Mainz.pdf

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mainzpdf 1/30

Originally published as J.A.BARCELO, 1999 Patriarchs, Bandits and Warriors. An analysis of Social Interaction in Bronze AgeSouth Western Iberian peninsula. In Eliten in der Bronzezeit . Monographien des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum No. 43,

pp. 223-243

PATRIARCHS, BANDITS AND WARRIORS. An

analysis of Social Interaction in Bronze Age South-

western Iberian Peninsula.

JUAN A. BARCELOUNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONADivisió de Prehistòria.Facultat de Lletres. Edifici B.08193 BELLATERRA (Spain)

1. INTRODUCTION

Despite a most common belief, I do not think the key question in the study ofsocial dynamics must be 'guessing' the way different social groups 'invented'social inequalities, but studying their 'resistance' against the social division oflabour which lays inside any production system becoming into a socialstratification or society of classes.

We can see it fairly clear when studying the Prehistory of South-western IberianPeninsula. Many authors consider this case as a typical 'secondary focus for theOrigins of the State' which gives way to the formation of complex societies. Theythink that, in the same way as it happens along all Western Europe, thesesocieties could not have adopted a farm and herding production system with astrong metallurgical basis, which requires a rather complex and sophisticatedsocial division of labour, until at a very late time (ca. 750 BC). However,Southwestern Iberian Peninsula shows the breaking down of the domestic mode

of production and the adoption of a more complex and diversified socio-economic system which had already been adopted before the year 3000 BC.However, this transformation did not give way to a society of classes in thefollowing centuries, it experienced some changes which rather seem a'simplification' of the social division of labour than a hardening of the divisioninto social classes. We may see then the Bronze Age in the Southwest as a clearexample of the 'resistance' against the formation of a state based on its social

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


stratification. In the neighbour regions this process happened in a different way(Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, that is, the culture of El Argar) and gave wayto a society of classes around 2500/2000 BC(1).

The different social dynamics which may be seen in these regions may relay uponthe different degree of development reached by the permanent structures of thesocial division of labour. These structures were just temporary in some places(Southwest), but permanent in some others (Southeast). Contradicting Gilman(1987) and Chapman (1990), this difference does not only relay upon theecological features which can be found in each area. The irregularity and scarcityof the rainfall regime may be one of the reason for a permanency of strongdifferentiation in the working process in the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula,

but not the only one. The social groups living in arid zones not always share thesame evolution, although the focus which originate complex societies may seem

to arose in an extremely difficult (intensive) production environment.

Before applying blindfolded the following equation:

+ climatic harshness - production yield of the ecosystem + production intensification= social division of labour

we should remember that it is not a universal law, although we may consider itacceptable for explaining the social dynamics found in some places. Due to thelow density of occupation in most pre-industrial societies, we must find an

answer to the decision of certain groups to stay where human work is not much producing instead of moving into empty regions where life could be easier andmore producing. This decision hides a net of political relationships and ways ofcoercion and/or imposition.

2. The First Evidences of Social Complexity in South-western Iberian

Peninsula

Communities living in Southern Iberian Peninsula, both Southeast and

Southwest, shared a common start around year 3700/3500 BC. In spite of beingcalled 'neolithic', they did not totally reach that point of a true producingeconomical system. Just a few evidences of farming practice have been found(not many flint tools with a cereal coating and a few mills). We may infer the

production system was based on hunting, fishing, collecting of seafood, cattle andswidden agriculture (see Martín de la Cruz 1994a for details).

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


More complex societies did not make their appearance in the region until 3300BC, as a consequence of the implementation of a totally producing economy,which was both either farming and cattle based, and followed the classical

mediterranean crop rotation pattern, which required a larger social division oflabour. This new economical system intensified the production system, reducedthe number of settlements, focused the inhabiting of greater settlements andincreased the production area which belonged to each community (fallowingrequires a larger extension of land).

Although the Mediterranean crop-rotation agricultural system has beenconsidered a way to beat demographic pressure, after new studies, we understandthis system did not help to increase production as the benefits obtained wouldnot differ in the case of a gathering system. Multi-harvesting advantages rely

upon crop rotation (a cereal-fallow-pod vegetable cycle regenerates farmingground) and re-use of cattle derivatives in farming (fertilisers). As the traditionalMediterranean process regenerates farming ground in a short period of time(Fedeoroff and Courty 1995:134-137), we can see the need to stabilise

production at short and middle term as the reason for the change in 3300 BC.This stabilisation reduced the variability of the production yields in such anirregular ecosystem as the Mediterranean. As the benefits in this new systemmay differ in time, the group must maximise the available work (storing would

prevent scarce yields). Difficulty of organisation increases since working

activities will not obtain immediate benefit and a new calendar of working benefits must be arranged.

We should now study the social consequences this economical change willgenerate in the long run:

1) Absolute quantity of work must increase in order to generateenough surplus to implement crop rotation. If the community itself arose thislarger quantity of work, traditional social mechanisms to control population will

break down giving way to land coercion. The demographic pressure resultingfrom the new relationships of power produces a systematic occupation of land innot very inhabited regions. These new settlements will establish their own powerrelationships with the communities surrounding them. This economical and socialsystem with a permanent wish for land will hurt hunter-gathering communities asthese new settlements can invest in weapons because of their greater populationand production surplus. More communities will fall under the new power,

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


although the resistance of some of them will result in military struggle and banditry.

2) After taking over the neighbour regions and increasing the production area, land with lower productivity rate will be also tapped. Due to thisfact, the different groups will live in a constant struggle in order to get the bestland available and an access to the hydric resources. Thus, part of the labourforce will be devoted to social activities (war), adding more pressure to the needfor increasing sustenance and goods production, as weapons and defencestructures must now be taken also into account. This added pressure on the

production system will force the increase of the production area as much as yieldswill decrease, and the consequence will be the exploitation of land with a lower

productivity rate. Less productive land cannot be used in the same way, that is,

with the former semi-sedentary production system (swidden agriculture), andcrop rotation will be the only way of assuring ground regeneration and

production, and the process will start again.

3) Diversity in the way of taking over land will increase after bringing into production lower productivity land. Valleys will show rests ofsettlements with no defence structures and which used the most fertile soils,while there can also be found settlements with no evidence of farming, butstoring of surplus and its transformation into defence structures which require

great investments in labour. Settlements start their own social scale, as can beinferred from the unequal distribution of prestige goods made of metal, pottery or bone. On the other hand, domestic units inside these same settlements show fewtraces of social hierarchy (Martín de la Cruz 1994a). Social inequality betweensettlements and local groups arises from stabilising social relationships onterritorial scale. Groups living in marginal areas or with a non-intensive

production system (hunting-gathering, seasonal farming, herding) see their powerreduced when most potential land have been taken over. These more traditionalgroups will be forced to accept farming economy, either working as secondaryagents for the farming settlements (Nocete 1989:185-220) or adopting the new

production system and facing domination (banditry, military struggle andinvestment of labour in defence needs).

