Social change and metalworking in the early iron age: an approach from north-west Iberia

SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN THE EARLY IRON AGE: AN APPROACH FROM NORTH-WEST IBERIA Summary. This paper analyses social transformations in the Early Iron Age based on a holistic and longue durée approach applied to the first fortified habitats in the Iberian north-west. Through a comprehensive review of two paradigmatic settlements of the EIA in the province of A Coruña (Galicia, north-west Iberia), Punta de Muros and A Graña, a comparison is drawn between the social and territorial dynamics of this period by means of an in-depth analysis of the main characteristics of both settlements. Accordingly, a greater level of social complexity during the phases of occupation of the settlement of Punta de Muros has been identified, in contrast to the resistance to change observed in A Graña. Based on these conclusions, the role of metalworking and its symbolic value in fostering and legitimizing these social and territorial transformations and in the development of Iron Age communities are analysed. INTRODUCTION This paper combines two main areas of interest in the social analysis of Iron Age communities: the emergence of social patterns of inequality in the Early Iron Age (EIA) and the social and symbolic dimension of metalworking. Regarding the first theme, the emergence of processes of social inequality has already been highlighted in some European regions (Fernández- Götz 2014), although not yet in the Iberian north-west. With regard to the second, and with some regional exceptions (e.g. Hingley 1997;2009; Haaland 2007–08), metallurgy has usually been studied from a technological perspective, as is also the case in north-west Iberia. Thus, this paper aims, first, to analyse the extent of social inequality in societies that had been previously classified as reluctant to change and, subsequently, to assess the role of metalworking in this process. An approach to the societies of the EIA in the north-west of the Iberian peninsula is implemented, focusing on the characterization of their main social dynamics (Fig. 1). Our goal is to examine their changes and continuities from a longue durée point of view based on a multiscale comparative approach that aims to understand the processes and transformations embedded in materiality. Accordingly it is proposed to conduct a diachronic analysis of the settlement, here understood as a ‘living’entity that changes and develops over time (Gerritsen 2007; Blanco-González 2011) and that reflects the conscious and unconscious values OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 42(1) 50–70 2023 50 © 2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. and beliefs of its community in the archaeological record (Thomas 1999,20;Hodder2004,74). Within the framework, the analysis of the conduct of metalworking becomes essential, as changes in the perception of metal production are relevant as proxies for understanding new social forms. This paper also combats an overly economistic and/or materialistic approach to social change that points to economic activity as the cause and essential source of any transformation, an attitude which has been common in several historiographical traditions of the last century (González García 2017,295–8). Social, ideological, or symbolic phenomena should not be considered as dependent on economic factors; on the contrary, various anthropological perspectives have emphasized the infrastructural importance of symbolic thought and ideology (the performance of distinct symbolic or religious knowledge) in the origins of inequality (e.g. Godelier 1986; Feinman 2016). The acceptance of the relevance of religious components in the emergence of new social structures (Bloch 2008) has allowed archaeological research to fashion fresh approaches in studying certain pieces of evidence and processes. This is seen in the case of the Neolithic, which has ceased to be analysed from purely technological perspectives and is now considered a ‘symbolic revolution’(Cauvin 2013), and again in the identification of religion as a key factor in the first human processes of social and urban aggregation (as has been proposed, for example, in Çatalhöyük: Hodder and Pels 2010). FIGURE 1 Study area. SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 51 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Materialistic and economistic assumptions have also shaped the interpretation of protohistoric metalworking, conditioned by the contemporary concept of technology as an exclusively technical activity detached from society (Ingold 2000, 314). Thus, interpreting metallurgy as technical, ‘quasi-scientific’knowledge (Welbourn 1985, 129) from our contemporary perspective explains the lack of interest shown in its other aspects (symbolic, religious, ritual, or magical), in that we focus all our attention on its dimension as an exclusively ‘industrial’activity (Budd and Taylor 1995,137–9; Haaland 2004, 1). From an anthropological perspective, this situation began to change with the understanding of technology as a comprehensive social phenomenon, composed equally of technical, social and symbolic aspects (Pfaffenberger 1988, 236; Reid and MacLean 1995, 145). Hence, its value and meaning are achieved in relation to the society in which it is produced and used (Welbourn 1985,129;Barndon2004,22). For decades, ethnographic research into the societies of the Eastern Great Lakes of Sub-Saharan Africa has shown the close relationship between metallurgical activity and areas which, from a Western point of view, have little to do with technology (Herbert 1993). The importance of metalworking, therefore, exceeds any strictly