Learning Technology: Cultural Inheritance and Neolithic Pottery Production in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain 9781407308777, 9781407338620

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN SOCIETIES. THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP
CHAPTER 3: THE NEOLITHIC IN THE ALCOI BASIN, ALICANTE, SPAIN
CHAPTER 4: THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND THE VALENCIAN NEOLITHIC: MODELS AND HYPOTHESES
CHAPTER 5: THE SITES
CHAPTER 6: THE CERAMICS OF NEOLITHIC VALENCIA
CHAPTER 7: THE MACRO-VISUAL AND MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 8: SOURCING ANALYSIS (INAA)
CHAPTER 9: CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETY IN VALENCIA: DISCUSSION
CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS: CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY AND NEOLITHIC SOCIETY
APPENDIX A: NEOLITHIC RADIOCARBON DATES FROM VALENCIA
APPENDIX B: LIST OF INAA SAMPLES AND RESULTS
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF RECIPES AND INCLUSIONS IN THIN SECTION
REFERENCES
Back Cover

Citation preview

BAR S2300 2011

Learning Technology: Cultural Inheritance and Neolithic Pottery Production in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain

McCLURE

Sarah B. McClure

LEARNING TECHNOLOGY

B A R

BAR International Series 2300 2011

Learning Technology: Cultural Inheritance and Neolithic Pottery Production in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain

Sarah B. McClure

BAR International Series 2300 2011

ISBN 9781407308777 paperback ISBN 9781407338620 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308777 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

To my parents Christa and John McClure

Table of Contents Foreword4 Chapter 1: Introduction

6

Chapter 2: Technology and Human Societies.  Theoretical Approaches to a Complex Relationship

8

Chapter 3: The Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin,  Alicante, Spain

16

Chapter 4: Theoretical Concepts and the Valencian Neolithic: Models and Hypotheses

34

Chapter 5: The Sites

44

Chapter 6: The Ceramics of Neolithic Valencia52 Chapter 7: The Macro-Visual and Microscopic Analysis

57

Chapter 8: Sourcing Analysis (INAA)

100

Chapter 9: Ceramic Technology and Neolithic Society in Valencia: Discussion

108

Chapter 10: Conclusions: Ceramic Technology and Neolithic Society

125

Appendix A: Neolithic Radiocarbon Dates from Valencia

127

Appendix B: List of INAA Samples and Results129 Appendix C: Examples of Recipes and Inclusions in Thin Section

138

References 

143

3

about the archaeology of Valencia and the logistics of fieldwork.

Foreword This book is based largely on my dissertation “Cultural Transmission of Ceramic Technology during the Consolidation of Agriculture in Valencia, Spain” that I presented to the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara in December 2004. I have extensively updated the manuscript based on advances in the field and developments in my own thinking on the Neolithic of the Western Mediterranean.

I am grateful for the financial support I received while researching and writing this book and warmly thank the following institutions: United States Department of Education for the Jacob K. Javits Graduate Fellowship, Department of Anthropology and the Graduate Division at the University of California, Santa Barbara, National Science Foundation, Sigma Xi, William J. Fulbright Fellowship, the University of Oregon, and the University of California.

This book could not have been written without the help, support, and encouragement of many colleagues, friends, and family. Many people have influenced my interest in archaeology and the prehistory of Europe in particular, but above all, I thank Mike Jochim, my advisor and Doktorvater. His combination of insight, enthusiasm, scientific rigor, and patience make him a gifted mentor, and his kindness and support over the years helped bring this book to fruition. The members of my doctoral committee contributed to the original project in many ways; and each has left her or his intellectual imprint on my research. I thank Mark Aldenderfer, C. Michael Barton, Philip Walker, and Melinda Zeder for their intellectual curiosity, insights, and enthusiasm. Phil Walker’s untimely passing in 2009 was a huge loss professionally and personally and his wit, humor, and incredible mind are sorely missed.

This book could not have been written without the tremendous support and kindness of colleagues and friends at the University of Valencia, Spain. I am indebted to Joan Bernabeu in particular for his graciousness in hosting me as a Fulbright scholar in Valencia, introducing me to the academic literature, including me in field projects, and opening up the world of Neolithic pottery in Valencia to me. The Department of Prehistory and Archaeology provided invaluable logistical support. Special thanks also to Emili Aura, Tina Badal, Yolanda Carrión, Augustin Diez, Rosa García, Oreto García, Pau García, Magda Gómez, Lluis Molina, Teresa Orozco, Manolo Perez, and Valentin Villaverde for sharing their expertise in Valencian archaeology and making my various sojourns in Valencia thoroughly enjoyable. In particular, Emili Aura, Joan Bernabeu, Augustin Diéz, Oreto García, Lluís Molina, Teresa Orozco and Valentin Villaverde granted access to collections, shared unpublished data, and discussed the intricacies of Neolithic sites with me.

Doug Kennett, Hector Neff, and Stephen Shennan commented on various parts of this book during the course of writing, and I thank them for their insights and critiques. I also thank Bill Barnett, Brenda Bowser, Antonio Gilman, Olivier Gosselain, Michael Kunst, and Dan Larson for their encouragement and willingness to share ideas and experiences with me. Melissa Chatfield was especially patient, and spent much time and energy introducing me to the wonders and pitfalls of ceramic analysis. I thank her for sharing her expertise with me.

Special thanks to Bernat Martí for hosting me during my post-doctoral fellowship , teaching me about the history of archaeological research in the area and his continued interest and support in this project. Each conversation with him provided new insights into the archaeology of the region, and I thank him for sharing his encyclopedic knowledge of collections and literature. I am also grateful to staff members at the Museum of Prehistory in Valencia who helped me navigate their library and collections. I remain indebted to Jose Maria Segura and the staff at the Museu Arqueològic Municipal ‘Camil Visedo Moltó’ de Alcoi for access to collections and logistical support, and am grateful for the friendly reception and interactions I had while in Alcoi. Thanks also to Roderic Ortiz i Gispert and German Pérez for sharing their friendly personalities and knowledge of the region and its archaeology with me. I am particularly grateful to Rosa García, Lluis Molina and their family, as well as Oreto García and Josep Blasco and their family for their friendship and support over the course of this project. They provided food, shelter, diversions, and many fond memories.

The Department of Anthropology at the University of Oregon contributed significantly to the completion of this book through logistical support and intellectual stimulation first during my tenure as a Faculty Fellow and Visiting Lecturer and subsequently as an Assistant Professor. Cheryl Baker, Garren LaRue, and Steven Sirok spent many hours entering data in the lab, for which I am grateful. In addition, the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Oregon provided logistical support for the petrographic analysis, and I am indebted to Cathy Cashman, John Donovan, Bill Orr, and Paul Wallace for sharing their expertise and equipment. In particular, Cathy Cashman and Bill Orr gave me the tools I needed to identify minerals in thin section, and were always available for questions regarding geology and petrography. Mike Glascock and Christoph Descantes at the University of Missouri Research Reactor conducted the elemental analysis presented. I also thank C. Michael Barton and Steven Schmich for many long conversations

This book would not have been possible without the unfaltering love and support of my family: Tipp, Cindy, Reilly, Logan, Mary, Daniel, Taeve and Ella. Diana and 4

Jim Kennett opened their hearts and their home, and I am grateful for their love, and for food and shelter during the many stays with them in Santa Barbara while writing parts of this manuscript. My parents, Christa and John McClure instilled in me the desire to learn and taught me that the simple questions are often the most difficult to answer. Their enthusiasm for life and the world around them is infectious. It is to my mother and in loving memory of my father that I dedicate this book. Finally, my heartfelt thanks to my husband Doug and children Lukas and Kyra Kennett for their patience and encouragement during the course of completion of this book. Doug has been a steadfast support in all aspects and has given generously of his time, energy, and talents in helping me complete this project. From editor to confidante to cheerleader, he has worn many hats in this process. I shall be eternally grateful for the love, humor, intelligence, and wit with which they enrich my life.

5

location for this kind of study. The rich record of human occupation in the region has been the focus of archaeological inquiry for well over a century. As a result, Neolithic developments in socio-economic activities are well documented. A study of the relationship between a technology and the society in which it exists is only possible in a context where large collections of artifacts are available from sites in geographic proximity, and where a great deal of analysis on the artifacts and their context has already been done. This study, therefore, rests on the shoulders of the archaeologists who have worked tirelessly and extensively in and around the Alcoi Basin.

Chapter 1: Introduction 640K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates, 1981 Tool use is a fundamental characteristic of human life. The production and use of tools is inherent in every human society and it helps shape the way people spend their lives and how they see their world. Through tool use, people express their creativity and skill, interests and needs. The ubiquity of tools in the archaeological record and the traces of production allow scholars to address issues that range from basic survival to dealing with mortality. Technology is inextricably linked to human societies.

This study is original in its application of innovative and current theoretical considerations, particularly the use of cultural inheritance theory, and traditional, welltested analytical methods. It is the first large-scale study of Neolithic ceramic technology in eastern Spain, and generates a rich assortment of new data towards our understanding of Neolithic society in general and pottery production in particular. Methodologically, I employ a multi-scalar analytical approach, embodied in the chaîne opératoire, to characterize the diversity in technological practices and changes through time. The chaîne opératoire approach is common among European archaeologists, but remains largely limited in its application to specific theoretical paradigms in North America. Far from being the sole property of agency theory, the chaîne opératoire concept is shown to be of use for evolutionary archaeologists as well. Theoretically, this book looks to a range of postprocessual paradigms: concepts from practice theory, behavioral archaeology, and evolutionary archaeology are discussed in light of their interpretive and analytical power for understanding technological practices. Based on this discussion, cultural inheritance theory provides a multiscalar framework that allows the archaeologist to explore both individual behavior and long-term patterning within an explicit and coherent theoretical paradigm. Hypotheses based on practice theory and behavioral archaeology, however, highlight the potential complementarity of these approaches to questions of the past. Indeed, this study demonstrates that theoretical differences need not only be the source of politically-heated and polemic debate. Rather, they can be used together in the interest of addressing issues of archaeological inquiry and trying to answer questions about the human past.

Archaeologists approach technologies in historic contexts. We identify changes through time in technological traditions, innovations, and the implications of specific tools, such as the intensified agricultural production made possible by the plow. However, archaeologists have the grace of hindsight. We can identify implications of technological shifts that may not be visible to people at the time. As the quote attributed to Bill Gates above suggests, even pioneers in their own field cannot predict the future of technological developments or how a society may incorporate and change any given technology. The idea of 640K maximum capacity for data processing seems quaint to us now. However, in the early 1980’s the technological capabilities of faster and larger computers had yet to be created and more importantly, the need or demand for faster and larger computers did not exist. This is a prime example of the complex interplay of technology and society – an interactive dynamic between producers, consumers, and the material world. This kind of relationship between technology and society is by no means a new phenomenon. As the archaeological record shows us, tools and the techniques used to create them have changed through time as a result of and as a mechanism for shifts in function, resources, ideology, style, and skill. It is this dynamic relationship between technology, technological practice, and society that is the focus of this book. The analysis of Neolithic pottery production in Valencia, eastern Spain provides a case study for an archaeological approach to this dynamic. Two main questions frame this study: 1) what are the changes in technological practices in the manufacture of pottery during the Neolithic, and 2) how do these changes articulate with shifts in other realms of society? In order to address these questions, I turned to insights and discussions on the role of technology in society in evolutionary theory, agency-based approaches, and behavioral archaeology to frame the study in relevant, anthropological terms. With a set of explicit hypotheses, I then use standard archaeological methods in the analysis of prehistoric pottery to reconstruct production techniques and evaluate the hypotheses.

This book is divided into two main parts. Part 1 deals with theory and context. Chapter 2 focuses on theoretical approaches to technology as proposed by proponents of cultural inheritance theory, behavioral archaeology, and practice theory. These theoretical frameworks are compared and areas of overlap, complementarity, and divergence are clearly identified. The specific archaeological record of Neolithic developments in the Alcoi Basin is summarized in Chapter 3. The transition to agriculture 7000 years ago and current methodological issues influencing our understanding of the documented processes are discussed,

The Alcoi Basin in Valencia, eastern Spain is an ideal 6

as is the evidence for socio-economic change during the course of the Neolithic until ca. 5000 years ago. Chapter 4 presents concrete hypotheses based on theoretical considerations, particularly cultural inheritance theory, and the specific historic contexts of pottery production during the Neolithic to be tested by the archaeological data. Part 2 of the book turns to the ceramic collections themselves and the analyses conducted. The ceramic assemblages and their contextual information are described in detail. Chapter 5 summarizes data for the sites where pottery analyzed in this study were uncovered. The current state of Neolithic ceramic analysis in Valencia is described in Chapter 6. Emphasis is placed on the typology and stylistic analyses conducted on Neolithic pottery from this region, and results of previous technological studies on Neolithic ceramics from eastern Spain are summarized. The technological analysis itself is divided into two chapters. Chapter 7 presents the results of the macro-visual and petrographic analysis of Neolithic pottery from sites in and around the Alcoi Basin. The results of the elemental analysis of Neolithic pottery are presented in Chapter 8. Finally, the results of both analyses are used to test the hypotheses outlined earlier. The implications of the results for our understanding of Neolithic society and potting practices are discussed in detail in Chapter 9.

7

ceramic technological analysis.

Chapter 2: Technology and Human Societies. Theoretical Approaches to a Complex Relationship

Theoretical Approaches to Ceramic Technology As one of the artifact classes to survive well at archaeological sites, ceramics have provided windows into chronology, artistic expression, food preparation, social activities, and much more. The ubiquity of ceramics in many prehistoric contexts has given rise to the diversity of theoretical approaches to interpret their presence and make inferences about past human behavior. A vast body of literature deals with the role of decorative style and typologies. This literature is the foundation on which much archaeological research on ceramic producing societies rests. However, in lieu of a large-scale literature review of prehistoric ceramic studies, I concentrate only on theoretical approaches to ceramic technology, i.e. the manufacturing techniques of pottery. Although preference for some of the approaches is clearly stated, critiques from different theoretical perspectives broaden the discussion of the role of technology, and ceramic technology in particular, in human societies. In the following I turn first to evolutionary approaches and examine the applicability of cultural inheritance theory to technology studies. Critiques and ideas from behavioral archaeology and agency theory are discussed subsequently.

“Technological engagement is one of the most fundamental of human experiences, and to study technology is to seek out the heart and soul of culture” (Dobres 2000:223) The relationship between society, culture, and technology is emerging as a major research arena in the social sciences. Inter-disciplinary research institutes and programs such as Society and Technology Studies (STS) are becoming widespread in North American universities, and reflect the growing interest and concerns of a high-tech American society. The Information Age and Communications Revolution are highlighting the interconnectedness of technology, culture, social organization, information exchange, and social change. It is no wonder that in this context social scientists are re-discovering technology as an important research topic. Anthropological sub-disciplines have had differing approaches and histories of technological research. Sociocultural anthropologists in particular have shown a high degree of disinterest in technological studies throughout much of the 20th century (Pfaffenberger 1992, 1999; Sillitoe 1988). According to Pfaffenberger (1999:147), this disinterest can be traced to influential work by Malinowsky, who rejected the ‘purely technological enthusiasms’ (1935:I:460) of the collectors and untheoretical ethnologists who had been dominating anthropology. As a result, socio-cultural anthropologists essentially ignored technological studies during the 20th century, leaving the study of technology and material culture to ethnographic museums (Pfaffenberger 1992; Sillitoe 1988; also see discussion in Pfaffenberger 1999). Theoretical approaches to technology have only recently re-emerged among socio-cultural anthropologists, often dealing with issues of globalization, genetically modified food, gender, cloning, and the Internet (e.g., Pfaffenberger 1992, 1999; Bray 2007; Cleveland 2000; Cleveland and Murray 1997).

Evolutionary Archaeology and Technology: Cultural Transmission Theory Darwinian approaches to understanding prehistoric human societies are based on the idea that humans, like all animals, are subject to evolutionary processes. In archaeology, Darwinian approaches variously focus on natural selection, evolutionary psychology, and optimization models to understand the patterning in material remains of past human societies. A diversity of approaches exists, often resulting in fierce theoretical argument between different ‘camps’, such as selectionists, behavioral ecologists and evolutionary psychologists (e.g., see papers in Barton and Clark 1997; papers in Mashner 1996; Shennan 2002a; papers in Smith and Winterhalder 1992; Smith 2000). However, common to all evolutionary approaches is the attempt to explain patterns of cultural stability and change using aspects of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis in biology (Shennan 2002a:15).

In contrast, and by its very nature, archaeology has focused on material culture studies since its inception. Material remnants are the only clues we have of prehistoric societies, and archaeologists have proven creative, innovative and detail-oriented in gleaning information from an at times frustratingly sparse archaeological record. Yet approaches to technology, or even its definition, are by no means unified. In the following, I look to current archaeological approaches in technological studies, particularly ceramic technology. First, I explore the diversity of theoretical approaches currently employed in the study of prehistoric technologies. Then, in Chapter 4, I turn my sights to the methodological issues of these approaches and highlight the concept of the chaîne opératoire, or behavioral production sequence, as a useful and widespread methodology for

Despite the growing body of literature and diversity of approaches, evolutionary approaches are often misconstrued as environmental determinism, where decisions by individual people are irrelevant since they are on a preordained path toward (or away from) reproductive success. This is particularly true of evolutionary approaches to technological studies that are often understood as following a line of technological determinism, an ‘evolutionary trajectory’ towards technological ‘progress’ (e.g., Loney 2000, 2001). In fact, evolutionary approaches are based on precisely the contrary notion. Individual behavior (and decisions) is the focus of evolutionary inquiries. As Barton and Clark (1997a:7) write, “evolutionary change 8

is not imposed from without, but the result of human choice.” Evolution is not some outside force, pulling the puppet strings of societies. Rather, behavioral variation, the accumulation of individual people’s choices, persists differentially (and for a number of reasons), resulting in change through time. It is precisely on the individual level that evolutionary processes operate, and the effects are visible on the population level. The exploration of this differential persistence of behavior is at the heart of evolutionary approaches, including within technological studies (e.g., Dunnell 1989; Larson et al. 1996; Neff 1990, 1992, 2001; Neff et al. 1997; Neiman 1995; O’Brien et al. 1994; Shennan and Wilkinson 2001).

of adaptation and of phenotypic modification (Shennan 2002b:184). The learning process provides individuals with the tools that they need for survival within their environment (social and natural), while the transmission of knowledge through learning and teaching is also the arena for technological change and variation, i.e., phenotypic modification. Since learning processes vary, they have an impact on the nature of the outcome. For this reason, learning cannot be ignored as a constant. Learning affects some key evolutionary processes relevant to individuals, such as survival, reproductive success, and successful parenting. Evolutionary approaches see all phenomena in ‘cost-benefit’ terms. Thus, “variations in learning processes should be potentially explicable in terms of their costs and benefits in particular situations” (Shennan 2002b:184). Three kinds of learning can be distinguished: classical conditioning, operant conditioning (or trial-and-error learning), and observational learning or imitation. The latter, a form of social learning, is the most common form of cultural transmission.

One current within Darwinian archaeology is particularly interesting in attempting to understand technological practices and the role of technology within human societies. Cultural transmission theory, also referred to as ‘dual inheritance theory’ (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Boyd and Richerson 1985; Shennan 2002a), investigates the connection of evolutionary processes with individuals acquiring, modifying, and transmitting basic cultural knowledge. Since cultural knowledge is generally acquired from earlier generations (e.g., parents, grandparents), several scholars have suggested an analogy between genetic transmission and cultural transmission, and have taken it as a starting point for developing and modifying mathematical models (e.g., Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Boyd and Richerson 1985) and exploring its mechanisms (Dawkins 1976; 1982).

So how is learning understood within an evolutionary framework focused on cultural transmission? First, because learning is itself an adaptation and subject to the costbenefit requirements of evolutionary theory, social learning will always be superior to individual learning as a source of adaptive information that can be acquired at little cost (Boyd and Richerson 1988:30; see also Shennan 2002a; 2002b: 187). Within the animal world, transmission within social learning can be horizontal (i.e. between members of the same generation), vertical (between parents and offspring), and oblique (between generations, but not in a parental relationship) (Shennan 2002b:188). For human societies, this has ramifications for the transmission of technological practice. As Shennan and Steele (1999) show in a survey of craft practices among a wide range of ethnographic groups transmission of a traditional craft is vertical or oblique in the vast majority of human societies, and usually between parents and offspring of the same gender.

Due to the role of transmission through time, technology cannot be understood simply by looking at a specific point in time. Technologies that people use have been handed down to them from previous generations, and do not constitute ‘ideal tool kits’ for a present situation (Shennan 2002b:184). Rather, cultural transmission, like genetic transmission, is cumulative in nature. In addition, cultural inheritance produces population level feedback effects: the frequency of a particular cultural trait within a population will depend in part on its frequency in the preceding time period (Shennan 2002a). For this reason, history needs to be understood and taken into account when attempting to address technology. It is precisely this historical aspect that is highlighted within evolutionary approaches. Darwinian approaches “are much more about the importance of historical trajectories, situationally appropriate strategies and differences in interests than differences in human capacities” (Shennan 2002a:14).

The transmission of craft knowledge between generations has implications for understanding technological change. The evolutionary framework as described above, suggests that technologies should be inherently conservative. As Shennan (2002b:190) writes, “We are likely to find stronger evidence of continuities over time in some kinds of behavior – for example, those that require complex learned techniques, knowledge of which has built up cumulatively over generations – than in other areas of social life (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981).”