4) Production technology (ploughs, lithic tools, animaltraction, water canalisation and accumulation, etc.) will be improved by thisintensification of the production and the need of working investment in military

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


activities. There are evidences of an increasing in the social demand for production tools: sickles, hoes, axes and mills, together with the greater workrequired for finding way to the natural resources, as evidences of quarry and minework and the transport and transformation of raw material show. However, the

lack of raw material in some areas could explain why not all settlementsmanufactured those tools. Although statistical significance for this hypothesis hasnot been studied, larger settlements seem to concentrate production workshopsfor tools which later would be transferred to secondary centres in the course of anexchange process. Archaeologists have found traces of lithic tools made of non-local raw material all over the Southern Iberian Peninsula.Thus, we could inferthat a key question for understanding power relationships on a territorial scalewould be the manufacture of production tools in a few central settlements whichcontrolled natural resources, exchange channels and/or specialised work. Sinceall these larger settlements can be found next to the coast or a waterway, that is,

next to a natural communication road, we can assure the existence of a closerelationship between the exchange of production tools and social complexity.Some of the secondary centres show rests of flint which had been used mostextremely and afterwards even re-used for other functions what seems to pointout the scarcity of flint and other stones in non-primary centres. The permanentneed for raw material for the manufacture of production tools could not bealways met.

5) Several authors (Gilman 1987, Gilman and Thornes 1985,

Chapman 1990, cf. argumentation in Hernando 1987) point out the importance ofthe rise of water needs and the infrastructure it requires, together with the greaterdemand of production tools. Few evidences of irrigation infrastructure can befound in the Southwest: just the drainpipes in Valencina de la Concepción and inCabeza de los Vientos. When explaining the difference between Southeast andSouthwest most authors tend to talk about the traces of the great investment ininfrastructures for facing in extremely arid regions and which can be found in theSoutheast whereas in the Southwest just part of the population was affected bynot so important infrastructures because of the more regular and wetter weather(Atlantic).

6) The changes in cattle arose because of the greater demand foranimals with greater working capacity or greater fertilisers production (bovine),or of larger profitability (pork). Faunal analysis show how slow and progressivethis process is in neolithic societies, where hunted animals, together with fish andseafood prevailed, and where herding was just considered food storing. These

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


communities evolve into societies where the need for animal energy (traction,transport, fertilising) forces the domestication of certain animals and affects foodstoring. Traces of very distinct cattle can be found all over the Southeast of theIberian Peninsula: the rests of hunted animals in the settlements on the plain as in

Valencina de la Concepción show the need for keeping more 'traditional' working processes and resources even the more 'sedentary' settlements still have.

7) The changes in the production generated the rise of surplus production and thus the number and size of storing structures had toincrease. A new and different room is designed for the storage of this surplus(cereal and other raw material), for instance, storing pits placed in the middle ofthe village and surrounded by living units (huts). From 3400 BC the number ofstoring structures (pits) increases in a permanent way. From 3000-2800 BC thereis evidence for a joint development of a surplus production system and the

fortification of the productive unit (Chapman 1995, Gonçalves 1995, Martín de laCruz 1994a and 1994b, Monge Soares et. al.,1994). Once intensive farmingeconomy has been established around 3300/3100 BC, the number of fortifiedsettlements increases in order to solve the problems arisen by the greater workinginvestments. The need for protecting the surplus obtained and the social activitiesof the local elite will harden the group cohesion and stimulate war ideology andthe struggle with the neighbour settlements. However, we must not think thenumber of these fortified places was very large or even homogeneous, neither inthe Southeast nor in the Southwest, where just 5% of the settlements were

fortified (Martín de la Cruz 1994a, Chapman 1995). Although there were nofortified settlements in lower Guadalquivir, we cannot consider it an undevelopedarea. The huge size of villages as Valencina de la Concepción, Hoza de la Torre,La Pijotilla, Ferreira do Alemtejo, El Gandul and others, their complexorganisation divided into different activity areas used as huts, storage-pits orworkshops, and the arrangement of their necropolis show how intensive theirsophisticated production systems were, the highly elaborated social division oflabour there was and the gap between producers and non-producers. On the otherhand, the high quantity of tombs with prestige goods such as bell-beakers andcopper items (Serna 1989) show the existence of important social differencesabove the ones of kinship. The lack of traditional stone walls do not imply thelack of defence, in some sites (Carmona, cf. Cardenete et al. 1992), defensivetrenchs have been discovered around the main settlement,

8) Non-producing social agents start their appearance togetherwith new planing (crop rotation, distribution of human labour and animal energy,

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


farming calendar, weather forecasting, fortune-telling and worship) and decisiontaking activities (fallowing ground, work distribution and long run benefits).Social distance between producing and non-producing agents increases, affectingwork and decision taking. This process will go on and arose the appearance of

social exclusion practices when delivering the benefits of working investmentand some individuals and/or groups will be excluded from it. Producer survivalwill not depend on their working capacity , but on their relationship with thoselinked to the same working process. Producers lose autonomy and decision takingcapacity, although their survival rate increases in a social environment in

permanent struggle. We may give for certain this process is not generalised allover the area, but focused where farming economies keep more intensive and

permanent structures. Most human groups will fight against being ruled by these power relationships, and thus military struggle and social instability will increase.Banditry and military struggle rise together with the generalisation of the ways of

exchange among territorial groups.

9) We may compare the production and exchange rise (eventheft or loot) with the need of certain social groups to keep a social identitydifferent from the rest of the population with which they keep a rulingrelationship, result of the social distance between them. Archaeological evidenceshows that the increase of the gap between one or several individuals and the restof the community makes ornamental production, exchange of exotic goods andgreater violence between different communities rises (Nocete 1989, Vicent

1995). But along all this period no traces of a breaking down between the political unit and common systems of decision taking are found, as the continuityof collective funeral rites could prove. The domestic group takes politicaldecisions, that is, individuals do not differ according to their non-producingstatus or the ownership of the means of production. Non-productive agentsrealize their power capability through kinship networks, becoming patriarchs ofthe group. Domestic groups (groups of individuals linked by kinship) will keepdependent because of the need for a social division of labour derived from theeconomical system. The consequence of this will be the different degree ofdecision taking every social agent has, depending on the hierarchical scaleestablished among kin groups. We can infer the existence of deep powerrelationships, although they do not give way to a society of classes. There is nosocial elite, but a complex net of ruling relationships which will affect thedecision taking capacity each agent and kinship group have. These dependencycannot only be found inside domestic groups (different sexes and ages), but also

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


inside local groups (among domestic groups) and, specially, among differentlocal groups as well.

10) We must see the generalisation of collective funeral rites

as a social structure where common decision taking depends on the social group(kinship) every individual belongs to. These groups rule over the access to themeans of production and the place every social agent keeps for the distribution ofthe differed benefits from common investment on work. For social relationshipsit will be more important belonging to a community than the ownership of land.Opposing the evidences found in the Southeast, where different kinship lineagesco-operate in a common social and economical structure, the existence of littledolmenic tombs and very little settlements let us consider small independentgroups (4-6 individuals) living all over the land on a non permanent way(Hurtado 1995). But even between these groups some evidences of a slow

leadership tendency inside the group has been found, as in some places there aretraces of room kept by certain individuals (Hurtado and Garcia Sanjuan 1996).Individuals start keeping different social status inside the community, as ideologyin funeral rites shows.

We must see Southern Iberian Peninsula as a group of social islands of differentnature, since not all settlements adopted the same social and economical system,and the intensity of occupation is relatively low (García Sajuan 1996:445). Wesee communities with a permanent farming production system (for instance,

Porcuna, in middle Guadalquivir valley; Valencina de la Concepción, in lowerGuadalquivir; Sao Bras 1, in low Guadiana; Monte da Tumba, in Sado valley;Sao Pedro, Leceia and Zambujal, in low Tajo; Gonçalves 1995, Martín de la Cruz1994a, Chapman 1995, Kunst 1995, Hurtado and Garcia Sanjuan 1996) where

production has been intensified according to the Mediterranean crop rotation,which means the storage of surplus, building of permanent fortified settlementsand the establishing of power relationships of territory in the neighbourhood. Atthe same time, other communities will still be farming, cattle and/or hunter-gathering and fishing, living in seasonal or semipermanent settlements;intensification of production will not be up to a low degree and storage of surpluswill be low (Cruz-Auñón et.al. 1992, Ruiz-Mata 1994, Hurtado and GarciaSanjuan 1996). Survey projects in some areas suggest the existence of isolatedfarms, with 10-20 inhabitants, separated by short distances (400-1000 m.)(cf.García Sanjuan 1996:220-236).