economic considerations in terms of the value of metal or its use in various activities (warfare, agriculture, trade, etc.) and can only be understood through indigenous theories of natural and social order (Childs and Killick 1993, 319). In this sense, this paper puts forward a perspective on metalworking beyond its ‘technological dimension’(sensu Ingold) –as a social activity that has influenced the development of complex social dynamics. For this purpose, a review of the processes that took place during the EIA is proposed, employing our case studies. Through the identification of differences in social organization between regions, the aim is to identify asymmetrical social dynamics in particularly early times, emphasizing the role that metalworking may have played in their emergence, development and legitimization. THE EARLY IRON AGE IN THE NORTH-WEST OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA The interpretation of the Iron Age in the north-west of the Iberian peninsula has witnessed, in recent decades, a confrontation between different historiographical trends (Ruíz Zapatero 2005). This clash is evidenced in the application of various models to understand Iron Age societies, especially in the Late Iron Age (LIA), and by the development of hypotheses that deny or defend the existence of social changes in the Iron Age up to the Roman conquest. As a result, different interpretative models have been proposed, suggesting diverse (and sometimes incompatible) social configurations (González-Ruibal 2012; González García 2017; Currás Refojos and Sastre 2019). Other proposals, however, support hypotheses based on non-linear evolutionism and a progressive emergence of social inequalities. Paradoxically, and regardless of their conceptualization of societies (heterarchy, deep-rural, undivided societies, transegaliarianism, etc.), all of them characterize the EIA as a hotbed of autarchic communities and tend to overlook internal inequalities and the emergence of power groups. To some extent, these perspectives do seem to be supported by the main characteristics of the archaeological record. The habitation of the EIA in the north-west Iberian peninsula is characterized by small sites, usually less than 1 ha in size, in prominent places of difficult access (Parcero-Oubiña 2000,86–7) (Fig. 2). The main criteria for selecting a location seems to lie in a natural defensive topography: very prominent sites with long-distance visibility that integrate a SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 52 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License fragmented social landscape. This choice meant, in many cases, moving away from areas with greater agricultural potential, a trend that was paralleled, paradoxically but necessarily, by an increased productivity of the farming system. The process is combined with an architectural monumentalization of the settlement. The construction of larger defensive systems is striking in its break from previous practices, probably linked to the move from semi-nomadism to a full sedentary lifestyle (Méndez Fernández 1994), with all the changes this entailed in their understanding of the world. However, these settlements are characterized by a lack of urban planning, with dwellings of small dimensions and morphological FIGURE 2 North-west Iberian hillforts with EIA dates (Parcero-Oubiña et al. 2020,164). SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 53 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License diversity irregularly distributed throughout the hamlet (González-Ruibal 2006–07). Also worth mentioning is the disappearance of Late Bronze Age practices, some of them related to the symbolic, such as deposits in possibly liminal spaces (González-Ruibal 2006–07, 158), and the reduction in the trafficking of metal objects, both bronze and gold (Parcero-Oubiña et al.2020). These changes, among others, result in a strong reduction of medium and large-scale mobility that characterized the Late Bronze Age (Cunliffe 1999) and reflect a rupture with previous social forms. This situation –namely the absence of prestige goods –emerges within an egalitarian society reacting against social divisions (González García et al.2011). Beyond its characterization as a period of egalitarian societies, the EIA tends to lag behind in archaeological research, which is more interested in the social analysis of LIA societies and/or the transition to the Roman world. Research has also been characterized by a certain standardization of processes in different aspects of the study areas. This has led to interpretative hypotheses that homogenize the analysed communities and that have been therefore applied to the whole of the study area, forcing a univocal perspective and biased analysis. This tendency, however, has recently begun to be overcome, allowing a greater receptiveness towards diverse forms of socio-political organization coexisting in the same space at the same time (González Álvarez 2011; González- Ruibal 2012). As a result, a more precise picture is emerging, one defining a social ‘mosaic’of different communities, with some moving towards centralization and hierarchization in coexistence with others that were resistant to social complexity and inequality (González-Ruibal 2012;Nión- Álvarez 2021). These perspectives, nonetheless, demand an equally heterogeneous perception of time. A study of social dynamics requires a diachronic vision that integrates ‘past and future’to offer a ‘succession of archaeo-historical portrayals’(Nión-Álvarez 2021, 70) and thereby establishes a dynamic representation of past societies. Archaeology, from a contemporary perspective, seeks to analyse and identify different temporal realities (Lucas 2012, 31) and to classify them according to different concepts of representation specific to the discipline (Olivier 2020, 180), recognizing time as a continuous process that involves ‘sedimentation and encapsulation’in objects (Olivier 2001, 64). It is necessary to take seriously the different speeds and forms of historical processes experienced by Iron Age communities, instead of seeing them as all changing in the same manner and at the same tempo. Considering the specificities and situations of the different areas of north-west Iberia, these groups may have explored more complex forms, as southern societies did, or may have survived as homogeneous communities, as in the inland areas (González García 2017,304–7). Our obligation is to incorporate the temporal perspective into the account and so provide a more flexible and multiple historical narrative within which the communities are integrated. PUNTA DE MUROS AND A GRAÑA (NINTH TO FOURTH CENTURIES BC): AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PORTRAYAL OF UNDIVIDED SOCIETIES? As previously explained, the case study covers two settlements that are particularly representative of social dynamics of the north-west Iberian EIA: A Graña (Toques, A Coruña) and Punta de Muros (Arteixo, A Coruña). Although they both cover a similar area (less than 1 ha), they have differing characteristics in terms of location and their relationship with the environment. A Graña is located inland, on top of a small hill with great medium and long-distance visibility. On the other hand, Punta de Muros is a coastal settlement on a small SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 54 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License peninsula with little and poor accessibility and natural defensive barriers. In spite of these significant differences in terms of location, both were settled in areas far from land communication routes but with great defensive potential, which is characteristic of EIA settlements (Parcero-Oubiña 2000, 86–7). These two fortified locales have also been subject to relatively extensive excavations that have yielded a temporal sequence and occupational evidence with a certain level of detail (Table 1). In the case of A Graña, six excavation campaigns were carried out between 1987 and 1993, whereas Punta de Muros was completely excavated in 2005, together with several surveys outside the walls, TABLE 1 14 C dates of A Graña and Punta de Muros. Starred Cal Dates were obtained from OxCal software, v. 4.4 (Bronk Ramsey 1995) in an attempt to correct the accuracy of the original data PUNTA DE MUROS Code Date (BP) Cal BC/AD Sample location Location detail Material dated Plant species PEC 8343 2150 ±35 350-114 BC Structure VI Collapse level Charcoal Fabaceae PEC 8345 2480 ±35 756-539 BC Structure VI Hearth Charcoal Quercus sp. PEC 8347 2550 ±35 797-594 BC Southern entrance area Isolated charcoal Charcoal Unknown PEC 8353 2495 ±35 764-544 BC Outer area of the rampart Hearth Charcoal Unknown PEC 8354 2485 ±35 760-540 BC Outer area of the rampart Hearth Charcoal Unknown PEC 8407 2620 ±40 821-781 BC Structure XI-b Hearth Charcoal Unknown PEC 8425 2500 ±35 764-548 BC Structure X Hearth Charcoal Unknown PEC 8429 2710 ±40 896-823 BC Structure XIV Hearth Charcoal Fabaceae PEC 8432 2485 ±40 760-539 BC Structure IX Hearth Charcoal Fabaceae PEC 8433 2460 ±60 751-419 BC Structure IX Hearth Charcoal Unknown PEC 8441 2010 ±40 49 BC-51 AD Structure VII Isolated charcoal Charcoal Unknown PEC 8444 2620 ±35 816-786 BC Outer area of the rampart Isolated charcoal Charcoal Unknown PEC 8446 1035 ±30 786-988 AD Inner area of the rampart Isolated charcoal Charcoal Unknown PEC 8447 2480 ±35 756-539 BC Structure XVI Hearth Charcoal Quercus sp. PEC 8451 2375 ±35 507-396 BC Outer reinforcement of the rampart Isolated charcoal Charcoal Unknown PEC 8455 2555 ±35 799-596 BC Outer area of the settlement Isolated charcoal Charcoal Unknown PEC 8486 2660 ±35 837-798 BC Structure XIX Stratum below the hearth Charcoal Unknown PEC 8496 2425 ±35 706-409 BC Structure XXV Isolated charcoal Charcoal Quercus sp. PEC 8498 2375 ±35 507-396 BC Structure XXIII Hearth Charcoal Fabaceae PEC 8513 2480 ±35 756-539 BC Structure XIb Stratum below the hearth Charcoal Quercus sp. PEC 8529 2510 ±35 770-550 BC Structure XXX Hearth Charcoal Fabaceae PEC 8532 2385 ±35 509-399 BC Structure XXXII Hearth (second level of use) Charcoal Fabaceae PEC 8536 2480 ±35 756-539 BC Structure XXXII Hearth (first level of use) Charcoal Quercus sp. PEC 9647 2395 ±35 511-402 BC Structure XIa Hearth Charcoal Unknown AGRAÑA Gd-5555 1980 ±50 94 BC-204 AD* Structure FC5 Hearth Charcoal Unknown Gd-6068 2610 ±70 922-523 BC* Structure FC3b Hearth Charcoal Unknown Gd-6074 2650 ±100 1050-478 BC* Structure FC3a Posthole Charcoal Unknown Gd-5859 2210 ±50 393-121 BC* Structure FC4 Hearth Charcoal Unknown Gd (1) 2580 ±90 903-417 BC* Structure FC3b Unknown Unknown Unknown Gd (2) 2240 ±25 387-204 BC* Outer area of the rampart Unknown Unknown Unknown SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 55 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License underwater surveys and several archaeometallurgical, palynological, and anthracological studies. In both cases, several radiocarbon dates were also obtained, which have helped to define their chronologies with greater precision. Both settlements show a certain temporal correlation as to their first occupation: Punta de Muros seems to have been occupied for the first time in the middle of the ninth century BC (Cano Pan 2012, 97), whereas the origins of A Graña can be dated in the first decades of the eighth century BC (perhaps even in the ninth century BC: Nión-Álvarez 2021,151). Regarding the characteristics