JOAN BERNABEU AU BÁN*
The social and symbolic context of Neolithization
Recel/fly l /ulI'e lIrg/led ,l/lIt rhe spread 01 Neo/i,hic 1I'¡,lún r/¡e Iberian Pellimulll. u'as a mixed re!ilIlr uf (/ paniclllar kil/(I oJ demic spread lIJe (/(XlllflfrllliOIl o/rile Mesalit"ie slIb.nralulII. T!Ji!; implies lO accepl sO!/le ki"d 01 regiollal mriabilily ill lile h'ay ,he fiml/in8 lijesryle II'(lS spread. /IIol'il/g1rolll Colol/i~afiol/ 10 AcculwraliOIl. I r is ¡hese lare ¡JO!;sibiliry l/un I will go /O explore;1I rhe III1.H pages. IIsil/g ceramic (l1/(11i,/¡ic: Wlriabilily as (1 IH/J ro Imdeniwnd 1/011' ,he ;lIIeracúVII berll'eell Neolirhic (l1/l1 Mesolirhic grollps roke place. (/1/(/
Key Words: Neo/i,hic· Me:soli,h¡c. Imeraclioll. Ibedall Pellil/sl/!a.
1. O VERVIEW Reccnt ly (Bernabeu, 1996. 1999), I have arguecl tha! Ihe sprcad of Ncolithic within lhe Westcrn Meditcrranean, and parli cularJy wi lhin Ihe fbcrian Peninsula, was a mixc{1 result of a particular k ind of demic s pread and Ih e acc ultu ralion of Ihe Meso fi th ic substratum as a resul! of Iheir mutual inIcraclion. This implics 10 accepl sorne ki nd o f reg io nal variabilily in Ihe way Ihe farm ing I¡feslyle was spread. In short. Ihese vari alion s are: - Co lonizal ion, Ihe resu lt of lhe expans ion and occ upalíon of new lands by farm ing g roups, From Ihe very beginning, inleraclion bctween agriculturali st and Mesolilhic local hunter-gathcrcrs would have differenl kind of processes. Assimifmioll wOllld be. in sorne cases, Ihe consequence of il. This imp lies Ihe disappearance of Meso lithi c g ro ups and lhei r tradilions, bul nol thei r genes, when women, as wives, join the ex panding fanning groups, - From a log ica l sla ndpoint, a differcnl kind of assimilal ion is probable : Mesolilhic groups come lo assimilatc ne\\'COlll crs, beeoming both farmers and slock breeders (Z ilh ao 1997:38). - However, in ol her cases, Neolit hi zal ion have occ urred, thm is Mcsoli lhi c groups adopting the fa rrni ng way of life wh il e maintaining thei r own idcnlity as social gro ups. It is Ihis possib ilil y Ihat I \Vi II go lO explore ncx l. I Cons ider Iwo main sce narios:
- Di rect Neolithization . Whcn, in the agricu ltu ral borderland. th e interaclion processes belwee n fanners and hunters-gathcrers wi ll lead lo Ihe neolithizalion ofl lle latler. Rcgard less of Iheir peculiarities (sec Zvclebil and Ulua, 2(x)() for Ihe description of differcnl in teraction processes). ils importance lies in Ihe fael Ihat it will probably ael as a filler, sclecling informarion which ", ill be di ssemi nalcd amo ng Mesol il hic groups bcyond Ihe border. - Indiree l Neol ithi zatio n. The spread of Neolilhic tech!liques and economy Ihroug h soc íal nel"'o rks ",i thin Mesol ithic g roups. Thi s proeess de ve lops beyond the ag ricultura! border, and may be considered as a derivalían of the previous one. [n Ihese lalter cases, Ihe spread of agricullure was Ihc rcsull of adapling, by Mesol ithic groups, the !lew tcchnologica l and econom ic innovations inlrod uced by Ihe expa nding Neolil h ic ones. We can ass ume accultllration as a proce ss Ih rollgh which farming and hcrding come 10 changc Ihe economíc foundations of hunling and galhering sys lcms in the Late Meso Jithi c. From this pcrspeclive. there are two cruc ial qucstions, wh ich descrve an analylica l. separale revie",. although Ihey are presented as corre lated at the end, a. How 10 ex plain unde r \Vhat c ircull1stanccs the falter are like ly lo adopl lhe farming and herding subsistence syslem and 1101 to be ass imil aled or s llbmitted 10 an