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


The isolation and power relationships did not totally lead to the inequality between different social groups at the territory level, but it shows the degree ofadaptation the different groups reached. Coercion imposed by more powerfulcommunities is not the only reason why not all communities reached the same

level of production. Some of them carried on with the same production systemthey had always had and kept under control their inner contradictions, andavoiding intensive production systems and an increasingly complex socialdivision of labour.

3.- Transformation and 'crisis' at the end of the Calcolithic Period

At the end of the period 2500/2100 BC fortified settlements and most of the bigger villages seem to be suddenly abandoned (Hurtado 1995, Chapman 1995,

Ruiz Mata 1994, Martín de la Cruz 1994a), although we can find some veryimportant exceptions. For instance, Zambujal was left around year 2000 BC(consequence of a war), but after a time it was rebuilt and inhabited until year1600 BC. In El Gandul, we have not found proof of having been left between theCalcolithic and the Bronze Age; the same runs for Zahora, in the valley of theriver Barbate or Sao Bras 1, in the lower valley of the river Guadiana. Llanete delos Moros (middle valley ofthe river Guadalquivir) was not abandoned, butreached a higher population. In Carmona, there is estratigraphic continuity

between calcolithic burials, early/middle bronze age, late bronze age and early

iron age ones, showing the lack of “crisis” or “interruptions in human settlement(Fernandez Cantos 1996:41-54). Settlements in the middle valley of the riverGuadalquivir were not abandoned, as the ones in Porcuna show (Los Alcores andEl Albalate). Both places grew up together as if they were twins. They were

placed at each side of river Salado and controlled the entrance to the valley andthe communication roads. The only transformation we can see during this period

between the Calcolithic and the Bronze Age, is the difference in the style of thefortifications: the semicircular bastions of the former changed into circulartowers during the second (Arteaga et. al., 1991:228).

In the Southwest, the Calcolithic “complex society” stops in the secondmillennium as some authors agree on saying. Katina Lillios (quoted by Chapman1995:32) talks about the effects of prestige items economy had on theenvironment. The need of everyday greater quantities of food and wood theydemanded provoked lower yields until collapsing the system. The intensificationof land use during Calcolithic (plough, crop rotation and increasing animal

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


energy) and social transformation (inequality, war, banditry) gave way to ademographic increase and more land had to be colonised. The result was thedegradation of agricultural soils and forests what produced the abandonment ofnew colonized land (Stevenson & Harrison 1992, Martín de la Cruz 1994b).

The hypothesis above has many evidences against. On the one hand, thechronological diversity of this phenomenon: some villages were left around 2100BC; other villages were inhabited without interruption; others were justsporadically inhabited. On the other hand, we find proof of deforestation in theSouthwest from the 3000 BC on, that is, when fortified settlements were in theirhighest point, and this fact did not cause their abandonment in that historical

period. We know from the analysis of pollen carried out in the settlement ofMonturque, in the middle valley of the river Guadalquivir (Lopez Palomo 1993)that deforestation started at the time of its foundation. In other words, the effects

of over-production can be seen since the beginnings of the new productivesystem, and not after 1000 years. Consequently it is unreasonable to think thatecological degradation was the main cause of settlement abandonment.

Fedeoroff and Courty´s study (1995) on the Vera bassin, in the Southeast of theIberian Peninsula, show a climatic crisis of draughts and pouring rains fromyears 2300-1960 BC, that is when the crisis resulting from the leaving offortifications and the new wave of colonisation started. We know of the innererosion of farming land, their loss of balance and the first coming out of bad land.

We can see proof of fires which burnt forests and damaged ground, what madeincrease the erosion of farming and non-farming land together with the increaseof the eolic activity. Sudden floods changed relief and landscape greatly. Afterthese authors, the crisis cannot be due to anthropic reasons, and the size the firesreached does not talk about a human origin. This same crisis can be found inother places along the Mediterranean Coast. We see the same loss of forests andrise of fires in the Southwest, in the pollen remains of Acebrón (Huelva) (cf.Stevenson and Moore 1988, Stevenson and Harrison 1992, Martín de la Cruz1994b), although these authors argue for human, farming, metallurgical andcattle reasons. There are also traces of a rise in the fluvial and eolic sedimentationin the yields on the coast or close to a waterway. C-14 gives proof of three casesof bay fulfilling in the mouth of the river Guadalquivir, and we may relation themwith the erosion in the river. Evidence dates these three cases at the end of the

Neolithic (3300BC), Middle Calcolithic (2680-2380 BC) and at the beginning ofthe Late Bronze Age (1280-1220 BC) (Arteaga et. al., 1995). The deforestationdue to farming reasons has also been related to the rise in the eolic processes of

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


sand sedimentation happened in a lot of settlements (Borja 1995, Arteaga et. al.1995). But whatever the reason, intensification of farming (human nature), orresult of climatic changes, these transformations coincide with the leaving ofthese fortified villages and the interruption of the bell-beaker exchange networks

as well.In case an ecological transformation in Southern Iberian Peninsula could be

proved, the leaving of certain areas and the continuing inhabiting of others could be better understood as particular ways of adaptation to a phenomenon withdifferent consequences in different places. Some settlements are abandoned. Thisfact does not produce a depopulation of the area, but only a change in thesettlement pattern: from a dispersed pattern to a more concentrated one (Nocete1989: 196ff, García Sanjuan 1996:293ff).

Social change is not due to the decrease of economical yields, nevertheless thedifferent communities had to overcome the transformations happened in thenatural environment, what they did all over the South in a very different way.When farming yields started decreasing, violence in the relationship between thedifference communities resulted, what may explain the violent destruction ofZambujal (in the lower valley of Tajo) and Cazalilla (in the middle valley of theriver Guadalquivir). Because of the leaving or destruction of the most significantvillages, the system of social interaction (labour exchange, taxes, raw materialand/or means of production) stopped working and a new one had to be 'invented'.

As fortified villages were linked to the exchange of means of production made offlint (agriculture tools), when their demand stops, the collapse of the wholesystem will follow in a short time.

4. The Nature of Social Relationships in the Second Millennium

The Second Millennium in the Southwest is featured by the great effort done bymost human groups in order to reinforce their own group identity, adopting somedistinct cultural ways in the fields of funerary rites, iconography, pottery andmetal production. We see here not only how different the situation is from theone in the Third Millennium, but from the one in the Southeast at the same timeas well (El Argar). The most likely explanation is the lack of a centralised andorganised political structure in the Southwest, whereas in the Southeast it is in

process of development: southeastern material culture becomes standardised as aconsequence of a social, economical and political system focused onexpansionism and based on the domination of the neighbour groups from a main

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


focus, where production social relationships have evolved into a class society(Ruiz et al. 1992, Lull & Risch 1996).