of their domestic units, the dwellings are defined by their small dimensions and morphological simplicity (not exceeding 30–35 m 2 : Nión-Álvarez 2021, 161), without internal compartmentalization and with a multi-functional use of space. The main difference between the settlements is their building style: while in Punta de Muros the dwellings have stone foundations (Fig. 4), in A Graña they were made of perishable materials delimited by foundation ditches or rows of vertical stones (Meijide Cameselle 1990,113–16) (Fig. 3). In the case of A Graña, the continuous overlapping of a number of domestic units over a short period of time is significant, as can be seen in the case of structure FC3 (see Table 1), though this sequence should not be understood as a reconstruction of the settlement, but as representing maintenance activities on perishable structures (Blanco-González 2011, 395). This overlapping and reconstruction of dwellings evidence an intense and continuous temporary occupation, which, however, does not imply any transformation of social life in the settlement, but rather a confirmation of its social system and its success. FIGURE 3 Domestic units of A Graña: Structure FC4. SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 56 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License These modest dwellings would have been home to small family groups that would construct a community with characteristics consistent with the models proposed for the EIA: egalitarian and undivided communities with no signs of hierarchy or inequality, in which the settlement is the unique and basic unit of political organization. Moreover, the homogeneity and simplicity within the domestic units in each settlement highlights the egalitarian ethos of these communities. The internal spatial organization of the settlement points in a similar direction. If we establish a breakdown of the urban structure of Punta de Muros (whose layout canbe fully analysed) correlated with radiocarbon dates (see Table 1), we can identify two clearly differentiated FIGURE 4 Aerial photograph of Punta de Muros (Cano Pan 2012,102). SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 57 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License occupational phases (Fig. 5). The settlement seems to have been established around the middle of the ninth century BC, one of the earliest chronologies for the fortified habitats of the north-west of the peninsula (Parcero-Oubiña et al.2020). This date is contemporary with the beginning of the fortified habitat seen at other settlements in northern Portugal, such as São Julião (Bettencourt 2000) or Coto da Pena (Silva 1986,34–5), a process that spread across the north-west throughout the eighth century BC (Parcero-Oubiña et al.2020,163–4). During these first decades of occupation, Punta de Muros was a settlement of 8–10 dwellings (see Fig. 6). In addition to the absence of a well-defined layout (also applicable to A Graña), all the constructions correspond to the usual pattern of EIA domestic units. Punta de Muros then experienced a significant if gradual demographic growth between the seventh and sixth centuries BC, a fact that can be attested through the 14 Cdatingobtainedinthe households of structures X, XVI, or XXXII (see Table 1and Fig. 6). This population increase, however, was not accompanied by a transformation in the social paradigm of the settlement. The new dwellings replicate similar patterns, which indicates the persistence of the same forms of social organization. If we focus on the internal structure of the settlement and the notable absence of urban structuring, the attention paid to the formation of both defensive systems is noteworthy. Nor must one ignore the symbolism inherent in ramparts and walls that has been particularly highlighted in recent years (e.g. Von Nicolai 2014; Delfino et al.2020). It is not only a matter of defensive potential, but also of its importance in determining your own limits as a community (González- Ruibal 2006–07,182–4) and the value of defences as a symbol of social cohesion. Considering the non-existence of an internal layout, the absence of other collective buildings, the remarkable FIGURE 5 Domestic units of Punta de Muros: comparison between the First (right) and Second Phase (left). SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 58 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License form the ‘basic core’of the political organization, becoming rather the arena where were in play a multiplicity of lineages or collectives with different ranks or levels of prestige, capable of influencing the community to a greater or lesser extent. We cannot argue for any established seizure of power by any particular group in the village, but we can recognize the emergence of these potential centres of power as the first step towards social inequalities in some parts of the north-west Iberian peninsula. This phenomenon, which is particularly unusual in this region, has yet been already observed in other parts of Europe, such as the Rhineland-Palatinate (Fernández-Götz 2014, 128) or the south-east of the Gallia (Garcia 2005). Both these last regions show a remarkable process of urbanization and social hierarchization at much the same time, as defined by an increase in social conflict and a notable development of planning and construction. These processes reflect the emergence of a structured social hierarchy and the first appearance of great central locales. In other areas, such as the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt, there is no evidence of such strong hierarchical processes, but even so the disappearance of the village as a nucleus of political organization can still be observed, with