieval with defensive the intrusive wall, actionerected that next occurred to a Roman during constructionwall. During of thethe medievalconstruction defensive of the medieval wall, erected structure, next tothe a units Roman [5,11] wall. were During cut, revealing the construction the Iron of Age levels, covering the artificial platform unit [5], that can be found throughout the intervention area. The situation found in Rua Fernandes Thomaz nº 72–74 is not different from other digs that have taken place in the city of Coimbra, the urban remodelling over time has intensively altered the older contexts, wherein it is impossible to identify secure contexts before the Roman period. The few remains identified from this chronological period have not been subjected to detailed study, such as the interventions undertaken in the Alcáçova of Coimbra [1] or the Pátio da Inquisição [3] and in the Aeminium Forum [4]. Although the results are scarce, the information obtained is relevant. A typical structure from the Iron Age has been identified, associated with imported Roman pottery dated from the first century A.D., which was destroyed during construction of the Roman cryptoportici located in the Machado Castro Museum [16].

Heritage 2019, 2 202 the medieval structure, the units [5,11] were cut, revealing the Iron Age levels, covering the artificial platform unit [5], that can be found throughout the intervention area. The situation found in Rua Fernandes Thomaz nº 72–74 is not different from other digs that have taken place in the city of Coimbra, the urban remodelling over time has intensively altered the older contexts, wherein it is impossible to identify secure contexts before the Roman period. The few remains identified from this chronological period have not been subjected to detailed study, such as the interventions undertaken in the Alcáçova of Coimbra [1] or the Pátio da Inquisição [3] and in the Aeminium Forum [4]. Although the results are scarce, the information obtained is relevant. A typical structure from the Iron Age has been identified, associated with imported Roman pottery dated from the first century A.D., which was destroyed during construction of the Roman cryptoportici located in the Machado Castro Museum [16]. The context from this site date from a later chronological period than that in the Rua Fernandes Thomaz but reveal identical characteristics, especially in the ceramic rough fabric, with a lot of irregular and heterogeneous inclusions [16]. They are also morphologically identical in the storage containers, with the extroverted rims and lips. But it is not only on the handmade pottery items that we register resemblances, there is also the fine greyware. with burnished decoration, that according to the author of the study produced for the Aeminium Forum follows the indigenous tradition with the incorporation of new models, suggesting that the start date of production was the first century B.C. [36]. In the Roman military camp of Lomba do Canho Arganil, the results for the fine greyware with burnished decoration belong to the same chronological universe [43] as the ones found in the Aeminium Forum, in contrast to the results presented by J. Alarcão for the polished fine greyware, which he dates for the first and second centuries A.D. [27,44] for the archaeological site of Conimbriga. However, in Lisbon, in Rua de São João da Praça, as has already been mentioned, it is possible to date this ceramic to the end of the third century or beginning of the second century A.D. [31]. Although in earlier contexts than the Tagus valley the situation in the Mondego valley seems to point to the first century B.C. The sherds of fine greyware with burnished decoration in Rua Fernandes Thomaz no. 72 and 74 appear in the same stratigraphic units [2,4] as the italic productions, always bearing in mind that these contexts may not be primary. The italic importation mentioned herein are two fragments of Dressel 1 amphorae identified in unit [2] that belong to the same chronological period. It seems that it is possible to establish a chronological interval for the ceramic item identified, but more important is the fact that the homogeneity presented appears in the all stratigraphic units with pre-Roman and firsts contacts artefacts. Emphasising that in unit [6] there are no italic importations, there are only 4 fragments of wheel-thrown pottery in relation to the 71 handmade items. Is it possible to interpret this level as a sealed and secure context? The small area that has been excavated does not permit such an interpretation, combined with the fact that there were several structure remodulations of this space over time. Even more there is no distinction in the production process of the handmade pottery in the units above the [5] and below this Roman artificial platform. Two important data findings in the establishment of this time interval are the predominance of handmade pottery and the presence of rare Roman productions. Therefore, we can insert this ceramic sample in a time between the end of the second century B.C. and the early first century A.D.

