The role of the means of production in social development in the Late Prehistory of the Southeast Iberian Peninsula

Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory Edited by Pedro Díaz-del-Río Leonardo García Sanjuán BAR International Series 1525 2006 This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S1525 Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory © the individual authors 2006 ISBN 1 84171 962 5 Printed in England by The Basingstoke Press All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England [email protected] The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com 133 CHAPTER 10 The role of the means of production in social development in the Late Prehistory of the Iberian southeast José Andrés Afonso Marrero Juan Antonio Cámara Serrano Universidad de Granada Abstract Our work on the development of social hierarchization in Southeast of Iberia has taken into account that throughout history there have been different ways for groups to arrive at unequal accumulation of wealth. Although we emphasise that the control of labour force (female and male) is an initial factor, we also suggest that the control of mobile means of labour (animals) takes on fundamental importance as a condition for ensuring the position of the elites who, from this newly enhanced position, will exercise greater control over the labour force, not only directly, but also through the appropriation by the class-state of the inert means of production (land). Keywords: Iberia; Late Prehistory; Social Hierarchization; Labour Force; Women; Livestock; Land; Social Classes; State. Resumen Nuestra propuesta sobre el desarrollo de la jerarquización social en el Sudeste de la Península Ibérica ha tenido en cuenta que, durante el devenir histórico, diferentes han sido las formas de acceder a la acumulación desigual de riqueza. De esta forma, aunque enfatizamos como factor inicial el control inicial de la fuerza de trabajo (femenina y masculina), mostramos la importancia fundamental que adquiere el control de los medios de trabajo móviles (los animales) como condición para asegurar la posición de las élites que, desde ese nuevo impulso, ejercerán un mayor control no sólo sobre la fuerza de trabajo directamente sino sobre ésta a partir de la apropiación por la clase-estado de los medios de producción inertes (la tierra). Palabras clave: Península Ibérica; Prehistoria Reciente; Jerarquización social; Fuerza de Trabajo; Mujeres; Ganado; Tierra; Clases Sociales; Estado. 10.1.- Introduction In the formulation of the various hypotheses regarding the development of social inequality in the Prehistory of Iberian Southeast, it is quite common to characterize the environment as a determinant factor. According to this line of thought, between the Late Neolithic and the Chalcolithic, the adversity of the environment contributed to the adoption of a series of changes that facilitated human settlement. These innovations led, in addition, to a significant increase in social hierarchization, either because managing elites became necessary (Chapman 1982), or because certain people took advantage of the investments to their own benefit (Gilman 1987). This assumption has been shown to be inexact by numerous paleoenvironmental studies. The anthracological, carpological and faunal analyses performed have shown that the environment was far from arid and that, although rainfall was not much more abundant than nowadays, the presence of a denser vegetation cover guaranteed the conservation of moisture and the exploitation of certain plant resources, with no need for irrigation (Peters & Driesch 1990; Rodríguez & Vernet 1991; Araus et al. 1997; Buxó 1997). All of this led, in the final two decades of the 20th century, to renewed theoretical reflection on the role that other factors may have played in the extension of inequality beyond that imposed by gender and age. Within this context, the raising of livestock has been taking into consideration, not just in relation to the use of secondary products (wool, milk, etc.) and traction, but as a means of accumulation and exhibition of wealth. This seems to be the case of the differential consumption patterns, both in terms of the species present and the age of the consumed animals, documented at Los Millares (Navas 2004; Peters & Driesch 1990). Also falling within this context is the analysis of the technical process and the ideological signification of certain craft activities. The control of metallurgy and the circulation of metal products, both as functional items and as prestige goods, has been a recurring argument in efforts to explain the stratification of prehistoric societies in southeast Iberia. It has been suggested that a series of social and technical conditions existed which facilitated its development. These may have been the search, since Neolithic times, for exotic and attractive raw materials, use of advanced extraction techniques, familiarity with strategies for con- SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN IBERIAN LATE PREHISTORY 134 trolling oven temperatures, and the availability of copper resources, especially in this area. At Los Millares (Santa Fe de Mondújar, Almería) particularly noteworthy are, not only the specialization of certain areas, but the production entity (Molina 1988: 261) and selection of raw materials with a high arsenic content in order to produce certain cutting