Processes and Mechanisms of Cultural Inheritance Learning, as a mechanism of technological change, provides the theoretical and analytic basis within the cultural inheritance framework. Learning is a fundamental requisite of any technology. After invention, itself an act of exploration and learning, the spread of technologies is reliant on practitioners teaching their craft to others. Within an evolutionary context, learning is seen as a form 9

Variation and Technological Change In addition to the vertical, horizontal and oblique modes of social learning, evolutionary archaeology also looks to learning modes on a larger analytical scale. Where the above explores cultural transmission within a group, one can also discuss technological change on the group or supra-group level with the help of cultural inheritance theory. Here, researchers have looked to concepts from evolutionary archaeology to understand the introduction of new technologies or widespread adoption of variations resulting from social transmission modes discussed above.

because they could not easily monitor the success of the innovation (since milking occurs inside barns, out of view of neighbors). In contrast, it was immediately obvious if a farmer on a different kind of tractor finished plowing his fields and going to lunch earlier than everyone else. Layton’s study is an excellent example of the differences in selection criteria for the adoption of innovations that need to be considered when thinking about technological innovations and change prehistorically. Cultural inheritance theory therefore provides a structured theoretical framework to explore the evolutionary consequences of technological transmission. Analytical and interpretive focus is on the individual, group and supra-group scale, examining transmission modes and evolutionary processes in both the short and long-term. Evolutionary archaeology therefore provides a multiscalar analytical and interpretive approach to the study of prehistoric technologies.

Guided variation and indirect bias are two contrasting modes of cultural transmission proposed by Boyd and Richerson (1985: 94-95, 243). In guided variation, individuals acquire new behaviors by direct copy of other social models. They then modify behavior to suit their own needs, often through trial-and-error experiments. Complex behaviors often result because different individuals were used as models for different parts of a behavior, and the resulting ‘composite behavior’ is more or less unique (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999). Therefore, guided variation is equivalent to purposeful innovation (e.g., Shennan 2002a).

The Behavioral Approach to Technology: Design Theory Behavioral approaches to technology have been developed and highly refined in the past 20 years. Behavioral archaeologists study people-artifact dynamics, arguing that these relationships are the starting point for building new social theory within archaeology (e.g., Rathje 1977; Rathje and Schiffer 1982; Reid et al. 1975; Schiffer 1992, 1995; Skibo et al. 1995; Skibo and Schiffer 2008). The role of the artifact is considered paramount in human societies – and some believe it is involved not only in daily practice but also in nearly all human communication (Schiffer 1999:200). The focus of behavioral archaeology is to explain how variability within the archaeological record arises from human behavior. To this end, four dimensions of artifact variability have been defined: formal, spatial, quantitative, and relational properties (see Rathje and Schiffer 1982:64-65; Schiffer 1987:13-23). To date, behavioral archaeologists have been unable to define a theoretical framework to address all four types of variability, although it remains a goal for several key practitioners (see Schiffer 2001a; Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Skibo and Schiffer 2001). Instead, behavioral archaeology studies have focused on formal variation in artifacts, delineating a conceptual framework and developing analytical techniques to address human behavior implied in artifact variability.

In contrast, indirect bias is based on the emulation of a single social model that is thought to encompass all the desired traits. For example, highly successful hunters may serve as models for making all types of hunting gear (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999:236). In essence, an individual adopts the cultural attribute of another individual who appears to be more successful. However, this may be a risky proposition, since the notion of indirect bias suggests that practices are adopted on the basis of the source, not merits (Shennan 2002b). Similarly, the idea of conformist transmission is centered on the accepted practices within a group, and to an extent regardless of the basic merits of the practice (‘when in Rome, do as the Romans’; Shennan 2002a,b). Regardless of the mode of transmission, the ultimate fate of an innovation in a population at large may have little to do with the directed process of innovation among individuals: an innovation may not be adopted because it depends on the selection criteria for the innovation. An example of this comes from a small farming community, Pellaport, in France, where innovations in agricultural technologies were variously adopted, depending in part on the social status of the innovator (Layton 1989). Regardless of any potential decrease in the cost/benefit ratio, a new type of tractor was only accepted by the farming community at large after a respected farmer purchased the innovation, despite the prior use of the same innovation by another individual (thought to be ‘crazy’) in the same community several years earlier. Another example from the same village showed that the adoption of innovations was also closely related to the visibility of benefits to other community members. Layton (1989) discusses how members of the community did not readily adopt innovations in milking technology,

When applied to technology studies, behavioral approaches argue that formal variability of artifacts is attributable to the behavior of the producer (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:140). A behavioral approach can be used at any socio-political or production scale (egalitarian or industrialized societies; single craftsperson or factory), because it examines why an artifact is made in a particular way without being limited to a specific production type: “the design of objects results from people trying to solve the problems of everyday life in various behavioral, social, and natural environments” (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:141). 10

The goal is to understand technology as a social process (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:44).

this attention to specific interactions that distinguishes a behavioral chain approach from other life history approaches (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:142).

This behavioral approach, at times termed ‘design theory,’ is an inclusive framework because it takes into account that an artifact may change its role through time. Design theory consists of four major components: 1) the life history and behavioral chain, 2) activities and interaction, 3) technical choices and compromises, and 4) performance characteristics.

Finally, technical choices, compromises, and performance characteristics are important elements of design theory. Technical choices are individual activities specified by the design process that pertain to material procurement, processing, and assembly. It implies that there are alternatives that are not chosen, and is the dependent behavioral variable in the framework (Schiffer and Skibo 1987:599). Performance characteristics are a product’s set of interaction-specific capabilities, i.e. the key attributes for use within potentially varying contexts. It should be noted that performance characteristics might be important in different activities in the behavioral chain (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:144). In order to achieve specific performance characteristics, compromises usually need to be made by the producer. This often occurs within technical choices. A technical choice can affect performance characteristics in many activities along an artifact’s chain. For example, pottery that is tempered with organic fiber (e.g., straw) is more porous and less dense than a sand tempered vessel (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:31). This porosity has a number of implications: 1) the vessel is less able to receive a smooth slip or finely painted decoration; 2) the vessel is more portable (Skibo et al. 1989); 3) it has a lower heating effectiveness in cooking over an open fire (Skibo et al. 1989); and 4) it is more susceptible to abrasion while in use (Skibo et al. 1989; Vaz Pinto et al. 1987). Therefore, the decision to fiber-temper a vessel, which is fairly early in the behavioral chain, has significant implications for performance characteristics within the life history of the vessel. However, it is also true that performance characteristics can be created by many different types of technological choices (Schiffer and Skibo 1987). For example, if the goal is to have a vessel with thermal shock resistance during cooking, a number of technological choices can result in the desired quality: paste constituents, vessel shape, interior or exterior surface treatments, or firing (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:31). Thus there are many ways in which a particular performance characteristic may be achieved.

The life history process of an artifact comprises procurement, manufacture, use, and discard. It focuses on gross processes and is useful for coarse-grained explanations of artifact variability and change (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:142). However, to really understand a technology, one must focus on individual activities within the life history. The sequence of activities of a life history has been termed ‘behavioral chain’ (Schiffer 1976:49-53; Schiffer and Skibo 1997:26; Skibo and Schiffer 2001:142). It should be noted that all links in the behavioral chain are potentially important in an artifact’s design, and changes in one link may have down-the-line repercussions. The second component of design theory focuses on the activities within the behavioral chain and the interactions between people, people and artifacts, and between artifacts. Each link in the behavioral chain is an activity, i.e. any patterned interaction between elements, such as people, artifacts, or animals. This is intuitive on the gross-scale within the life history of an artifact (e.g., procurement of raw material, roughing out a pre-form, etc.), but in design theory, focus is on the particular activities on a fine scale in terms of the behavioral chain (how each action is carried out). The emphasis on specific interactions is another facet to the theoretical approach. Here, artifacts are understood to interact with people and with each other – hence their design is influenced by these specific interactions. Any kind of ‘matter-energy transaction’ is considered an interaction, and these can be mechanical, chemical, thermal, electrical, visual, acoustic, etc. (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:29). An example of this is illustrated by the interactions of cooking a stew in a clay cooking pot over an open fire (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:29-30, table 1). Here the authors indicate the types of interactions people and artifacts have during a routine activity. If one imagines the cook stirring the stew with a spoon, a number of different interactions can be recorded. First, if the stew is taken as the reference element, it is continuously interacting with the pot in a mechanical, thermal, and chemical fashion. If the reference element is the cook, she or he has an episodic, mechanical interaction with the spoon, whereas the spoon has an episodic mechanical and chemical interaction with the interior of the pot and its contents. This short example illustrates the complex interactions that take place between elements during a relatively simple human activity. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, it is precisely

Design theory, idealized as these four components, breaks with the traditional function vs. style debate (Schiffer 2001a; Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Skibo and Schiffer 2001). Instead, it highlights the variability within the production sequence and interactions between products and people at all stages of an artifact’s life history. Performance characteristics can be both style and function in the traditional sense, or a combination of these, and this approach emphasizes the importance of context for examining why an artifact is designed in a particular way. Based on this framework, changes in technology are recognized as inherently conservative. Since a final design is defined as a set of technical choices with 11

inherent compromises to produce acceptable performance characteristics, changes in design should only occur seldomly:

technology to become an inanimate ‘thing’ as opposed to a dynamic social process. Dobres (2000: 67) charges that archaeologists have confused material things with the dynamic processes underwriting them, pointing to Whitehead’s (1927:73-86) concept of the ‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness.’ For example, she argues that the Acheulian hand axe is in itself not a prehistoric technology. Rather, it is an artifact, and the technology is the behavioral process of its manufacture. The confusion of the artifact with the dynamic process is ‘misplaced concreteness’ and has driven a wide array of technological studies (Dobres 2000). The root of this evil lies in the projection of a modernist view of technology to the past, which disengages technologies from social structure, making practitioners fall into a ‘technological determinism’ that is not appropriate for prehistoric societies (Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Dobres 2000; Latour 1993).

“Once a pot with a specific recipe and design performs adequately at an activity along the behavioral chain there is pressure to keep it as is because changes in one technical choice have ramifications along the behavioral chain and could easily result in inadequate performance in important activities” (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:147). However, if a change in design is required, (e.g., in pottery due to the introduction of a new food, changes in resources, kin alliances, etc.), it often results in many down-the-line changes, resulting in a very different set of technical choices for newly desired performance characteristics. Therefore, technology in general, and pottery technology in particular, is expected to go through long periods of stability until a single new technical choice is made. At that point, many other changes in design should follow to ensure adequate performance characteristics along the behavioral chain (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:147). In essence, it is expected that periods of technological stability be interspersed with rapid technological change.

In order to humanize ancient technological studies, Dobres (2000) suggests we look to philosophers of technology such as Kant, Dessauer, Mumford, Ortega y Gasset, Heidegger, and Marx. These philosophers investigated the role of technology in human societies and demonstrate the widespread understanding of the close relationship between social actors and technological practice, especially 1) the nature of the human-technology relationship, 2) the relationships between different sorts of technologies and the social, economic, and political structures in which they are practiced, and 3) ethics, politics and power of technologies within human societies (Dobres 2000:70; Dobres and Hoffman 1999). Technologies are understood as meaningful acts of social engagement by agents with the material world (Dobres 2000:97).

The behavioral approach to prehistoric technology is detail-oriented with a focus on the producer and interrelationships between humans and artifacts. It differs from cultural inheritance theory in a number of ways. First, the analytical scale is limited to the producer and the context of production, and it does not look at long-term evolutionary processes acting upon technologies beyond the individual. Secondly, variability is understood as the result of technological choices by producers to enhance performance characteristics within a given context. Emphasis is placed on the artifact in its specific context, as opposed to learning processes, modes of transmission, and inter-group dynamics.

With her critique, Dobres suggests an alternative framework, the ‘practice framework’, which was “designed to study and understand ancient technologies as if people mattered” (Dobres 2000:96). The practice framework, relying on an ‘engendered’ chaîne opératoire or behavioral production sequence (discussed at length in Chapter 4), provides concepts and methodologies for theoretically reinserting ‘agents’ at the core of their technologies in archaeological research, as well as in the interpretations of past technologies. She argues that archaeologists need to pay attention and try to grasp the symbolic attitudes of fundamental belief systems in order to understand particular technical choices by agents (Dobres 2000:100; see also Hosler 1996; van der Leeuw and Papousek 1992). The dynamics of material and social transformations in the production of artifacts require an understanding of technology as a ‘verb of action’: people enact technologies, they do not possess them (Dobres 2000:128; Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Hoffman and Dobres 1999).

Agency Theory and Technology Agency approaches to prehistoric societies have become increasingly widespread in the archaeological literature in recent years. Although primarily dealing with prehistoric societies with relatively high degrees of socio-political complexity, a number of scholars are addressing issues raised by practice theory and agency approaches among hunter-gatherers and incipient farmers (e.g., Thomas 1991, 1996; Conkey 1991, 1993, 2001; Hodder 1990; Dobres 2000). A relatively new vein of research tries to operationalize agency theory within prehistoric technological studies.

“But until our frameworks move beyond the orthodox privileging of practical over cultural reason (Sahlins 1976) and include explicit concern with

Dobres (2000) criticizes what she calls the ‘technoscience’ approach of archaeologists to technology in the past 30 years. This approach objectifies and ‘dis-engenders’ 12

sociopolitical, agential, and symbolic aspects of such practices, we will forever have top-down models that see Nature, Natural Selection, or some other extrasocial dynamic dictating and structuring what is (and was) a decidedly cultural phenomenon (Ingold 1995). Though linear analyses and their resulting explanatory models may be heuristically satisfying, they offer only a partial understanding of an exceedingly complex cultural phenomenon that requires far more sophisticated study.” (Dobres and Hoffman 1999:12)

individual practice, both in the teaching and learning sides of the equation. This is not too dissimilar from critiques brought by practice theory discussed above that charge that technology, as a practice, needs to be understood within its specific context. Cultural inheritance theory posits that in order to approach questions of evolutionary import, one must first try to grasp the transmission modes prevalent for a specific technology. Only with this information can assessments of evolutionary paths be made. Behavioral archaeology looks to individual actions and interactions, with greater emphasis on artifact design and performance characteristics. Despite a clear connection of individuals in the production sequence and life history of an artifact, focus is largely on the artifact’s side of the equation. Understanding why an artifact functions within a specific cultural and environmental context is emphasized. In the same way, performance characteristics, accepted or rejected by producers, are the focus of analysis. Producers are conceived of as individual craftspeople, workshops, or factories - a much more multi-scalar understanding than found either in agency or evolutionary approaches. Emphasis is placed on artifact and design histories, and tends to focus on shorter-term historical trajectories of specific performance characteristics. This is different than evolutionary approaches that strive to understand technologies and their social implications in the long-term.

Examining Prehistoric Technologies: A Discussion Each of the three theoretical perspectives, evolutionary, behavioral, and agency approaches discussed above deal with technological practice and change in various ways. Despite clear epistemological differences and occasional polemic misunderstandings and misrepresentations, all three approaches have elements in common (see also Schiffer 1996; Skibo and Schiffer 2008). The main arena of commonality of each epistemology lies in the importance given to the role of variability and individual action. In contrast, issues of proximate or ultimate cause and effect, interpretive and analytic scale, and the process of innovation and technological change are often diametrically opposed. In the following, I summarize the similarities as well as the differences of these approaches, and delineate the theoretical framework structuring this study. I believe that despite the differences inherent in these approaches, all three theoretical frameworks have something to offer an analysis of prehistoric technology, and used creatively, aspects of each may be applied in a complementary fashion. Technologies are complex social and material phenomena, and a multi-scalar analytic and interpretive view provides the most realistic framework to understanding the role of technologies within prehistoric societies.

In contrast to both of these, agency approaches, particularly practice theory, focuses almost exclusively on the experience of the individual producer or a group of producers. There is a sense of history in that the technological practice is steeped in cultural value and ideology beyond the desires of the individual, however this differs in quality and importance from the cultural inheritance theory that sees knowledge and practice being transmitted as cumulative in nature. Practice theory recognizes that each craftsperson is experiencing the practice for him- or herself. Because of this, an individual’s understanding of the practice will differ, as will the gestural qualities associated with the production of an artifact. Practice theory hopes to define technological practice in terms of norms and variants, and explain the variants within the specific social and cultural constructs. In other words, are variations seen in archaeological materials acceptable by the group, do they express differences in skill that are immediately visible to the initiated, and what are group expectations? Through this kind of study, variation is examined on a delineated and specific scale: the individual within her cultural context.

Variability and Scale Each approach looks to technology on a different scale. Cultural inheritance theory is multi-scalar in that it examines both the transmission process between individuals and the ultimate evolutionary trajectories. It is multi-scalar analytically, but in the end it is the largerthan-life processes and results of individual decisions - the ultimate causes and effects - that are really of interest. Individual action is the building block for evolutionary approaches, but it is the resulting patterns that are of greater anthropological and evolutionary significance. Because it is focused on transmission modes, cultural inheritance theory emphasizes learning processes. However, learning processes vary, and these variations have an impact on the outcome of technological practices. For this reason, as argued above, learning cannot be ignored as a constant. Since learning is not a constant, attention must be paid to

Technological Change Evolutionary archaeologists working within the cultural inheritance framework regard technological change as inherently connected with transmission modes, with the ultimate cause of change lying in the differential persistence of technological practices. Since evolutionary approaches to human culture are based on the idea that 13

human behavior rests on a cost-benefit relationship, learning affects key evolutionary processes relevant to individuals, including survival, reproductive success, and successful parenting. Learning is an adaptation and variations or changes in the learning processes should be explicable in terms of their costs and benefits in a given situation (Shennan 2002b:184). As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, transmission modes have varying expectations for rate of technological change, with vertical transmission generally being a difficult learning environment to accept innovations compared to some other modes (see Table 4.1). However, regardless of transmission mode, the effectiveness of social learning also depends on 1) the accuracy of individual learning and its associated costs; and 2) the chance that social models experienced the same environment. This second point is particularly interesting. Since technological practice is dependent on the transmission of cumulative knowledge, the efficacy of the practice is dependent on the environmental similarity (social and natural) of the previous generations. In the case where large scale changes have occurred, either in the natural environment (e.g., climate change, resource depletion, catastrophic events) or in socio-economic organization (e.g., interaction with other groups, internal organizational shifts, subsistence practices), technological change is expected to be more readily accepted or fostered. In this case, again, cultural inheritance theory provides a grounded theoretical approach to examine technological practices within the dynamics of prehistoric human life.

understanding of technological competition is an extension of basic principles of behavioral archaeology (Schiffer 2001b:231), and places long-term technological change within a human-focused, behavioral context. As social contexts change, elements of a technology will compete and innovations will be adopted based on performance characteristics within these newly established arenas. Similar to cultural inheritance theory in its emphasis of context, behavioral archaeology again focuses primarily on the artifact and less explicitly on the producers and how they learn and practice their craft. Among researchers within a practice theory framework, emphasis is placed on technological practice, the socially steeped creation of an artifact, as opposed to the artifact itself. Because of this, technological change is regarded not in terms of performance arenas or competing technologies, but within the context of the practice. Since technology is primarily a practice, technological change implies shifts in the cultural and ideological foundation that creates the practice. It is precisely technological change that provides an interesting arena for agency-based approaches, since they are ‘windows’ to the prehistoric ideological underpinnings and the experience of daily life. However, there is a large interpretive leap from the identification of shifts in technological practice to what the ideological underpinnings of these shifts are. In this context, evolutionary approaches, although dealing with only one aspect of technological practice, learning, may be useful to practice theoreticians. Are shifts in modes of transmission visible (e.g., vertical to oblique), or are we possibly dealing with inter-generational conflict (resistance to ‘old ways’), a decline in the ideological significance of the technological practice, or something utterly different? As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, it is precisely in this arena where cultural inheritance theory and practice theory may be used complementarily to further the interpretive capabilities of each approach.

In a related but analytically distinct manner, behavioral archaeologists look to technological competition to help explain long-term technological change (Schiffer 2001b; Skibo and Schiffer 2008). Technological competition arises when two or more specific technologies compete for applications. This hypothesis suggests that many (although not all) long-term changes in technology result from or are embedded in technological competitions (Schiffer 2001b:216). Contrary to culture evolutionary applications, it is important to note that this concept does not mean that competition results in ‘progress’ of a technology. Rather, the hypothesis centers on what has been called the ‘application space’ (Schiffer 2001b:219). Application space is the total number of discreet functions of a technology. Through time, the shape and size of the application space may change – it may grow in one direction while shrinking in others. An example of this is the emergence of metallurgy in many prehistoric contexts (Schiffer 2001b). Some metal objects may have ‘replaced’ artifacts made from stone (e.g., metal axe heads replacing polished stone), however stone tool technology remained viable and continued to be practiced (such as production of grinding stones, points, etc.). Technological competition may be understood as occurring within specific ‘arenas’, the overlap in application spaces of the competing technologies, and not between technologies per se. Arenas include the behavioral, social, and spatial contexts of a specific competition (Schiffer 2001b:219). This

Summary Technological practices have been highly theorized in recent years using multiple epistemologies. I argue that these diverse approaches, while differing in key epistemological components, are in some ways complementary and overlap in analytical and even theoretical underpinnings. This is the case for the role of learning (transmission), an important element in both practice theory (examining the meaning of technological practice for producers) and evolutionary archaeology (how technological knowledge is transmitted between generations). Because of this overlap, emphasis in both ‘camps’ is placed on technological practice, or, as behavioral archaeologists call it, behavioral chains. Behavioral archaeology, with its focus on various spheres of interaction, is a good reminder that artifacts also interact with their surroundings and that these interactions have an impact on their production – i.e. technological practice is not only about individuals, but also about the artifacts they create and use. In addition to the emphasis on the 14

individual scale, evolutionary archaeology is explicit in the mechanisms of ultimate causation. It is precisely this combination of analytical and interpretive scale, ranging from individual behavior to long-term patterning that is the theoretical focus of this study. In the subsequent chapters, I will discuss the relevance of these ideas to ceramic technology as practiced during the Neolithic in Valencia, Spain. Chapter 3 is an overview of cultural developments during a 3000-year time period in the Alcoi Basin, Valencia, Spain. This chapter provides the necessary context of cultural and social developments known from the archaeological record. Chapter 4 then turns back to the theoretical concerns and ideas presented above and provides a structured framework for the development of hypotheses and analytical techniques to address issues of technological change in Neolithic Valencia.