'" Dcpartamcnt de Prehi storia i d'Arqueologia. Ulli vers itat de Valencia. Blasco Ibáfiez, 28. 46010 Valencia. E-ma il:
[email protected]
209
JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN
increas ing rnarginalization process. Thi s req ui res an llnderslanding of Ihe logic 01' Neolithic ancl Mcsolilhie sys!erns in caeh case. I c1 iscuss th is aspeel firsl (seclion 11 ). My aim here is o nl y lO emphasize sorne soc ial or economic aspects lhal I consider relevanl for Ihe problem lInder analysis. b. Ho\V to recognize lhe difl'ercnl possibilities describecl in the previous seclio n in !he record: i.e. how 10 distin g ll is h between Ihe differe nl poss ibl e hisl o rical spreading processcs or fa rming. Thu s. a n empi ri cal model must be devcloped 10 assess the record. I d iscuss il in Sections 111 and IV. The assumplions oflhe Dual MocIel. and the carly resu lts 01' its applieati on lo the Medi terranean Spain are discussed in Seclion 111. 1 have already presen led this part sornewhcre elsc (Bernabcu, 1996 , 1997). so 1 wi ll give a shorl aecounl of it here deliberme ly. Seclion IV is the longes!. amI d isc usses Ihe ceramic vari ability and the rock art from lhe oUllined perspec live of Ihe model. Expand ing and qualifying my carly views ( Bernabe u, 1999), I suggest thal Ihe slyl istic variab ility of cera mics and rock art are besl underslood if \Ve cons ider Ihat ass imilati on was nOI lhe onl y resul! oflhe interacli on process between Neolithic and Mesolithic grOllps.
2. THEORETlCAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT A COMPLEX PROC ESS 0ne of Ihe main criticism IOwards Ihe migration model s is thm wha l.is s pread is not a syslem (the farm in g way of life) bUl sorne lech nica l innovat ion s (e.g. pOllery. domestic animals and plants) th al are introduced in local nelworks 01' Ihe Mesolit hic hunter-ga lherers; Ihi s will be the case in lhe recenl Lewthwhite 's fil ler proposa l or in Vice nt 's ( 1997) review 01' il. From Ihi s sta nd poin!. th e fi rst Neo lilhic in Ihe Iberian Peninsul a see rn s 10 lack sorne of Ihe features of the so ca Ilcd "Neo li thic Revo lution". e.g. sedentariness, Iha! are recorded some lime arter pottery and domeslic s appe ared . As 1 po inled out somewhcrc cisc ( Bern abcu. 1996), Ihe lack of Ihese e lements in Ihe record is mainly Ihe res ull 01' a certain research Irend. which is directed particularly to caves. We musl acknowlcdge. howcver. tha! a pan of Ihe previous argumcnt s lies in a thcorel ical question: wha! should be understood as Neoli lhie. and more prcei se ly. what its translalion to tlle case of lhe Iberian Penínsul a is. Ulllíl no\\!. suppOI1ers oí' Ihe migralionist mode l. likc myself, llave avo id ed to define what kind of economic and socia l syslem has occurred in Ihe lherian Peninsu la, and hence what kind 01' empirical evidences can be expcclecl lO be found in the archaeological record al Ihe timc whcn pOlle ry and domeslies are firsl fOllnd .