pieces such as axes (Keesmann et al. 1997: 287, 290-291; Montero 1998: 212). However, the role of metallurgy in social development must be understood as an element that, rather than having a triggering effect, may have enhanced it by enabling certain social groups or populations to maintain their privileged positions through the accumulation of means of production, and the exhibition and circulation of certain prestige objects (Molina 1988; Cámara 2001). During this period, the exploitation of different types of rocks also developed greatly, from quarries for construction materials found by F. Carrión in the surroundings of the settlement of Los Millares, as well as for the manufacture of tools in the surroundings of Cabo de Gata (Carrión et al. 1993). These quarries were controlled by Chalcolithic settlements such as El Barronal (Níjar, Almería) (Haro 2004: 56-57), or by others, as the well known flint quarries of La Venta (Orce, Granada) (Ramos et al. 1991; Moreno et al. 1997), in a process that is also known to happen in Southwest Spain (Nocete et al. 1997). More interesting is the exploitation of flint resources in the western Subbetic mountain ranges and the production of large blades for widespread circulation (Martínez 1997; Martínez et al. 1998; Nocete et al. 2005). 10.2.- Social production Before setting forth our model of the process of hierarchization (Fig. 10.1), we should briefly reflect on the nature of social evolution, in order to avoid teleological arguments, and the supposed intentionality of social agents in the generation of inequality. One of the first tasks would be to distinguish between the concepts of evolution and change, given the current tendency to use the two terms interchangeably. Thus, while the latter is always provoked, induced, immediate and involves the transformation of some elements of social organization into different ones, the former always occurs gradually over time and is the result of a pseudo combinatorial operation involving the elements comprising all societies. Therefore, it is only possible to determine a line of evolution (phylogeny) when the process has taken place; societies do not have a tendency towards hierarchization, nor is there a simple causality that explains it, so an evolutionary model is never predictive or deductive but rather “postductive”. However, our intention is not to set forth an exhaustive review of the different elements which must be taken into account in drawing up multi-determinate hypotheses on social development, but rather to set forth the general lines that give shape to this type of proposition. Resorting to causality in the explanation of social phenomena, which the use of the concept social change presupposes, often leads either to determinism (economic, ecological) or to social reductionism that believes that all change is progress. In the evolutionary explanation, explicitly abandoning the line of causal reasoning makes it necessary to turn to a more complex logic, one which accounts for both randomness and peripheral or secondary social phenomena. On this subject, it may be wise to underline the idea that social formations are defined by the coexistence of distinct social relations articulated in a singular, unique structure, although it is true that only one of them is dominant, constituting the referent of the ideological reproduction of the society. The superseding of this particular articulation of social relations is only possible from the subordinate ones, although the “triumph” of one over the others has a “random” nature; that is, it is neither socially, culturally, or economically predetermined. In addition, the creation of a peripheral social action space contributes significantly to the contradictions between social praxis and the ideology that justifies it. The coherence of the system for the ideological justification and reproduction of social action is frequently violated by the everyday action of individuals and groups, and routes are thus opened, although not always followed, towards the superseding of the limits established by the degree of development of the productive forces. Fig. 10.1. Schematic diagram of our proposed model. Bearing this in mind, we believe that the development of social inequality in communal systems (beyond the inequality established by gender and age) can only be explained by the success of certain processes that guaranteed differentiated access to the results of production. These processes are all aimed at the control of the labour force as the only means of amassing goods, although they do function in a three-fold direction: the control of the labour force, the appropriation of herds as products and means of labour and the development of private ownership of land. THE ROLE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LATE PREHISTORY 135 The advent of new forms of accumulation of wealth by means of the strengthening of new social relations (through the non-premeditated action of the various social agents), takes place at the limit of the communal system, using that which is only leniently regulated, or which is not considered a threat to the reproduction of the system. Despite this apparent absence of conflict, resistance is produced, mainly at two levels: from the sectors of the population that control the routes giving access to the positions from which the community is led, and from sectors of the