15

components dating to the Neolithic. Domestic animals, such as sheep (Ovis aries), goat (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus) and pig (Sus domesticus) are found in a range of sites along the Mediterranean shore (e.g., Boessneck and von den Driesch 1980; Bokonyi 1987; Helmer 1984; Pérez 1980, 1990, 1992, 1999, 2002; Uerpmann 1987). Remains of domestic plants, such as einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and legumes such as Haba beans (Vicia faba), lentils (Lens culinaris) and peas (Pisum sativum) have also been recovered from a number of Early Neolithic contexts in Valencia and throughout the region (e.g., Badal 1995; Badal et al. 1994; Guilaine et al. 1982; Hopf 1991; Hopf and Schubart 1965; Lopez 1980; Zohary and Hopf 2000). In addition, polished stone axes and distinctive shell-impressed pottery known as Cardial Ware are commonly found in conjunction with the domestic plants and animals, and clear shifts in land use are visible with the appearance of the new subsistence strategy. The Neolithic ‘package’ therefore consists of both subsistence elements and a suite of potentially subsistence-related artifacts (e.g., land clearing and food processing). The underlying mechanisms for these cultural shifts, however, are heavily debated and, despite ongoing research and new insights, remain largely unclear.

Chapter 3: The Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain This chapter summarizes the current state of knowledge of cultural developments during the Neolithic (ca. 5600 – 3000 BC) in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain. The transition to agriculture in this region can only be understood within the context of larger-scale developments in the Western Mediterranean. During the 6th millennium BC, agriculture spread rapidly from Liguria (ca. 5800 BC) in northern Italy to southern Spain and Portugal (by 5300 BC or earlier). Agriculture appears to have been introduced as a ‘package’, consisting of domesticated animals and plants, polished stone axes, village settlement, and stylistically uniform ceramics. The nature of this transition and its underlying mechanisms have been debated for several years. In the following, I discuss the models of the transition to agriculture in the Western Mediterranean that have been the most influential to research in the Autonomous Region of Valencia. Subsequently, I focus on the local models of the transition to agriculture proposed for Valencia, and the data available for characterizing the early Neolithic cultural developments in the Alcoi Basin. After the introduction of agricultural practices and ceramics to eastern Spain, distinct regional developments became manifest. For this reason the second part of this chapter deals with the cultural developments in the Alcoi Basin subsequent to the introduction of agriculture in the region, and highlights the stunning shifts in settlement and burial customs along with the more subtle changes in subsistence practices visible in the archaeological record. This summary provides the contextual background for a close analysis of shifts in ceramic technology. It is only within the specific cultural contexts described here that hypotheses stemming from cultural inheritance theory, practice theory, and behavioral archaeology can be formulated in Chapter 4.

Models of the transition to agriculture in the Western Mediterranean differ in their emphasis on the importance of movement of people or ideas and the role of indigenous hunter-gatherers. The extremes of these models have been categorized as migrationist and indigenist approaches and frame discussions of subsistence and social change during this period (e.g., Ammerman 1989, 2003; Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Barker 1985; Barnett 1995, 2000; Bernabeu 1996, 1997; Bernabeu et al. 1993; Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Bernabeu 2006; Donahue 1992; Juan-Cabanilles and Martí 2002; Lewthwaite 1986a; Martí and JuanCabanilles 1987, 1997; Martí 1998; Vincent 1997; Zilhao 1993,1998, 2000). Historically, migrationist or colonization models emphasizing the movement of farming peoples into central and Western Europe were proposed within the framework of culture history in the early half of the 20th century. The origins of agriculture in the Near East was considered by many researchers to have been a punctuated development arising out of environmental or population stress or due to extraordinary favorable conditions (e.g., Childe’s (1929) oasis or propinquity theory or Braidwood’s (1975) hilly flanks hypothesis). In the case of the western Mediterranean, the similarity in Cardial decorated pottery with domestic plants and animals throughout a vast area was thought to be a prime example of the spread of the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ (Childe 1936): agriculture could only have been introduced to the region through the migration of farmers from the core agricultural areas, the centers of the ‘revolution’.

The Transition to Agriculture in the Western Mediterranean The transition to agriculture was a fundamental shift in human prehistory, and is the subject of a wide field of archaeological inquiry. The emergence of food production throughout the world had unimaginable consequences for human societies: social organization, environmental impact, human-plant-animal relationships, human health, among others were significantly altered with reliance on domesticated plants and animals as the primary source of subsistence. Farming peoples began living a lifestyle hitherto unknown, and the cumulative effects of that lifestyle are clearly visible in the archaeological and historic records. In the western Mediterranean, agriculture appears to have been introduced as a ‘package’, as is suggested by the homogeneity of artifacts at early Neolithic sites throughout the region. Remains of domestic animals and plants are inarguably the defining archaeological manifestations of agricultural practices and identify site

In the second half of the 20th century, as scholars working in the Near East and elsewhere refined their theoretical approaches to the origins of agriculture and 16

the methodologies to test their ideas, the chronological, geographic and cultural complexities of the origins of agriculture came to light (e.g., Alvard and Kuznar 2001; McCorriston 1991; McCorriston and Hole 1991; Moore 1982; Redding 1981; Runnels 1989; Russel 1988; Sherratt 1999; Smith 1998; Uerpmann 1989; Zeder 2001; Zeder and Hesse 2000). Within this context, the hypothesis of the transition to agriculture in the western Mediterranean as a result of large-scale migration was questioned. Furthermore, new methodological approaches, the ubiquity of radiocarbon dating, and increased scientific analyses of new and older excavations fueled the development of alternative models.

generation of archaeologists sought to understand the complexities of hunter-gatherer societies. In addition, the 1960’s saw a shift to economic and ecological studies based on environmental and subsistence data (Barnett 2000:93) as opposed to traditional culture historical approaches. The implications for the study of agriculture was not lost on archaeologists, and a number of new models giving hunter-gatherers a greater role were proposed to illuminate the transition to agriculture in the Western Mediterranean. Adoption models focusing on gradual dispersion of economic and technical innovation dominated discussions of the transition to agriculture in this region since the 1970’s, especially in southern France (e.g., Guilaine 1980; Lewthwaite 1981, 1986a, 1986b; Müller 1993; see also discussions in Barnett 2000; Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Guilaine 2003; Zilhão 1993, 2000, 2001). According to these models, indigenous hunter-gatherers selectively chose to incorporate elements of the Neolithic ‘package’. Groups of hunter-gatherers were thought to have been linked into a wide reaching trade network before having access to agricultural products. As these became available through trade, hunter-gatherers chose to adopt techniques and artifacts into their cultural repertoires, including their existing ritual and social activities. Similar to some of Hayden’s (1990) ideas on the importance of ritual practice for the emergence of agriculture, complex hunter-gatherers were thought to have lived by the coast and had wide-ranging social and ritual interaction. These interactions resulted in the accumulation and distribution of surplus, and the suite of Neolithic traits may have been incorporated into this process (e.g., Lewthwaite 1981, 1986a, 1986b; Vincent 1997).

A pivotal study by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984; see also Cavalli-Sforza 1996) looked to genetic data to address the transition to agriculture. The authors used the first principle component of gene frequencies in extant European populations to identify patterns of migration and intermarriage. Differences in gene frequency are based on distance from the parent population, i.e. areas located farther from the original source population would exhibit less genetic similarity than populations closer to the ‘donor’ group. In their study, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza identified the ‘donor’ group to the Eastern Mediterranean. In addition, the researchers noticed a decline in age among radiocarbon dated early Neolithic sites in central and Western Europe with greater distance from the Near East. Interestingly, the genetic data and the radiocarbon dates seemed to match. The resulting model, known as the ‘wave of advance’ or ‘demic diffusion’ model suggested that the genetic patterns visible in modern European populations could be explained by gradual demographic shifts during the Neolithic. In contrast to earlier models of large-scale colonization of the western Mediterranean by sea-faring farmers, the ‘wave of advance’ model suggests that the diffusion could have been much more gradual – with an average of small numbers of people moving 1 km per year. In essence, the model postulates that rapidly growing farming populations expanded into foraging areas, disrupting and over-exploiting wild resources, and either displacing or assimilating hunter-gatherers. The wave of advance model, therefore, does not require a large-scale, punctuated, and pre-meditated colonization episode.

A variant of these models has been proposed by Barnett (1995, 2000) to explain the spread of Early Neolithic pottery in the Aude Valley (Languedoc), France. He argues that the archaeological record for early farming activity within the Aude Valley is limited, and the extent to which farming practices (herding and plant agriculture) were practiced is therefore unknown. He questions the assumptions of colonization models that tend to regard farming as an inherently ‘better’ subsistence strategy, but likewise acknowledges the problems and lack of data with models of piecemeal adoption of Neolithic traits by complex coastal hunter-gatherers. Instead, Barnett (2000:101) argues that ‘adopted innovations could have operated for some time in a predominantly foraging situation before consolidation into a new subsistence mode’ (see also Barton et al. 1999). This is much like arguments published by Smith (2001), who identifies a widespread pattern of ‘low-level food production’ at the onset of agricultural practices in a number of regions. In this context, farming is understood to be practiced at a low level, but not providing a majority of subsistence resources. Following Zvelebil (1986a; 1994a), Barnett (2000) emphasizes the need for better models to address the transition to agriculture in the western Mediterranean, and particularly highlights the

The importance of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza’s research to investigators in Europe and specifically the western Mediterranean is not to be underestimated (e.g., papers in Ammerman and Biagi 2003). Their study rejuvenated thought into models for the spread of agriculture in many ways. One reaction to the ‘wave of advance’ model and more punctuated colonization models was the definition of a number of alternatives. Research in hunter-gatherer studies during the 1960’s and 70’s (e.g., Jochim 1976, 1981; Lee and Devore 1969, 1976; Schrire 1984; Tanaka 1980) highlighted the variability of forager societies. Culture history approaches had seen huntergatherer lifeways as ‘savagery’ (Childe 1950), but a new 17

need for more local models with testable hypotheses and clear archaeological expectations.

with non-Cardial pottery and domestic animal remains with radiocarbon dates ranging from 11,500 BP to 6200 BP (Acosta and Pellicer 1990; Pellicer and Acosta 1986; see also Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Zilhão 1993, 2001). The diversity of radiocarbon dates and archaeological remains at these sites were argued to be evidence for an indigenist model: local hunter-gatherers variously incorporated elements of the Neolithic ‘package’ into their cultural repertoires, focusing primarily on ceramics and domestic animals.

Other researchers in the western Mediterranean, especially on the Iberian Peninsula, have suggested a model for the introduction of agriculture that includes some scale of colonization yet still affords indigenous hunter-gatherers an active role in the transition process. Termed variably the ‘enclave model’ in Portugal (Zilhão 1993, 2000, 2001, 2003) and the ‘cultural duality model’ (Bernabeu 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002; Bernabeu and Martí 1992; JuanCabanilles and Martí 2002; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1987, 1997), they suggest that farming peoples from the eastern Mediterranean colonized areas with low density hunter-gatherer populations, establishing small-scale farming communities and subsequently interacted with local hunter-gatherer groups. In the case of the cultural duality model, the nature of the interaction between huntergatherers and farmers was not explored theoretically until recently (Bernabeu 2002). Emphasis tended to be on the ‘winner’, i.e., the farming populations.

Current Findings on the Transition to Agriculture: Taphonomy and AMS Radiocarbon Dates Scholars working in the western Mediterranean have revisited the data from these early cave sites and scrutinized the contexts from which radiocarbon samples were taken (e.g., Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Bernabeu 2006; Fortea and Martí 1985; Juan-Cabanilles and Martí 2002; Zilhão 1993, 2001). It was argued that the evidence for an indigenist model for the transition to agriculture was based on data suffering from taphonomic problems such as post-depositional processes that were not identified or properly evaluated at the time of excavation. Therefore, the great range in radiocarbon dates and varying degree of domesticates and ceramics could be explained by a close analysis of taphonomy (Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Bernabeu 2006; Zilhão 1993, 2001). Indeed, these authors were successful in pointing to the problems inherent in each of the French and Spanish sites mentioned above. A definitional issue resulted as the clincher in the case of Abri Dourgne and Grotte Gazel: the identified domestic juvenile ovicaprid bones at Gazel (Geddés 1980) in fact belonged more likely to a young chamois or ibex. With the reevaluation of the taxonomic status, the argument for Mesolithic domestic sheep at Gazel was discarded (Guilaine et al. 1993; see also Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Zilhão 1993, 2001). A taphonomic study of the early dates at the Spanish sites (Cueva de la Dehesilla and Cova Fosca) identified that radiocarbon samples were collected from disturbed contexts, and Neolithic artifacts were shown to be intrusive to the underlying late Pleistocene or early Holocene deposits (Zilhão 1993, 2001). Furthermore, a detailed analysis of several Neolithic sites resulted in the identification of mixing at a number of caves and rock shelters in Mediterranean Spain (Bernabeu et al. 2001a) and dates taken on aggregate charcoal (Bernabeu 2006). Of the sites with complex stratigraphies analyzed, Bernabeu et al. (2001a) identify Cueva de Nerja and Cueva de les Cendres, both with early dates for agricultural economies, as depositional palimpsests. In addition, Binder (2000:120) showed that the accumulation of plant seeds at Abeuradour, Languedoc (Marnival 1988; Vaquer et al. 1986) and Fontbrégoua, Provence (Courtin 1975) in southern France, originally interpreted as intensive gathering or proto-agriculture during the Mesolithic and lending support for an availability model (sensu Zvelebil 1986a; 1994a), is more likely the result of animal and not human activity (see also Binder 1989). The implications of

On a general level, the archaeological expectations of each group of models are quite distinct. Since indigenist models posit an important role to local hunter-gatherer groups, evidence of selective incorporation of Neolithic material culture, inter-regional exchange between foraging groups, and local variation between areas within the region is expected. During the 1980’s and into the 1990’s, some archaeological evidence from southern France and eastern Spain suggested this was the case (see Guilaine et al. 1993; Pallarés et al. 1997). Ceramics, domestic animals and plants appeared to have been incorporated differentially at some archaeological sites and at different periods of time, instead of arriving as a ‘package’ as would be expected by a colonization event. Specifically, radiocarbon dates for Cardial Ware and some domestic animals predate the expected values for an east to west expansion of farming populations. This was argued to be the case at Grotte Gazel in the Languedoc region of southern France (Figure 3.1), where domestic sheep bones were uncovered in conjunction with ceramics dating to 7800 BP, a millennium earlier than at the nearby site of Abri Dourgne (dated to 6800 BP) and other comparable sites in the region, suggesting they were obtained as exotic commodities through a long distance exchange mechanism (Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Geddés 1980; Geddés and Guilaine 1985; Guilaine et al. 1993; Zilhão 2001). In the central Mediterranean region of Spain, excavations at the site of Cova Fosca (Castellón) resulted in few domestic ovicaprid bones in conjunction with epi-Cardial pottery (thought to post-date Cardial Ware) at 7600 BP (Olaria 1988; see also Bernabeu et al. 2001a), a very early date for what stylistically would be understood as an advanced Neolithic pottery assemblage. Finally, Cueva de Nerja (Malaga) and Cueva de la Dehesilla (Cadiz) in Andalusia, southern Spain, evidenced an Early Neolithic 18

these findings for the discussion on the mode of production are clear: “These assemblages only appear to match indigenist expectations about the archaeological record… because of taphonomic processes, not because of social processes” (Bernabeu et al. 2001a:610).

resulting identification of numerous Mesolithic and Neolithic sites, a number of researchers pointed out that Late Mesolithic cultural deposits remain chronologically separated from early Neolithic sites by a 500 year margin (Biagi 2003; Skeates 2003; see also Guilaine 2003). In other words, the most recent Late Mesolithic sites in Italy and southern France appear to pre-date the oldest early Neolithic sites by half a millennium and cannot be due to research bias (e.g., Biagi 2003; Skeates 2003). Rather, a new context for the transition to agriculture is emerging: wide areas of the western Mediterranean, for reasons yet unclear, appear to have had very low hunter-gatherer

In addition to the re-evaluation of existing data, a number of significant new findings have come to light to suggest that colonization may indeed have played an important role in the transition to agriculture in the Western Mediterranean. Despite a wide array of large-scale surface surveys throughout the western Mediterranean and the 19

population densities around 7,000 years ago. One possible explanation proposes epidemic diseases resulting from animal domestication in the Near East may have impacted coastal hunter-gatherers in the western Mediterranean (Biagi 2003). Similar to the spread of European diseases to Native American populations well before contact with European colonists, Biagi suggests indigenous huntergatherer population levels along the Mediterranean coast may have been depressed due to disease before farming populations actually settled along the coast. This interesting hypothesis remains to be tested.

“wood or charcoal material belonging to the inner rings of those trees… had begun decaying before they were felled or burned. Ages obtained from samples of such material or including such material may be significantly older than the archaeological events for which dating was sought” (Zilhão 2001:14181; for Valencia see also Bernabeu et al. 1999a). In contrast, radiocarbon dates from short-lived, identified samples such as shells, seeds and bone of domesticates, human remains and artifacts show a slightly different pattern for the spread of Cardial agriculture in the western Mediterranean. When only dates taken on these types of samples are compared, the first appearance of the Cardial Neolithic ‘package’ is statistically indistinguishable from central Italy to Portugal, and dates to around 6400 BP (5400 cal. BC; Zilhão 2001:14180). This has led Bernabeu (2006) to argue for a dating regime throughout the Iberian Peninsula that focuses on short-lived AMS dates from secure contexts to counteract the ‘methodological anarchy’ currently practiced in radiocarbon dating Neolithic sites.

In addition, AMS radiocarbon dating has significantly impacted our understanding of the rate of spread in the Western Mediterranean. AMS dated materials, such as charred grains of domestic wheat and samples of domestic animals or artifacts, have regularly resulted in later dates for the earliest farming communities throughout the western Mediterranean, highlighting a methodological issue with earlier dates beyond the taphonomic concerns discussed above (Zilhão 2001; Bernabeu 2006). The vast majority of dates for the early Neolithic in the region, excluding the very early dates discussed above, demonstrate a decline in age from Italy to Spain and Portugal. Many of these dates were taken from bulk charcoal samples, and indicate the Early Neolithic beginning in Liguria, Italy by 5800 cal BC, arriving in eastern Spain by 5600 cal BC and finally reaching Portugal by 5400/5300 cal BC (e.g., Zilhão 2003)

Due to the lack of precision in radiocarbon dating, even statistically identical dates may indeed represent more than 100 years of cultural developments. Therefore, a challenge remains to how one conceptualizes the transition to agriculture, as Barnett (2000:99) recently noted:

Researchers have recently cautioned against the use of bulk charcoal samples, especially of dispersed charcoal, from stratified cave and rockshelter contexts because they have a high risk of coming from mixed or disturbed contexts, limiting their taphonomic fidelity (Bernabeu et al. 2001a; Bernabeu 2006). The earlier dates mentioned above result from traditional radiocarbon methods of bulk charcoal samples and are now believed to suffer from the ‘old wood’ effect (Zilhão 2001). First identified for the Early Neolithic in central Europe (Linear Bandkeramik Culture), AMS radiocarbon dates of diagnostic materials (domestic seeds, domestic animal bones) resulted in dates of ca. 6400 BP, while dates on bulk charcoal samples resulted in dates as early as ca. 6900 BP (Hedges et al. 1989; Whittle 1990; Zilhão 2001; see also Rowley-Conwy 1995a; Fritz 1994; and Spriggs 1989 for similar findings in Scandinavia, North America, and Oceania respectively). The ‘old wood effect’ as discussed in Zilhão (2001:14181) centers on bulk charcoal samples found ‘in situ’ (without the taphonomic concerns discussed above) and can be explained by three key factors. First, charcoal in cave and rock shelter deposits may be derived from erosion of the surrounding early Holocene soils. Second, charcoal from underlying Pleistocene levels may also be vertically displaced and may be uncovered in Neolithic levels without macroscopic evidence of disturbance (Zilhão 2001:14181). Finally, the use of centuries-old oak trees as fuel may skew their carbon-14 content:

“The picture that emerges is one of tantalizing contradictions, depending on the scale of analysis. On a large scale, the appearance of new technologies and foodstuffs is quite rapid across the western Mediterranean. On a local scale, we do not know if the change happened in five years or five generations.” It is precisely this challenge, to characterize and explain the transition to agriculture on a local scale that researchers in Valencia have undertaken through extensive research in the past 30 years on Neolithic sites in the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, Spain. The Transition to Agriculture in Valencia: Current Model In Valencia, most researchers understand the transition to agriculture as the result of the cultural duality model (Bernabeu 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999; Bernabeu and Martí 1992; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1987, 1997). By 6000 cal BC (5400 cal BC according to Zilhão 2001; see discussion above) evidence of farming and hunting-gathering by genetically distinct populations is present on the Iberian Peninsula (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:217), followed by a gradual assimilation of hunter-gatherers.1 1

In discussions of the model, researchers use the terms ‘Neolithic’ and ‘Epipalaeolithic’ to refer to farmers and 20

Ideas regarding two distinct populations interacting on the Iberian Peninsula were first proposed by Fortea (1973), who suggested a dichotomy in coastal to inland sites, with earliest agricultural communities living on the coast and hunter-gatherer groups residing in the interior. Since the 1970’s, however, archaeological evidence has been generated that does not support the coast – inland geographical division. Yet the idea of two contemporary cultural groups (farmers and hunter-gatherers) living on the Iberian Peninsula has been upheld by a number of researchers (e.g., Martí 1982, 1985; Fortea et al. 1987; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1987; Bernabeu and Martí 1992; Juan-Cabanilles 1992; Bernabeu et al. 1993; Bernabeu 1995, 1996).

overlapped. However, Barandarián and Cava’s (1992) emphasis on functionality and seasonality of site diversity was well received, and in the past years more research has been conducted to understand the settlement and subsistence patterns in both foraging and farming areas. The idea of two distinct cultural groups living in Valencia is supported by stylistic and functional differences in sites, as has been noted for lithic technology (Juan-Cabanilles 1985, 1990, 1992) and differences in animal subsistence activities (Pérez 1992). These differences exceed expectations of solely seasonal or functional site use by a single culture (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:225). For example, lithic technology during the Cardial Neolithic among farmers is based on blades, whereas, in contrast, hunter-gatherers focused primarily on micro-blades. Both farmer and forager lithic technologies include geometric microliths, although differences are visible here as well. Geometric microliths at sites attributed to farmers such as Cova de l’Or and Cova de la Sarsa tend to dominated by trapezes, whereas forager assemblages at Cueva de Cocina (Fortea 1971), Botiqueria dels Moros (Barandiarán 1978), and Costalena (Barandiarán and Cava 1989) are dominated by triangles. Since in both cases the microliths are thought to be parts of composit tools (e.g., arrows), it has been argued that the variation represents contemporary but different solutions for the same functional problems, suggesting that they represent distinct and unrelated technological traditions (Juan-Cabanilles 1992:262). In addition to stylistic studies, García (2003) recently investigated the technological processes of stone tool production and found that clear differences in the use of raw materials and the manufacturing sequences support the cultural duality model. A similar situation is visible in detailed analysis of faunal remains from the sites. In addition to differences in the relative proportion of domesticates and wild animals at some sites, clear variations in foraging and farming contexts have been noted in butchery techniques (Pérez 1992).