Settlements that arose in the Southeast in the Second Millennium -the ones which

managed to adapt to the new situation- are completely different from the formerones they come from, because they maximize land control despite the increase,too huge in some cases, of consumer costs of sustenance within the ownsettlements: classical fortified villages built on heights, surrounded by walls andlacking of farming ground and, even, of water resources in the neighbourhood.We may infer that it appears a new economical system, where defence overcomeswork productivity in importance (distance from the main production areas). Thedefence of the new settlements requires increased side working costs and elitewill increase their consumption of work surplus (Gilman and Thornes 1985,Gilman 1987, Vicent 1991). The higher the social inequality, the less visible was

storing and social accumulation of surplus. Communal storage-pits used duringthe former period tend to disappear, whereas the quantity of containers inside thehouses increases. It makes us believe that access to them remained within their'owners' (Chapman 1995:36). Individual funerary rites become the rule and theirsocial differences will be expressed according to the quantity and diversity of thefurnishing they include. Kinship stops being a criteria for membership to thegroup, which now will be marked by the relationship between the worker, meansof production and produced goods from that particular person and anyoneworking side to side.

Along this period we will see deep changes in land structure in certain areas ofthe middle Guadalquivir. These changes seem to work alongside the ones whichtake place in the Southeast. From 2100 BC onwards, settlement in the middleGuadalquivir will change and expand into marginal land, contradicting the socalled 'crisis' in the Southwest. The rise of settlements does not seem to relyupon an organic increase of the population, but on a land colonisation with clearmarks of uneven land distribution. The diversity of the settlements comes toreinforce this hypothesis: fortified central sites, farming villages, hillforts andmining settlements with temporary occupation (Nocete 1989:220ff). Landcentralisation rises in some places and power relationships concentrates thanks tothe high complexity some settlements reach. They are big villages of over 1 ha.of extension and placed in the only land where farming production economy is

possible. Because of being placed on the plain, their defence becomes mostimportant. We can see other little settlements (0.25 ha. of extension) placed innear land and whose importance relies on the strategic function they have, due to

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


their height and sight. Their fortifications consist on a complex system ofconcentric circles with a central tower divided into different compartments. Theselatter settlements draw the border line of a political region, whose main resourceseems to be the exploitation of metal (Nocete 1989). We see here the importance

of protecting surplus and labour force together with means of production such asland and metal outcrops. Peñalosa, a fortified village on the plain, shows howmining and metal resources are transferred from extraction focus (likelytemporary) to the main centres, where the metallurgical process from oreextraction to the manufacture of tools takes place. 19 bronze badges of the samesize, shape and thickness were found in Obra de los Moros, what makes us thinkwe are facing a standardised production addressed to distribution and exchange,confirming so that the social structure we find in different places of the middleand high Guadalquivir is a result of social division of labour related to metallurgyand exchange.

There are traces of metallurgical activity all over the village of Peñalosa (theseveral areas do not seem to be specialised) and dwellings show structuralhomogeneity: there are no houses with signs of higher power than others and nosigns of the production processes which took place in them can be found. But thismust not lead us to regard it as an egalitarian society: the differences in funeraryfurnishing prove this latter consideration. All domestic units seem to contribute tothe production process (even metallurgical). The existence of prestige/wealthitems shows the control some elite had over their distribution, ensuring so an

uneven delivery of exchange goods. This fact becomes of the greatestimportance when we realise that this area is the North-western border of thesoutheastern societies expansionism.

Along the middle and high valleys of the river Guadalquivir we can see traces ofa rather complex society, where social differences take place after the increasingsocial division of labour. Although Peñalosa is the village where information isgreater in quantity and quality, we can generalize the pattern it shows thanks tothe proliferation of tombs (cists and common graves and a few burials insidecaves) with 'wealthy' furnishing (swords, silver knives) and the finding of someimportant hoards with pieces of metal (Lopez Rey 1994). This same patternwould even reach Setefilla (Aubet et. al., 1983). One of the main findings in thisvillage was its powerful fortification, which made it totally different from the restof villages in the lower valley of the river Guadalquivir. Also important is theSetefilla triple burial, where some interesting prestige gods were found (a halberdand a sword). Unless future research proves the expansion of this pattern into the

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


South, to Gandul or Carmona, for example (cf. Fernandez Cantos 1996), we must believe societies with intensive production systems were focused on themountains alongside the middle river Guadalquivir and exploited coppersettlements in Sierra Morena (Peñalosa) or the roads which led from the

Guadalquivir to the middle valley of the river Guadiana, where we can also findsimilar fortified villages (Hurtado 1995, Diaz-Andreu 1995).

It seems likely the social and economical transformation in this region was not oflocal origin, but adapted from the pattern in the Southeast, whose expansionreached high Guadalquivir from 1800 BC onwards. The much more organisedand 'military' land occupation, the intensification of mining and metallurgical

production in areas with low farming production can rely upon the demand fordifferent goods, which come from a more complex social and economical area,where social contradictions between producers and non-producers increase the

domination of the neighbour regions. The great quantity of ingots we find makesus believe in the existence of a non local market for them. Cereal becomes a

political value when it starts being changed for manufactured goods (storage-pitsand mills in villages far from farming regions). Cereal will be stored up infortified acropolis, from which it will be delivered among the other members ofthe social group.

Cereal production seems to come from villages lower in the social hierarchy,which are kept aside from far distance exchange (Nocete 1989: 196ff). But as this

pattern reaches settlements far from mining centres (Setefilla, for example), wemust remember the relationship between Southeast and its neighbourhoodovercomes metal and it includes other goods (wood, leather, cattle, etc.), whichmay have helped the process of social differentiation. Mining-metallurgical

production in those areas would satisfy an increasing local demand resulting froman every time more intensive production system, consequence of the outerdemand. We must not either forget that not all the production from the villages inmiddle Guadalquivir valley was sent to the south-eastern border. El Argarneighbourhood and some of the communities in the high valley of the riverGuadalquivir, which follow the argaric social system, had their own demand onthe furthest societies and established their own dependence relationships. Wemust not explain the society in Setefilla according to its links with El Argar, butto the relationships established by the local social elite with their neighbourcommunities which followed the argaric pattern.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


When Southeastern social system collapsed around 1600 BC, an “involution andcrisis” also began in the high and middle valleys of the Guadalquivir. Thestratified society in expansion, which had established relationships of dominationwith its neighbourhood, reached its height during the period 1800-1700 BC. After

1600 B.C. the process becomes different. Although settlements are not yetabandoned, and we find the same tecnomorphological features, funerary riteschange and less items will go together with power relationships. The result is thedecrease of the quantity of metal we find in tombs. Production specialisation,which some populations in the argaric domination system (land tax) had adopted,disappears at the same time and the different areas will return to their owneconomical systems. Production system will not be based upon neighbourhooddomination any more, and local groups will grow up in self-sufficiency onceagain. I do not intend to explain in this paper the argaric crisis (cf. Lull 1984,Chapman 1995), but we must not forget that the crisis in some places, Peñalosa,

for example, seems linked to the argaric one (Nocete 1989:220), as we must alsoremember the importance of the argaric domination relationships for the socialcomplexity during the Bronze Age. When elite cannot keep social system, whichfollows the pattern of Southeast any longer, it must die. So, Peñalosa will be leftas a result of the crisis in the Southeast and we do not see any traces of

population until the third century B.C. Fortifications are destroyed (evidence ofmilitary struggle) and left both in Setefilla and in Cerro de la Encantada, and justa little population remains in much more simple dwellings and with no use offortifications.