210
2./ . THE NEOUTJJ/C
To brieOy sum IIp. from the proposal s of other rescarchers (Testa rt. [982: Vieent , 1990; Plog. 1990) one cou ld say th al the Neoli th ic Revo lution is fi rsl of all a combi nat ion of economic and soc ial changes thal allows the developmell l of in c rcasing socia l inequalil ies retlcc led in !he negat ive rec iprocity in both intergroupa l and intragroup inleractions. Negative reprocity among groups seems 10 be re lated to an inereasi ng terrilo ri ality. Territori alily. as an excl usive appropriation for one group 01' il s procluction means in th is case Ihe farmi ng land derives from the necessity to claim Ihe righ l of an exclusive use 01' land as the on ly way to ensure (he reproductio n of Ihe cconom ic cycJe. Just for that. Ihe appearance of Ihe firsl necropoli coi ncides wil h Ihi s momenl and as such they are interpreted as an ex pression ofthe grollp claim of ils vindi cal ion 01' Ihe land over general io ns. Nonelhc less, lerrit ori ality is nOl only cosl ly because of ils mainlenance. but it also has an economic risk as il reduces Ihe inlergroupal reeiprocity. JU SI for thal , il is poss ibl e lo expect the crealion and development 01' wider socia l nelwork s. more slruclured Ihan before: rnarriage or ceremonial ¡nterchange (Plog. 19CX». Consequently. terri toriality lends 10 bu ild a stylistic variation combin ing Ihe local iden tily and the di sseminal ion of some otller lrait s over wider regions. Olle o r the most oUlslanding consequences of agriculture rni ghl be a bigger co ncen trar ion of Ihe ri sk it implic s, as 01'poscd 10 hu nter-gatherer systems. In absence of mobi lily. ¡hese syslems race Ihe !;sk by increasing the amounl of storage. which. at the sa mc time, produces a greater degree of sedentariness. which is ref1ccted in bigger investments 01' no mobi le socia l tasks. As il has been po inted ou t, storage itself breaks the rules 01' sharing and redistribulion. which leads 10 lin k agricultural su rpluses wilh Ihe origin 01' soc ial inequality (Vicent. 1990). In Sh0l1. il cou ld be sa id Ihat Ihi s process leads to Ihe eslabli shment 01' a corporalive graup thal c laims an exclusive use of land upon the g ro lln d. and in wh ich Ihe appropriation of the produel seems 10 be long 10 Ihe producer. whi le th al of lile mean S of prod uction belongs 10 the group. Indeed . a ll these deve loprnenl s are res ult from a long process. Th e migrmio nisl hYPolh es is aSSllmes thal lhe Neol ithic g roups belonging to Ihe " Imp ressed Med ilerra nea n Wares" were Neolilh ic from Iheir deparlure in lhe East. There is IWO models whieh suggesl an al temative aceounl 01' Ihe spread in g 01' these realures: Ihe Wave of Advance Model (WA) (Amme rman & Cavalli Sforza . 1984) and the Marit ime Pioneer Colonizatioll (MPC) (Zi lh Jo. 1993 . 1997). Th e first model underslands this sp read in g rnovement wilhin lhe cOlllmon 10\V sente migralionist paramelers in primilive soc iclies. Thi s situalion would result in a conlinuolls displacemen! in time and s pace . Th e second model impl ies a ra ster spread. which is conlinuous in lime and di scont inuou s
THE SOCIAL AND SYMBOLlC CONTEXT OF NEOLlTHIZATlON
in space, requiring a different understand ing from the arguments in the Wave of Advance model. Fol lowing other researchers (Ozdogan, 1995),1 guess that Ihe explílnation of this lalter movcment should be underslood as a reactionlresistance facing an increasing concentration 01' soc ial power reac hed by sorne groups in the Middl e East, or facing the devcloprnent of inequali ly, wh ích is the sarne thing. Ozdogan suggests tha! Ihe crisis 01' the PPNB was rnainly a response to social confl icts derived from an excessive concentratíon of power, illustrated jn the construction of temples, and in atl itlcreasing soc ial inequa lity during ¡he PPNB. Con sequent ly, the movement of dispersion/expansion seems lo have started during Ihe PPNC (ca. 8200 BP). Whether or not this particular change is responsiblc for Ihe Neolilhic expansion through ¡he Medilerranean, 1 think Ihat this kind of sociíll factors can bener explain why the process developed so fast. I agree with Bender ( 1990) regarding the possibi lities thal agricu lture offers to resist , by means of migration, the development of lhe social inequality thal an agricultural system implies, In this respect, \Ve should poinl out the peculiarity of the Mediterranean Neo lithic subsistence system, where lhe incorporatíon of domestic animals (sheep , goats, pigs and cattle) ensures a source ofmeat, which allo\Vs to face situalions of agricultural crisis. This characteristic, Ihe pred ictability 01' resources, rostered a successfu l expa nsion 01' lhe syslem, allowi ng a belter adaptal ion to new locations. Thus, \Ve may reasonably assume that this expans ion was a stcp back in tenns ofthe development of social inequality, and , conseq uenlly, a change in Ihe previously described characterislics, Ihose tha! can be clearly related lo the growth 01" the soc ial ineqllality, as labor force mobilization or \Vealth concentration. The prev ious analys is does not attempt to establish a list of specific characlerislics of Ihe Neol ilhic, bUI it pe rmits 10 reach sorne conc lusions abolll Ihe lrai ts Ihat should be present in the archaeological record of the Iberian Early Neolithic: a) Sedentariness: long term villages, strllctured around househo lds lhal control the slored prod uct (storage, oven); they should present a series 01' facilities as a consequence of the deadlock of Ihe soc ial work needed to reproduce the occllpation 01' a place, as a guarantee of the reprodllction of the prod uctive cycle (Vicent, 1990) b) Terri toria lity in lhe se nse of an appropr iation of the Means of Prodllction by the local group: presence of necropoli (or formal disposa l arcas); cercmonial networks of exchange over long distances. 2.2. THE M ESOUTHIC
The Late Mesolithic in Medilerranean Spain , is named Geornetric Mesolilhic, accordingly with the shape of Iheir mOSI characterist ic lithics, Technological changes in ils producüon have been lIsed to defi ne chronological stages (vide infra) .