population that have become dominated (Ste. Croix 1988). In the case of the superseding the communal system, this is the main area of resistance. Such resistance is overcome or lessened through the ritual masking of exaction (symbolic, ideological, superstructural). But, if the emerging relations occupy at the beginning of the process a subordinate role in the reproduction of the society, how can it be possible that the ritual systems of the communal society are used in the justification of such relations? This is because, in all social formations, including transitional ones, nothing can be justified outside of the ideological realm that sanctions the socially correct. Therefore, in the justification of exaction and of the social relations that make it possible, previous ideological representation systems are used, often subverting their contents. That is, procedures which highlight the communal nature of production, or even the duty to share, are used (Zvelebil 2002). 10.3.- Control of the labour force In its initial phase, labour domination is achieved by way of pressure on women and on the non-adult members of the community (Meillassoux 1987; Bender 1989). The communal society finds acceptable this type of division/discrimination because it is at the root of the conditions that enable its reproduction. Soon after, this coercion over female members of the community is channelled towards the control of the kinship system, and especially towards mechanisms for the acquisition of wives, as this permits not only to administer a larger labour force, as in these initial moments its increase is only possible through vegetative growth, but also the accumulation of means of production (labour force, both present and future, and products/means of labour), either produced directly or received in the form of dowry. In any case, the control of women and their movement, both as labour force and in their capacity as producers of human beings (Castro et al. 1999; Estévez et al. 1999) is linked to the relationships between the settlements inside social formations originated by integration (synecism – the disappearance of smaller villages), and with the creation of symbols (dowries) to represent the debt of women which are necessary for reproduction (Meillassoux 1987: 94). All of this derives into relationships of inequality, in at least a three-fold way: 1.- Differentiating communities according to their capacity to mobilize labour force if there is no compensation for women-wives, or if the latter are acquired in exchange for elements, basically ideological items, that have acquired an ideal value in themselves (Meillassoux 1987: 103-104). These will eventually become a way of masking the circulation of tribute (Molina 1988) once they have been transformed into prestige items, moving either from the political nucleus, in order to show its capacity to mobilize resources, or towards the political nucleus, as compensation for other services. 2.- Obliging the integrated (conquered) communities to provide women without real compensation (although with imaginary compensation). This links this aspect to the pressure exerted over other groups, and to the tributary movement of other products once power has been consolidated. 3.- Linking animals, as dowry symbols, to women (Martínez & Afonso 1998), and developing a differential price for women according to their origin (Scarduelli 1988). This distinguishes noble families, which had already been able to accumulate products through the development of ownership over herds, and which had acquired a relevant role because of their capacity to provide services to the community, theoretically unsatisfied. Subsequently, the control of labour force broadens, extending first to other men not belonging to the community (prisoners, e.g. members of integrated [conquered] communities) and, later, to male individuals belonging to the community who have fallen into a situation of dependence because of their incapability to compensate certain services rendered. In this way, two routes of access to servitude are formed, a general one and a limited one. Understood in a broad sense, the first is earlier and more permanent, and results from the impossibility of accessing to a full possession of the land, due to the inability to give in return for the provided services. This is the first form of what will later be the fiscal and military “burdens” imposed by the state (class instrument). Thus, access to usufruct of the land can only be through ascription to the clan and the community. The limited form of servitude is the result of personal ascriptions and restrictions on mobility, and involves the rendering of personal services to a greater or lesser degree (the former being true servitude, the loss of the condition of community member and the latter being clientele, political association). This last item takes on the nature of an ascription to the lineage (family or individuals who represent it). In this sense, this servitude always implies the rendering of services, payment (Ste. Croix 1988: 163-164), but it also includes the so-called forms of “indirect collective exploitation” (Ste. Croix 1988: 243-246). SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN IBERIAN LATE PREHISTORY 136 10.4.