Settlement in the South-western border (Algarve, Alemtejo, Lower Tajo) istotally different. When calcolithic fortified villages were left, land occupation didnot stop but changed dramatically. Villages there are not very well known but wecannot compare them with the ones in the middle and high Guadalquivir, sincethere was a total lack of fortifications and no evidences of surplus store and socialdivision of labour. The isolated farms also disappear in this period (GarcíaSanjuan 1996:331). However, we are not in front of a depopulation phenomenon,

but in front of a transformation of the economic system, once the contradictionsin the previous one did not allow their reproduction. Great differences amongvillages (fortification vs. isolated farms) are not any longer visible in thearchaeological record. Settlement is now territorially homogenous, but internaldifferences appear. There is no evidence of intensive productive systems,specially there is no evidence of a systematic production of exchange items.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


The only evidence of social inequality we find is kept within their funerary ritesand the importance of prestige goods exhibition. Burials show great poverty: we

just find furnishing in a few cases and no prestige goods (swords) (Gomes et. al.,1986, Barceló 1989, García Sanjuán 1994, 1996). All the items we see in the

tombs are of domestic use, although they could have pointed out the function orsocial role of the person buried there. Differences between the furnishing in maleand female tombs has more importance (no metal items among women) (GarcíaSanjuán 1994:224). Evidence of this distinction can rely upon the presence ofminer hammers and/or rests of copper smelting in some cists found in the lowervalley of the river Guadiana. But the poverty these tombs show, does not meantheir populations did not manufacture and produce prestige goods. We havefound a big quantity of swords and other weapons and copper items in severalhoards in that area. Another circumstance which featured those groups was theiruse of menhir-statues and stelae for funerary reasons, which had swords,

halberds, axes and symbolic items engraved (Barceló 1989). On the other hand,some of the necropolis of cists (Atalaia, Santa Vitoria, Provença, Alfarrobeiraand others) show a very complex organisation system, where tombs weregrouped around one or two bigger cists in the middle, although these latter onesdid not have furnishing of better quality either in greater quantity (García Sanjuán1994). In case we inferred each burial group as an evidence for a “kinship”group, individual status would depend on their part and function inside the samekinship, and difference among families would be highly marked. The lack offurnishing in male tombs would enlighten social status as something acquired and

not inherited (García Sanjuán 1994:226). It is interesting to point out that the biggest necropolis, with a more complex structure than the others, are just foundin villages close to mining areas and on the best farming land. The lack of aforeign centre, whose demand for exchange goods enhanced the intensification ofcertain productions in the South-western periphery, and the lack of a greatenough internal social division of labour (a productive system only partiallyintensified) avoided the development of complex social relationships of

production, like the ones in the middle and high Guadalquivir valley. The greaterthe group dependence on complex production systems, the stronger the socialcontradictions we find will be. Due to this fact, full farming communities, with amore intensive productive system, and a stronger social division of labour, whichneed means of production made of metal, show more evidence of socialdistinction, being different from the fishing communities on the coast, with a lessintensive productive system.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


In some of these communities we can find some traces of increasing in socialcontradictions, but none in the ones in lower Guadalquivir, lower Guadiana and,rather surprisingly, in the mining region of the mountains of Huelva, where notransformation into a more complex society seems visible. Villages are very

simple, their population temporary and their economy based on cattle and theexploitation of local resources, specially fishing and seafood or hunting andvegetables gathering. Their economical system was rather based upon cattle andregarded farming as a secondary activity, mining and metallurgy being just fordomestic sake and not for exchange (Hurtado & García Sanjuán 1996, PérezMacías 1995). In lower Guadalquivir and the mountainous region of Huelvanecropolis are also composed by cists, although they do not follow a structureddisplay, but appeared scattered on the heights which surround the village. Inlower Guadalquivir and Guadalete burials are placed below dwellings (as ithappens in the middle Guadalquivir valley) but their furnishing is totally different

(López Palomo 1993). However, the presence of some prestige goods (silverknives) in some of the tombs in that region leads us to think they were neither soisolated nor their social structure was so idyllic (Rovira 1995).

Some authors tend to consider the existence of a crisis, similar to the oneexperienced by the groups living in the Southeast, in middle and highGuadalquivir region and they conclude the region was totally left at that time(Escacena and Belén 1993). It has been written this crisis would have taken placealong all the Atlantic Coast, although not necessarily at the same time (Ruiz-

Gálvez 1995:189). In Southern England it started by the year 1600 B.C.. andwent on until 1200 B.C. As it happens during the Calcolithic period, thisinconstant human population is explained according to the bad use of the farmingand grazing land until their exhaustion. But the lack of enough empirical datastops us from keeping of this hypothesis. A total leaving of the area would bemost wrong (Aubet 1997 , Fernandez Cantos 1996: 46).

5. Atlantic Connections and the End of Bronze Age

The word 'crisis' would not help us to explain the situation in Southwest around1200 B.C. We could just mention the collapse of the exchange system, which had

been ruled from the Southeast. When the outer demand for exchange goods stops,we see the return of non intensive production systems, which were based onherding, non intensive farming and the use of local resources. But this situationwill differ in every distinct area.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


Whereas the production system in low and middle Guadalquivir valley continueto be not much intensive, from 1200 B.C. in the lower valley of the riverGuadiana and the neighbour mountains, rich in mineral resources (copper, leadand silver), population keeps within a few fortified centres whose situation gave

them strategic control, and mining and metallurgical production increases. Wecan regard Chinflón, a fortified village, as an example of this transformation:from a scattered settlement into another one surrounding this settlement, whichwas placed on the best producing land and next to water springs and copperoutcrops. When dwelling moves into settlements placed on visible places withdifficult access, we see the decrease of the importance of farming, which givesway to an enhancing of defences next to the biggest metal outcrop, its mainfeature. From 1000-900 B.C. the village of El Trastejón suffers a transformationin the way of using resources and metallurgical production acquires greaterregard. The lower part of the village is specialised in metal work and the quantity

of worked material increases and, thus, the activities it is related to, such as building ovens, and manufacture of lithic tools. Production technology for pottery and metallurgy develops, and it appears for the first time real bronze(García Sanjuán 1996). Other mining regions experience a similar transformationin their production systems: Río Tinto (Pérez Macías 1995), Aznalcóllar, close tothe lower valley of Guadalquivir (Gómez et. al., 1994, Hunt 1995) and in areasnext to Algarve and Alemtejo (Hurtado and García Sanjuán 1996).

Burials show the first evidence of social distinction (silver furnishing in La

Parrita, tombs with architectonic differences in La Traviesa, cf. Pérez Macías1995, Hurtado and García Sanjuán 1996) and we see traces of copper and silveras furnishing, what leads us to think social division of labour was ratherdeveloped, and each production activity had its own social status. We must linkthe changes in the production system to the new exchange network, which fromnow on will link Southwest with Northern Atlantic and Middle Mediterranean(Ruiz Gálvez 1995), and probably also North Africa. The Ría de Huelva hoardcan be regarded as an example of it.

We do not have enough data to assure the existence of a complex society in themining area in Southwest, however, there is enough evidence to consider thatgroups which controlled mineral resources displayed a much more complexsocial organisation than the ones we find in the fishing settlements at the coast(Gómez et. al, 1994, Campos and Gómez 1995). Along south-western coast plain(Algarve, lower valley of Guadiana, lower valley of Guadalquivir), populationfocuses in the best farming and/or grazing land and keep aside from the area next

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


to the mouth of Guadiana. Populations are just little groupings with a lack ofevidences for social complexity and living in huts with simple functionalstructures (storage-pits, ovens) and without any fortification or control over

production area. Human groups were based on an economy of farming and

fishing , without great surplus or social storing, and living on the use of localresources, specially from the sea. Typical villages would be San Bartolomé deAlmonte, Las Beatillas, Campillo, El Pozancón and others.