One decade ago most of tlle Mesol ithic sites known in the Iberian Peninsula \Vere either in Ihe Portuguese coast or in the central Med iterranean Spain. To date , TlCW research projec ls have allowed to idcntify this Geometric Mesolilhic in the \Vhole Iberian Peninsula (Ulrilla el al., 1998) but the Cantabrian coast (wherc othe r kincl 01" lithic assemblages are documented: Asturian, post-Azilian) and the Meseta (\Vhere Late Mcsolilhic sites huven', been doc ll mented yet). Only a few open-air site have been docu mented , some in the Northern area (e.g. Pareko La nda , Cantabrian Coast) and othcr in the South (e.g. El Collado, Va lencia). Moslly Ihere are either on Ihe coast or close to inland waters. Maybe the most interestí ng case is El Collado. Ihis sile shows an adapt ion process similar to Portuguese shell -midden. 1 \Vant to rernark thar in here a necropo li of single buri als have been excava led. In opposit ion 10 \Vhat happens in Portuga l, in the Spanish MediterTanean area, marilime oriented adaplations has no future : dates from El Collado, Tossal de la Roca, and La Falguera, a1l of thcrn localed in Ihe northern part of Alacant, where later on time \Ve assist to the development of the Cardia l-Impressed Ware -Cendres group-, show that the system have collapsed by c, 7000 BP. Stratigraphical series show the same process, in Ihe area there aren 't levels dated on lhe recenl prepottery phase. Why (his occurred is still an open qllest iotl, Other inland groups (fig; 2) are par! of a conti nental resources orie nted syslcm. These are the ones that seem to establish conlac! with Neolithic groups , in this \Vay the hall of pottery phases it is based, in Ihe Medile rranean coast 01' Iberia , in a I"orager system where is no evidence of delayed use ofresources and where rnobility (aggregation-dispers ion cycles) is still high. In these conlext, the prod uct and the meatlS 01' production are supposed lo be part of a co ll ective ap propríation . Nevertheless, Ihis slatement should be qualified, Testart (1985: 65 -73) defines a Mode o f Production prescnt among so me hunting-gathering socielies with no storagc, and charac terized by an individual appropriation: the worker appropriates the final product, whi le Ihe Means of Production (the land ) are ow ned by Ihe group. While this fact cou ld be further d iscussed given Ihe \Videspread presence of sharing and redistribution rules, it is not less true Ihal such ru les do not apply lo all kind 01' products, particularly among those ¡hat ha ve a prior investment of work, This is a very interesting point, as it permils to think thal in the margi ns of some hunter-galherer societies \Ve can find some \Vays of production that clearly resemble the Neolithic ones , leav ing aside the rules of sharing and redistribution. One could imagine thal ¡he intemction process bet\Veen the Neolithic and Ihe Mesolithic might foster those social rclations hips deriv ing from these marginal means of production , eventually bri ngi ng the m closer to ¡hose of farming and herding groups.