- Appropriation of herds Herds, especially those comprised of large domestic animals, are in the ideological periphery of what is communal (they are not necessary for the survival and reproduction of the group). This makes their appropriation possible within the framework of an ideological system that emphasizes sharing as an element to guarantee the survival and cohesion of the clan. Also, the very nature of herds endows them with two features that make them easy to appropriate and accumulate. The mobility inherent to this type of product means that larger herds can be handled, and moved through larger and larger territories. Obviously, this generates conflicts with neighbouring communities. But the solution to these conflicts involves the control of more labour force and, through this, of more land as a condition for the monopolization of products based on herd ownership. But livestock have another important particularity; as a movable asset they can easily change from one owner to another. This allows the establishment of relationships between individuals or groups of individuals, and also their violent expropriation. Theft guarantees that maximum benefits are obtained with a minimal investment. There is no need to wait for the animal to grow. It is also a way by which certain people win followers from outside the clan (Cámara et al. 1996), therefore generating threats for the social system. The appropriation of livestock thus constitutes an initial form of accumulation of wealth that is used for the control of the labour force. This allows, first of all, access to a greater number of women, and then to women of “better” quality, which creates the conditions for the foundation of political links between individuals of different sectors of a single social formation and, later, with members of other social formations. In addition, their accumulation enables certain people to hold large events (offerings) involving a large part of the community unable to return received “charity”. On this subject matter, other authors have highlighted that large animals (cattle and horses) are important in the accumulation of wealth, because they can be used as traction (Martínez & Afonso 1998; Criado et al. 2001). But livestock, as a means of production, is also important because of the other so-called secondary products (wool, leather, dairy products) and, of course, for meat production. Furthermore, manure could fertilize fields, or animals could have been lent for certain tasks (transport, for example) becoming an investment with substantial return. 1 Nevertheless, it was of course better to obtain means of production/product with no previous investment by theft. 1 A similar assessment of the possibilities of livestock accumulation has been presented by R. Peroni (2004:108-109) who makes more central the role of the control of products, of their movement and of craft specialization. With dependence thus reproduced, and animals being accumulated, a new concentration of means of labour and other products is generated, either by applying the same labour force with a new organization of the technical process of work (through the use of the mobile means of labour), or by increasing the amount of the labour force used in the same work processes. The latter is an important means for controlling a larger fraction of the available labour force. The former constitutes a means for the appropriation of communal land. Thus the appropriation of livestock becomes a way to quickly and permanently accumulate goods and means of production, favoured by the growth of the herds when there are no access restrictions to the communal land, in such a way that, even without real distribution of the land, accumulation differences arise, and also by pillage. At the same time, the administration of a greater volume of production facilitates access to positions of prestige and control of the community, achieved through a process of indebtedness (real or fictitious), that makes it impossible to return the services provided to the community. From such positions of prestige it is possible to intervene more directly in the ritual and the systems of ideological reproduction of the community, which justifies in an indirect way the social relations which permit the acquisition of this new status. Interest in the appropriation of the labour force led to a more strict control of the movement of women as sources of present and future labour force, and then to other forms of control over female workers, through the union of different groups (clans) in larger settlements. Another influence in this direction was the development of the movable ownership of herds which led to the formation of settlements located in territories offering the necessary resources for extensive livestock exploitation, as well as other economic strategies. These new social formations controlled mountains and plains, exploitation routes and territories for which boundaries would soon be defined, accompanying the rapid development of social classes. Initially, the boundaries would be symbolic, by way of monumental sepulchres or sanctuaries (Cámara 2001). Later on, they would take the form of small dissuasive forts (Nocete 1989; 2001), especially when products were obtained in these territories that could be accumulated, beginning with herds and then, thanks to the impetus of the tributary state, through other forms of wealth. 10.5.