Settlement in the middle and high Guadalquivir valley also show, a not permanent occupation, as we see in the simple huts and the lack of fortificationsin Carmona, Setefilla, Llanete de los Moros, Colina de los Quemados, Ategua,Torre Paredones and Puente Tablas. The production system is not intensive andgives importance to herding. However, the poor archaeological record should notmake us deduce the existence of an egalitarian and simple society. The existence

of a collection of Engraved Stelae showing anthropomorphic motives and prestige goods and symbols of power, such as swords, fibulae of Italian typology,war chariots, and weapons points out a society with a social elite over the rest ofthe population and who extracts power from the military struggle and the lootthey produce (Barceló 1989, Galán 1993). It is important to consider that thearchaeological record does not show the difference between peaceful exchange(“trade”) and war or banditry loot.

In Southwest signals of change generalise about 820 B.C. and show settlement

concentration on a few centres (Ruiz Rodriguez 1995). A large quantity of theformer simple villages were left, some others experienced transformations andnew centres arose. Although space is dwelt in a different way, settlements keepthe same features we had seen in the former periods. The abundance of sicklesand mills show the intensification of farming, but more important is thegeneralisation of metallurgical activities in all villages in the area, whatever theirdistance from the mining region: the examples are Peñalosa del Campo, SanBartolomé and Pozancón. All huts show evidence of metallurgical activities andsilver transformation, not copper, and we do not see any sign of social exclusion.However, not long afterwards, most of these villages will be left and new centresoccupied, which will be fortified for the first time: Niebla, Tejada la Vieja andAznalcóllar (Gómez et. al., 1994). Aznalcóllar will be the only one placed in amine, whereas Tejada and Niebla focus land control and access to the metalresources.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


Alongside this same period fortified villages based upon copper production wereleft (Trastejón, Chinflón) and new centres close to silver outcrops will appear.The settlement in Rio Tinto moves from Cerro de las Tres Aguilas into CerroSalomón, as a consequence of the concentration of the scattered population all

over the mining region. In this mining settlement we can see a most meaningfulchange : metallurgical activity takes place inside the mine (Cortalago) and thevillage becomes a dwelling and transformation workshop. Intensification on

production of this metal gives way to a change in the social division of labour,enhancing activity specialisation (and spacing) (Pérez Macías 1995:283). Thesame process took place in the mines of Tharsis, whose dwelling part remained inthe village placed on a height in Pico del Oro and the manufacture workshopsoccupied the lower ground of that hill (Pérez Macías 1995:285).

The decay of copper mining in the Southwest takes place at the same time as

metallurgical activities linked to silver production increase, so that we shouldinfer the existence of an outer demand with constant and high proportions. As the

production system in these new communities mostly depends on silver production, we suppose copper mining decayed as a consequence of the labourinvestments on silver production as copper could not find trading benefits onceiron metallurgy did come up (Rovira 1995: 397). For summarising, coppermetallurgy disappeared from most Southwest, due to the low production potentialof the copper mining centres, the little interest local centres had in manufacturing

bronze items and specially, because of the new outer demand, which was totally

different from the local one.

This transformation was the first consequence after the Atlantic-Mediterraneanexchange system changed. From then on, they would start a new linking with acolonial economy expanding from Eastern Mediterranean. When new Phoeniciancolonial factories where created on the Southern coast, local social relations of

production experienced both quantitative and qualitative transformations, whichended with the integration of native communities into a colonial economy ofouter control.

6. The last turn of the screw: the integration of local societies into a

permanent dependence structure. The Colonial System

Neither all native communities, nor all members within a group experienced asimilar integration into the colonial economy. This prevented the distribution ofexchange goods from colonial provenience (wheeled pottery, for instance) of

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


being homogeneous within the communities and inside a same community either(Aubet, Barceló and Delgado 1996). We regard then the lack of wheeled potteryas an evidence of the effect power relationships had (either outside or inside thegroup).

We see the rise of native centres with a strong colonial basis on the mouth of the biggest rivers: Huelva on the Tinto-Odiel estuary (Fernandez Jurado 1989), likelyCastro Marim, on the mouth of the Guadiana river, Castillo de Doña Blanca, inthe Bay of Cádiz, Sevilla, Carambolo, Lebrija, Evora and others in the Bay of theGuadalquivir river, where the native production system derives from the colonialone. This area, neighbour to the colonial system, will establish dependencerelationships with the native centres inside, and the production system willexperience a territorial division, which will divide centres of first ordermanufacturing prestige goods for the colonial market (integrating Phoenician

factories and native communities into an uneven exchange) from centres ofsecond order, which will provide sustenance goods, raw material and working

power. The new colonial system will be extraordinary complex because in thenative neighbourhood very different levels will be found depending on theirintegration into the colonial system, not due to their distance, but to their accessto the exchange and power network established by the native settlements withhigher profits from the colonial market. This way, some native centres far fromthe coast and decision and organisation colonial centres will be able to keepcontrol over some raw material the colonial market will be in great need of, and

will obtain high profits from this monopoly. We see this in the silver productionarea in the mountains of Huelva. But, in spite of the great importance of silver production for the new colonial economy, Phoenician colonisation meant muchmore than metal exchange, and we see groups placed far from the colonisingcentre in the middle and high valley of the river Guadalquivir controlling theirlocal resources and exchanging with the far colonial market over the native roads,subduing so their neighbour groups and becoming an independent politicalterritory, where from the 7th. Century B.C. onwards, a complex society will befounded.

7. From Patriarchs, Warriors and Bandits to Class Society

We must never regard the history of any society as a succession of 'frozen' phases. Neolithic society was not followed by a calcolithic society and this latterone did not 'collapse' at the end of its vital cycle. Any kind of human society is adynamic organism which suffers from a steady transformation because of the

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


everyday newly born tensions and contradictions, even though it can take themcenturies to appear in social and/or economical behaviour.

This paper intends to show the slow transformation the heterogeneous collection

of societies which lived in the Southwest Iberian Peninsula went through as aresult of the increasing social division of labour and the social inequality localgroups had. Social exchange changed and became more complex (from banditryto their integration in an international economical system with a colonial basis)and, at the same time, dependence and power relationships increased in extensionand intensity. The accumulation of social contradictions prevented traditionalsystems of decision making to work (see also Barceló 1992, Barceló 1995).

Social dynamics in the Southwest Iberian Peninsula during the period 3000 - 750BC. did not follow a linear 'progress' or evolution. It is not difficult to see the

growing complexity and the strength dependency and power relationships get, but this progress does not happen along a straight line. Not every settlement inthe Southwest experienced a similar evolution, but it depended on its localconditions and the way they interacted with other settlements.

Even when household is self-sufficient and social division of labour not muchdeveloped, societies are unequal. Production household units do not lack ofsurplus storage because of underdeveloped technology or not too much work

power, but because of their politics: labour does not buy social status. Due to this

fact, the nature of social power depends on the quantity, nature and intensity ofthe interaction any one or any group can keep outside their own local group.

Firstly, we must take into account 'violent' interaction, where the warrior or bandit tends to be interested in keeping his warlike status and hoards loot,enhancing thus his military triumph or creating alliances with members of hisown group or from the neighbour groups, and disregarding the control over

production economy. Military chieftainship does not mean a centralisedeconomical management, but the existence of a chieftain or war lord, who has to

be fed by the group whether in war or peace. The war lord and his followers donot have any other specified economical or political function than the need of

being fed and provided with weapons by the rest of the community. Asethnography shows, the quantity each domestic unit will give depends on its own

possibilities and it does not need a great investment in labour. When war lastsand turns into chronic struggle (true war or banditry), the Chieftain rises in

power: he will not control production, but he will be able to call up all men.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


However, chieftainship depends on success in war, what makes it a verycompetitive system and unreliable to maintain any power relationship. A new

process starts, where political power is institutionalised: there is struggle in orderto reach not only self prestige, but a determinate social function. It is not

important to be so more than someone else, but keeping this importance andreaching this sole function, which will give access to power. Population is kept between two opponents: firstly, social function tends to a centralisation in orderto ensure political control, and economical as well. Secondly, an unbalancedforce which comes straight from the competition the domestic groups struggle in,to keep their own power marks, which may allow them to avoid or hinder theaction of any domestic group with the centralising social function.