211
JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN
1.3. THE /NTERACT/ON
Thc aboye descr ibcd c haracteristics, togethe r with the higher capac ity of the fannin g system lO spread and Ihe high. er poten tial of its demographic g rowth. reduces the rcsult of such interact ion to three possible answers: Assimi lmion. Mar· gina li zati on and Neolithization . Thin king in Ihe poss ibi lity of cae h one of those opli o ns becoming rea l. No\\!, I \Voul d cmphasis the Neolithization case, meaning as such the process in vo lvin g Meso lith ic groups th at fina ll y adopt the agricul · tural ist way of life witho ut loos ing is soc ial identity. The poss ibi lity of avoid ing ass imi lation or gro\\!i ng mar· gi na lization cou ld on ly be raeed if the respon se of lhe Mcso lithi c g roup included an im itation of sorne praetices 01" the Neolithie groups, e .g. adopting domesticated resources ando consequent ly, Iransfonni ng their mode of producti on. Thi s decision , howe ver, means a hi ghly dramali c change in the li festyle and sllbsiste nce of Mesol ilhic groups in Ihe Spani sh Mcditerranean as defillcd aboye. Consequenl ly, il seems difficult to ass ume that ac ti ons ai med at modi fy in g subsistencc sys lems. if they appear. are se lected in the be· ginn ing. It is more like ly that th ose dec isio ns are taken (or eve ntuall y certain praeti ces are e hosen) wh ich tend 10 pre serve. apparent ly at least. traditional lifeslyles. Conl ac ts between groups co uld possibly have bee n eoopcrat ive al fi rst. as Zvelebil (1996) suggests. but they had to be compel iti ve earl ier rather than lale!". An opportun ist use of land . free access to sources of raw materials and a unidi rec· tional moverne nl ofwomen · fro m Mesolithi e lO Neoli th ic groups· (Zvclebil. 1996: Cava ll i· Sforza, 1996) would miJkc initial co·opera!ion a threi.U to the lon g·term subsiste nce of Mesolithic groups . Con sequelllly, \Ve may reasonably suppose that com petiti ve beha viors will appear between these grou ps. Assuming thal , at first, th is does nol affect Ihe economie do. mai n. o ne may expecl illo ill nuence the social and symbolic one, promoting the deve!opmenl of material items as a means of avoiding disruplive tendencies (promoling social identity and rank). Decorated potlel)' anel rock art could play this role. In oth· el" words. those changcs reslIl ti ng fmm interaetion sccm to move to the social and ideological contex t first. Their effects ca n be reduced to an incrcasing telTitoriality (group idcntity) and ceremonialislll , whieh promotes changes in social rclationships. In Ihis regard. it sho uld be Iloted that a trend lowards eco· !lo mic spcc ia lization sho uld be o bserved along with the so· eial changcs. with a defell'Cd use of sorne traditional resources. The role played by resources whi eh prev iou sly were rare or underva lued in the arehaeo logica l reco rd. e .g. honey, ancl whose potential for exehange wi th the other Neolithie groups has been poi nted ou t in other si milar ci rcum stances (M utun · duo 1999). must not be undcrva lued. O., the o ther hand . hon ey has a lso anoth er inle resti ng charac teri stie: it needs some prio r investment of \Vork to ob·
212
tain results; bcsides, it could be stored. Consequently, il can be expecled thal hOlley escapes fro m the rules of sharing and redistribu tion. that Ihe produet \Viii be o\Vned by the producer and able to ge nerate tClTitorial bchavior (appropriation oC the telTitories where beehives are kept). The presenee 01' seenes of peop le gathe ring hOlley in the Levantin e Rock Art seems to suggcsI th at honey slI pplies eou ld pla y an importan t role in the transronnation of Ihe Meso lithi e socia l re lations. To sum up. th e firsl effect ofthe interaetio n process will be a period of deep changes, whose signs. whilc be ing clear· Iy ideological (affeet ing mainl y symboli sm). reOee l soc ial changes whosc long-lerm effects will fac il itale a change in the subsistence system. Thc de vel opl11en t of an specifie sys· tem in ce rami c decorations and Ihe emc rgi ng of lhe Le va n· tine Rock Art are th e most evidenl signs of th is process. Assurning the ex plained historieal process. our main prob· lcm now is to define the archaeologiea l variables allowing us lO pred ict and co ntrast Ihe hYPo lhes is. In o lher words. we should be able lO d ifferentiale trai ts left by both ki nd of COIlllll llni ties in Ihe archaeological record. Otherwisc. it woul d mean to renou nee 10 know the historical conlinge ncy th at. in o ur reg ion. ca n ex plain Ihe forms of evo luti o n and soci al change al lhe lime of Ihe fa rming sprcad.