a social shift towards kinship and domestic units (Roymans and Gerritsen 2002). From a European perspective, the emergence of such processes in north-west Iberia should come as no surprise. However, it is still necessary to accent the need for a heterogeneous perspective that avoids standardization processes and narratives: even though the Germanic Fürstensitze of the Rhineland-Palatinate disappeared between the fifth and fourth centuries BC (Fernández-Götz 2017,120–4), as happened with Punta de Muros, and in other regions too, such as south-east Gaul, this incipient and faltering hierarchization marks the beginning of a gradual process of endogenous urbanization that would not culminate until the Roman conquest (Golosetti 2014). Finally, the third matter of interest requires us to hypothesize about some of the causes that may have encouraged, legitimized, or structured this path towards division and internal inequality. In this study, we have considered the possibility that the social role of metalworking and those engaged in it may have had an influence on the emergence and legitimization of this paradigm shift in the settlement. It should be noted here that metalworking, by itself, is not seen as the trigger in the emergence of these processes: complex changes are the result of a multiplicity of interrelated factors. However, a greater productive specialization, of which metallurgy is an obvious instance, and its link with some of the domestic units of the settlement suggest the possibility that the control of certain activities may have been considered a mark of prestige and linked to powerful groups. Hence, as we have suggested, it is necessary to embrace an understanding of metallurgy as a symbolic and social activity, not merely a technological one. To some extent, this is not a novel question; the esoteric and symbolic component of metalworking has been studied from different ethnological and anthropological contexts in regions such as the British Isles (Gillies 1981) and Scandinavia (Barndon 2005). These investigations have not only addressed the link between metalworking and the magical component that assists in structuring its technical dimension, but have also explored the hypothetical position of the prestige accorded to the metalworker from prehistoric times (especially in the British Isles: Gillies 1981, 73–4; Scott 1987,153–4; Dolan 2016, 31) and the close relationship between metallurgy and rituals (Haaland 2004, 149; Dolan 2016, 35). From our point of view, we aim to take this line of thought still further, to consider the social and symbolic dimension of metalworking as a relevant factor in the development of certain social dynamics. As mentioned above, the social position of metalworkers is eminently cultural, and their mere presence does not illustrate that of either hierarchy or prestige; an elucidation requires re-evaluating their relationship with all those elements indicative of any greater or lesser social prestige. SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 65 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License At the same time, it is also worth highlighting that the study of the rituality of metalworking has mostly focused on iron and steel, possibly as a result of two main factors in play: the prominent position of the blacksmith in medieval European texts and the very limited existence of copper working in traditional African metallurgy (where most anthropological studies have been conducted). Although the working conditions of the metallurgy of non-ferrous metals are radically different from those of iron (inevitably generating different narratives and symbolism), copper-based metallurgy yet offers many examples of its symbolic and esoteric value, as, for example, in India (Lahiri 1995). Bronze metallurgy is characterized by complex technical-operational chains (Lehoërff 2018,117–52); the absence of a specific treatment such as heavy forging (Green 2002,15–16) does not necessarily imply that the symbolic value or esoteric knowledge was any lesser with copper and bronze, but the resulting cultural phenomena will necessarily differ from those of iron metallurgy. Returning to the case study, and focusing on Punta deMuros, the profound social change in the settlement in its last years of occupation is also indicated in a notable change in the manner of metallurgical production. Metalworking moved from multifunctional areas to specialized zones and became especially linked to some of the most complex households (Nión-Álvarez 2022, 496–7). The creation of specialized metalworking areas may have been related to a desire to keep it detached from the rest of the crafts and domestic work, away from outsiders. Maybe this suggests an attempt to keep certain phases or processes of metal manufacture and elaboration secret, as in African societies (Herbert 1993,78–114) or, apparently, in protohistoric Ireland (Dolan 2016, 43–4). In this way, metallurgy may have increased its position as a prestigious activity through the reinforcement of its esoteric value in the hands of a few family units, as the appearance of these specialized areas in two of the six major domestic groups would seem to indicate. The control and knowledge of these activities observed may suggest that the link with these outstanding domestic units correlates to an increase in the prestige of the metal craftsman and the value of this activity within the community. In fact, the importance and symbolic value of metallurgy can also be tied to the appearance of Structure XX, a religious building that could even signal a change in the ways of expressing symbolism and rituality from those operating in the first centuries of its occupation. It should be remembered