- Development of the ownership of land The usurpation of the ownership of communal land to the benefit of some individuals is a process that, as seen above, cannot be separated from the control of the labour force and the appropriation of livestock. This did not mean the legal expropriation of the community, as the community remained the owner throughout the whole process. Rather, it is this collective nature that allows for the justification of the differential access to usufruct of THE ROLE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LATE PREHISTORY 137 Fig. 10.2. Sites and areas mentioned in text: Areas – A. Tabernas Corridor, B. Alcalá-Moclín Corridor, C. Alto Guadalquivir valley; Sites – 1. Los Millares, 2. Zájara, 3. La Cuesta del Negro, 4. El Cerro de la Encina, 5. Los Castillejos en Las Peñas de los Gitanos, 6. Marroquíes, 7. Polideportivo de Martos, 8. Peñalosa, 9. Sevilleja, 10. Los Pozos, 11. Cerro de la Coronilla (Cazalilla), 12. Cortijo de la Torre, 13. Cerro de la Horca. the land. First, by acknowledging the possibility that those who have larger families and livestock use more pasture land, and, later, by allowing a larger plot of land to be exploited by those who have acquired control of sufficient labour force and means of labour to do so. In the long run, these changes meant the real expropriation of communal lands and the development of true private ownership, with some individuals assuming the capacity to distribute plots among the members of the community. Once the sedentarization of the communities had been furthered by the control of the labour force and the appropriation of herds, the conversion of land into a true means of production will only accelerate the process of social hierarchization. This process is favoured since the definition of the community has been based on comparison with exogenous characteristics, paving the way to personal dependence. Also because the control of kinship systems and women exchange has become a means of other settlement dependency, those settlements that acquire debts because of something that presumably was never given to them. 10.6.- Conclusions We believe that the threefold process described above, and the interrelation among its components, can be followed throughout the Late Prehistory of the Iberian Southeast (Fig. 10.2). The control of women is undoubtedly the aspect which is most difficult to trace using the archaeological record, especially considering the scarcity not only of anthropological analyses (including paleopathological ones), but also of excavations focusing on the Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic in general, and on the sepulchres in particular (Pellicer 1964; Rubio 1980-81; Pellicer & Acosta 1986; Riquelme 2002). In any case, certain findings do suggest the importance given to fe SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN IBERIAN LATE PREHISTORY 138 Fig. 10.3. Megalithic distribution in Tabernas Corridor (Almería). THE ROLE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LATE PREHISTORY 139 male burials, found in pits within the settlement area, whether in the Late Neolithic as in the case of Martos (Jaén) (Lizcano 1999), or in advanced Chalcolithic times as in Zájara (Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería) (Cámalich et al. 1999). This evidence apparently clashes with the hypotheses put forward, although the scarcity of findings makes it impossible, for example, to determine if, as in other areas, differences existed in grave goods in contexts where there are indications of social differences apart from sex and age (Martín et al. 1996; Gibaja et al. 1997; Blasco et al. 1997; Zvelebil 1997) and where there are complex interpretations of the paleo-pathological data, with some authors arguing that there were dietary differences in favour of the men (Zvelebil 2002: 215) and others rejecting this argument (Meiklejohn et al. 2002: 231234). More interesting in terms of the subordination of women may be to estimate the value attributed to their work, in their two-fold aspect as members of the labour force and means of production as reproducers (Castro et al. 1999). On this matter, especially relevant as regards the expression of their undervaluation (Bender 1989; Lerner 1990; Estévez et al. 1999), may be the interpretation of the female figurines recovered in Cuccuru S’Arriu (Cabras, Oristano, Sardinia) that, in the published cases, are associated with male burials (Germanà & Santoni 1993; Santoni 1995). If future work confirms this exclusive association, it will be necessary to think that the process of undervaluing women through the appropriation of their productive and reproductive capacities was relatively stronger, or was masked to a lesser degree, in Sardinia, since, again, in Eastern Andalusia there is no evidence of a segregation of women from their reproductive role in terms of its expression in tombs, and in fact in Martos, two women are associated with three young men in tomb 13 (Cámara & Lizcano 1996; Lizcano 1999; Lizcano & Cámara 2004). However, indications of such discrimination can be found in the symbolic ceramics that highlight the reproductive role of men, as seen in the figuration of presumably natural scenes involving animals to which it is easy to give sexual characterization, such as stags (Martínez & Afonso 1998). In the same way, the emphasis placed on the ram’s head, used as decoration in one of the dwellings of Martos, has been interpreted as sexual discrimination and the creation of two opposing genders (Cámara & Lizcano 1996). Similarly, there are no specific studies on the underrepresentation of women in the megalithic tombs of the Southeast, although this has been constantly suggested (Mathers 1984). This is not surprising given the fragmentary nature of data, and the prolonged use of the tombs, making difficult to assess changes through time. All this means that it is no surprise that, for now, we support our hypothesis concerning the control of the female labour force, regardless of some rituals or indications in other parts of Europe, in the need for demographic control and in ethnographic models (Meillassoux 1987), and stating that its intensification occurs with sedentarization (Lizcano et al. 1997), as had already been suggested (Vicent 1993), although emphasizing the need for control as a factor which fomented such sedentarization. In this sense the process of aggregation was related to the control of the labour force and the control of the territory, but with the latter being understood in an extensive sense, as the medium for pastureland and areas of movement. The system thus represents a way to control men/women and the herds. In the Southeast of Spain, territory is delimited, starting in at least the Late Neolithic, by means of the succession and accumulation of symbols such as megaliths, as studied in Pasillo de Tabernas (Almería) (Fig. 10.3) in relation to routes, folds, and permanent boundaries (Maldonado et al. 1997; Cámara 2001), but we can also trace the creation of sacredness through the dispersion of cave paintings (Martínez García 1998) such as those found in Pasillo de Alcalá-Moclín, dating at least to the Middle Neolithic (Martínez & Afonso 1998). These cave paintings may have constituted a precedent, but also an alternative, to the tumular (megalithic) forms of sacral control, although in a certain way with a greater degree of concealment and reserve which is even more accentuated in the case of burials, of animals and people, in pits or their successors, the artificial caves. This, in turn, like the compartmentalization in chambers and corridors, would link the process of access restrictions with secrets, the classification of persons and hierarchization (Barrett 1990; Thomas 1993; Tilley 1993). This delimitation cannot be considered in isolation from opposition to the exterior, as a way of drawing together what is interior and of deviating pressure, even using aggression. It is therefore not surprising that early fortifications (ditches and palisades) develop at least at the beginning of the IV Millennium BC (Cámara & Lizcano 1997; Nocete 2001) and that we find the first rituals destined to affirm the community and its continuance. Independent of the extensive delimitation, this is how the particular definition takes place. In fact, while the most recent excavations in Los Castillejos de las Peñas de los Gitanos (Montefrío, Granada) have shown the transformation of agricultural products in a specialized communal area (Fig. 10.4) in the Initial Neolithic (Ramos et al. 1997; Afonso et al. 1996), the first ritual forms that can be related to families take place in the Late and Final Neolithic and are related to the delimitation of the dwelling spaces. This is the case both in Montefrío and in Martos (Jaén) and includes, in the latter case, among the various related structures (Lizcano 1999), several which were used at certain times for ritual (Fig. 10.5) that we had principally related to the founding and cohesion of the settlement (Lizcano et al. 1997; Cámara & Lizcano 1996; Lizcano & Cámara 2004). On this matter, both stratigraphic and functional data support the domestic nature of most fillings and underground SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN IBERIAN LATE PREHISTORY 146 ción de la vida social. Mecanismos de explotación en el Sudeste ibérico”. Boletín de Antropología Americana 33: 25-77. CHAPMAN, R.W. 1981: “Los Millares y la cronología relativa de la Edad del Cobre en el Sudeste de España”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 6: 75-89. - 1982: “Autonomy, ranking and resources in Iberian prehistory”. In C. Renfrew & S. Shennan (eds.): Ranking, resources and exchange. Aspects of Archeology of Early European Society. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 46-51. CONTRERAS, F. & CÁMARA, J.A. 2002: La jerarquización social en la Edad del Bronce del Alto Guadalquivir (España). El poblado de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1025. Oxford. ESTÉVEZ, J.; VILA, A.; TERRADAS, X.; PIQUÉ, R.; TAULÉ, M.; GIBAJA, J. & RUIZ, G. 1999: “Cazar o no cazar, ¿es ésta la cuestión?”. Boletín de Antropología Americana 33: 5-24. GERMANÀ, F. & SANTONI, V. 1993: “La necropoli di Cuccuru S’Arriu (Cabras) e I paleosardi medioneolitici”. Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano 9: 5-30. GIBAJA, J.F.; CLEMENTE, I. & VILÁ, A. 1997: “Una aproximación a través del análisis funcional a sociedades neolíticas del Noreste Peninsular: las necrópolis de la Bòbila Madurell y el Camí de Can Grau”. In R. de Balbín & P. Bueno (eds.): II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular (Zamora 1996). Vol. II. Neolítico. Calcolítico y Bronce. Fundación Rei Alfonso Henriques. Zamora: 129-136. GILMAN, A. 1987: “Regadío y conflicto en sociedades acéfalas”. Boletín del Seminario de Arte y Arqueología LIII: 59-72. GUIDI, A. 2000: Preistoria della complessità sociale. Quadrante 107. Laterza. Roma. HARO, M. 2004: “El poblamiento durante la Prehistoria Reciente en el Campo de Níjar”. Arqueología y Territorio 1: 51-65. http://www.ugr.es/~arqueol/docencia/doctorado/ArqyT/Articulo s%201/Artic4.htm KEESMANN, I.; MORENO, Mª.A. & KRONZ, A. 1997: “Investigaciones científicas de la metalurgia de El Malagón y Los Millares en el Sureste de España”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 16-17: 247-302. LERNER, G. 1990: La creación del patriarcado. Crítica. Barcelona. LIZCANO, R. 1999: El Polideportivo de Martos (Jaén): un yacimiento neolítico del IV Milenio A.C.. Obra Social y Cultural Cajasur. Córdoba. LIZCANO, R. & CÁMARA, J.A. 2004: “Producción económica y sedentarización. El registro arqueológico del Polideportivo de Martos (Jaén)”. Sociedades recolectoras y primeros productores. Actas de las Jornadas Temáticas Andaluzas de Arqueología (Ronda 2003). Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. Sevilla: 229-248. LIZCANO, R.; CÁMARA, J. A.; CONTRERAS, F.; PÉREZ, C. & BURGOS, A. 2004: “Continuidad y cambio en comunidades calcolíticas del Alto Guadalquivir”. Simposios de Prehistoria Cueva de Nerja. II. La problemática del Neolítico en Andalucía. III.Las primeras sociedades metalúrgicas en Andalucía. Fundación Cueva de Nerja. Nerja: 159-175. LIZCANO, R.; CÁMARA, J.A.; RIQUELME, J.A.; CAÑABATE, Mª.L.; SÁNCHEZ, A. & AFONSO, J.A. 1997: “El Polideportivo de Martos. Estrategias económicas y símbolos de cohesión en un asentamiento del Neolítico Final del Alto Guadalquivir”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 16-17: 5-101. MALDONADO, Mª.G.; MOLINA, F.; ALCARAZ, F.M.; CÁMARA, J.A.; MÉRIDA, V. & RUIZ, V. 1997: “El papel social del megalitismo en el Sureste de la Península Ibérica. Las comunidades megalíticas del Pasillo de Tabernas”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 16-17: 167-190. MÁRQUEZ, J.E. 2002: “De los ‘Campos de Silos’ a los ‘Agujeros Negros’: Sobre pozos, depósitos y zanjas en la Prehistoria Reciente del Sur de la Península Ibérica”. Homenaje al Profesor Pellicer (I). Spal 10: 207-220. MARTÍN, A.; BORDAS, A. & MARTÍ, M. 1996: “Bobila Madurell (St. Quirze del Vallès, Barcelona). Estrategia económica y organización social en el Neolítico Medio”. I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica. Formació e implantació de les comunitats agrícoles (Gavá-Bellaterra, 1995). Vol. 1. Rubricatum 1 (1): 423-428. MARTÍNEZ, G. 1997: “Late Prehistory Blade Production in Andalusi (Spain)”. In A. Ramos & Mª.A. Bustillo (eds.): Siliceous rocks and Culture. Monográfica Arte y Arqueología 42. Universidad de Granada. Granada: 427-436. MARTÍNEZ, G. & AFONSO, J.A. 1998: “Las sociedades prehistóricas: de la Comunidad al Estado”. In R. Peinado (ed.): De Ilurco a Pinos Puente. Poblamiento, economía y sociedad de un pueblo de la Vega de Granada. Diputación Provincial de Granada. Granada: 21-68. MARTÍNEZ, G.; MORGADO, A.; AFONSO, J.A.; SÁNCHEZ, M. & RONCAL, Mª.E. 1998: “Reflexiones sobre la explotación de materias primas para la producción de arfefactos de piedra tallada durante la Prehistoria Reciente de Andalucía Oriental: el caso de Los Castillejos (Montefrío, Granada)”. In J. Bosch, X. Terradas & T. Orozco (eds.): Actes de la 20 Reunió de Treball sobre Aprovisionament de Recursos Lítics a la Prehistòrica (Barcelona-Gavà, 1997). Rubricatum 2: 161-170. MARTÍNEZ, J. 1998: “Abrigos y accidentes geográficos como categorías de análisis en el paisaje de la pintura rupestre esquemática. El Sudeste como marco”. Arqueología del Paisaje. Arqueología Espacial 19-20: 543-561. MATHERS, C. 1984: “Beyond the grave: the context and wider implications of mortuary practices in south-east Spain”. In T.F.C. Blagg, R.F.J. Joves & S.J. Keay (eds.): Papers in Iberian Archaeology I. British Archaeological Reports International Series 193 (I). Oxford: 13-46. MEIKLEJOHN, C.; PETERSEN, E.B. & ALEXANDERSEN, V. 2002: “The Anthropology and Archaeology of Mesolithic Gender in the Western Baltic”. In M. Donald & L. Hurcombe (eds.): Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. Studies in Gender and Material Culture 1. Palgrave Macmillan. Basinstoke: 222-237. THE ROLE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LATE PREHISTORY 147 MEILLASSOUX, C. 1987: Mujeres, graneros y capitales. Economía doméstica y capitalismo. Siglo XXI. México. MOLINA, F. 1983: “La Prehistoria”. In F. Molina & J.M. Roldán: Historia de Granada I. De las primeras culturas al Islam. Don Quijote. Granada: 11-131. - 1988: “El Sudeste” In G. Delibes, M. Fernández-Miranda, A. Martín & F. Molina: El Calcolítico de la Península Ibérica. Congresso Internazionale L’Età del Rame in Europa (Viareggio 1987). Rassegna di Archeologia 7: 256-262. MOLINA, F.; CÁMARA, J. A.; CAPEL, J.; NÁJERA, T. & SÁEZ, L. 2004: “Los Millares y la periodización de la Prehistoria Reciente del Sudeste”. Simposios de Prehistoria Cueva de Nerja. II. La problemática del Neolítico en Andalucía. III.Las primeras sociedades metalúrgicas en Andalucía. Fundación Cueva de Nerja. Nerja: 142-158. MONTERO, I. 1998: “Interpretación cultural en la investigación arqueometalúrgica: la Edad del Bronce”. In J. Fernández & F.J. Sarabia (coords.): Arqueometalurgia del bronce. Introducción a la metodología de trabajo. Studia Archaeologica 86. Universidad de Valladolid. Valladolid: 99-108. MORENO, Mª.A.; CONTRERAS, F. & CÁMARA, J.A. 1997: “Patrones de asentamiento, poblamiento y dinámica cultural. Las tierras altas del sureste peninsular. El pasillo de CúllarChirivel durante la Prehistoria Reciente”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 16-17: 191-245. NAVAS, E. 2004: “Análisis inicial de los restos faunísticos del yacimiento arqueológico de Los Millares (Santa Fe de Mondújar, Almería) en su contexto espacial”. Arqueología y Territorio 1: 37-49. http://www.ugr.es/~arqueol/docencia/doctorado/ArqyT/Articulo s%201/Artic3.htm NOCETE, F. 1989: El espacio de la coerción. La transición al Estado en las Campiñas del Alto Guadalquivir (España). 