Story

In the historical narrative published by the Municipality, these community mills belonged to the Crown and half of the income was destined to the King. The same description refers to the later passage to a symbolic tax. The name of the place thus opens a window on the economic organization of the milling.

The income mentioned concerns the economic activity of the mill. It should not be converted, without further information, into a rule according to which each person delivers half of the cereal bag to the king. The presentation does not indicate accounts, milled quantities or the date of transition to symbolic tax.

When visiting the history of the Moinhos de Rei, you can ask two different questions: how did water reach the mill and how were the benefits of grinding distributed? The lead helps to follow the first; the reference to the Crown opens the second. Technique, organization and income are part of the same work landscape.

In describing the Tâmega in 1758, the vicar refers mills that worked in the summer, in front of the parish, in the limits of São Pedro de Atei. He also recalls traces of attempts to build levadas and dams in the neighborhoods.

The reference shows how the report crosses the river. The mentioned mills are on the bank of Atei: this reading does not transform them into patrimony located in Cabeceiras or confirms traces visitable today.

In Casares, a wooden bridge integrated the real road to Braga and communications with Trás-os-Montes, according to the memory of 1758. Before the movement, the vicar defended building it in stone. It was a request, not the confirmation of a work.

The source distinguishes this passage from small walkways made with a wooden beam, for pedestrians. Different paths responded to different uses.

The passage not only served the village. The vicar describes a public road and very frequented, linking Braga to the term of Basto and Trás-os-Montes. The bridge emerges, as a local point of a larger network. The recommendation to replace it by chanting shows the author to assess a need, besides inventing what existed.

In the same rivers, the water moved mills and was used by farmers in the fields. The crossing, grinding and watering appear in the same portrait of the territory. A bridge can be read by what it allows to do: reach another place, maintain a communication or approximate works separated by water.

In the parochial memory, the crossing of the Tâmega appears described as a great stone bridge, well worked. The author even considers it the best of that river. The praise belongs to the look of those who wrote: it reveals the importance it attributed to the construction, without functioning as a technical comparison between bridges.

In the same memory, the Tâmega appears as a strong current, especially in winter. The document distinguishes the crossing from the use of water: it describes mills and explains that the river was too deep to water the fields in that stretch. The bridge can be read in this set of relations between margins, displacements and work.

Notice the difference between observing a construction and evaluating it. The existence of the bridge is information; considering it the best is an appreciation. The two say something about the past, but answer different questions.