that a process of deification of metallurgy through the emergence of a ‘blacksmith deity’cannot be ruled out either, as has been inferred from the relief of Vilar de Perdizes (Montalegre, Portugal) (Schattner 2019,203–5), although, in this case, it can only be confirmed later. The symbolic dimension of metalworking is essential in the process to legitimize prestige and relevant activities within the community: to guarantee the smooth functioning of society (initiation ceremonies, enthronement, etc.: Welbourn 1981, 37), to act as a source of power (Reid and MacLean 1995, 145), to supply royal symbols or insignia (Sassoon 1983), as an esoteric form of knowledge (Childs 1998, 112), or to be intimately linked to magic (Merwe and Avery 1987, 143; Barndon 2005, 41) and cosmological beliefs (Schmidt and Mapunda 1997, 75). Coming back to Punta de Muros, the presence of metalworking activities in two of the six complex domestic units shows that metallurgy may have conferred a greater social status. Furthermore, its presence in only two domestic units could also highlight that it was probably a prestigious activity, but not a widely practised one, which may indicate the importance of preserving and concealing knowledge related to metalworking (this is common in iron metallurgy for the smelting process: Childs 1998, 114). This eminence fits well with the relocation of metalworking activities to their own specialized space, for secrecy. SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 66 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License However, not all large domestic groups produced metal; thus, metallurgy could not be the only route to social promotion or legitimization. While it is possible to assume several scenarios in which the knowledge of metalworking was an agent of social change, it was probably not the only one. CONCLUSIONS This paper has presented a review of the social dynamics of two EIA settlements in north-west Iberia using a holistic and diachronic perspective that has allowed us to reveal the emergence of divergent social trends in the EIA. This approach has favoured the adoption of a fluid element in social dynamics, which allows for the characterization of divergent or heterogeneous processes. Thus, on the one hand, a clear resistance to social inequality and internal changes can be surmised for A Graña, a hillfort representative the dynamics operating in north-west Iberia in the EIA. At the same time, Punta de Muros underwent a profound social alteration throughout the fifth century BC. These transformations seem to be the consequence of a change to and in the social paradigm in the settlement, as a result of which a greater level of internal social inequality was produced, with the appearance of some potential groups and/or lineages enjoying greater power and prestige. Our arguments suggest that the knowledge of metallurgy and the social position of the smith may have been part of the legitimization of these new processes, given the remarkable change as to where and how they worked and the visible links with several of the most important domestic units in the settlement. This article is a wake-up call as to the relevance of metalworking in social dynamics. It is necessary to give greater weight to its social and symbolic dimension and impact when scrutinizing non-industrial societies. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Jon Brokenbrow and Tamara Barreiro Neira for reviewing and proofreading the text, as well as the editorial board and the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. (SN-A) University of Santiago de Compostela/Incipit CSIC, Department of History Monte Gaiás s/n, Domingo Fontán Building, Block B4, First Floor, 123, 15702, Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña) SPAIN (Corresponding author) E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-2383 (FJGG) University of Santiago de Compostela Department of History, Faculty of History Praza da Universidade 1, 15703, Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña) SPAIN E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9201-878X doi: 10.1111/ojoa.12262 SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 67 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License REFERENCES ACUÑA CASTROVIEJO,F.andMEIJIDE CAMESELLE,G. 1991: Castro de A Graña (Toques, A Coruña). Arqueoloxía Informes 2 (A Coruña), 51–4. BARNDON,R. 2004: A discussion of magic and medicines in East African iron working: actors and artefacts in technology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 37(1), 21–40. BARNDON,R. 2005: Sparks of life: the concept of fire in iron working. Current Swedish Archaeology 13, 39–57. BETTENCOURT,A.M.S.2000:O povoado de Sao Julião, Vilaverde, Norte de Portugal, nos finais da Idade do Bronce e na transição para a Idade do Ferro (Braga). BLANCO-GONZÁLEZ,A. 2011: From huts to ‘the house’. The shift in perceiving home between the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in Central Iberia (Spain). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30(4), 393–410. BLOCH,M. 2008: Why religion is nothing special but is central. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 363, 2055–61. BRONK RAMSEY,C. 1995: Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2), 425–30. BUDD,P.andTAYLOR,T. 1995: The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in the interpretation of prehistoric metal-making. World Archaeology 27(1), 133–43. CANO PAN,J.A. 2012: Punta de Muros: un poblado fortificado de finales de la Edad de Bronce (A Coruña). CAUVIN,J.2013:Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture (Paris). CUNLIFFE,B. 1999: Atlantic sea-ways. Revista de Guimarâes Volume Especial I, 93–105. CURRÁS REFOJOS,B.X.andSASTRE,I. 2019: Egalitarianism and resistance: a theoretical proposal for Iron Age northwestern Iberian archaeology. Anthropological Theory 20(3), 300–29. CHILDS,S.T. 1998: Social identity and craft specialization among Toro iron workers in western Uganda. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8(1), 109–21. CHILDS,S.T.andHERBERT,E. 2005: Metallurgy and its consequences. In STAHL,A.B. (ed.), African Archaeology. A Critical Introduction (Malden/Oxford/Carlton, Victoria), 276–301. CHILDS,S.T.andKILLICK,D. 1993: Indigenous African metallurgy: nature and culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 22, 317–37. DELFINO,D., COIMBRA,F., CARDOSO,D.andCRUZ,G. 2020: Late Prehistoric Fortifications in Europe: Defensive, Symbolic and Territorial Aspects from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age (Oxford). DOLAN,B. 2016: Making iron in the Irish midlands: the social and symbolic role of Iron Age ironworkers. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 25, 31–48. FARCI,C., MARTINÓN-TORRES,M.andGONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ,D. 2017: Bronze production in the Iron Age of the Iberian Peninsula: the case of El Castru, Vigaña (Asturias, NW Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports 11, 388–51. FEINMAN,G. 2016: Variation and change in archaic states: ritual as a mechanism of sociopolitical integration. In MURPHY,J.M.(ed.),Ritual and Archaic States (Gainesville), 1–22. FERNÁNDEZ-GÖTZ,M. 2014: De la familia a la etnia: Protohistoria de la Galia Oriental (Madrid). FERNÁNDEZ-GÖTZ,M. 2017: Urbanizationin Iron Age Europe: trajectories, patterns and social dynamics. Journal of Archaeological Research 26(2), 117–62. FERNÁNDEZ-GÖTZ,M.andROYMANS,N. 2015: The politics of identity: Late Iron Age sanctuaries in the Rhineland. Journal of the North Atlantic 8, 18–32. GARCIA,D. 2005: Urbanizationand spatial organization in southern France and north-eastern Spain. In OSBORNE, R.andCUNLIFFE,B. (eds.), Mediterranean Urbanisation 800–600 BC (Oxford), 169–86. GERRITSEN,F. 2007: Relocating the house. Social transformations in late prehistoric northern Europe. In BECK,R. A.(ed.),The Durable House. House Society Models in Archaeology (Carbondale), 154–74. GILES,M. 2007: Making metals and forging relations. Ironworking in the British Iron Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26(4), 395–413. GILLIES,W. 1981: The craftsman in early Celtic literature. Scottish Archaeological Forum 11, 70–85. GODELIER,M. 1986: La producción de Grandes Hombres. Poder y dominación masculina entre los Baruya de Nueva Guinea (Madrid). GOLOSETTI,R. 2014: Places of memory. Hero cults and urbanisation during the First Iron Age in southeast Gaul. In FERNÁNDEZ GÖTZ,M., WENDLING,H.andWINGER,K. (eds.), Paths to Complexity. Centralisation and Urbanisation in Iron Age Europe (Oxford), 52–64. SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 68 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License GOLOSETTI,R. 2017: Cult Places at former oppida in south-east Gaul: questions of memory, tradition and identity. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36(2), 171–95. GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL,A.2006–07: Galaicos: poder y comunidad en el Noroeste de la Península Ibérica: (1200 a.C.–50 d.C.) (A Coruña). GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL,A. 2012: The politics of identity: ethnicity and the economy of power in Iron Age Northwest Iberia. In STODDART,S.andCIFANI,G. (eds.), Landscape, Ethnicity, Identity in the Archaic Mediterranean Area (Oxford), 245–66. GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ,D. 2011: De la cultura castreña al mosaico castreño: Una aproximación en términos sociales a la variabilidad de las formas de poblamiento de las comunidades castreñas del Noroeste peninsular y orla cantábrica. Estat Critic 5(1), 213–26. GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA,F.J. 2017: Exploring alternative pathways to social complexity in the European Iron Age: the northwestern Iberian peninsula as a case study. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27(2), 295–311. GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA,F.J., PARCERO-OUBIÑA,C.andAYÁN-VILA,X. 2011: Iron Age societies against the state. An account on the emergence of the Iron Age in the NW Iberian peninsula. In ARMADA PITA,X.L.andMOORE, T.(eds.),Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium BC: Crossing the Divide (Oxford), 285–301. GREEN,M.A. 2002: Any old iron! Symbolism and ironworking in Iron Age Europe. In GREEN,M.A.andWEBSTER, P.(eds.),Artefacts and Archaeology. Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World (Cardiff), 8–19. HAALAND,R. 2004: Technology, transformation and symbolism: ethnographic perspectives on European iron working. Norwegian Archaeological Review 37(1), 1–19. HAALAND,R.2007–08: Say it in iron. Symbols of transformation and reproduction in the European Iron Age. Current Swedish Archaeology 15–16, 91–110. HELMS,M.W.1993:Craft and the Kingly Ideal (Austin). HERBERT,E. 1993: Iron, Gender, and Power: Rituals of Transformation in African Societies, African Systems of Thought (Bloomington/Indianapolis). HILL,J.D. 1995: How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from Southern Britain. In HILL,J.D.andCUMBERPATCH,C. (eds.), Different Iron Ages. Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe (Oxford), 45–66. HINGLEY,R. 1997: Iron, ironworking and regeneration: a study of the symbolic meaning of metalworking in Iron Age Britain. In GWILT,A.andHASELGROVE,C. (eds.), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies (Oxford), 9–15. HINGLEY,R. 2009: Esoteric knowledge? Ancient bronze artefacts from Iron Age contexts. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, 143–65. HODDER,I. 2004: Post-modernism, post-structuralism and post-procesualism. In HODDER,I. (ed.), The Meanings of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expression (Abingdon), 64–78. HODDER,I.andPELS,P. 2010: History houses: A new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük. In HODDER,I. (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Çatalhöyük as a Case Study (Cambridge), 163–86. INGOLD,T.2000:The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London). LAHIRI,N.L. 1995: Indian metal and metal-related artefacts as cultural signifiers: an ethnographic perspective. World Archaeology 27(1), 116–32. LEHOËRFF,A.2018:Par les armes. le jour où l’homme invente la guerre (Paris). LUCAS,G.2012:Understanding the Archaeological Record (Cambridge). MEIJIDE CAMESELLE,G. 1990: Tres dataciones de C 14 del Castro de A Graña (Toques, A Coruña) y su contexto arqueológico. Gallaecia 12, 111–34. MÉNDEZ FERNÁNDEZ,F. 1994: La domesticación del paisaje durante la Edad del Bronce gallego. Trabajos De Prehistoria 51(1), 77–94. MERWE,N.J.andAVERY,D.H. 1987: Science and magic in African technology: traditional iron smelting in Malawi. African Archaeological Review 57(2), 144–72. NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ,S. 2018: Punta de Muros y su excepcionalidad en el contexto del Hierro I en el Noroeste peninsular. In AGUDO PÉREZ,L., DUARTE,C., GARCÍA FRAGA,A., GEILING,J.M., HIGUERO PLIEGO,A.andNÚÑEZ DE LA FUENTE,S.(eds.),Actas de las IX Jornadas de Jóvenes en Investigación Arqueológica (Santander), 345–52. NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ,S. 2021: La protohistoria en el territorio ártabro. Organización social y estructura territorial. (Ph.D. thesis, University of Santiago de Compostela). NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ,S. 2022: The metalworker as social agent: A longue durée approach from North-Western Iberian atlantic façade (9th–1st centuries BCE). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 32(2), 489–506. SAMUEL NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 69 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ,S. forthcoming: Analysing social processes through domestic and public spaces: an approach from northwest Iberia (9th–1st centuries BC). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 35(2). OLIVIER,L. 2001: Duration, memory and the nature of the archaeological record. In KARLSSON,H.(ed.),It’sabout Time: The Concept of Time in Archaeology (Göteborg), 61–70. OLIVIER,L. 2020: El oscuro abismo del tiempo. Memoria y arqueología (Madrid). PARCERO-OUBIÑA,C. 2000: Tres para dos. Las formas del poblamiento en la Edad del Hierro del Noroeste Ibérico. Trabajos De Prehistoria 57(1), 75–95. PARCERO-OUBIÑA,C., ARMADA PITA,X.L., NIÓN-ÁLVAREZ,S.andGONZÁLEZ INSUA,F. 2020: All together now (or not): change, resistance, resilience in the NW Iberian peninsula between the Bronze Age –Iron Age. In CURRÁS,B.X.andSASTRE,I. (eds.), Alternative Iron Ages. Social Theory from Archaeological Analysis (Abingdon and New York), 151–75. PFAFFENBERGER,B. 1988: Fetishised objects and humanised nature: towards an anthropology of technology. Man, New Series 23(2), 236–52. REID,A.andMACLEAN,R. 1995: Symbolism and the social contexts of iron production in Karagwe. World Archaeology 27(1), 144–61. ROYMANS,N.andGERRITSEN,F. 2002: Landscape, ecology and mentalités: a long-term perspective on developments in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt Region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 257–87. RUÍZ ZAPATERO,G. 2005: Un círculo de lectores. Miradas sobre los celtas del NO. de la Península Ibérica. Complutum 16, 151–208. SASSOON,H. 1983: Kings, cattle and blacksmiths: royal insignia and religious symbolism in the interlacustrine states. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 18(1), 93–106. SCHATTNER,T.G. 2019: Diversidad en la distancia. Imágenes romanas de divinidades en el Occidente hispano. Onoba 7, 193–236. SCHMIDT,P.R.andMAPUNDA,B. 1997: Ideology and the archaeology record in Africa. Interpreting symbolism in iron smelting technology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 73–102. SCOTT,B.G. 1987: The status of the blacksmith in early Ireland. In SCOTT,B.G.andCLEERE,H.(eds.),The Crafts of the Blacksmith: Essays Presented to R.F. Tylecote (Belfast), 153–66. SILVA,A.C.F. 1986: A Cultura Castreja do Noroeste de Portugal (Paços de Ferreira). STEADMAN,S.2015:Archaeology of Domestic Architecture and the Human Use of Space (Walnut Creek). THOMAS,J.1999:Time, Culture and Identity. An Interpretative Archaeology (London). VANS INA,J.M. 1978: The Children of Woot: A History of the Kuba Peoples (Madison). VON NICOLAI,C. 2014: Symbolic meanings of Iron Age hillfort defences in continental Europe. In FERNÁNDEZ GÖTZ,M., WENDLING,H.andWINGER,K. (eds.), Paths to Complexity. Centralisations and Urbanisation in Iron Age Europe (Oxford), 111–22. WELBOURN,D.A. 1981: The role of blacksmiths in a tribal society. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 1, 30–40. WELBOURN,D.A. 1985: Craft specialisation and complex societies: a critique. In CHAMPION,T.C.andMEGAW,J.V.S. (eds.), Settlement and Society: Aspects of West European Prehistory in the First Millennium B.C. (Leicester), 123–32. SOCIAL CHANGE AND METALWORKING IN EIA IBERIA OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 70 ©2022 The Authors. Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford. 14680092, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ojoa.12262 by Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Wiley Online Library on [15/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License