30001500 A.C. British Archaeological Reports International Series 492. Oxford. - 2001: Tercer milenio antes de nuestra era. Relaciones y contradicciones centro/periferia en el Valle del Guadalquivir. Bellaterra. Barcelona. NOCETE, F.; ORIHUELA, A.; OTERO, R.; ROMERO, J.C.; ESCALERA, P. & LINARES, J.A. 1997: “Prospección arqueológica en el Andévalo occidental (Presa del Andévalo). Huelva. Informe preliminar”. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1993/III: 332-335. NOCETE, F.; SÁEZ, R.; NIETO, J.M.; CRUZ-AUÑÓN, R.; CABRERO, R.; ALEX, E. & BAYONA, M.R. 2005: “Circulation of silicified oolitic limestone blades in South-Iberia (Spain and Portugal) during the third millennium B.C.: an expression of a core/periphery framework”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 62-81. PELLICER, M. 1964: El Neolítico y el Bronce de la Cueva de la Carigüela de Píñar (Granada). Trabajos de Prehistoria XV. Madrid. PELLICER, M. & ACOSTA, P. 1986: “Neolítico y calcolítico de la Cueva de Nerja.” In J.F. Jordá (ed.): La Prehistoria de la Cueva de Nerja (Málaga). Trabajos sobre la Cueva de Nerja 1. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja/Universidad de Málaga. Málaga: 377-450. PÉREZ, C. & CÁMARA, J.A. 1999: “Intervención arqueológica en Marroquíes Bajos (Jaén). Sector Urbanístico RP-4. Parcela G-3”. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1995/III: 256-270. PERONI, R. 2004: L’Italia alle soglie della storia. Biblioteca Universale 558. Laterza. Roma. PETERS, J. & DRIESCH, A. von den. 1990: “Archäozoologische untersuchung der tierreste aus der kupperzeitlichen siedlung von Los Millares (Prov. Almería)”. Studien über frühe Tierknochenfunde von der Iberischen Halbinsel 12: 49-110. RAMOS, U.; AFONSO, J.A.; CÁMARA, J.A.; MOLINA, F. & MORENO, M. 1997: “Trabajos de acondicionamiento y estudio científico en el yacimiento de Los Castillejos en Las Peñas de los Gitanos (Montefrío, Granada)”. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1993/III: 265-271. RAMOS, A.; MARTÍNEZ, G.; RIOS, G. & AFONSO, J.A. 1991: Flint production and exchange in the Iberian Southeast (III Millenium B.C.). (VI International Flint Symposium. Postsymposium field trip). Universidad de Granada/Instituto Geológico y Minero. Granada. RIQUELME, J.A. 2002: Cueva de las Ventanas. Historia y Arqueología. Ayuntamiento de Píñar. Píñar. RODRÍGUEZ, Mª.O. & VERNET, J.L. 1991: “Premiers résultats paléocarpologiques de l’établissement Chalcolithique de Los Millares, Almería, d’après l’analyse anthracologique de l’établissement”. In W.H. Waldren, J.A. Ensenyat & R.C. Kennard (eds.): IInd Deya International Conference of Prehistory. Recent developments in Western Mediterranean Prehistory: Archaeological techniques, technology and theory. Vol. I. Archaeological techniques and technology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 573. Oxford: 1-16. RUBIO DE MIGUEL, I. 1980-81: “Enterramientos neolíticos de la Península Ibérica”. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 7-8: 39-73. SANTONI, V. 1995: “Il sito preistorico di Cuccuru S’Arriu (Cabras, Oristano)”. In A. Moravetti & C. Tozzi (cur.): Sardegna. Guide Archeologiche. Preistoria e Protostoria in Italia 2. XIII Congresso Internazionale dell Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche. U.I.S.P.P./Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali/A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni. Forlì: 130-137. SCARDUELLI, P. 1988: Dioses, espíritus, ancestros. Elementos para la comprensión de los sistemas rituales. Siglo XXI. México. STE. CROIX, G.E.M. de 1988: La lucha de clases en el Mundo Griego Antiguo. De la Edad Arcaica a las conquistas árabes. Crítica. Barcelona. THOMAS, J. 1993: “The Hermeneutics of Megalithic Space”. In C. Tilley (ed.): Interpretative Archaeology. Explorations in Anthropology Series. Exeter. Berg: 73-97. TILLEY, C. 1993: “Art, Architecture, Landscape (Neolithic Sweden)”. In B. Bender (ed.): Landscape. Politics and perspectives. Explorations in Anthropology Series. Exeter. Berg: 49-84. SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN IBERIAN LATE PREHISTORY 148 VICENT, J.M. 1993: “El Neolítico. Transformaciones sociales y económicas”. Boletín de Antropología Americana 24: 31-62. ZAFRA, N.; HORNOS, F. & CASTRO, M. 1999: “Una macroaldea en el origen del modo de vida campesino: Marroquíes Bajos (Jaén) c. 2500-2000 cal ANE”. Trabajos de Prehistoria 56 (1): 77-102. ZVELEBIL, M. 1997: “Ideology, society and economy of the Mesolithic communities in temperate and northern Europe”. Origini XX: 39-70. - 2002: “Fat is a Feminist Issue: On Ideology, Diet and Health in Hunter-Gatherer Societies.” In M. Donald & L. Hurcombe (eds.): Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. Studies in Gender and Material Culture 1, Basinstoke. Palgrave Macmillan: 209-221.