3. THE D UA L MODEL
Most of lhe arguments used 10 eval uate the migration ist hYPolhes is are based on anthropologica l or ONA analys is, the results of whieh , however, are Il O! wi th out problcrns. Thc debate 011 the Portuguese case is hi ghly illustrative (Zi lh ao 1997; Lube ll el al. , 1994 ; Jackes el al.. 1997) I do not share the pessimism of those who ass ume that the arehaeological record is unable 10 dec id e properly be· tween th e ass umptions aboye (Ca va ll i·Sforza. 1996: 52). Mi gratio nisl hypoth csis is sound eno ug h 10 assume th at, give n these conditions. archaeological reco rd would kee p stable. The settl ement of fanners in a new area mus! be visible throu gh a rchaeo logieal va ri ables. as Ih e lec hno lo gy and style of malerial c ulture , or the subsi stenee and sellle· men t palterns. The dual model providcs a definition of the record. which shou ld be cxpected in a hypothctica l area where an interac· lion between col ithic farm ing groups and Ihe rema ining Late Meso ti thie ones takes place. I have already diseussed the moclel al1(l its resu lls at length somewhere clse (Bemabeu. 1996, 1997), so I wi ll g ive only a short aceou nt of it hcre . 3./. TIlE MODEL
Gi ven that the spread of the Neo lit hic in vo lvcd a joinl dissemin ation of lec hnical (pottery) and eeono mic (domes·
THE SOCIAL AND SYMBOLlC CONTEXT OF NEOLlTHIZATlON
licatcd ) fea lurcs , fi rsl I use Ihe e merge nce of poltery as Ihe turning poin l in organiz ing Ihe arc haeo logical record in Ihree phases: M O DEL PI-I ASE O It includes Ihe phases immediately prior 10 lhe emergence of )Xlttery. Subsistence, lechnology and settlemenl will define a systc m (p re-ce r~lIni c Mesolithic) which will be laken as a point of reference when comparing ¡hese factors wilh Ihose in phase l. M ODEL PI-I AS E 1 Whcn the firs t pottcry appears, \Ve must find two groups of sett lements showi ng: a) a d iffcrent territorial pattern; b)" d ifferent subsistence systcm. measured as Ihe Ievel of dcpc ndency of domcsliealcs and e) a d iffere nl techÍ'lOlogical syslcm. O ne of them could be related to Ihe Pl-e-cemmie Mesol ithic: Ihey sc tt led Ihe same si les in nearl y the sa me regions as earl ie r. in pre-ceram ic limes; Iheir subsistence was based upo n wil d resources. and thei r lec hnology and slyle eould be re latee! 10 Ihe fo nne r. This is the Mesolithic Com plex. The othcr o ne wi ll show a prefere nce 10 seu le new si tes. in e! ifferen t reg ions frorn the earlier o nes; lheir subs isten ce is base d upon a mixed farmin g- herd in g syste m; and, fin all y. tee hno logy will show a break-off in relat ion to pre-ceram ic siles. This is lhe Neo lithic Compl ex. MODEL PI-I ASE 2 Whcn the dua l subs iste nce pattern such as the o ne described in phase I can not be d istinguished any longer. Probably. if assimilation was not lhe on ly resul! 01' the interaction processcs bctween farrners and hu nle rs. Ihen we ex pecl 10 fi nd a terri to ria l patte rn very sim ilar to Ihal described earlier, but ¡¡ffect ing onl y sorne cu ltura l traits (slyli st ic varial ion). Bricny. Ihe model looks like Zil hao's proposa l in Po rtuga l (Z il hoo. 1997, 2001): fi rst arrivi ng Neo lilhic groups inslalled Ihemse lves in no inhabited areas produc ing a territorial panern e han\eterized by exclu sio n. Thi s exclusion will show up in styli stic i.ln d tec hno logical tradi tions as we ll as in subs istenee 1110dels. Interactio n processes between both kind of grou ps would prod uce e ither assim ilation or neo lithization of the Meso li th ic ones. On ly in the lalter we can cxpec t a territorial pattern iden ti ca l 10 the previous olle in th e same regions, bul eo nstrainl to some sty li stic and tech nological traditions. It is in Ihi s po int where my mode l diffcrs from Zilhoo 's. 3.2. FIR ST t:M PIRICA L EVALUA Tl ON: Ll TIIICS AND OOMESTlC HESOURCES