5. Conclusions The ceramic group studied belongs to the late Iron Age; nevertheless, it is important to highlight the homogeneity of the pottery, production process, morphology and treatment of surfaces between the stratigraphic units, which do not imply the existence of secure contexts. The stratigraphic units [2,4] are undoubtedly secondary contexts, produced after the Roman occupation—probably during the Heritage 2019, 2 203 construction of the medieval wall. Unit [6] is sealed by the Roman artificial platform built during the imperial era (unit [5]), presenting two possibilities: (1) it is a secure context and (2) it is a landfill with the objective to flatten the soil in order to build the Roman structure. It is important to remember that in all the stratigraphic units the level of fragmentation of the pottery was very high, with rare reconstructions and that in unit [6] there was no Roman pottery identified. Besides these stratigraphic analyses it is important to highlight that there is no clear predominance in the different firing atmosphere of the pottery (121 fragments have oxidised firing and 117 fragments have reduction firing). Yet, it is evident that the reduction firing was carried out intentionally, in line with the late Bronze Age tradition. However, the oxidised firing is already very present in the records, suggesting external influence. The parallels are clear with the materials of Conimbriga and Aeminium Forum in the morphology, production process and surface treatment. The similarities with the morphology of the group of pots/pans with the Aeminium Forum is more evident, especially with the pot with a profile in the shape of a S [36]. The storage vessels are closer to the ones of Conimbriga [44]. The production process is identical to the description for the Aeminium Forum and Conimbriga—with a rough production process, irregular firings and frequent inclusions [16,42,45]. The surface treatment has better parallels with the group of Conimbriga, with careless burnishing, and identification of the traces of this action. This burnishing appears in the area of the rim, lip and neck, both internally and externally in the case of the storage vessels [41]. This means that the group studied herein is related with the other ones analysed for the area, most of the items described herein pertain to the quartz-micaceous group defined by J. Alarcão for the pre-Roman potteries of Conimbriga. We are faced with a uniform reality in a regional sense, which has already been denoted when compared with the “castros” (pre-Roman forts) from the north of Portugal, referred to as being “unique and peculiar” [46]. Nevertheless, this dichotomy does not exist solely with the Iron Age in the North of Portugal, the tendency for this archaeological site is coincident with the one found in Conimbriga and the Aeminium Forum, where the rims have a flat and slight outward protruding lip, contrary to the evidence in other archaeological sites for the same chronological period (Castelo in Arruda dos Vinhos, Lomba do Canho in Arganil and Castelo in Caldas da Rainha). On the other hand, a common feature is the existence of storage containers without a lip in all of the aforementioned sites. The absence of plates and bowls seems to be a pre-eminent reality for the Iron Age sites in the Portuguese coastal interior zone. Obviously, this evidence is related with the food habits of the populations that produced the pottery, but only through analysis of the faunistic remains found in the Rua Fernandes Thomaz nº 72/74 can we make assumptions in this direction. The diagnosis phase intervention in this building also retrieved Iron Age pottery items. Having completed the analysis, the authors presented a chronology for the fourth/third centuries B.C., for a time when the contacts with the orientalised settlements of the south of Portugal became less frequent [47]. However, the aforementioned remarks concerning the ceramic elements found at the second phase of the construction of this building suggest an earlier reality. It is still more important to understand the chronological hiatus between the sites next to the mouth of the river Mondego, such as Santa Olaia, Arieiro, Chões, Lírio, Pardilheiros, Fonte de Cabanas and Castro Tavarede [48] with the archaeological sites in the city of Coimbra and nearby locations such as Conimbriga and Lomba do Canho. In the first sites we have an occupation between the seventh and fourth centuries B.C. and in the interior of the Mondego River the Iron Age occupation dates to around second/first century B.C. This settlement and chronological hiatus are important to understand the existing dynamics in all the Mondego region, with the different influences that occurred throughout the Iron Age especially since it would have functioned under a “Transport Principle” [49,50], as it was a dynamising agent of the landscape, by providing an easier movement of people from the coast to the interior. This can be observed to a certain extent throughout the Portuguese territory, that shows hydrographic basins with similar signs of occupation, with the same chronological development Heritage 2019, 2 204 and form of occupation, first in coastal sites (older) and then in a gradual movement to the interior landscape in later chronological periods. In the meantime, we can explore other hypotheses, waiting for the development of new studies concerning this period and space.