Due to the concentrated nature of sites with Cardial material, researchers quickly abandoned ideas of a slow ‘wave of advance’ as proposed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984), and turned to what has been termed dualidad cultural or cultural duality. A number of researchers working in Spain have also emphasized the possible role of foragers in the transition to agriculture through adoption or accumulation processes (Rodriguez et al. 1995; Vicent 1997; Schuhmacher and Weniger 1995). However, Martí and Juan-Cabanilles (1997) eloquently point out that the archaeological record in eastern Spain does not show a significant temporal gradation in the shift from foragers to farmers, and there is no evidence for particularly ‘complex’ hunter-gatherers living along the coast. Another alternative examines the diversity of sites dating to the Early Neolithic that have been excavated in eastern Spain and their geographic distributions in closer detail. Barandiarán and Cava (1992) suggest that this variation does not represent two different subsistence economies, but rather different facets of a single cultural group, such as site functionality, seasonality, and different activities being carried out throughout the course of a year. The methodological implication of this idea is that instead of looking for distinct cultural territories, researchers should focus on distinct seasonal and functional territories.

These data suggest to Martí and Juan-Cabanilles (1997) that the variability in the archaeological record from the Early Neolithic cannot simply be understood in terms of seasonality or site function. Rather, they argue, there is ample evidence for two culturally distinct groups living in adjacent areas at the onset of agriculture in eastern Spain. Functionality, however, is important for understanding variability within each subsistence economy, and a number of different types of sites have been identified among early farmers in the region: use of caves and rock shelters as corrals (Cova de les Cendres, Abric de la Falguera; although mostly in the Middle and Late Neolithic) and sites likely used as refuges for pastoralists (e.g., Cova Negra (Gaianes, Alicante) and Abrigo del Barranc de les Calderes (Planes, Alicante). Furthermore, the ‘sanctuary character’ of some sites has been noted, such as for Cova de la Sarga and Pla de Petracos with rock art and the ‘special bond with religious life that is also manifested by the deposits

In Valencia, researchers insist on a dual culture model (e.g., Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:224) because it is clear that Neolithic elements (domesticates and pottery) are exogenous to the region while indigenous peoples are documented well before the transition to agriculture (Aura and Pérez 1992, 1995; Aura et al. 1998). Hence, if there are people already living in the area and a new subsistence economy is introduced, two cultural groups must have hunter-gatherers respectively, and not for the chronological placement for which the terms were developed. The assumption is that when discussing the cultural duality model, these ‘Neolithic’ and Epipalaeolithic’ sites are contemporaneous. In the following, I will refrain from using this confusing designation in all cases except for direct quotations. 21

at Or and Sarsa’ (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:227; translation mine). Due to the variability inherent in each cultural group, the authors suggest that we need more analyses into the functional and seasonal nature within each tradition, both in their independent states and during the process of neolithization (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:228).

shifted to collective burials. This time period is subdivided into two groups: 1) phase NIIa, defined by the presence of esgrafiada decoration (heavily burnished and finely incised decoration, also referred to as ‘carved’) on pottery; and 2) phase NIIb, dominated by plain, undecorated pottery and the appearance of open vessel forms. Finally, the Neolithic closes with the rise of metallurgy and the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the Chalcolithic (e.g., see Chapman 1990; Gilman and Thornes 1985). The ceramic typology will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5, and I concentrate here on shifts in socio-economic organization visible through time. Neolithic cultural developments in eastern Spain were originally conceived of as a process of consolidation. Early farming communities were thought to be smaller, living in more ephemeral villages, and were conceptualized as ‘agriculturalists’. During the Neolithic II, settlement appeared to have become more aggregated, with a larger number of easily identifiable open-air sites recorded in the Alcoi Basin. This settlement aggregation has been interpreted as a shift from agriculturalists to campesinos or peasants, connoting an intensification of agricultural subsistence practices and corresponding changes in social organization and cultural behavior (Martí and JuanCabanilles 1987; Martí 1998), including the emergence of social stratification and intensified exchange relationships with more distant groups, such as in Andalusia in southern Spain several hundred kilometers away. Along these lines, Barnett (2000) suggested that the Neolithic in the Western Mediterranean presents an interpretive challenge as it represents the rapid and early appearance but slow assimilation of production-based economies among emergent agricultural societies (see also Zvelebil 1986a). This shift in socio-economic organization is understood as the ‘consolidation’ of agricultural practices. In France, the consolidation of agriculture is identified during the Early to Middle Neolithic transition when Chaséen villages appear (ca. 5000-3500 BC) (Barnett 2000; Mills 1983), suggesting that this is indeed a widespread phenomenon within the western Mediterranean. However, research at the Neolithic I site Mas d’Is in the Alcoi Basin resulted in evidence of the construction of monumental ditches and a much higher degree of village and implied social organization than expected, and questions the assumptions of the ‘consolidation’ model. As is presented in the following, the data from Neolithic II deposits is indeed strikingly distinct from what we know of Early Neolithic lifeways. However, it is becoming clear with ongoing research that these differences do not easily translate into dichotomies of complex vs. non-complex, or farmers and peasants. Rather, detailed analyses of Early and Late Neolithic developments are still necessary to properly characterize the nature and scope of sociopolitical change during the Neolithic. The analysis of ceramic technology will contribute to this undertaking as it will focus on changes in technological practice and organization throughout Neolithic developments. For structural reasons, this summary is divided into the larger thematic subsections dealing with settlement, subsistence,

The mechanisms of the transition to agriculture have implications for the study of ceramic technology. Indigenous models suggest a selection of technological practices by hunter-gatherers resulting from their exposure to pottery within an exchange framework. In contrast, the cultural duality model posits the arrival of some number of farming people to the western shores of the Mediterranean who were already practicing a well-developed ceramic technology upon arrival. This latter model is the starting point for this analysis of ceramic technology in the Alcoi Basin: it is assumed that early farmers in the region possessed a (or multiple) highly defined technological practice for the production of pottery. Different stylistic wares (including but not limited to Cardial Ware; Bernabeu et al. 2009) indicate the diversity of pottery production at early agricultural sites. The variability of ceramic styles during the transition to agriculture is the context for beginning the present analysis of technological change through time. The Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin (Alicante Province, Valencia, Spain): The Archaeological Record Neolithic cultural developments in the Autonomous Region of Valencia (País Valenciano) are reconstructed from information gathered from a variety of archaeological sites. For the early part of the Neolithic, these sites consist primarily of cave and rock shelter deposits with information from a limited number of open-air settlements. In contrast, later cultural developments are known from a wide range of open-air sites throughout the region, mostly excavated as urgencias or rescue excavations. As a result, the comparability of data sets between chronological phases is at times tenuous. In the following, I summarize cultural developments reconstructed from a diverse and at times spotty archaeological record, mostly from sites located in the northern part of Alicante Province. The Neolithic chronology is based primarily on shifts in ceramic styles and shapes, as opposed to economic developments (Table 3.1; Bernabeu 1989). Neolithic I (ca. 5600-4500 cal BC) represents the time period of the first agricultural communities in this region. It is subdivided based on ceramic style into: 1) phase NIa, characterized by the dominance of Cardial Ware (also known as ‘Cardial Neolithic’); 2) phase NIb, defined by the development of incised and impressed pottery that is not Cardial; and 3) phase NIc, characterized by the dominance of combed pottery. In contrast, Neolithic II (ca. 4500-2800 cal BC) refers to the consolidation of agriculture, when plant and animal management were practiced more extensively, settlement was more aggregated, and funerary practices 22

Table 3.1. Neolithic cultural chronology in Valencia (after Bernabeu et al. 2002:174; Bernabeu 2002). Period Phase Characteristic Ceramic Type Neolithic I NIa Cardial ceramics dominate assemblages ca. 5600-4500 cal BC ca. 5600-5300 cal BC NIb ca. 5300-4900 cal BC

Incised and impressed ceramics (non-Cardial) dominate assemblages

NIc ca. 4900-4500 cal. BC

Combed ceramics. Incised and relief decorations constitute < 5% of assemblages

Neolithic II ca. 4500-2800 cal BC

NIIa

Carved (esgrafiada) ceramics

NIIb

Undecorated ceramics. Emergence of open forms (plates, platters)

Bell Beaker Horizon (Horizonte Campaniforme Trasicional) after 2800 cal BC

HCT

Bell Beaker Ware. Copper metallurgy

and ritual practices, realizing that these components were inextricably linked.

settlements having been covered by post-glacial sea level rise – suggesting that taphonomy could indeed play a role in the lack of Early Neolithic villages in the region.

Neolithic Settlement in the Alcoi Basin A major problem for studies of the transition to agriculture in the western Mediterranean is the bias towards excavated cave and rock shelters. Agricultural communities are known to live primarily in open-air settlements, usually in proximity to their fields. However, the vast majority of data from the early Neolithic in Valencia come from cave and rock shelter deposits. Sites such as Cova de les Cendres and Cova de l’Or provided the vast majority of cultural remains dating to the Early Neolithic. Indeed, most reconstructions of subsistence activities and the chronological framework discussed above result from detailed analyses of materials recovered from these two sites (Bernabeu 1989; Martí 1998).

In addition, it has been suggested for some time that Early Neolithic open-air sites should be small, ephemeral, and few and far between. The rationalization for this lies in the models for the transition to agriculture in the region that posit small groups of farmers colonizing areas of the western Mediterranean. If these arriving populations were small, one should expect their villages to be ephemeral, consisting of only a few houses, and therefore more difficult to see archaeologically than cave or rock shelter use. This idea, however, is questionable based on excavations at Mas d’Is (described in greater detail in Chapter 5). Here, evidence of several houses was excavated with clear evidence of a ‘monumental’ ditch dating to the Neolithic Ia (Bernabeu et al. 2002; Bernabeu and Orozco 2005), showing not only a fairly substantial population living at the site, but also a surprising degree of control of labor or investment in site structure that may be more representative of Early Neolithic settlement and organization in the Alcoi Basin (see Bernabeu et al. 2003 for discussion of other possible monumental ditches in the Alcoi Basin). In essence, excavations at Mas d’Is are heavily impacting our understanding of Early Neolithic population and settlement. Results of large-scale archaeological survey in the Alcoi Basin suggest that Neolithic I settlement was located on the valley floor, surrounded by fertile soils and close to sources of water (Barton et al. 1999, 2004; Bernabeu et al. 1999b).

Only few open-air sites dating to the Early Neolithic have been excavated in eastern Spain, e.g., La Draga in Catalonia and Mas d’Is in Valencia. The lack of clearly identifiable Neolithic I open-air sites is problematic – is this a result of research bias, taphonomy, or a true reflection of Early Neolithic farming settlement? In terms of taphonomy, the role of coastal sites is an important case in point. LeucateCorrège, located in Languedoc, France, was found 6 m below sea level in the Etang de Leucate, an embayment on the Mediterranean (Barnett 2000; Guilaine et al. 1984). Despite being partially excavated by dredging, over 600 decorated sherds, belonging to 7 decorative categories, were uncovered. This presented a ceramic assemblage larger than what is known from the rest of Languedoc (Barnett 2000:96). Unfortunately, the recovery by dredger precluded detailed information on stratigraphy and spatial organization. Leucate-Corrège is nonetheless exemplary for the potential of a number of open-air Early Neolithic

As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of data for the Neolithic I comes from cave and rock shelters. These sites, the focus of excavation for most of the 20th century, have provided a trove of information on Early Neolithic 23

lifeways. In addition to long stratigraphic sequences, some of these sites also exhibit functional differences. Many appear to have been used as domestic residences and ritual activity zones (e.g., Cova de l’Or; Martí et al. 1980). However, some, such as Abric de la Falguera, were used consistently from earliest Neolithic occupations as animal corrals (Carrión 1999; García and Aura 2000; García and Molina 2003). The use of caves or rock shelters as animal corrals is evidenced by shifts in artifact abundance (consistent with ethnoarchaeological information on pastoralist cave use), characteristic laminations of burnt organic material, and the presence of deciduous ovicaprid teeth (Badal 1999; Carrión 1999; Pérez 1999).

d’Is had a Neolithic IIa occupation. Cova de la Santa Maira is perhaps the most informative site with NIIa occupation. Described in greater detail in Chapter 5, the Neolithic occupation of Santa Maira suffers from a high degree of mixing, making detailed inferences untenable. However, characteristic laminations of ash and charcoal with evidence of coprolites and deciduous ovicaprid teeth suggest that the cave was used as a corral during Neolithic IIa (Badal 1999; Verdasco 1999). The lack of Neolithic IIa data is an important gap in understanding cultural developments during the Neolithic as a whole. In contrast, Neolithic IIb sites are numerous and well documented in the Alcoi Basin, although data deriving from these sites are primarily the result of rescue excavations. Some villages like Niuet (see Chapter 5) and Les Jovades (Bernabeu 1993; Bernabeu et al. 1994; Pascual 1989, 2003) are found in regions surrounded by fertile soils and close to water sources, as in Neolithic I, but others are located in more marginal areas, along valley margins and in higher elevation valleys. In all cases, Neolithic IIb villages are close to water sources, often located at the convergence of streams and rivers. Large-scale survey of the Alcoi Basin has identified a number of Neolithic IIb settlements – they are more readily identified on the surface than Neolithic I sites because of their greater density of archaeological material (Bernabeu et al. 1999b; Barton et al. 1999). Sites such as Les Jovades and Niuet have internal site structures such as ditches, storage pits, and postholes of houses (Bernabeu 1993; Bernabeu et al. 1994; Pascual 1989, 2003). Indeed, the increase in numbers of open-air sites during the Neolithic II and the complexity of internal organization at sites like Les Jovades, which evidenced hundreds of storage pits, suggest an important increase in human populations in the Alcoi Basin during the Late Neolithic (Bernabeu 1993; Bernabeu and Pascual 1998;

In contrast to the Neolithic I, the vast majority of data for Neolithic II cultural developments in the Alcoi Basin come from open-air village sites, although a number of cave and rock shelter sites bear witness to the diversity of land uses practiced by people during the Neolithic II. However, very few sites to date have provided data on the Neolithic IIa period (the esgrafiada horizon), and currently it is only known in the Alcoi Basin from a section of Mas d’Is (Foso 4), Alt del Punxó (García et al. 2007), Cova de la Santa Maira, Cova de l’Or and Cova de les Cendres (Bernabeu et al. 2002; Bernabeu and Martí 1992) – and the detail is sparse. Mas d’Is and the recently excavated and radiocarbon dated site of Alt del Punxó are the only openair site in the Alcoi Basin with a Neolithic IIa component, and surface finds of esgrafiada ceramics at Casa de Lara in nearby Villena suggest an occupation of the site during this period as well (Bernabeu et al. 2002; Bernabeu and Martí 1992; Soler 1961). The Neolithic IIa component at Mas d’Is is located in the northeast corner of the site (also described in greater detail in Chapter 5). Here, a section of a trench or a ditch was excavated that included esgrafiada Ware in the lower part of the ditch fill, suggesting Mas

24

Pascual 1989, 2003).

plant remains, resulting in a better grasp of Neolithic animal husbandry practices. As discussed above, faunal assemblages show that goats, sheep, cattle, and pigs were the primary domesticated animals tended, and many (if not all; see Rowley-Conwy 1995b) were introduced to the region. Of these domesticates, sheep and goats (ovicaprids) were numerically the most important domestic animals in all Neolithic sites studied, particularly during the Early Neolithic when these animals’ bones dominate faunal assemblages and they provided the lion’s share of dietary meat intake (Pérez 1999). Figure 3.2 shows the relative percentage of identified domestic animal remains from seven Neolithic sites. The Neolithic I deposits show that 62-78% of the domestic animal assemblages consist of ovicaprids, whereas pigs range from 14-36%, and only few cows are documented (2-8%) (Pérez 1999; Bernabeu 1995). Furthermore, slaughter patterns of domestic species (primarily ovicaprids) suggest that only few animals reached adulthood during the Neolithic I, and animal management practices were likely focused primarily on meat acquisition (Pérez 1999).

Neolithic Subsistence Practices The evidence for Early Neolithic subsistence is limited by the excavation bias towards cave and rock shelter deposits. The exception is Mas d’Is, which has so far only produced small floral and faunal samples that are still under study (Bernabeu et al. 2002). In contrast, various cave and rock shelter excavations have resulted in large collections of faunal remains – botanical remains, however, remain limited in quantity. This has led some to question the interpretive power of archaeobiological data in the Neolithic I. As Barnett (2000:105) argues, most areas in the western Mediterranean only provide data for information on a general presence or absence of domesticates and fail in relaying the necessary data on the degree to which people relied on domesticates for their subsistence. “The appearance of pottery and domesticates, however, does not necessarily indicate sedentary agriculture and no Early Neolithic sites can be definitely associated with full agricultural dependence” (Barnett 2000: 95). This is not the case in the Alcoi Basin, where the predominance of domestic animals is clearly suggestive of an emphasis on at least animal husbandry as opposed to hunting. This is supported by the functional range of sites in the Alcoi Basin, such as Falguera, a corral used for herd management and pastoralism during the Early Neolithic.

A question that comes to mind is since the vast majority of Neolithic I data come from cave and rock shelter deposits, is it any wonder that few cattle bones should be found there? Is the pattern from open-air sites, where one would expect cattle to be kept (as opposed to in a cave), any different from the cave deposits? In other words, is the pattern of domestic fauna exploitation biased by the focus on caves and rock shelters? Only very few bones were found at Mas d’Is, however, two of the three animal bones uncovered were cattle bones (Bernabeu and Orozco 2005). A comparison can be sought in the material from the open-air site of La Draga, Catalonia (Bosch et al. 2002). Here the total number of identifiable bone recovered consisted of almost 30% cattle (25% pig and 30% ovicaprid; Bosch et al. 2002:figura 115), suggesting that site function biases may indeed be skewing the picture of Neolithic I subsistence practices. However, the analysis of minimum number of individuals evidences that only 10.9% of the identified animals at La Draga are cows, with 12.3% pig, and 46.7% ovicaprids (Bosch et al. 2002:figura 116), mirroring domestic animal assemblages from cave sites throughout the region (see Pérez 1999). Therefore, the predominance of cow bone at Mas d’Is, as well as the large quantity of identified cattle bone at La Draga, may be due to taphonomic differences in survival rates of animal bones among species and not due to site functionality per se (McClure et al. 2006). Despite problems in reconstructing subsistence practices from predominantly cave and rock shelter deposits, the archaeological record appears to be comparable between sites in the case of animal exploitation.

Despite the lack of large quantities of floral and faunal data, general trends in Neolithic I are evident in the Alcoi Basin and Valencia more generally. Domestic legumes, wheat, and barley were grown from Neolithic I onwards (Badal et al. 1991). Wheat and barley are regularly found mixed together at Neolithic I sites, a common pattern throughout the western Mediterranean, and are thought to represent evidence for inter-cropping – cultivation of the two cereals within the same plot (Bernabeu 1995; Bernabeu and Pascual 1998). Botanical data during the Neolithic II are also limited. Researchers have found the same domestic plants in Neolithic IIb deposits as earlier in time (legumes and cereals), and it appears that no new domestic plants were added to the suite of cultigens since the Neolithic I (Badal et al. 1991; Bernabeu 1995). In contrast to Neolithic I findings, carbonized seeds of individual cultigens are found spatially segregated in archaeological contexts (e.g., in storage pits), with 95% of seeds from a single species. Mixed macrobotanical remains during the Neolithic I were interpreted as possible evidence for inter-cropping, and the lack of mixing in Neolithic II contexts suggests that cultivation strategies were more focused on individual cultigens (Bernabeu 1995; Bernabeu and Pascual 1998). Alternatively, differences in storage and consumption activities between the Neolithic I and II may have resulted in this pattern (McClure et al. 2006).

In addition to possible shifts in plant agriculture, animal management strategies appear to have changed in the Neolithic II. The faunal assemblages of Neolithic II sites Niuet, Les Jovades, and Ereta de Pedregal (Phase

Faunal data are more numerous from Neolithic sites than 25

I-II) exhibit some interesting shifts in the proportions of domestic taxa. Figure 3.2 shows the relative proportions of domestic taxa in available assemblages. Similar to the Neolithic I patterns described above, sheep and goats continue to dominate assemblages (ca. 55%), and pigs constitute 20-30% of the domestic fauna. The biggest difference with Neolithic I sites lies in the relative proportions of cattle bones. During the Neolithic II, 2030% of the domestic faunal remains are cattle bones, as opposed to the 2-8% found at Neolithic I sites. Pig remains are generally more numerous than cattle remains in all of the published sites, but cattle surpass pigs in some Bell Beaker Transition (HCT) assemblages such as Arenal de la Costa. In addition, changes in slaughter patterns indicate that more cattle, sheep and goats reached adulthood during the Neolithic II than earlier in time, suggesting a shift in animal management strategies from primarily meat acquisition to additional uses of secondary products (e.g., milk, labor, wool; see Bernabeu 1995; Sherratt 1981; but see Martí et al. 2009 for discussion). This pattern of decline in ovicaprid herding with increase in cattle husbandry is widespread throughout the Iberian Peninsula, whereas the relative dietary importance of wild animals, such as deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) remained relatively constant throughout the Neolithic, although varied between sites (Pérez 1999).