'Peaceful interaction' (exchanging goods and people) helps to build dependence,domination and power relationships. When social distance between social agents

in the interaction increases, exchange goods will be delivered back withdecreasing delay and every time it will be more difficult to keep a balance

between given and returned goods, what will give way to struggle. The biggerthe exchange network is, the more adaptable and less ritualised the interactionwill be, as it will stop being steadfast. Ownership of the desired prestige goodswill justify the interaction. Exchange relationships with outside will be differentfrom those inside the group, because they may be stored up (the more outsideinteractions someone makes, the more likely they will be, because profit will bereached in shorter time). The consequence is the increasing demand for

exchange goods. Domestic units which change their production and reproductionsystem according to the new situation, will control the interaction system and will prevent its access to other domestic units which have not changed. Dominationwill be kept inside the unit, which monopolises prestige goods and outsideinteraction. When monopolised, prestige goods rise in worth (their buying

becomes difficult and their are not owned by all the group members), whichsignifies a change: the item becomes as important as the relationship, so that thestoring from exchange goods from outside will be as important as having keptinteraction with outside groups.

Value in prestige goods changes because its use-value is taken on by itsexchange-value. When the traditional utility an item has gives way to itsconversion into an interaction symbol, it becomes less transferred and gains newself value in relation with the difficulty its acquisition means. The demand for

prestige goods rises in intensity and individuals and social groups will competefor their acquisition and storage. Relationships with outside change too. Any one

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


in possession of a prestige good may take part in them, not only community'representatives' (patriarchs). The investment of some quantity of labour and worktime in manufacturing precious goods becomes profitable. Labour must bereorganised and some activities left in order to focus all efforts in this production.

Domestic units will have to bring from outside everything they do not produceand dependence relationships between domestic groups will be established. Whensome domestic units leave an activity, we can understand it has been taken on byanother unit. Domestic groups keep now not only alliances, but produced goodsand even labour as well, in some cases when production process does not own a

particular unit of production.

Not all domestic units reach the same power. Some of them do not have enoughlabour power to face all their needs. Demographic pressure becomes a solvingmethod: quantity of sons and daughters in each family unit increases in order to

increase their labour power, reproduction capacity and political relationshipswithin the community (women exchange). The domestic units which adaptedtheir reproduction system to the new situation obtained more advantages than themore traditional ones. As each group adapts differently to the new social,economical and political circumstances, some of them will obtain greater politicalregard because they will make outside interaction more profitable, but this social

part will not become constant. Power resource is too weak and moody totransform prestige and primacy in political life in a constant coercion in theeconomical field. Moreover, domestic groups compete for the search of political

power, what prevents power exploitation: the system does not evolve towards a palace economy, where a single individual owns and controls all resources.

As soon as some resources become storable, competition for their control(political power) starts. This situation will just be possible when the demand for

prestige goods becomes constant, that is, when outside social agents keep askingfor the same items for the sake of political alliances. This is what happens withmetal (copper, iron, gold, silver), an item whose demand keeps constant and isused to increase the relationships with foreign groups: the need of certainmaterials forces a certain group to establish contact with the suppliers. Thesituation is, thus, different from the one we have been studying, where there is anincreasing demand for storable goods.

When the production system and the social relationships of production onoutside production systems become entailed, they give way to the intensificationof production, which is the cause of the breaking up of the traditional way of

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


organising the society. Firstly, this process takes place within a limited area(Southern Iberian Peninsula), but it expands and reaches an international sphere(Atlantic at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and later in the Mediterranean)and ends integrating a very complex colonial economy with its main focus in

Eastern and Central Mediterranean. This production was not intensified becauseof its own subsistence needs, but of the political needs local groups sufferedfrom. That is, production must be intensified and work processes otherwisestructured in order to feed a new political structure. Some labour will be investedin political activities outside the domestic unit. So, we can understand that

production is not intensified in order to increase the quantity of goods (surplusstorage), but to make amends for the quantity of work the centralisation of

political activities require.

When colonial market suddenly appears in this local system of group interaction,

the political system will have to be newly built. A colonizer is interested inincreasing the acquisition of exchange goods, what will lead him to accept anexchange with all population able to produce these goods. A single domesticunit will never find it easy to meet the needs of the colonial market, evendisposing of a great working power on the manufacturing of these goods. Thenature of Social Power changes. The quantity of goods natives receive fromcolonisers will depend on the quantity of exchange goods they produce. There isnow a new quantitative relationship among the goods themselves, which willchange the nature of the exchanged goods value. We can now understand the

importance colonial market gives to the perishable prestige goods: wine, clothes,food, etc. Natives are forced to a constant renewal of their interaction withcolonisers, transforming the native market for prestige goods and producing ahuge increase in the movement of goods in both directions. Prestige items

become goods because of the value they have themselves, and not only becauseof the social relationship they give way to. This merchandising does not onlytake place between natives and colonisers, but it will leave brand in therelationships natives have among themselves. These relationships amongdomestic groups will not tend to rise in prestige, but to the acquisition of a greaterquantity of exchanged goods, which will enable the acquisition of a greaterquantity of colonial goods. The resource of prestige will be now the total quantityof items received from the social interaction with colonisers. Wealthaccumulation becomes a certain social behaviour and some domestic units willfind profit when developing the specialised work processes colonial marketrequires, and which did no find use within the local group.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


When a non-market economy is integrated within a colonial economy, thequantity of work on their own sustenance decreases and it is focused on the

production of exchangeable surplus. But not all domestic units and communitiescan compete the same way. The only people who can exchange, are those who

produce exchange goods. This production will depend on the total quantity ofwork the domestic unit of production has available and the quantity of work notimmediately required by sustenance. People traffic (non specialised workers andcraftsmen) becomes even as important as exchange goods traffic. The mostimportant domestic groups rise in power and gather people because of the controlthey keep on working power and surplus traffic. Land moving increases too,

because native communities with more profits from colonial economy attractnative surplus of working power. Native settlements will contract workers fromnon colonised areas, the same as colonisers have already done.

Social dynamics become different because the lack of balance between domesticgroups relies on production criteria and for the first time keeps aside fromkinship or social and political links. There is a new dependence relationship

between domestic units, and it will structure power relations, not only because of politics, but of economics too. The accumulation of colonial and exchange goodsfor the colonial market becomes a matter of fact because the usual work in thedomestic unit is not enough for the new situation demands. Individuals who

belonged to the main group in their own right, must now compete with otherindividuals willing to reach the same power marks. Although their previous

circumstances of power -quantity of their political linking inside and outside thecommunity - have not disappeared, do not prove to be enough in front of the offercolonisers provide, who give a much greater quantity of prestige goods thannative groups did.

Notes

(1) All dates are given as C-14 calibrated dates, following the Stuiver-PearsonCurve. For up-to-date information about Iberian dates, see Castro, Lulland Micó 1996.

References.