Author Contributions: Writing, review and editing, J.P. and S.H. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Marco Andrade for preparing the pottery drawings. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References and Notes

1. Mantas, V. Alcáçova de Coimbra. Informação Arqueológica 1983, 3, 31. 2. Mantas, V. Notas sobre a estrutura urbana de Aeminium. Biblos 1992, 68, 487–513. 3. Frade, H.; Caetano, J.C. O pátio da Inquisição (Coimbra): Notas histórico-arqueológicas; Revista de Arqueologia Urbana: Bracara Augusta, Portugal, 1994; Volume 45, pp. 319–343. 4. Carvalho, P. OFórum de Aeminium; Instituto Portugues de Museus: Coimbra, Portugal, 1998. 5. Filipe, S. Arqueologia urbana em Coimbra: Um testemunho da Reitoria da Universidade. Conimbriga 2006, 45, 337–357. [CrossRef] 6. Almeida, S.; Nóbrega, J.; Vilaça, R.; Silva, R. Ceramica da II Idade do Ferro de Aeminium—R. Fernandes Tomás 72/74 (Coimbra, Portugal); Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2011; Volume 50, pp. 33–57. 7. Mantas, V. A Rede Viária Romana da Faixa Atlantica Entre Lisboa e Braga; Dissertação de Doutoramento Policopiada: Coimbra, Portugal, 1996; Volume 2. 8. Nolen, J.U. SMIT—“A cerâmica comum”. In História de Portugal—Antes de Portugal; Mattoso, J., Ed.; Estampa: Lisboa, Portugal, 1996; Volume 1, pp. 79–293. 9. Vilaça, R. Aspectos do Povoamento da Beira Interior (Centro e Sul) nos Finais da Idade do Bronze; Trabalhos de Arqueologia; IPPAR: Lisboa, Portugal, 1995; Volume 1–2, p. 9. 10. Orton, C.; Hughes, M. Pottery in Archaeology, 2nd ed.; University College London, British Museum: London, UK, 2013. 11. Alarcão, J. Coimbra—A Montagem do Cenário Urbano; Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2008. 12. Soares, A.F. Um tiro no pé (Outras coisas e Coimbra). Cad. Geogr. 2002–2004, 21–23, 235. 13. The First Phase of the Work was Held by Dr. José Nóbrega in Co-Direction with Dr. Luís Miguel dos Santos Reis. 14. Rossa, W. Diver-Cidade. Urbanografia do espaço de Coimbra até ao estabelecimento definitivo da Universidade. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2001. 15. Drawing on the Basis of José Nóbrega. 16. Carvalho, P. O Forum de Aeminium; Instituto Portugues de Museus: Porto, Portugal, 1998; p. 89. 17. Arruda, A. Conimbriga. Escavação de 1988-89 (Algumas Precisões Sobre A Cronologia). Portugália; Ed. Nova Série: Porto, Portugal, 1988–1989; Volume 9–10, pp. 93–100. 18. DeMan, A. Coninbriga. Do Baixo Império à Idade Média; Edições Sílabo: Lisbon, Portugal, 2006. 19. Alarcão, J. Fouilles de Conimbriga. V—La Céramique Commune Locale et Régionale; Diffusion ed.; Boccard: Paris, France, 1975. 20. Santos, R.; DeMan, A. Rua Fernandes Tomás, 58-66—Coimbra Casa das Talhas, Relatório de Progresso; 2006. 21. The Pottery Identified on [5] Was Interpreted as Belonging to Units [2] and [4], Being Inserted by Intrusion or in Function of Difficulty in Defining the Limits of the Stratigraphic Units. 22. Orton, T. Pottery in Archaeology; Cambrige University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993; Fig. 3–4; p. 134. 23. Mataloto, R. Um “Monte” da Idade do Ferro na Herdade da Sapatoa, Ruralidade e Povoamento No 1º Milénio a. C. do Alentejo Central. Master’s Thesis, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003; p. 41. Heritage 2019, 2 205

24. Gonçalves, V. O sítio arqueológico do Castelo (Arruda dos Vinhos)—Escavações de 1988 a 1993. Revista de Arqueologia da Assembleia Distrital de Lisboa 1997, 3, 10. 25. Henriques, S. O Sítio do Castelo (Santa Catarina, Caldas das Rainha). Do Neolítico à Idade do Ferro. In Proceedings of the Actas do IV Seminário do Património da Região do Oeste, Arruda dos Vinhos, Portugal, 24–25 November 2008; pp. 83–110. 26. Gonçalves, V. O sítio arqueológico do Castelo (Arruda dos Vinhos)—Escavações de 1988 a 1993. Revista de Arqueologia da Assembleia Distrital de Lisboa 1997, 14, 50–52. 27. Fabião, C.; Guerra, A. Considerações Sobre a Ceramica Comum do Acampamento Militar Romano da Lomba do Canho, Arganil; Da pré-História à História—Homenagem a Octávio da Veiga Ferreira; Editorial Delta: Lisboa, Portugal, 1987; p. 297. 