Fumanal 1986; Fumanal and Dupré 1986), indicating that much more extensive areas of less fertile upland soils were cleared and planted, facilitated by the possible introduction of the plow (Barton et al. 2004). This type of subsistence land use is conceptually similar to secano farming, a traditional Mediterranean farming system that rotates between winter and spring cereals and fallow over a longer three year rotation on larger plots (Bernabeu 1995; see also McClure et al. 2006.). Furthermore, herd management shifted to a more diversified strategy that focused on secondary products (milk, wool, labor) in addition to meat. The Organization of Technology and Exchange in the Neolithic Research on technological practices and exchange during the Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin has been recently published (e.g., García 2003; Orozco 2000; Pascual 1998). These treatises focused on specific artifact categories, particularly stone tool production (García 2003), personal ornamentation, bone tools, and idols (Pascual 1998), and polished stone artifacts (Orozco 2000). Based on these studies, changes in the organization of production during the Neolithic appear to be visible among lithic artifacts. In the Neolithic I, no evidence for specialized production of stone tools is visible, and lithic technology was likely practiced by a wide range of individuals from different segments of society (García 2003). However, specialists within a larger social group likely produced special ‘craft’ items such as personal ornamentation (in the form of stone bracelets, beads) and other bone products (e.g., bone spoons, spatulas) (García 2003; Pascual 1998). In fact, the Neolithic I adornment and bone industry (spoons, rings and bracelets) in the Alcoi Basin is very similar to what is found throughout Western Mediterranean at the onset of agriculture, as well as among early farming communities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Pascual 1998:238).

Neolithic I subsistence and settlement data in the Alcoi Basin have been interpreted as resulting from a hoe-based farming strategy that resulted in relatively high yields and was practiced in well-watered regions on the most fertile soils (Bernabeu 1995). It is thought to broadly resemble the traditional Mediterranean el huerto system of gardenplot cultivation in that it focuses on exploiting the fertile land immediately around a settlement (Bernabeu 1995). In the el huerto system, fields are located close to habitation sites and cultivation is continuous (without fallow periods). Sheep and goats were managed primarily for meat production, and pastured in proximity to habitation sites and agricultural fields (Bernabeu 1995). The longterm consequences of this strategy have been discussed in detail elsewhere (McClure et al. 2006; McClure et al. 2009), however high productivity soils with adequate water may have been limited, and therefore may not have been amenable to intensification and depleted by longterm occupation (Barton et al. 2004; Bernabeu 1995). This kind of land use appears to have also characterized agropastoral strategies elsewhere in the Mediterranean (e.g., Hill 2000; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1992).

Lithic data from the Neolithic II suggest this period was a turning point in the organization of lithic production (García 2003). Evidence exists for specialist production of some stone tools, based on the degree of skill and technique necessary to produce certain lithic types. At the same time, more expedient tool forms indicate that stone tool production in general was likely not limited to specific individuals, but rather that a wide subset of society produced their own tools while craft specialists concentrated on only certain tool types (García 2003). New forms of bone idols and personal adornment (some showing influence of groups in Andalusia) and new types of raw material use suggest that the shifts in lithic production resulted from larger scale societal changes (Pascual 1998) that affected a broad range of technological practice. This study examines the effects on ceramic technology beyond the stylistic shifts visible in pottery decorations.

The subsistence and settlement data from the Neolithic IIb suggest that an important shift in land use and farming strategies occurred during the course of the Neolithic. Deforestation and increased sediment transport is evidenced by palaeobotanical and palynological data by the end of the Neolithic I (e.g., Badal 1990; Badal et al. 1994; Bernabeu and Badal 1990, 1992; Dupré 1988; 26

a number of human remains have been found in the large, excavated sites of Cova de la Sarsa (a possible double burial; Casanova 1978), Cova de l’Or, and Cova de les Cendres (Bernabeu et al. 2001b; Martí et al. 1980). In all of these cases, unarticulated human bones were found within habitation deposits representing a wide array of activities. In contrast, materials from a number of small rock shelters and caves indicate these were likely used exclusively as burial sites through time (Bernabeu et al. 2001b), paralleling funerary practices at Grotte d’Unang in France (Paccard 1982, 1987). According to Bernabeu et al. (2001b), five small cave sites within the Alcoi Basin (Figure 3.3) and just beyond show relatively good evidence of Cardial Neolithic burials: Carasol de Vernissa (Aparicio 1969, 1975; Bernabeu et al. 2001b; Fletcher 1971; Pla 1972; Soler 2002), Cova de l’Almud (Juan-Cabanilles and Cardona 1986; Soler 2002), Cova del Frontó (Pastor and Torres 1969; Simón 1998; Soler 2002), Cova del Moro (Asquerino 1979; Cuenca and Walker 1986; Soler 2002; Walker 1985), and Barranc del Castellet (Bernabeu 1984; Pla 1954; Simón 1998; Soler 2002), and possibly a sixth, Cova dels Pilars (Bernabeu et al. 2001b).

Evidence for Neolithic Ritual in the Alcoi Basin: Funerary Practices, Cardial Ceramics, and Rock Art In addition to data on settlement and subsistence activities, the archaeological record of the Alcoi Basin provides a titillating glance into Neolithic ritual life. Neolithic burials are documented in several parts of the western Mediterranean, such as at Grotte d’Unang and Grotte Gazel in France (Duday and Guilaine 1980; Paccard 1982, 1987), cave sites such as l’Avellaner, Lladres and Pasteral in Catalonia (Bosch and Tarrús 1990; Pla and Junyent 1970; Bosch 1985), and the cave sites of Caldeirâo, Almonda and Nossa Senhora das Lapas in Portugal (Oosterbeek 1993; Zilhão 1990, 1992). In contrast, evidence for burial practice during the Neolithic I, particularly the Cardial Neolithic (NIa) has long been considered missing from the archaeological record in the Alcoi Basin. Given the evidence for burials in France and Portugal, this was an anomaly, likely due to a localized burial custom that is archaeologically invisible, especially given the good documentation of Neolithic II burials in the region (Bernabeu et al. 2001b; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997). A recent revision of burial data, however, suggests that the absence of clearly Early Neolithic burials is partially due to re-use of the same caves and rock shelters through time: the persistent use of the same localities as funerary sites resulted in the disturbance of Neolithic I levels (Bernabeu et al. 2001b). Site disturbance seriously affects the interpretive potential of Neolithic I burial practice, however, a few general trends have been identified (Bernabeu et al. 2001b) and are summarized in the following.

In essence, the argument for an Early Neolithic date for some of the human remains at these sites is based on the presence of characteristically Cardial Neolithic artifacts, including Cardial decorated ceramics, characteristic lithics (geometric microliths, laminar cores, blades and bladelettes), and episoidal beads made of marine shell (Bernabeu et al. 2001b). Furthermore, the proximity of these small caves and rock shelters to Cardial Neolithic sites with intense Cardial occupation is striking (Bernabeu et al. 2001b; Fairén 2007; see also Figure 3.3). It remains unknown precisely in what manner and how many people

Two types of burial customs appear to have been practiced during the Neolithic I in the Alcoi Basin. First, 27

were interred at these sites during the Neolithic I. In other parts of the Western Mediterranean, individuals were placed in simple pits inside the caves such as at Grotte d’Unang in France (Paccard 1982, 1987), at Arene Candide in Italy slightly later in time (Bernabo Brea 1956), and Caldeirâo in Portugal (Zilhão 1990, 1992), and this may be similar to practices at Cova de Sarsa and Cova dels Pilars (Bernabeu et al. 2001b:33). The difference in ‘habitation’ site burials and small cave burials is of particular interest, because, as Bernabeu et al. (2001b:3334) have suggested, this indicates that some individuals were treated differently than others in death, possibly resulting from special status attributed to some members of society (as has been suggested for slightly later in time during the French Chaséen by Vaquer 1998).

only have Cardial decoration. Third, the motifs found on a number of Cardial vessels have secured their interpretation as an ideologically charged artifact. Most Cardial vessels have abstract motifs, but a number, particularly from Cova de l’Or, consist of anthropomorph and zoomorph designs. Of these, the anthropomorphs depict a small human-like figure with raised arms, and are similar to macro-schematic rock art found in the region (and discussed below). This motif in particular has been found on a number of vessels and has been interpreted as a human with ‘arms raised in adoration’ (for a discussion see Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 2002). Finally, and most importantly, is the association of Cardial pottery with the earliest farmers throughout the Western Mediterranean (although see Bernabeu et al. 2009 for a recent discussion of early non-Cardial pottery from coastal and inland sites). As Bernabeu (1999: 111) states in regard to the relationship of Cardial pottery and the transition to agriculture in eastern Spain:

Along these lines, it is interesting to briefly highlight the ideological interpretations of Cardial impressed pottery. The presence of Cardial impressed ceramics at burial sites dating to the Neolithic I was mentioned above. Archaeologists have long argued for a ritual or ideological significance of Cardial pottery in Neolithic Valencia (e.g., Bernabeu 1999, 2000; Hernández and Martí 1994; Martí 1990; Martí and Hernández 1988; Martí and JuanCabanilles 1987, 1997; 2002). The argument is specifically for Cardial pottery as opposed to Neolithic I pottery as a whole, and rests primarily on four lines of evidence. First, the presence of quantities of Cardial Ware in ‘ritual’ contexts such as burials and large accumulations of Cardial Ware at some cave sites (particularly Cova de l’Or) have influenced the interpretation of this pottery type. Secondly, a number of unusual vessel forms at these sites have been found with Cardial impressions. These consist of forms such as micro-vessels that are small, almost miniature sized vessels, and spouted vessels (see Appendix B). These forms are only known from few archaeological sites and

“The most likely reason must lie in the fact that these ceramics are a basic element in the social network of these groups. Acting either as a vehicle or a symbol of this network, decorated pottery spread together with domesticated resources, lending the entire territory of early neolithization an aspect of cultural homogeneity. Cardial decorations and, particularly, symbolic styles are its most outstanding signs, shaping a symbolic system belonging to the Cardial Territory.” It is this combination of linkage with earliest agriculture, distribution, form, and motifs that has given Cardial impressed pottery its association with fundamental ritual 28

or ideological activities.

is again visible. During the Bell Beaker Transition, people continued burying their dead in small caves, only now they usually placed distinctive Bell Beaker vessels, adornments, and diverse metal and lithic goods with them. In addition to burial in caves, people during the Bell Beaker Transition also buried individuals in ditches in villages.

Neolithic II burials For the Neolithic II, a clear use of the caves for burial is documented throughout the Alcoi Basin, and the majority of human bone recovered from these sites likely dates to this later time period. This is a striking feature of the archaeological record in this region: the burial of humans in small caves and rock shelters appears to have continued throughout the Neolithic. This has led Bernabeu et al. to the interpretation that ‘within the evolutionary dynamic of any society, the symbolic aspects and those concerning group identity represent conservative forces when confronted with socioeconomic change’ (2001b:34; translation mine), and that population in the Alcoi Basin must therefore have been relatively stable throughout the Neolithic.

Limited physical anthropological studies on human remains from cave necropoli have been undertaken. Human remains from 95 individuals from two Neolithic IIb cave sites (Cova de l’Alberri and Cova de l’Escurrupenia) and one Neolithic IIb open-air site (Les Jovades) were analyzed (Pascual 1987, 1990). This study revealed that in general people in the Neolithic IIb had a relatively short lifespan and the population showed a high degree of infant mortality (Figure 3.4). In addition, cranial trepanation, the practice of carving a hole in the head using stone tools, is widely documented during the Neolithic IIb (e.g., multiple skulls at Cova de la Pastora; Ballester 1946; Bernabeu and Pascual 1998). Unfortunately, mortuary data from other time periods in the region are not available, so it is unclear how this mortality pattern compares with populations living in the Alcoi Basin at other times.

Collective inhumations in small caves and rock shelters are the hallmark of Neolithic II and Bell Beaker Transition (HCT) funerary practices. These collective burials form necropoli and are usually loosely associated with village locations. In contrast to the Neolithic I, burials from the Neolithic II are collective burials, consisting of several individuals, and can be numerous at times: e.g., 34 burials were uncovered at Cova de l’Escurrupenia (Pascual 1990; Soler 2002). These collective burials are believed to be secondary depositions, where only certain parts of bodies (crania and long bones) were placed in the cave after they had been de-fleshed elsewhere. Some evidence of charred bones may indicate partial cremation as a localized custom, or may be the result of de-fleshing practices prior to positioning the body in the cave (Bernabeu and Pascual 1998; Pascual 1990). A number of artifacts are found with human remains, such as carved bone idols, bone, stone, and shell beads, ceramic vessels, lithics (primarily points and large blades), polished stone axes, and bone punches (Bernabeu and Pascual 1998; see also Pascual 1998). In addition, Cova Santa (Vallada) provided evidence of food offerings in the form of sheep and cattle bones in association with the human remains.

Burial in small caves and rock shelters is similar to the Neolithic I, as described above. However, this is not the case in other regions of the western Mediterranean, particularly parts of the Iberian Peninsula that saw a shift in burial customs toward the construction of megalithic tombs. Although some have suggested that the central Mediterranean Iberia version of the megalithic phenomenon is the deposition of collective burials in caves and rock shelters (Bernabeu 1995; Bernabeu and Pascual 1998; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1987, 1997), the Valencian Neolithic II burial tradition does not break with Neolithic I practices quite as dramatically as in other parts of the Western Mediterranean (Bernabeu et al. 2001b). This is not to say, however, that we can assume general population stasis in the Alcoi Basin. As is delineated in this chapter, there is plenty of evidence that shows significant shifts in land use and socio-economic organization. It is important to note, however, that patterns of Neolithic burial in the Alcoi Basin differ in kind and context from elsewhere in the greater region. Bernabeu (1995:54) suggests that the shift to collective burials appears correlated with the moment in which agricultural colonization had reached the vast majority of cultivatable soils. He argues people developed a kind of religious territoriality that was probably the consequence of an increasing competition between communities and that this was manifest in both burial custom and rock art.

Due to the displacement of earlier burials and mixing of stratigraphic contexts, it is thought that deposition of human burials was a recurring event over time, likely over several generations (Bernabeu and Pascual 1998; Soler 2002). At Cova de la Pastora, a suite of AMS radiocarbon dates indicates that people were buried in the cave from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age (García and McClure 2010; McClure et al. 2010; McClure et al. 2011). Furthermore, the presence of idols and similar grave goods are not statistically equivalent to the number of individuals, suggesting that only some individuals were provided with these artifacts. Unfortunately the original association of burials with grave goods is compromised by the subsequent mixing and displacement activities, and older excavation techniques.

Rock Art Neolithic rock art in the Alcoi Basin is further evidence for the ideological and ritual manifestations of prehistoric lifeways. Rock art of the Mediterranean Basin in Spain includes some of the most fascinating representations of post-Palaeolithic art in Europe and was listed as

At the end of the Neolithic II, a duality in burial customs 29

World Heritage by UNESCO in 1998. More than 100 sites with rock art are documented in the region located along the boundary of the provinces of Alicante and Valencia. Dealing with rock art is never a simple task and understanding its cultural significance is often elusive. The problems of dating techniques, central to archaeological research, makes chronological placement very difficult and at best tentative. By placing rock art in the Alcoi Basin into its social contexts, some interesting hypotheses (as proposed by Molina et al. 2003 and described in detail

below) regarding cultural shifts during the Neolithic come to light (see also Cruz and Vicent 2007; McClure et al. 2008). The origins, chronology, and cultural meanings continue to be heavily debated, and is tightly linked with concrete views of the neolithization process of each region (Cruz and Vicent 2007; García Puchol et al. 2004; McClure et al. 2008). Three types of rock art have been identified in the Alcoi Basin that are believed to date to the Neolithic: macro-schematic, schematic, and Levantine art (Figure 3.5). In the following, I describe all three in turn, focusing 30

on their implications for Neolithic cultural developments.

that the figures are generally small, more schematic in nature, and painted in locations with difficult access. This means that the motifs, unlike the large anthropomorphs in the macro-schematic style, are only visible up close (Bernabeu and Pascual 1998:54). Motifs consist of human representations, animals, geometric figures, suns, and symbols. Similar designs are commonly found on pottery throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The exact chronology of schematic rock art remains unclear, and it appears to have been made throughout the Neolithic sequence. Similarities to symbols from south-eastern Spain (Millares) connected with funeral rites have been suggested for the Neolithic IIb (Pascual 2003). Bernabeu (2002) proposed that schematic art may have developed out of macro-schematic art. Some researchers have suggested a relationship between some schematic motifs and Early Neoltihic pottery, whereas others argue for associations with materials from the Chalcolithic (Martínez-García 2004; McClure et al. 2008; Torregrosa and Galiana 2001). The Chalcolithic association is strengthened by the proximity of schematic art to caves and rock shelters used as burial areas for multiple inhumations during this period. For example, a schematic human figure surrounded by semi-circular, concentric motifs at the Abric de la Paella (Cocentaina) in the Alcoi Basin is located above a cave by the same name and in proximity to Cueva del Conill, Cova del Pou, and Cova del Negre (Bernabeu and Pascual 1998). These small caves contain collective burials dating to the Neolithic IIb. A similar pattern is found in schematic rock art close to Cova del Moro (Bernabeu and Pascual 1998). Based on these data, Bernabeu and Pascual (1998:54) have suggested that the rock art could be a territorial marker and/ or provide spiritual protection of a burial area. However, it remains unclear if schematic art was produced throughout the Neolithic to Bronze Age or in several different and independent cycles.

Macro-schematic art Macro-schematic art (Arte Macroesquematico) is found exclusively in this region and generally displays large, schematic representations of anthromorphs with arms raised in ‘adoration’ (Martí and Hernandez 1988; Hernandez 1995). Geometric motifs, such as zigzags often accompany the human-like figures. Most of the macroschematic art is found in shallow rock shelters without occupational deposits. Chronological assignment is facilitated somewhat by superimpositions of other rock art styles (especially Levantine art, see below) and parallels in mobile art (Hernandez 1995:97). Similar (although not identical) motifs are found on a wide array of Cardial ceramics, particularly from Cova de l’Or and Cova de la Sarsa (Bernabeu 1989; Hernandez 1995; Martí and Hernandez 1988; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 2002). Furthermore, macro-schematic rock art sites are found in proximity to Neolithic I sites throughout the Alcoi Basin (Fairén 2007). Indeed, Hernandez (1995) has demonstrated that the distribution of macro-schematic rock art and Cardial Neolithic sites is closely connected. Although questioned by some researchers (Aparicio et al. 1988; Beltran 1987), stylistic similarity between motifs on some Cardial pottery and macro-schematic art suggests that it is an Early Neolithic phenomenon and part of the cultural material related to the transition to agriculture in the País Valenciano (García et al. 2004; Hernandez 1995; Hernandez et al. 1988; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 2002; Molina et al. 2003). This style of rock art is unique to the central region of Valencia, but interpretations of its role in the Neolithic developments in the Alcoi Basin are influenced by research farther afield. Although the anthropomorphic figures depicted in the rock art do not show indicators of sex, ceramic parallels have led to the determination that these figures may be feminine (Hernandez 1995). Ceramic impressions between the legs of figures on Cardial Ware have been interpreted as vulvas, possibly referring to fertility and closely associated with the transition to agriculture (Hernandez 1995:100). This not an entirely new idea, and implicitly, parallels are drawn to similar studies in the Near East and Southeast Europe (e.g., see Gimbutas 1982). In any event, macro-schematic art is thought to represent the artistic expression of a ritual and ideological belief system of the earliest farmers in the region (Bernabeu 2002; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 2002). Indeed, areas of concentrated macro-schematic depictions such as Cova de la Sarga and Pla de Petracos are believed to have played a special role in ritual life, possibly as ‘sanctuaries’ (Fairén 2007; Martí 1990; Martí and JuanCabanilles 2002).

Levantine Art Levantine art (Arte Levantino) is stylistically very different from either macro-schematic or schematic art. It is defined by its naturalistic and narrative character and is found distributed throughout the eastern Iberian Peninsula. The size of motifs varies, but figures are usually under 10cm in size and depict humans and animals often in scenes (Hernandez et al. 1988). The anthropomorphs have been identified mostly as male figures based on anatomical details (Martí and Hernandez 1988:32), and animal representations include ovicaprids, deer, horses, pigs, cattle, insects, and some bird species. Most of these motifs are found in larger panels with one or more scenes, often depicting an action, such as running, hunting, or gathering. The origin and chronology of Levantine art have been highly debated, ranging socio-economically from huntergatherers to complex farmers and in dates from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic, Bronze Age and even Iron Age (Martí and Hernandez 1988:35; Aparicio et al. 1982; Aparicio et al. 1988; Fortea 1975; Martí and Juan-

Schematic Art Schematic art is different than macro-schematic art in 31

Cabanilles 2002). Originally, Levantine art was thought to be a product of forager creative expression (especially due to the predominance of hunting scenes; Cruz and Vicent 2007; Hernandez 1995:102; McClure et al. 2008). However, the discovery of macro-schematic art and its analysis have shifted the temporal framework of Levantine art. Evidence of superposition of Levantine art onto macroschematic art at Cova de la Sarga and Barranc de Benalí shifted the chronology of Levantine art into the Neolithic (García et al. 2003; McClure et al. 2008; Molina et al. 2003). Furthermore, ceramics with naturalistic depictions of cervids or ovicaprids from Cova de l’Or and Cova de la Cocina dated to approximately 4500 cal. BC (Martí and Hernandez 1988). The combination of superposition and stylistic parallels on ceramics place the commencement of Levantine art in the later phases of the early Neolithic (Hernandez 1995). Indeed, some have suggested Levantine art with its focus on hunting activities may be an artistic expression of hunter-gatherers in the process of neolithization (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 2002:159).