ARTEAGA,O., MUÑOZ, J.R., ROOS, A.M., NOCETE, F., 1991, “Balance a medio plazo del ‘ProyectoPorcuna’”. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía. 1991. vol. II., pp. 295-301

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


ARTEAGA,O., SCHULZ,H.D., ROOS, A.M., 1995, “El problema del ‘Lacus Ligustinus’. Investigacionesgeoarqueológicas entorno a las marismas del guadalquivir”. En Tartessos, 25 años después (1968-1993). Actas delCongreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez. pp., 63-85

AUBET,M.E., 1997, “A propósitos de una vieja Estela” Saguntum. No. 30 pp. 163-172

AUBET, M.E. SERNA, M.R., ESCACENA, J.L., RUIZ-DELGADO, M.M., 1983, La Mesa de Setefilla. Lora del Rio (Sevilla). Campaña de 1979. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, No. 122.

AUBET, M.E., BARCELO, J.A., DELGADO, A. 1996 “Kinship, Gender and Exchange: The Origins ofTartessiant Aristocracy”. UISPP, XIII Congress, Forlì (Italy).

BARCELO, J.A., 1989, Arqueología, Lógica y Estadística. Un Análisis de las Estelas Decoradas de la Edad del

Bronce en la Península Ibérica. Bellaterra, UAB Press.

BARCELO, J.A., 1992, “Una Interpretación Socioeconómica de la Edad del Bronce en en Sudoeste de la península Ibérica”, Trabajos de Prehistoria, vol. 49, pp. 245-289

BARCELO, J.A., 1995, “Sociedad y Economía en el Bronce Final Tartésico”. En Tartessos, 25 años después

(1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez., pp.441- 463.

BORJA,F., 1995, “Paleogeografía de las Costas atlánticas de Andalucía durante el Holoceno Medio-Superior.Prehistoria Reciente, Protohistoria y fases recientes. En Tartessos, 25 años después (1968-1993). Actas delCongreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez., pp. 55-62.

CAMPOS,J., GOMEZ,F., 1995, “El territorio onubense durante el Bronce Final”. En Tartessos, 25 años después

(1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez., pp.101-142.

CARDENETE, R., et al., 1992., “Excavaciones arqueológicas de urgencia en el solar de la Plazuela de Lasso, s/n.Carmona, Sevilla” Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía ‘90. vol. III., pp. 563-574.

CASTRO,P., LULL,V., MICÓ,R., 1996., Cronología de la prehistoria Receiente de la Península Ibérica y

Baleares (c. 2800-900 cal.ANE) . BAR International Series, S652). Oxford.

CHAPMAN, R., 1990, Emerging Complexity. The later prehistory of south-east Spain, Iberia and the west

Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press.,

CHAPMAN,R., 1995, “Urbanism in Copper and Bronze Age Iberia?”. En Social Complexity and the development

of towns in Iberia. Edited by B.Cunliffe and S. Keay. London: The British Academy. pp. 5-21.

CRUZ-AUÑON,R., MORENO,E., CACERES,P., 1992, “Registros de la expresión poblacional durante el IIIMilenio en Andalucía Occidental”. Spal vol., 1, pp., 125-149.

DIAZ-ANDREU, M., 1995a, “Late Prehistoric Social Change in the Southern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula”.En The origins of complex societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia. Edited by K.T. Lillios. Ann Arbor: InternationalMonographs in Prehistory (Archaeological Series, 8), pp. 97-120

ESCACENA, J.L., BELEN,M., 1992, “Las comunidades pre-rromanas en Andalucóa Occidental” Complutum,vol. 2-3, pp., 65-88.

FEODOROFF,N., COURTY,M.A., 1995, “Le rôle respectif des facteurs anthropiques et naturels dans ladynamique actuelle et passée des pausages méditerranéens. cas du bassin de Vera, sud-est de l’Espagne”.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


L’Homme et la dégradation de l’environment. Xvème Rencontre d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes. EditionsAPDCA, Juan-les-Pins. pp. 115-142

FERNANDEZ CANTOS,A., 1996., La simbología del poder en ls necrópolis tartésicas. M.A. Thesis. UniversitatPompeu Fabra. Barcelona.

FERNANDEZ JURADO, J., 1989, Tartessos y Huelva. Huelva Arqueologica. Diputación de Huelva.

GALAN, E., 1993, Estelas, Paisaje y Territorio en el Bronce Final del Suroeste de la peninsula Ibérica. Complutum vol. Extra No. 3. Universidad Complutense, Madrid.

GARCIA SANJUAN,L., 1994, “Registro funerario y Relaciones sociales en el SO (1500-1100 a.n.e): indicadoresestadísticos preliminares”. Arqueología en el entorno del bajo Guadiana. Huelva: Grupo de InvestigaciónArqueológica del patrimonio del Suroeste., pp. 209-238.

GARCIA SANJUAN, L., 1996, Un análisis de los orígenes de la Estratificación Social en la Prehistoria del

Suroeste de la Península Ibérica. La Edad del Bronce (c. 1700-1100 a.n.e/2100-1300 A.N.E) en la Estribación

Occidental de Sierra Morena. PH.D. Dissertation. Universidad de Sevilla.

GILMAN, A., 1987, “Unequal development in Copper Age Iberian”. In Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K. (eds),Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press. pp., 22-29.

GILMAN, A. THORNES,J. 1985, Land use and Prehistory in Southeast Spain. London: Allen & Unwin.

GOMES, M.V., et al. 1986, A Necropole de Vinha do Casao (Vila Moura, Algarve) no Contexto da Idade Do

Bronze do Sudoeste Peninsular. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Num. 2. Lisboa.

GOMEZ,F., CAMPOS,J., BORJA,F., CASTIÑEIRA,J., GARCIA RINCON, J.M., 1994, “Territorio y ocupaciónen la Tierra llana de Huelva. El poblamiento de la Edad del Bronce”. En Arqueología en el entorno del bajo

Guadiana. Huelva: Grupo de Investigación Arqueológica del patrimonio del Sudoeste., pp., 329-350.

GONÇALVES, V.S., 1995, Sitios, “Horizontes” e Artefactos. Leituras críticas de realidades perdidas. Cascais:

Câmara Municipal.

HUNT, M.A. 1995, “El foco metalúrgico de Aznalcóllar, Sevilla. Técnicas analíticas aplicadas a laArqueometalugia del Suroeste de la península Ibérica.” En Tartessos, 25 años después (1968-1993). Actas delCongreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez. pp. 201-215

HURTADO,V., 1995, “Panorama de la Investigación regional”. En El Calcolítico a debate. Reunión de

Calcolítico de la peninsula Ibérica. Sevilla 1990. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Cultura.

HURTADO,V., GARCIA SANJUAN, L. 1996 “Los inicios de la jerarquización social en el Suroeste de la península Ibérica (c. 2500-1700 a.n.e). problemas Conceptuales y empíricos”. Saguntum (in press)

KUNST, M., 1995, “Central Places and Social Complexity in the Iberian Copper Age”. En The origins of complex

societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia. Edited by K.T. Lillios. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory(Archaeological Series, 8), pp. 32-43.

LOPEZ PALOMO, L.A., 1993, Calcolítico y Edad del Bronce al Sur de Córdoba. Estratigrafía de Monturque. Córdoba: Publicaciones del Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Córdoba.

LOPEZ REY,N., 1994, “Armas inéditas de las Edades del Cobre y del Bronce en el Museo de Priego”. Antiquitas No. 5, pp., 22-32.

8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


8/12/2019 Mainz.pdf


VICENT,J., 1995, “Early Social Complexity in Iberia: Some theoretical remarks”. En The origins of complex

societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia. Edited by K.T. Lillios. International Monographs in Prehistory(Archaeological Series, 8).Ann Arbor, Michigan. pp. 177-183.

Documents

Mainz.pdf