28. Arruda, F.; Freitas, V.; Vallejo Sánchez, J. As ceramicas cinzentas da Sé de Lisboa. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 2000, 3, 44. 29. Arruda, A.M.; Freitas, V.; Vallejo Sánchez, J. As cerâmicas cinzentas da Sé de Lisboa. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 2000, 3–2, 25–59. 30. Pimenta, C. Novos dados sobre a ocupação pré-romana da cidade de Lisboa: As anforas da sondagem no 2 da Rua de São João da Praça. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 2005, 8, 319. 31. Pimenta, C. Novos dados sobre a ocupação pré-romana da cidade de Lisboa: As ânforas da sondagem no 2 da Rua de São João da Praça. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 2005, 8, 320. 32. Encarnação, J. Notas Sobre a Ocupação Proto-Histórica na Villa Romana de Freiria; Actas do Congresso de Proto-História Europeia. Revista de Guimarães; No Especial; Universidade do Minho: Braga, Portugal, 2000; p. 744. 33. Encarnação, J. Notas Sobre a Ocupação Proto-Histórica na Villa Romana de Freiria; Actas do Congresso de Proto-História Europeia. Revista de Guimarães, No Especial; Universidade do Minho: Braga, Portugal, 2000; p. 747. 34. Gonçalves, V. O sítio arqueológico do Castelo (Arruda dos Vinhos)—Escavações de 1988 a 1993. Revista de Arqueologia da Assembleia Distrital de Lisboa 1997, 14, 10. 35. Fabião, C.; Guerra, A. Considerações Sobre a Ceramica Comum do Acampamento Militar Romano da Lomba do Canho, Arganil; Da pré-história à História—Homenagem a Octávio da Veiga Ferreira; Editorial Delta: Lisboa, Portugal, 1987; p. 298. 36. Carvalho, P. O Forum de Aeminium; Instituto Portugues de Museus: Porto, Portugal, 1998; p. 103. 37. Soares, J.; Silva, C.T. Ocupação do Período Proto-Romano do Povoado do Pedrão (Setúbal); Actas das II Jornadas Arqueológicas, Associação do Arqueólogos Portugueses, Lisboa Estampa VI; nº 46, 268; 1973; Volume 1. 38. Silva, C.T.D.; Soares, J. Chibanes Revisitado. Primeiros Resultados da Campanha de Escavações de 1996. Estudos Orientais 1997, 6, 58. 39. Gonçalves, V. O sítio arqueológico do Castelo (Arruda dos Vinhos)—Escavações de 1988 a 1993. Revista de Arqueologia da Assembleia Distrital de Lisboa 1997, 1, 42. 40. Alarcão, J. Fouilles de Conimbriga. V—La Céramique Commune Locale et Régionale; Diffusion ed.; Boccard: Paris, France, 1975; p. 60. 41. Alarcão, J. Fouilles de Conimbriga. VI—La Céramique Commune Locale et Régionale; Diffusion ed.; Boccard: Paris, France, 1975; p. 50. 42. Alarcão, J. Fouilles de Conimbriga. VI—La Céramique Commune Locale et Régionale; Diffusion ed.; Boccard: Paris, France, 1975; p. 41. 43. Fabião, C.; Guerra, A. Considerações Sobre a Ceramica Comum do Acampamento Militar Romano da Lomba do Canho, Arganil; Da Pré-História à História—Homenagem a Octávio da Veiga Ferreira; Editorial Delta: Lisboa, Portugal, 1987; p. 306. 44. Alarcão, J. Fouilles de Conimbriga. VI—La Céramique Commune Locale et Régionale; Diffusion ed.; Boccard: Paris, France, 1975; p. 81. 45. Correia, V. Conimbriga. A camada pré-romana da cidade. In O Archeólogo Portugues; Lisboa, Portugal, 1916; p. 21. 46. Silva, A.C.; Gomes, M.V. Proto-História de Portugal; Universidade Aberta: Lisboa, Portugal, 1998; p. 67. 47. Almeida, S.; Nóbrega, J.; Vilaça, R.; Silva, R. Ceramica da II Idade do Ferro de Aeminium—R. Fernandes Tomás 72/74 (Coimbra, Portugal), Conimbriga; Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2011; Volume 50, p. 47. Heritage 2019, 2 206

48. Alarcão, J. In Territorio Colimbrie: Lugares velhos (e alguns deslembrados) do Mondego, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, nº 38; Palácio Nacional da Ajuda: Lisboa, Portugal, 2004; pp. 13–137. 49. Martins, M. O Povoamento Proto-Histórico e a Romanização da Bacia do Médio Cávado. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 1990. 50. Pinho, J. O Iº Milénio e o Estabelecimento Rural Romano na Vertente Fluvial do Ave—Dinâmicas de Estabelecimento do Ponto de Vista Geo-Espacial. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).