As the above discussion on burial customs and rock art has shown, the archaeological record of the Alcoi Basin is rich in information regarding Neolithic cultural developments beyond purely economic and settlement data. In the following, I briefly summarize Neolithic cultural developments and highlight the role ceramics played. The Valencian Neolithic: A Summary The Alcoi Basin is particularly suited to study cultural developments during the Neolithic. Archaeological research in the area has been conducted since the early 20th century, with investigators examining the remains of Neolithic cave use and rock art and making the first interpretations of life in the Basin thousands of years ago. As mentioned earlier, Fortea (1973) was among the first to suggest a geographic division in foraging and farming lifeways during the first part of the Early Neolithic. Although his suggestion of a coastal-inland subsistence divide is no longer applicable, the notion of distinct territories, especially the delineation of the Cardial Neolithic, is more evident. Along these lines, the distribution of macro-schematic art has become an excellent indicator of initial Neolithic land use in Valencia (Hernandez 1995; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:228), and delineates a ‘Cardial’ territory between the Sierras Aitana, Mariola and Benicadell and the Mediterranean Sea – of which the inland part is the Alcoi Basin. Indeed, the areas with macro-schematic art also have the greatest density of Early Neolithic Cardial sites (Hernandez 1995; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:230). This ‘Cardial’ area is thought to be the nuclear area from which influences to other parts of Valencia spread (documented by Cardial pottery distributions), such as the neolithization of the ‘hunter-gatherer substrate’ towards the west as seen in Cardial ceramics and lithic typology at Casa de Lara and Arenal de la Virgen (Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997; Soler 1961).

Rock Art in Context Recent research is highlighting the role of rock art in the cultural developments during the Neolithic (e.g., Cruz and Vicent 2007; García et al. 2003; McClure et al. 2008; Molina et al. 2003). General consensus exists in the dating the emergence of macro-schematic art to the Neolithic Ia and its relationship with the earliest farmers in the region (see Hernandez 1995; Martí 1990; McClure et al. 2008; Molina et al. 2003). Regarding the distribution of Levantine and macro-schematic art in eastern Spain, new studies (McClure et al. 2008; Molina et al. 2003; García et al. 2003) argue that the change in artistic style is closely related to shifts in socio-economic organization during the last phase of the Early Neolithic (Neolithic Ic). Pointing to the lack of clear settlement data for the Neolithic IIa (the esgrafiada Horizon), Molina et al. (2003:61) suggest that the period between ca. 4800 and 4500 cal BC was a time when social structures present in the Cardial Neolithic and later began to dissolve. The dissolution is visible archaeologically in the lack of open-air sites and of levels in large cave sites clearly dating to this period. With these shifts in settlement and its perceived implications for social organization, Molina et al. (2003:61) argue that this may have been a time of ‘substitution in dominant ideological schemes’.

Recently this ‘Cardial-first’ view is being revised and a more nuanced picture of the spread of farming and pottery is becoming visible that includes several independent phases of Neolithic spread into the Western Mediaterranean (Bernabeu et al. 2009; Guilaine et al. 2007; Manen 2000, 2003; Manen and Guilaine 2007; McClure et al. 2006; McClure et al. 2009; Zeder 2008). Specifically, El Barranquet, a coastal site in Valencia, included ceramics similar to Ligurian impressa pottery (and paralleled in the interior of the Iberian Peninsula) and is contemporary with the earliest Cardial sites in the region. This suggests that the transition to agriculture was more complex and diverse than previously thought (Bernabeu et al. 2009).

During the Neolithic IIb a new ‘ideological scheme’ represented by schematic art emerged, tightly associated with the increase of aggregated settlement, increased populations, long-distance exchange, and collective burials. This new style of rock art is likely related to similar iconographic elements in the Los Millares culture group in Andalusia, southern Spain (Molina et al. 2003), a relationship well documented by the exchange of polished stone axes from Andalusia to the Alcoi Basin (Orozco 1995, 2000).

Archaeological evidence indicates that the first farmers in the region lived in a few aggregated villages, were dependent on farming activities for the bulk of their subsistence, and used the landscape widely for economic and ritual activity. Social organization appears to have been more complex in the Alcoi Basin than historically posited for this time period based on the organization of labor 32

necessary to construct ditches at Mas d’Is and elsewhere (Bernabeu et al. 2003; Bernabeu and Orozco 2005). In addition, widespread rock art, at times grouped in specific locations as ‘sanctuaries’, and motifs on Cardial ceramics (and their position as grave goods in Neolithic I burial contexts and in large accumulations at sites like Cova de l’Or and Cova de la Sarsa) bear witness to a well-developed belief system. In this context, pottery appears to have both functional and ideological purposes. Cardial ceramics in particular are multi-faceted in that they were likely used as cookware (Burakov and Nachasova 2001), storage, and ritual containers, possibly at the same time, and are found in domestic as well as non-domestic contexts. In contrast, and despite similarities in vessel form, other decorated and undecorated Neolithic I ceramics are found primarily in domestic contexts.

ceramic material from Mas d’Is Foso 4 and Santa Maira will shed some light on technological practices during this fundamental yet mysterious period of the consolidation of agriculture in the Alcoi Basin. As presented in this chapter, the cultural developments in the Alcoi Basin during the Neolithic are both striking and subtle in their archaeological manifestations. The analysis of ceramic technology within this context will help explain the obvious shifts in pottery styles and typologies visible during the Neolithic. More importantly, the use of theoretical perspectives outlined in Chapter 2 will focus the ceramic analysis on issues of greater anthropological significance. In the following chapter, I outline specific models and hypotheses that guide and frame the subsequent analysis. By turning to these theoretical constructs I hope to go beyond an empirical characterization of ceramic technology and address the social frameworks of technological practice and how these changed through time. This approach will illuminate the organization of learning and the nature of technological practice within the different phases of Neolithic cultural developments. The results will provide a new perspective on the greater socio-economic shifts described above.

The Neolithic IIb is characterized by a shift towards more extensive land use, greater numbers of aggregated village sites distributed throughout the Basin, and more subtle shifts in plant and animal husbandry, including a greater emphasis on secondary products and the likely introduction of the plow. A higher level of socio-political complexity is visible in the appearance of collective burials with numerous and differentiated grave goods, as well as the rise of long-distance exchange as evidenced by the importation of polished stone axes, long chert blades, ivory, amber, and other materials (Bernabeu and Orozco 1989; García and Cabanilles i.p.; Orozco 1995, 2000; Pascual 1987). Shifts in ritual or ideological activity are visible in the burial and rock art traditions, as well as the production of bone idols (usually found in burial contexts) and a striking increase in personal ornamentation (Pascual 1998). Stone tool assemblages point to the likelihood of at least limited craft specialization for the production of certain tool types (e.g., long blades and points; García 2003; García and Cabanilles i.p.). Ceramics in this context are overwhelmingly undecorated, and open vessel forms such as bowls, plates, and platters, appear archaeologically for the first time. The lack of decoration on pottery and the open forms show a striking disconnect with Neolithic I pottery traditions. The lack of good data for the Neolithic IIa is problematic for understanding Neolithic developments. We have ample evidence for early Neolithic processes and lifeways, and much research has been conducted in order to illuminate the process of the transition to agriculture and its subsequent development during the Neolithic. The results of the ‘consolidation’ of agriculture are evident in shifts in settlement and land use seen in the Neolithic IIb. This begs the question, what were the processes involved in these societal shifts resulting in the lifeways visible in the Neolithic IIb? These can only be answered by understanding what happened during the Neolithic IIa. However, due to the lack of excavated sites with NIIa components, the processes behind the obvious cultural developments remain largely unknown. The analysis of 33

34

Riel Salvatore and Barton 2004), it is important to note that these approaches are primarily methodological, and not inherently theoretical in nature (distinction made in Harding 1987; Dobres 1999). For this reason, various archaeologists have used the approach of the chaîne opératoire from different theoretical perspectives, resulting in a range of interpretations of prehistoric technological behavior. Indeed, the vast quantities of data that can be recovered from a chaîne opératoire analysis require clear theoretical questions on the outset of the study (Dobres 2000: 164). The following focuses on the chaîne opératoire concept and how it has been successfully used to address a wide range of anthropological questions about the past.

Chapter 4: Theoretical Concepts and the Valencian Neolithic: Models and Hypotheses “The explicit use of models is an act of cognitive humility, admission that raw intuition – which usually means the implicit, unexamined use of models – is quite often a fallible guide to causal relationships in complex systems” (Winterhalder 2002:220) Theoretical perspectives are the source for creating hypotheses to be tested with the archaeological record. Methodologies are intricately linked to the theoretical paradigm in any scientific inquiry, and their explicit treatment is imperative to identify data collection procedures and for the interpretation of results. Data do not speak for themselves – it is up to the scientist to identify relevant patterns and to interpret them. In this chapter, I first focus on the methodology employed in this study, particularly the concept of the chaîne opératoire, and the analytical techniques used to characterize the production sequences of Neolithic ceramics. I then turn to the specific research questions on the nature of ceramic technology during the Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin. Due to the multi-scalar analytical and interpretive power of evolutionary approaches discussed in Chapter 2, the hypotheses generated for this study primarily stem from cultural inheritance theory. Subsequently, ideas from behavioral archaeology and practice theory are drawn upon to address specific issues of application space and prehistoric technological practice. Indeed, despite polemics suggesting the contrary, some have called for tolerance of multiple perspectives and scales when dealing with prehistoric technologies (Dobres and Hoffman 1999:12; Hegmon 2003; Skibo and Schiffer 2008; ). The realization of such a multi-perspective approach, however, requires some structural flexibility. Unlike other studies that approach the archaeological record from a single theoretical paradigm with associated models and testable hypotheses, the approach here is necessarily more piecemeal: hypotheses from a number of different theoretical paradigms dealing with technology are tested with the specific data from Neolithic Spain. By turning to hypotheses from different theoretical paradigms, I hope to demonstrate their complementarity in addressing specific cultural developments and deepen the interpretations of ceramic technological practices during the Neolithic.

The chaîne opératoire, or behavioral production sequence, is a behavior-based approach to artifacts. It is a formalized approach to technology first suggested by André LeroiGourhan (1965). Leroi-Gourhan wanted to understand the dynamics of prehistoric techniques, specifically stone tool production during the Upper Palaeolithic (Leroi-Gourhan 1965; see Schlanger 1994:145). The term found acceptance among prehistorians in France and elsewhere as an elegant way to describe the behavioral component to prehistoric artifact manufacture (and in some applications of the concept, use and discard). In reaction to archaeology’s focus on the end product, the artifact, the chaîne opératoire allows researchers to trace an artifact’s creation – from the selection of raw materials to the final product. With this approach, archaeologists can focus on the individual behind the material remains. Lemonnier (1976:106) conceptualized the chaîne opératoire as a trajectory leading to a goal. It has a beginning in the raw material and an end in the accepted product (Schlanger 1994:145), but the trajectory is not necessarily linear. There are two kinds of events that can be distinguished: the flexible and variable ones, and the non-flexible, static and invariable ones, also known as ‘strategic’ (Lemonnier 1980:9). These strategic moments give the chaîne opératoire its structure. “Defined as socialized action on matter, techniques can be apprehended through three orders of facts: suites of gestures and operations (technical processes), objects (means of action on matter) and specific knowledge (connaissances)” (Lemonnier 1980:1, translated in Schlanger 1994:145).

Methodological Approaches to Ceramic Technology: The Chaîne Opératoire Approaches to prehistoric technology have been enriched in recent years by the application of innovative methodological approaches. Of these, life history approaches (Schiffer 1975, 1992; Schiffer and Skibo 1997) and use of the chaîne opératoire concept stand out in their application to a broad range of prehistoric technological complexes. Despite their association with particular theoretical underpinnings (see Bleed 2001;

In this sense, the individual craftsperson is not ‘free’ or ungrounded – she or he is necessarily bound by customs, training, and cultural expectations of what is acceptable (i.e., the ‘strategic’ events). However, there is also the opportunity and flexibility for variation and innovation. The concept of behavioral production sequence therefore contains both individual choice and community context. 35

Chaîne Opératoire in Action In the past several years, a number of theoretical perspectives have used the chaîne opératoire concept to address fundamental (and fundamentally different) questions of prehistoric human behavior. One such approach focuses on the ability of the chaîne opératoire to address issues of cognition. Methodologically, the chaîne opératoire concept allows archaeologists to arrange information in a coherent order and to rediscover processes involved in techniques of production, including their underlying conceptual pattern (Karlin and Julien 1994; Pelegrin et al. 1988). The ‘cognitive aspects of technique’ (van der Leeuw 1994) looks at the chaîne opératoire from a perspective of cognition trying to connect the material variants with cognitive structures and decisions. The ‘conceptual operative schema’ (Pelegrin 1986) or ‘conceptual operative strategy’ (Karlin 1992) is a cognitive order that organizes the knowledge involved in manufacturing a product. Examples of this include the craftsperson’s intentions and visual or functional concepts. In addition, the evaluation of constraints of craft production (natural and social) as well as preferences within a group of equivalent methods and subsequent technical decisions are part of the ‘conceptual operative strategy’ (Karlin and Julien 1994:154)

of all material culture, and requires us to do a comparative study between the etic and emic points of view if we are to understand the dynamics involved” (van der Leeuw 1994: 136). Van der Leeuw (1989, 1994) looks to chaîne opératoires for information on the cognitive duality among potters and divides the interface between the ideal and the material realms into three areas: conceptualization, execution, and raw materials. These areas in turn provide two cognitive arenas: 1) between conceptualizations and the techniques responsible for their substantiation and 2) between techniques and raw materials. Each potter has her or his own ideas about making pottery (e.g., technological, functional, social, behavioral, economic, etc.). However, van der Leeuw (1994:137) has identified three conceptual ‘anchors’ of any potterymaking tradition: topology, partonomy, and sequence. Topology refers to how a shape is conceptualized by an individual, for example if a shape is seen as a horizontal or vertical, or the identification of inside versus outside. Partonomy refers to how a potter divides the pot conceptually into parts. It defines the basic entities that form a pot, such as base, handle, and walls, and identifies if conceptions are continuous (a pot is only one part, where handles, walls, base, etc. are conceptualized as a whole) or discontinuous (each part is conceptualized individually). Finally, sequence refers to how a pot is made, e.g., from the bottom to the top or the top to the bottom (van der Leeuw 1994:137). As a result, pottery traditions are inherently resistant to change because these ‘anchors’ permeate very large areas of activities, are shared among people, and form the basis of all communication between the members of the group. In addition, members are largely unaware of their existence (van der Leeuw et al. 1992).

Cognitive approaches using the chaîne opératoire concept vary in their emphases. A number of researchers have looked to changes in cognitive structures in stone tool manufacture in human evolution, among non-human primates, and within the Neanderthal cognition debates (see Karlin and Julien 1994; Pelegrin et al. 1988; Schlanger 1994, 1996). For the purposes of this study, however, I would like to emphasize the role of cognitive approaches of the chaîne opératoire among anatomically modern human societies. Technological Traditions and Innovation: The Cognitive Approach A number of studies have employed the chaîne opératoire concept within cognitive approaches to understand why technological traditions tend to be conservative (i.e., similar technology over long periods of time). Van der Leeuw (1989, 1994) has spearheaded this research among prehistoric and modern potters in the Old and New Worlds. To understand cognitive aspects of technological traditions, van der Leeuw (1989, 1994) refers to the ‘duality of cognition’. Perception and cognition determine how people are able to a) have an idea and b) translate that idea into reality. Van der Leeuw (1994: 136) highlights two steps: 1) defining a problem and 2) finding a solution. It is through this duality that artifacts are created and meaningful:

Applications of van der Leeuw’s results in prehistoric contexts are limited by the spotty nature of the archaeological record. Some aspects, such as partonomy or topology, are impossible to identify prehistorically. However, his research has important theoretical implications for working with a chaîne opératoire methodology in contexts where potters are not available for direct observation. First, the results outlined above suggest that the cultural significance of vessel form and production sequence, often expressed within archaeological analyses as typology and technology, are indeed conservative due to the conceptual ‘anchors’ of topology, partonomy, and sequence. Secondly, the research has implications for approaching questions of prehistoric technology theoretically. As discussed in Chapter 2, practice theory posits the cultural significance of technological practices for individuals and groups alike. However, van der Leeuw’s insights on the conceptual aspects of pottery making suggest that practitioners are not necessarily aware of the elements that make a technology inherently conservative. These ‘anchors’ are inherited by

“This dual role of cognition in simplifying reality into ideas on the one hand, and ‘complexifying’ ideas into reality on the other underlies the genesis 36

practitioners through transmission processes and may be modeled by cultural inheritance theory. Individual actors are potentially unaware of the existence of these ‘anchors’, strengthening the need for a multi-scalar approach to further investigate technological practices – such as a cultural inheritance framework.

question thus becomes: what are the norms, and what are the variants? Once this is established, variation, and its implications for understanding past human societies, can be examined in its own right. Dobres exemplifies her approach in her research on Late Magdalenian bone tools in Haute-Garonne and Ariège, France (Dobres 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000). Following a chaîne opératoire methodology, the analysis of bone tools from La Vache revealed a highly variable patterning of harpoon barb construction. This suggested to Dobres that ‘technicians had individualized strategies for making them either longer, sharper, more curved, or thinner than those of their neighbors’ (1999:137). In contrast, the bone needles at the sites of Les Eglises and Mas d’Azil showed variation in the quality and exactness of the round eye piercings, where only some have perfectly round eyes, “while others betray an obvious lack of competence that those ‘in the know’ could not have failed to observe’ (Dobres 1999:137).

The Agency Approach to Chaîne Opératoire Dobres (2000:154-155) criticizes changes in the definition of chaîne opératoire from a behavioral/phenomenological approach to a technical chain of sequential material operations. In its original meaning, the chaîne opératoire is an explicitly social framework and therefore differs from other life-history approaches. Current usage of the methodology misses the ‘total social fact’ (Mauss 1935) inherent in the original definition of chaîne opératoire, thus limiting the methodology’s applicability to understanding past human behavior. Instead, archaeologists should use the chaîne opératoire not only to identify and describe decision-making sequences of artifact manufacture, use, and repair, but also to understand social contexts and organizational dynamics that structure and give meaning to these sequences (Dobres 2000:164).

One question that calls out in this context is that even if skilled craftspeople observed subtle differences in the level of skill exhibited in piercing bone needles or harpoon barb construction, would they have cared? Is the variation identified in bone needle piercing truly behaviorally or socially significant? In addition, can we be sure that the variation observed is the result of different individuals, rather than the accepted variation within the practice of skilled technicians? An alternative interpretation would suggest that the ‘less than perfect’ (itself potentially a projection of modernist perfectionism to the past) needle

To enact a truly social agency approach to the past, Dobres (2000) argues that an engendered chaîne opératoire provides the framework for a detailed materials analysis within the explicit context of human action and decisionmaking. Findings of chaîne opératoire studies emphasize normative technical practices and decisions, their variants, and/or their interrelationships (see also van der Leeuw 1993, 1994:138-139; van der Leeuw et al. 1992). The

Table 4.1 Different kinds of social transmission and their implications of cultural uniformity and speed of change (after Shennan 2002a: table 4). VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL OR ONE TO MANY CONCERTED OR PARENT-TOCONTAGIOUS MANY TO ONE CHILD

Transmitter

Parent(s)

Unrelated

Teacher Leader

Older members of social group

Transmittee

Child

Unrelated

Pupils Citizens

Acceptance of Innovation Variations between individuals within population (e.g. within sites) Variations between groups (e.g. between sites) Technological Change

Intermediate Difficulty High

Easy

Easy

Younger members of social group Very Difficult

Can Be High

Low

Lowest

High

Can Be High

Can Be High

Smallest

Slow

Can be rapid

Most Rapid

Most Conservative

37

eyes resulted from less investment in that particular activity at that particular time. However, the assumption is that the identified variation is indeed significant (although a clear discussion of why this must be the case is lacking). As Dobres writes: “These subtle empirical variations in technical, functional, and morphological attributes imply an individualized level of enchaînement organique that would have been both visible and meaningful to one’s neighbors” (1999:137).

techniques is detailed in Chapters 7 and 8. Additional data on typology is available thanks to extensive research on ceramic collections by Joan Bernabeu (e.g., Bernabeu 1989), Lluis Molina and Pau García at the University of Valencia. In the following I highlight several hypotheses and their test expectations based on the main research questions of this study: 1) what are the changes in technological practices in the manufacture of pottery during the Neolithic, and 2) how do these changes articulate with shifts in other realms of society? They are described in a hierarchical fashion, beginning with a broad scale hypothesis and the relevant smaller scale questions arising from different theoretical frameworks.

The importance of variability for a cultural inheritance theory, practice theory and behavioral archaeology has been discussed in detail in Chapter 2. However, the practice theory approach to artifact variability and production sequences described above is a good example of how practice theory could gain from evolutionary archaeological approaches. In particular, the Achilles heel of the example above lies in the significance of identified variability. As Shennan (2002a:198) argues, the mere presence of an artifact of a particular kind is insufficient in itself to account for continuity of cultural traditions in many spheres of social life. Rather, what needs to be examined are the ‘procedural templates’ of the artifact to understand the learning environment. By turning to questions of cultural inheritance, differences in bone needle and harpoon production identified by Dobres can be put into a broader context. Are the identified variations due to differing modes of cultural transmission? Or are they ‘flukes’ found in isolated events? Only when questions of context are addressed can researchers reasonably begin to address issues of meaning. Interpretations of meaning without context are perhaps a creative but unsubstantiated way of dealing with people in the past.