Using the variables of lithic tec hnology ane! subs istence eCOl1omy (domestic resou rces) in a peA analysis. Ihe layers of Ihe best known siles of Mediterranean Spain have been di-
vided il1lO fi ve groups (fi g.l) represent ing only two archaco logical entities (Bcrnabeu. 1996. 1999) - Groups ! to 4 rcpresen tt he Geomelric Comp lex. It is lh e on ly wi th pre-ceramic phases, and th us it is eonsidercd to be the archaeo logica l en tity representing lhe evolution of the Mesolithi c. G I and G2 represenl Ihe Pre -ceram ic rilase. The main teatures of their geometric tools are Iheir trapezoidal (G t • Ihe earlier phase) and triangu lar (G2, Ihe later pllase) shapes. with abrupt or hellwan relollch. The use of microburin technique secms very linked to the G2 when Coc ina-Iype (wi lh Ihe two relouched concave sides) triangles arc very C011111101l. G3 represe nts th e so-ca ll ed Ccramic Mesolilhic (Geomelrie). with no domestic resources. The li thies are similar 10 Ihe G2. Finall y. G4 represenlS Ihe Geometric Neolithic. lis lith ies are characterized by lunalcs wi lh helhva n relo uch and its subsistence system is based on do mes ticates. In bolh. G3 anu G4 , ceramics are found . - G roup 5 reprcscnts lhe fmpresso-Card ial Com plex. From the bcgi nni ng, its subs istence econorny is based 011 domeslic reSQ urces. and its lit hic lechno logy and typo logy show a break-off with regard 10 Ihe Meso litll ic Comp lex. [ co nsider Ihis as lhe res ull of Ihe agrarian colonizatio n. The major Irait s described in the previo us po inl as perwining to Ihe Neolíthi c should be recogn ized since the beginni ng ofth ese complex. Until reccnll y. evidence ofl he existence of stab le vill ages and necrapo li was sca rce. 011 Ihe othe!' hand. Ihe abse nce of analysis looking for lhe sources of raw materia l avo ided 10 contras l Ihe exi stence and seopc of exchangc nelworks. However, during the lasl deeadc wc llave wilnesscd a rea l empirical revolulion, so locIay it is possible 10 offcr a piet llre where vill ages arc frcq uen t ( Bosc h et al.. 1994: Bordás el aL, 1996: Mestres, 1987: Afonso et al.. 1996), and the ceremon ia l exc hange nelwork s can be sec n froln Ihe earl y Neo lilh ic (Orozco. 2000). Apparen tl y. o nl y necropoli are lacking. Rece nt rev iews of Ihe record in va lcntian area (Bernabeu & Moli na, 200 1), however. seem to suggesl Ihe existence of a bury ing pattern in na lu ra l caves as soon as Ihe ear ly Neo lilh ic. T his is lhe same process revealed by Ca lde irao, PO!1ugal (Zilhoo. t 993) o .. Unng in France (Paccard, 1992). Both entiti es (Geomctric and Impresso-Cardial) show a di ffere nt iated territorial patlcrn si nce Ihe model Phase I (tllat is, affec ti ng G3 and G4 o n one sidc. anu the G5 on Ihe oth er). EXlrapolat ing the aboye outl incd characteristics, it is possible 10 sec some groups belo ng ing 10 both comp lexes in Ihe Iberian Pcninsu la (fig.2). Initi al dal in g fm Ihe grou ps of C havcs and O ..-Ccndres are simil a r and canno l be traced back beyond ca. 5600 cal BC (see below). T he POrluguese sites of Cabranosa and Pcdrao in lhe SOlllh , and Pena d' Agua and Caldeirao in Ihe North and center probably represent the Western lilllits ofthe spread of such 1l10vcment. Their dates ca. 5500-5400 cal BC for the
213
JOAN BERNABEU AUBÁN
• +
•
•
G4
G~oll1ctric
•
Gcom~tric
c':ramil' ca. 6800-58(IObp
('a.
Ncolithic 5800-5000hp
• •
G1
r, o