Cultural Transmission Theory: Hypotheses The first set of hypotheses guiding this study is taken from cultural inheritance theory. As discussed in Chapter 2, this evolutionary approach is particularly interesting for studying prehistoric technologies because it is provides a structured theoretical framework to cultural transmission, its long-term effects, and its shorter term organization. The strength of this tactic lies in its multi-scalar analytical and theoretical approach. Two scales of analysis are relevant here: long-term patterning in the form of guided variation and individual and group dynamics, accessible through transmission modes. The first hypothesis and its related sub-hypotheses rest on models of the mode of transition proposed by Boyd and Richardson (1985) and elaborated on by Shennan (2002a). Table 4.1 shows different transmission modes, the degree of variation expected between households and sites, and the ease or difficulty of technological change and innovation. Four types of transmission modes have been identified: vertical (parent to child), horizontal (between members of the same generation), one-to-many (teacherstudent) and concerted (many to one). Transmission modes differ in the relationships between the transmitter or teacher and the transmittee or student. As a result, these transmission modes have different expectations for the degree of variation and the ease of innovation in technological practices. Where transmission is based on a vertical transmission mode (i.e. parent to child), variations in technological practice between individuals within a household will be low, but within a population will be high. This is due to the fact that vertical transmission is focused on a family unit or household. Archaeologically this can be represented by high variation in technological practice between different households at the same site, since each household would have its own transmission. Since technologies are inherited from the parents, it is further expected that variations between groups or sites should be equal or exceed the variation found between households within a site. Furthermore, the familial nature of the transmission suggests that the acceptance of innovations should be relatively difficult and technological change is slow. In contrast, a one-to-many transmission consists of a person teaching a number of students that

The Chaîne Opératoire and Spanish Neolithic Ceramics The approach to characterizing the production of pottery during the Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin presented here relies heavily on the chaîne opératoire concept. Primarily, it is employed here as a technical chain of sequential material operations, although the inherent social nature of these operations is assumed. By employing a cultural inheritance framework for examining the chaîne opératoire through time, the ‘total social fact’ that Mauss and Dobres emphasize is clearly delineated and incorporated into the theoretical premise. Indeed, cultural inheritance theory is inherently social. Once the inheritance framework has been examined, related hypotheses from behavioral archaeology and practice theory can be addressed. I turn to hypotheses from cultural inheritance theory to illuminate the context for the production of pottery. With that context established, subsequent issues on the nature of people-artifact interactions, artifact application space, and individual experience are addressed. The production sequence is characterized here by data collected through macro-visual analysis, sourcing data (Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis), and petrography of thin sections. Each of these analytical 38

are not necessarily related. In this situation, acceptance of an innovation is relatively high, because an innovation the teacher makes is automatically transmitted to a larger group of students and therefore can become established more quickly. As a result, technological change can be rapid in comparison to other transmission types. Table 4.1 summarizes expectations for all transmission modes. Based on these expectations, Hypothesis 1 and its related sub-hypotheses focus on transmission modes of Neolithic pottery manufacture in the Alcoi Basin.

whereas petrographic analysis of thin sections will indicate variation in inclusion types. Hypothesis 1b Technological practice of some Neolithic I pottery styles was transmitted by a concerted mode (many-to-one). Background: Cardial pottery, due to its ritual nature, was produced by a sub-sector of potters – either by specific households or certain individuals at a site, and this knowledge should extend across multiple communities. Transmission of the technological attributes of Cardial Ware existed in a many-to-one mode because group expectations of Cardial Ware manufacture resulted in a distinct technological practice. This hypothesis relies on a functional attribution of Cardial Ware to ritual activity as is argued by a number of Valencian archaeologists (e.g., Bernabeu 1999; Hernández and Martí 1994; Martí 1990; Martí and Hernández 1988; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1987, 1997, 2002). The importance of the ritual activities to the group at large would require a standard that was enforced by several individuals, limiting the potter’s flexibility in manufacturing techniques. The high level of group expectation results in a de facto concerted transmission mode.

Regardess of transmission mode, technological change is also dependent on the effectiveness of social learning. The effectiveness of social learning depends on the accuracy of individual learning and its associated costs, and the chance that social models experienced the same environment. The latter is the foundation for Hypothesis 2, which specifically links technological change with the inefficacy of social models at a certain time in the Neolithic. Hypothesis 1 Shifts in mode of transmission in pottery production are evident and are linked with changes in socio-economic organization during the Neolithic. Background: As summarized in Chapter 3, a number of both striking and subtle shifts in economic, settlement, and ritual organization are documented during the Neolithic in the Alcoi Basin. As a fundamental technology, pottery production would have been influenced by these changes. I hypothesize that the transmission of ceramic technology throughout the Neolithic was influenced by shifts in social organization and subsistence activities. This hypothesis is divisible into the following sub-hypotheses:

Test Expectations: Based on expectations outlined in Table 4.1, technological practices associated with Cardial pottery in the Alcoi Basin should show very little variation within and between sites, but should be markedly different than other Neolithic I pottery production (as stipulated in Hypothesis 1a). Macro-visual and petrographic analysis should exhibit similarity in paste recipes and forming procedures within and between sites. Alternatively, Cardial Ware was produced in only one locality and exchanged throughout the Basin. Sourcing data (INAA) should show a striking similarity in elemental composition, suggesting a large spatial distribution of Cardial Ware. In addition, the acceptance of innovations in a concerted mode of transmission is very difficult, and technological practices of Cardial production are expected to be very conservative throughout the Neolithic I.

Hypothesis 1a Neolithic I pottery technology was transmitted vertically between parents and offspring. Background: Based on ethnographic analogies of smallscale pottery production (e.g. see Arnold 1985), Neolithic I pottery was presumably produced within households and therefore production techniques should be variable between households (see Table 4.1). The chaîne opératoire approach, which looks at all stages of artifact production, is expected to be variable between households, showing differences in pottery manufacture based on the way in which technological knowledge was transmitted between generations.

Hypothesis 1c Neolithic II pottery technology was transmitted through a one-to-many transmission. Background: Pottery production during the Neolithic II was more specialized than in Neolithic I, following trends identified in stone tool technology, bone carving, and personal adornment (García 2003; Pascual 1998). Shifts in socio-economic organization during the Neolithic resulted in a re-structuring of transmission modes of ceramic technology. Pottery was produced by individuals who learned the techniques not from their parents, but rather from experts within the community. Pottery production is based on a supra-household level (but not a high degree of craft specialization sensu Costin 2001; Costin and

Test Expectations: Variability in production sequences is expected to be high within sites and should be equal to or exceed differences between sites. The macro-visual analysis of pottery from Neolithic I deposits in the Alcoi Basin will show differences in paste recipes (clay and inclusions), forming, decoration, and firing practices. Sourcing analysis may show differences in raw material use between households (i.e., use of different clay sources), 39

which copies everything wholesale (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999:237).

Hagstrum 1995). Test Expectations: Variation in pottery production techniques is low within a site and between households, but may be high between sites (Table 4.1) depending on whether transmission occurs only within or also between communities. Macro-visual and petrographic analyses evidence very similar paste recipes and forming procedures within a site, although differences may be visible between sites. In a one-to-many transmission mode, innovations are more readily accepted and technological change may be rapid.

Hypothesis 3 Technological shifts at the onset of the Neolithic IIb were a result of guided variation. Background: It is expected that the Neolithic IIb technological practices were significantly different from the Neolithic I practices. As suggested in Hypothesis 2, a socially instable period (Neolithic Ic and IIa) was more prone to technological innovation and high levels of variability are expected in the record. In the Neolithic IIb, however, socio-economic organization stabilized again, and a ‘new’ widely practiced pottery technology emerged. It is hypothesized here that guided variation, that is the picking and choosing of certain technological attributes, was the mechanism for the emergence of a more standardized technological practice in the Neolithic IIb. The social instability posited for the Neolithic Ic and IIa would suggest that there was not a viable social model for the wholesale adoption of attributes. Rather, the social instability would have given rise to a range of technological responses, resulting in a variety of technological attributes. In this context, I suggest guided variation may have been the most likely mechanism for technological change.

Hypothesis 2 The efficacy of transmission practices declined due to shifts in the social environment during the Neolithic Ic and IIa, resulting in punctuated technological change. Background: According to cultural transmission theory, technological practice is dependent on the transmission of cumulative knowledge. The efficacy of transmission is therefore dependent on the stability of the social and natural environments. If the transmitters (or social models) experienced a different environment (social or natural) than the transmittees, the effectiveness of techniques may be limited. It is during this time that cultural inheritance theory predicts a surge in technological change, as innovations are more readily accepted into the new environment. The archaeological expectation is that more variation in production techniques should be visible in the Neolithic Ic and IIa than at any other time during the Neolithic. It is precisely this time period that witnessed a reorganization of socio-economic organization that culminated in the emergence of clearly defined social hierarchies, aggregated villages, and intensified subsistence and exchange economies seen in the Neolithic IIb.

Test Expectations: The main archaeological expectation of guided variation is the acceptance and modification of distinct attributes from Neolithic Ic/IIa practices. Attributes that are visible in isolated Neolithic Ic/IIa contexts are widely adopted into Neolithic IIb practices. Some variation between sites is expected, although similarities and inter-relatedness of the technological practice should be identifiable. In general, it is expected that the Neolithic IIb pottery shows a high degree of uniformity across sites, and differs from Neolithic I practices.

Test expectations: Macro-visual and petrographic analyses of materials from Neolithic Ic and IIa contexts are expected to show greater variation in paste recipes, constituents, and forming techniques than in any other period of the Neolithic. Sourcing analysis should show widespread use of different raw materials throughout the Basin, as potters were experimenting with new procedures and materials.

Design Theory in Behavioral Archaeology: A Hypothesis on Technological Choices and Performance Design theory is an inclusive theoretical framework because it takes into account that an artifact may change its role through time. As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, design theory is focused on the behavioral characteristics of artifacts and their interactions with humans and other artifacts. As a result, design theory allows archaeologists to examine performance characteristics, technical choices and compromises, activities and interaction, and the life history of an artifact within a behavioral framework. The behavioral approach to technology is detailoriented. It differs from cultural inheritance theory in that the analytical scale is limited to the producer and the context of production instead of long-term evolutionary processes. Furthermore, variability is understood as the result of technological choices by producers to enhance performance characteristics within a given context. Another difference lies in the methodological applications of design theory. Where cultural inheritance theory is

Guided Variation and Indirect Bias: A Hypothesis On the larger analytic and interpretive scale, guided variation (the acquisition of new behaviors by direct copy of other social models) and indirect bias (emulation of a single social model) have distinct material manifestations. As Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) demonstrate for changes in stone tool technology in the Great Basin, the statistical signatures for differences in cultural transmission strategies should be clear. In guided variation, an assemblage or technology will consist of unrelated attributes among artifacts since these are chosen individually. Statistically, guided variation should therefore be less strongly correlated with the original social model than indirect bias, 40

open to a number of methodologies, proponents of design theory have focused on the behavioral chain and correlate matrices as the methodologies of choice. To employ a behavioral chain methodology, researchers must isolate specific activities and delineate the individual components of each activity, such as the social unit participating, the location of the activity, and especially the interactions within the behavioral chain. “Only when one describes activities at this degree of detail can one rigorously explore the factors affecting artifact design” (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:143). By putting technical choices into the entire behavioral chain, researchers can then attempt to isolate important activities along with “relevant situational factors, which are the behavioral, environmental, and social conditions of each activity” (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:146). Situational factors determine the ideal value of a particular performance characteristic, since these are not always ideally weighted and can change through time.

applications within a specific application space. Therefore, the following hypotheses deal with a different analytical and interpretive scale than cultural inheritance theory, although the data needed to test these ideas are similar.

The ‘correlate matrix’ (Schiffer and Skibo 1987; 1997), on the other hand, is the set of principles important for understanding the interactions of attributes in an artifact’s activities along its behavioral chain (Skibo and Schiffer 2001:146). Correlates are the specific effects of technical choices on formal properties, as well as the effects of formal properties on performance characteristics (Schiffer 1975, 1976:12-14). Citing the example discussed earlier (Chapter 2), the technical choice of tempering a vessel with fiber inclusions has specific formal properties in that it results in a lower heating effectiveness in cooking over an open fire (Skibo et al. 1989). The goal of the correlate matrix is to assemble and systematize the set of correlates for any kind of artifact, since the correlate matrix is “the totality of principles relevant to understanding all interactions in an artifact’s behavioral chain activities” (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:32). The correlate matrix helps to delineate actual weighting of each performance characteristic in a particular activity. Not every performance characteristic is equally important or consciously desired. By examining the correlation matrix, the researcher can begin to identify primary and secondary performance characteristics, as well as compromises based on technological constraints. Therefore, it no longer makes sense “to ask if technical choices were stylistic or functional, for these categories lack unambiguous behavioral referents among the myriad determinants of design variability” (Schiffer and Skibo 1997:43).

Hypothesis 4a Shifts in raw material use had down the line repercussions, resulting in a re-definition of the behavioral production sequence.

Hypothesis 4 Pottery production shows a high level of technological stability during the Neolithic I. Rapid technological change is visible between the Neolithic I and II, followed again by a period of technological stability. Background: Design theory posits that technologies are inherently conservative. However, changes in any point of the behavioral production sequence or chaîne opératoire have down-the-line repercussions in performance characteristics, which in turn may affect application space. Therefore, technological stability is thought to be punctuated with periods of rapid technological change.

Background: Changes in settlement location and subsistence organization resulted in new land use practices (Barton et al. 2004; Bernabeu 1995; McClure et al. 2006; McClure et al. 2009). Along with increases in population densities, this new land use strategy re-structured resource access. These shifts culminated in new raw materials being used in the Neolithic IIb (see also Hypotheses 1b and 2). Test Expectation: The use of new raw materials had several down-the-line repercussions for the chaîne opératoire, including the quantities and types of inclusions used, the fineness of pastes, and resulting performance characteristics. Sourcing analysis (INAA) will show new and different clay sources being tapped for pottery production during the Neolithic IIb. In addition, macrovisual and petrographic analyses will show striking differences between the Neolithic I and II, with significantly different paste recipes and potential functional properties. These functional properties will be discussed in reference to the growing body of literature from experimental archaeology. Hypothesis 4b Changes in ceramic production resulted from a shift in application space of pottery during the Neolithic.

The hypothesis and two alternative sub-hypotheses discussed below rely on these basic premises of design theory and behavioral archaeology approaches to technological change. In contrast to the hypotheses from cultural inheritance theory introduced above, the design theory approach attempts to understand why an artifact functions within a specific cultural and environmental context. In particular, technological change is conceived of in terms of technological competition, which arises when two or more specific technologies compete for

Background: Regardless of potential changes in raw material use (Hypothesis 4a), pottery played a very different role within Neolithic II society than previously. One aspect of behavioral archaeology looks to technological competition to evaluate changes in design. Here, socio-economic developments in the Late Neolithic show increased investment in rock art, burial customs, specialized lithic production, bone idol carving, and 41

Table 4.2. Summary of main hypotheses and required data. THEORETICAL CULTURAL INHERITANCE THEORY FRAMEWORK Hypothesis 1: Shifts in 2: The 3:Technological mode of efficacy of shifts at the transmission transmission onset of the are evident practices NIIb are a and are declined due result of guided linked with to shifts in variation. changes in the social socioenvironment economic during the organization NIc and during the NIIa, Neolithic. resulting in 1a: NI punctuated technology technological transmitted change. vertically between parents and offspring. 1b: Some NI technology transmitted by a concerted mode (many-toone) 1c: NII technology transmitted through a one-to-many mode. Analytical Supra-group, Supra-group Supra-group Scale group, household Data Required MacroMacroMacro-visual, visual, visual, petrographic petrographic, petrographic, elemental elemental

personal adornment. Behavioral archaeology highlights that elements of a technology will compete as social contexts change. This hypothesis refers specifically to the ritualized nature of pottery in the Early Neolithic. It is suggested that this performance characteristic of Neolithic I pottery was out-competed by other material classes (e.g., rock art, idols). As a result, pottery in Neolithic II contexts performs in a primarily domestic setting, without the ritual or ideological characteristics earlier in time.

BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY 4: High level of technological stability with rapid technological change from NI to NII. 4a: Shifts in raw material resulted in redefinition of the behavioral production sequence. 4b: Changes in ceramic production are the result of a shift in application space.

PRACTICE THEORY 5: Neolithic witnessed a shift in the cultural and ideological foundation of agricultural communities in the Alcoi Basin, expressed in ceramic technological practice.

Supra-group, artifact

Individual, group

Macro-visual, petrographic, elemental, time/labor investment, distributions, functional properties

Macrovisual, petrographic, time/labor investment

pottery production during the Neolithic. However, some expectations may be stated. First, pottery production in the Neolithic II should be very uniform, regardless of decorative technique or form. Neolithic I pottery, in contrast, should show diversity in its production depending on the desired performance characteristics. Degree of time and labor input may also vary during the Neolithic I, where some forms of pottery may receive greater time investment than others. This can be measured using a point system as developed by Feinman et al. (1981) and later by Hagstrum (1985, 1988, 1989), where each step in the chaîne opératoire is assigned a value, and the

Test Expectations: This hypothesis is more difficult to test, because it addresses the ideological context of 42

time and labor investment between vessels is compared. In addition, consistency of the archaeological data with Hypotheses 1a,b and c (concerted transmission for Cardial Ware but vertical transmission for other Neolithic I pottery production and finally a shift to one-to-many transmission in the Neolithic IIb) would indirectly support a shift in performance characteristics. Finally, a detailed discussion of recovery contexts (domestic features, burials) and variation in use wear and vessel form may further test this hypothesis. Practice Theory: The Experience of the Potter, Norms and Variants, Group Expectations Finally, a hypothesis from the practice theory framework is proposed. The emphasis of practice theory approaches to technology lies in the desire to analyze prehistoric technologies ‘as if people mattered’ (Dobres 2000:96). As a result, practice theory relies heavily on an ‘engendered’ chaîne opératoire that highlights the human element in the artifact production sequence. ‘Engendering’ refers to the need to pay attention to symbolic attitudes of fundamental belief systems of agents in order to understand their particular technical choices. The experience of a technological practice differs between individuals and therefore the gestures and techniques associated with the production of an artifact will differ as well. Practice theory intends to define technological practice in terms of norms and variants, and emphasis is placed on the cultural context of the individual producer. Physical properties of natural materials that form the starting point for the manufacture of artifacts are immutable and invariant. Therefore, cultural choices are visible where variation in manufacturing is found (Lechtman 1999:223). Since emphasis is placed on the technological practice of an agent and not the social framework nor the artifact, technological change implies shifts in the cultural and ideological foundation that creates the practice. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is an ideological leap from the identification of shifts in technological practice to the identification of the ideological underpinnings. However, with the background of ideas from cultural inheritance theory expressed in Hypotheses 1-3, I believe it is worthwhile to address issues raised by practice theory here. In contrast to evolutionary archaeology and behavioral archaeology, the highly interpretive nature of practice theory to understand variability in its own right makes it difficult to create testable hypotheses. Practice theory ventures into a realm that many archaeologists are still wary to enter: ritual and ideology. Yet ethnographic and historic data demonstrate the pervasive nature of ideology in current and past human societies. The following hypothesis is an attempt to address changes in ideology through an analysis of ceramic technological practices. Hypothesis 5 Following Molina et al. (2003), the Neolithic witnessed a shift in the cultural and ideological foundation of 43

Geomorphologically and topographically this situation results in parallel alternating mountains and valleys. The mountains are formed by outcrops of limestones and cretaceous dolomites, whereas the valleys are synclinal depressions with a thick filling of neogenic materials (Fumanal 1993: 13). Open-air sites are located on terraces in the valley bottoms, while cave and rockshelter sites are situated on the mountainsides.

Chapter 5: The Sites Archaeological sites in and around the Alcoi Basin, Alicante, are ideal for studies of diachronic technological change. The tradition of archaeological research in the region provides accumulations of data from the Neolithic, and a number of modern scientific excavations were recently or are currently being conducted. In order to test hypotheses of technological change, ceramic assemblages from secure stratigraphic contexts with associated radiocarbon dates were chosen that were accessible in museums and laboratories. This chapter presents short descriptions of the sites from which samples were chosen for analysis. Emphasis is placed on the stratigraphic contexts and their radiocarbon dates, as well as the location and interpretation of each site in the Basin. This background will aid in the identification and discussion of technological traditions during the Neolithic, and the impact ceramic technology had on Neolithic lifeways.

Archaeological Sites in the Alcoi Basin The archaeological sites dating to the Neolithic that have provided samples for this study are distinct in chronology, location, and function. Table 5.1 lists the sites with their functional attribution by chronological period. Some of the sites are cave sites with long stratigraphic sequences, whereas others are open-air sites with relatively limited occupations. Two main site types are present in the Alcoi valley. Cave and rock-shelter sites (Cova de Cendres, Cova de l’Or, Abric de la Falguera, and Cova de Santa Maira) comprise the bulk of sites analyzed. Assemblages in cave sites are usually palimpsests of repeated, but generally not regular or comparable (in duration or nature) occupations. Because of this, even detailed excavation of cave or rock shelter deposits do not provide ‘snapshots’ of past societies and as a result ‘are of less use for detailing the process of social change than they are for preserving a record of the longterm results of change’ (Bernabeu et al. 2001:597).

Alcoi Basin Of the seven sites providing ceramic material for analysis, five (all but La Colata and Cova de les Cendres) are located in the Alcoi Basin, in the northern Alicante Province (Figure 5.1). The Basin is characterized by six interconnected valleys (Val de Penaguila, Polop Alto, Serpis, Val de Alcalá, Val de Ceta, and Val de Gallinera) that are surrounded by mountains. The calcareous Sierra del Benicadell (1104m) on the north is followed to the east by the Carrasqueta, Safor, Mustalla, Almirall and Gallinera mountains, upturned anticline axes that continue to the coast. To the east is the Jurassic fold of the Sierra de Mariola (1390m), while the Sierra de Aitana (1558m) closes the Basin to the south. These mountains form the northern extent of the Baetic mountain system that spans the south-eastern Iberian Peninsula.

As described in Chapter 3, cultural developments during the Neolithic include shifts in cave use from primarily domestic areas to use as corrals. This shift is evident in three sites analyzed here (Cendres, Falguera and Santa Maira), although ceramic materials from the corral levels were only analyzed from two of them (Falguera and Santa Maira). Open-air sites are rare for the Early Neolithic (Mas d’Is), but more common in the Late Neolithic (La Colata and Niuet). In the following, I present short descriptions

The geological deposits are characterized by a succession of folds oriented ENE-WSW, often breaking inverse faults.

44

Table 5.1. Chronology of materials analyzed from sites in this study. Site

NIa/b

Cova de l’Or

Yes

Cova de les Cendres Abric de la Falguera

Yes Yes

Cova de Santa Maira Mas d’Is Niuet La Colata

NIc/NIIa

NIIb

Corral?

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

The interpretation of Cova de l’Or remains difficult. Early Neolithic occupation is documented through a suite of radiocarbon dates ranging from 6720-6265 uncalibrated BP (5956-5079 cal. BC, 1 sigma). A wealth of subsistence remains including animal bone and charcoal seeds were recovered from deposits, as well as lithic and ceramic artifacts. In general, the artifacts found at Or are consistent with a habitation site. However, the large quantities of Cardial Ware, bone tools (spoons and a possible flute; Martí et al. 2001), and proximity to rock art sites such as Cova de la Sarga, suggest that activities at Cova de l’Or may have extended beyond mundane daily life. Rather, the site has been invariably interpreted as having a developed ritualistic nature, consisting of a ‘special bond with religious life’ (Martí et al. 1980; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997:227; translation mine).

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Due to the importance of materials from the stratified units, samples for this analysis were only available from collections without stratigraphic provenience. Large quantities of Cardial material were deposited at the Alcoi Museum in the 1950’s-1970’s by collectors and aficionados or hobby archaeologists, who had surface collected Cova de l’Or between its discovery and Martí’s excavations in the 1970’s. Despite the lack of absolute chronological control, samples (n=30; Table 5.2) were taken from pottery with Cardial, gradina, and cordon decorations, all diagnostic of the Early Neolithic (NIa). The samples chosen therefore do not intend to characterize the technology represented at Or as a whole, but rather focus on specific Early Neolithic decorative types. Due to the importance of the site within the regional culture history, the technological analysis, albeit preliminary, is a significant data point for comparison with other sites in this area. In addition, previous research by Gallart (Gallart 1980; Martí et al. 1980) on ceramic technology at Cova de l’Or is summarized in Chapter 6.

of the sites involved in the analysis, concentrating on the occupation levels that provided material for this analysis. Sites are organized in a rough chronological fashion. Cova de l’Or Due to the large quantities of Cardial ceramics, bone tools, personal adornments and domestic plant and animal remains, Cova de l’Or is inarguably one of the most important Early Neolithic sites on the Iberian Peninsula (e.g., Barnett 2000; Kunst 2001; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997; Mueller 1993;Whittle 1996; Zilhao 1993, 2000, 2001). Discovered in 1933, the cave is located at an elevation of 650m on the northern edge of the Serpis valley in the Alcoi Basin (Figure 5.1) on the southeast slope of the Sierra del Benicadell. Currently, Cova de l’Or is one of the best known sites in the region and on the Iberian Peninsula, due to large part because of the publication of the most recent excavations in two monographs (Martí 1977; Martí et al. 1980). The first archaeological interventions at Cova de l’Or were conducted from 1955 to 1958 by V. Pascual, however the lack of detailed information on stratigraphy limited the interpretation of ceramic data from these units (Bernabeu 1989:55). Excavations undertaken by Martí in the 1970’s resulted in the documentation of an important collection of artifacts within recorded stratigraphic contexts in two sectors (sector J and K). Bernabeu’s (1989) stylistic analysis of the ceramics from these sectors helped define the ceramic sequence of the Neolithic in the Valencia region. The importance of the materials found at Or lies not only in the impressive quantity and quality of materials uncovered, but also in their influence on regional chronology, typology, and models for the transition to agriculture (e.g., Bernabeu 1989; 1995; 1997, 1999; Bernabeu et al. 2001; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1997). Recent studies also look to more specific aspects of the material culture from Cova de l’Or, such as use of dyes, residue analyses of specific pottery types, and bone instruments (Bernabeu et al. 2007; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 2002; Martí et al. 2001)

Cova de les Cendres Cova de les Cendres is a cave site located on the Mediterranean coast of the province of Alicante (Figure 5.1). It is situated on a promontory near the town of Moraira overlooking the Mediterranean Sea. The cave is oriented toward the SE and consists of a large covered entrance leading into a gallery. The site was discovered at the beginning of the 20th century and archaeologists soon recognized a diverse assemblage of Neolithic materials on the surface, including a fragment of Cardial decorated pottery (Bernabeu 1989). Its location directly at the sea and the wealth of materials found on the surface and by pothunters (especially highly decorated Cardial pottery) clearly indicated its importance for understanding the transition to agriculture in Spain. The first controlled archaeological excavations were conducted by E. Llobregat in 1974/75 and reached the lower levels of the Neolithic occupation (Llobregat el al. 1981). Subsequent excavations at Cendres have been 45

directed by J. Bernabeu (Neolithic levels) and V. Villaverde (Palaeolithic levels) of the Universitat de València since 1981 (Bernabeu et al. 2001d; Bernabeu 2009). Cova de les Cendres appears to have been used throughout prehistory as a habitation site. A functional shift is visible, however, in the Late Neolithic when evidence consistent with use as a corral for ovicaprids is documented. The Neolithic levels at Cendres are of particular importance for three reasons. First, the location of the site on the coast is key to evaluating models of colonization or indigenous adoption for the transition to agriculture on the Iberian Peninsula. Secondly, the Cardial material at Cendres is very similar in style to pottery found at Cova de l’Or, suggesting that early farming populations in the two areas may be related in some way. Finally, both Cendres and Cova de l’Or have occupations spanning the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

(Bernabeu 1989) and the earliest Neolithic site dated in Valencia. Secondly, as described in Chapter 3, Cendres plays an important role in models of the transition to agriculture. Despite the presence of many early Neolithic sites in the Alcoi Basin, Cendres is the only coastal site with large collections of Early Neolithic material. Therefore the relationship between Cendres and the sites located in the Alcoi Basin is of tremendous interest. Technological data on Cardial ceramics from this coastal site may potentially highlight elements for the transition to agriculture in the Alcoi Basin. L’Abric de la Falguera L’Abric de la Falguera or Falaguera is a small rock shelter (16X6m) located in the Serra Menetjador in the Polop Valley, one of the upland valleys of the Alcoi Basin (Fig. 5.1; García and Molina 2003). Falguera is one of many rock shelters situated in the Barranc de les Coves (‘Canyon of Caves’), along a tributary of the Polop River, which in turn flows to the Barxell River and is the headwater of the Serpis River in the Alcoi Basin. Falguera is one of only two rock shelters in the canyon that contained intact sediments (the other is known as Abric de la Figuera and has produced at least 1 Neolithic pottery sherd), but some of the others have evidence of prehistoric rock art, including a schematic anthropomorph that likely dates to the Neolithic (García and Molina 2003; Molina et al. 2003). Located at ca. 800m, the site affords a panoramic view of the higher elevations of the Polop valley. A modern wall located in the rock shelter testifies to its use as a pastoralist corral until relatively recently.

As is the case with Cova de l’Or, the quantity of Neolithic pottery at Cendres is staggering (Bernabeu and Molina 2009) and samples (n=43; Table 5.2) from mixed stratigraphic contexts were made available by Bernabeu and Villaverde from excavations during the 1995 season. The vessels analyzed are all Cardial Ware, and therefore chronologically diagnostic to the Early Neolithic (NIa). Samples from this site were collected for two reasons. First, the material from Cendres is (with Cova de l’Or) one of the foundations for the Neolithic ceramic typology Table 5.2. Samples taken for technological analysis. Site

Niuet

N.II

81

Total # Tech. Analysis 61

Niuet

Silo 6

5

5

Mas d’Is

Sect. 80

41

Mas d’Is

Sect. 52

22

Mas d’Is

Foso 4 (Sect. 100)

18

Santa Maira

Corral del Gordo Boca Oeste

La Colata

Level

Total # Vessels

16

8

121

95

222

56

Cova de l’Or

30

Cendres

43

Falguera

132

Total

511

A small test pit was first excavated in 1981 (Rubio and Barton 1982), and human occupation of the site was documented from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. Further excavations were conducted by García and Aura from 1998 to 2001 (García and Aura 2000, 2006; García 2003; García and Molina 2003; García et al. 2003). Three field seasons concentrated on three units (two 2X2 and one 3X3) that declined in size with depth. The excavation units reached a maximum depth of 2.6m (in sector 3; 2m in sector 2), and strata dating to the Roman Period, Bronze Age, Neolithic, and Mesolithic were documented. The rock shelter was excavated in natural layers following the stratigraphy apparent from the 1981 excavation (with a maximum of 5cm depth per level), and levels were numbered by stratigraphic unit (UE; ‘unidad estrategráfica’) (García and Molina 2003). Falguera remains one of the few sites in eastern Spain to contain both Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic occupations. Despite problems of mixing and animal burrows in Sector 1, the excavation units in Sectors 2 and 3 provide controlled stratigraphic contexts to interpret the prehistoric material remains. The cultural sequence is based on stratigraphic relationships between levels and the material culture found. García and Molina identify 8 occupation phases (Table 5.3; García and Aura 2006; 46

limited to fragments without flat retouch (retoque plano) and an abruptly retouched trapeze, and a number of worked bone artifacts, predominantly punches (punzones) were documented. The lack of clearly diagnostic artifacts makes chronological determination difficult, and the excavators believe that the combination of material culture and stratigraphic position puts Phase V between the Early and Final Neolithic (i.e., NIIa or b; García and Molina 2003).

Table 5.3. Summary of phases and their chronology at L’Abric de la Falguera (after García and Molina 2003). Phase

Period

Phase I

Contemporary, Modern and Submodern

Phase II

Modern and Submodern; Roman Bronze Age (HCT – BA)

Phase III Phase IV

Final Neolthic (NIIb); Corrals

Phase V

Late Neolithic (NII – a or b?)

Phase VI

Early Neolithic (NIa)

Phase VII

Mesolithic

Phase VIII

Mesolithic

Radiocarbon Date

Phase VI is marked by the appearance of incised-impressed ceramics, as well as a number of hearths. A much larger portion of the ceramics found in this phase are decorated and include Cardial impressed ware, as well as incised, plastic applications (cordons), and other impressed ware such as gradina. The ceramics clearly point to an early Neolithic date (NIa), and correspond nicely to an AMS radiocarbon date of a domestic cereal seed (einkorn wheat, Triticum monoccocum, of 6510+/-70 BP uncalibrated, 5461 ± 71 cal. BC 1 sigma; Table 5.3).

6510+/-70 uncal. BP; 5461 ± 71 cal. BC

Finally, Phases VII and VIII date to the Late Mesolithic and are clearly distinct from Phase VI both sedimentologically and in their artifacts (lithics and animal bone) (García and Molina 2003). Three hearths were documented in phase VII and charcoal (Pinus halepensis) from one of them provided an AMS date of 7280+/-40 BP (uncalibrated, 6141 ± 52 cal. BC 1 sigma; García and Molina 2003; Table 5.3). A total of 132 Neolithic (n=108) and Bronze Age (n=24) vessels were analyzed from L’Abric de la Falgera (Table 5.2).

7280+/-40 uncal. BP 6141 ± 52 cal. BC

García and Molina 2003). Phases I and II are largely comprised of modern and mixed materials, including Roman ceramics in Phase II. Phase III is identified as Bronze Age, although the quantity of material uncovered remained low. Ceramics (hand built undecorated and carenated wares, including one possible cheese strainer) and stone tools suggest that the chronology of this phase lies between the Transitional Bell Beaker Horizon (HCT) and the Bronze Age.

Mas d’Is The open-air site of Mas d’Is is located on a strip of land at the headwaters of the Penaguila River, a tributary of the Serpis River. The Penaguila Valley was systematically surveyed in the 1990’s (Bernabeu et al. 2000) and the site of Mas d’Is was identified by a large scatter of Neolithic and Bronze Age material in an area covering ca. 10 hectare. In 1998, test trenches were opened to gauge the extent and preservation of the site, and excavation has continued in several field seasons since then (Bernabeu et al. 2002; Bernabeu and Orozco 2005; Figure 5.2). Due to millennia of erosion, the site is surrounded on three sides by steep gorges that have cut the former platform and into the Neolithic site (Bernabeu et al. 2002:176). Human occupation ranging from the Early Neolithic to the Bronze Age has been documented at Mas d’Is, but excavation and analyses have focused primarily on the Neolithic presence at the site.

Of greater import are the Neolithic levels found in Phases IV, V, and VI. Phase IV contains a number of levels with ash and charcoal lenses, including hearths and larger burnt areas. The larger areas of fire use are interpreted as animal corral fires, used to clean corrals after animals had been penned for a prolonged period (Carrión 1999; García and Molina 2003). In addition, a number of small storage pits were excavated. The material found corresponds typologically to the Final Neolithic (NIIb) and consists of largely undecorated pottery (with the exception of three fragments with incisions) and diagnostic bifacially retouched points with tang and barbs (García and Molina 2003).

A number of structures were recovered dating to the Neolithic I, located in two distinct areas of the site (Figure 5.2), approximately 300m apart. House 1, situated in Sector 80, is the best preserved habitation structure at Mas d’Is and encompasses an area of approximately 30m2. Reconstructed by the location of postholes, the hut has a rectangular shape with a rounded end in the SE. In addition to the large number of postholes, several accumulations

Phase V at Falguera is separated from Phase IV by a sterile rock fall layer (up to 8cm thick). Not many artifacts were found in Phase V, and the pottery is very similar to material recovered in Phase IV. Primarily undecorated ware was excavated, although some decorated vessels, mostly incised ware, were found. In addition, lithic material was 47

trenches are cut by the gorge to the east. Archaeological material found in the trench fill suggest the trenches date to phases Neolithic Ib/Ic, but the relationship of the trenches to other structures at the site and their function remains unclear. Since no structures were found inside the area the trenches appear to be delineating, Bernabeu et al. (2002:180) suggest that they may be demarking a ritual or sacred space. A large number of ceramics were found in Sectors 52 and 80, as well as Foso 4. Samples for technological analysis were taken from all three proveniences in order to maximize the number of samples and the time periods represented (Table 5.2). Focus was placed on the Early Neolithic occupation at the site since it is one of a few open-air site dating to this period to be excavated in Valencia. However, additional samples were collected from the mid-fill levels of Foso 4 to augment materials from the Middle Neolithic (NIc/ NIIa) for comparison with pottery from Santa Maira. Cova de Santa Maira Cova de Santa Maira is located at an elevation of 600m in the Sierra d’Alfaro. It is a sub-triangular cave with an interior gallery measuring 30mX10m, and with 3 exterior openings. The east opening currently has dry stone walls, testifying to its historic use as a corral. A preliminary test pit in the early 1990’s recorded a stratigraphic sequence from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic (Domenech 1991). Current excavations in two of the three openings by Aura were begun in the late 1990’s to identify hunter-gatherer cultural developments and focused on the definition of stratigraphy, material culture, and palaeoenvironmental data (Aura et al. 2000:76). Corral del Gordo, one of the two areas excavated, is the east opening of the cave and was excavated in 1993. Two stratigraphic levels were recorded in the units (Levels I and II), separated by an erosional layer that is a clear hiatus between occupation levels (Verdasco 1999; Aura et al. 2000:79). Level II included a relatively large collection of marine malacofaunal adornments and a smaller collection of lithics (scrapers, retouched pieces, geometric microlith, and some cores). Radiocarbon dates along with the artifacts date this level to the Epipalaeolithic (14310+/-190 uncal. BP, 15466+/-253 cal. BC 1 sigma; 11020+/-140 uncal. BP, 10983+/-111 cal. BC 1 sigma; Aura et al. 2000:79-80). In contrast, Level I had a series of laminations with abundant organic material in some areas, and a number of animal burrows were detected. Artifacts were scarce in this level and tended to be highly fragmented. Ceramics (incised, applied, esgrafiada and combed) and a small number of lithics were found associated with domestic ovicaprid bones. This Neolithic occupation is mixed due in large part to animal burrows, but the artifacts and a radiocarbon date (5640+/-140 uncal. BP, 4506+/-143 cal. BC 1 sigma; Appendix A; Aura et al. 2000) suggest that the materials date to the same general chronological period (NIIa; Aura et al. 2000:79).

of rocks were found in the interior. The function of these structures remains unclear (Bernabeu et al. 2002:178). House 2 is located in the same sector, however at a lower stratigraphic level. Although not as clearly delineated as House 1, a grinding stone was found in situ in House 2 and was surrounded by a number of postholes, charcoal, and fragments of daub (barro cocido). The chronology of both of these structures, based on the artifacts (primarily ceramics), is estimated to be Neolithic Ia for House 2 and Neolithic Ib for House 1 (Bernabeu et al. 2002: 178). House 3 is located in Sector 52, ca. 250m to the west of House 2 (Figure 5.2). Only half of House 3 was excavated, but its similarity to House 1 suggests they may have been contemporary (i.e., NIb; Bernabeu et al. 2002:178). In addition to the houses, several trenches were found during excavation. In the NE of the site, two Early and Middle Neolithic V-shaped trenches were uncovered, Foso 4 and 5 (Figure 5.2). Foso 4 is the larger of the two trenches, measuring 11m wide and 3m deep. Foso 5 lies close by and appears to form a concentric trench with Foso 4, although only a small portion of Foso 5 was excavated. Both 48

I-IV correspond to the fill of a large, segmented v-shaped ditch. Other features, such as pits (Silos 3, 4, 5) and a house floor in the upper most level (E.S.) were also recorded. All of the pits (silos) were excavated in natural levels, and the ditch and house floor were excavated in 29 artificial levels of 10cm. All soil was screened in 5mm and 2mm screens, and soil samples were taken from each level for flotation.

In the second sector, the ‘West Opening’ (boca oeste), a total of 14m2 was excavated on the western edge of cave. The precise duration of human occupation of this part of the cave has not been determined since excavations have yet to reach bedrock. To date, levels from the Late Upper Magdalenien (Level 4B/5), Epipaleolithic (Level 4a), Mesolithic (Level 3), and Neolithic (Levels 1 and 2), have been documented. As is the case with Corral del Gordo, Neolithic levels in Boca Oeste showed traces of animal burrowing and a high degree of disturbance. Ceramic material uncovered in this sector (e.g., esgrafiada, combed ware) is very similar to materials in Corral del Gordo, and date stylistically to NIIa (Bernabeu 1989). However, small collections of Neolithic I material (Cardial and impressed ceramics; Bernabeu 1989) as well as some Late Neolithic/ HCT ceramics show that the cave was used to some extent throughout the Neolithic sequence. The high degree of mixing of these levels makes interpretation for cave use during Neolithic unclear. The presence of characteristic laminations (as found in Corral del Gordo) in small parts of two units may be evidence of use as corral (Aura et al. 2000:80; Badal 1999; Verdasco 1999). Current evidence shows that Cova de Santa Maira was used by humans from the Tardiglacial to the present. The cave appears to have been occupied primarily by hunters in the Pleistocene. A significant shift is noted during the Neolithic when it was used as a corral for sheep and goats (Badal 1999; Verdasco 1999), which continued until recent history.

Due to the preservation problems at the site, the data are fragmentary and the interpretation of features within the settlement remains difficult (Bernabeu et al. 1994). However, materials recovered from closed contexts with radiocarbon dates securely place the site in the Late Neolithic. Limited faunal and charcoal materials suggest the site was occupied by farmers for up to 500 years, and that they had relatively little impact on native vegetation in the immediate surroundings (Bernabeu et al. 1994:72). The lithic assemblages point to ties with other regions in Valencia and Spain, including Andalusia. However, here too the data are scarce, with only 10 fragments of polished stone recovered from the site. The structures and features recorded, such as domestic house floors, storage pits, and a segmented ditch are paralleled at other sites in the Iberian Peninsula dating to this period (Pascual et al. 1993; see also e.g., Nocete 1989 and Gusi and Olaria 1991 for Andalusia; Llongueras et al. 1982 for Catalunya). Following these parallels, Niuet was likely an extensive village, possibly covering 4 to 6 hectares (Bernabeu et al. 1994:72). Numerous pottery fragments (n= 12,508) were found in excavation units and on the surface and analyzed by Bernabeu and Orozco (1994) following the ceramic typologies for the area (Bernabeu 1989; Bernabeu and Guitart 1993; see also Chapter 6). The ceramic assemblage was very similar to material found at other Late Neolithic sites in the region, such as Les Jovades and Arenal de la Costa. Most of the ceramic assemblage consisted of plain ware, with only 0.32% decorated. These were primarily combed or incised, although 4 fragments with red-slip (almagra) and 3 fragments with painted designs were found in Strata III and IV. Handles are scarce in the collection, and only mamelones, at times perforated, and tabs were recorded (Bernabeu and Orozco 1994:29). There is no significant difference in presence of these attributes based on stratigraphy. However, other typological elements appear to have chronological significance at Niuet. In general, simple forms of open or slightly closed vessels, especially plates and shallow dishes (see Chapter 6), dominate the lower deposits. In Strata II and I and Silos 3 and 6, these open forms have characteristically thickened rims, often flaring outward, and the materials are strikingly uniform throughout the site.

A total of 103 vessels from Corral del Gordo and Boca Oeste were analyzed (Table 5.2). Cova de Santa Maira is a very important site in this study because it has materials dating to NIIa, a period missing from the other corral site Abric de la Falguera. As described in Chapter 3, sites dating to this time period are relatively scarce throughout Valencia. Niuet The Late Neolithic site of Niuet was located by Bernabeu (1993; Bernabeu et al. 1994) during survey of the Serpis Valley in 1987. The site is situated on a fluvial terrace between the Río Serpis and the Barranc de la Querola, in the mid-valley by the modern town of L’Alqueria d’Asnar (Fig. 5.1). A large part of the terrace had been eroded by the Serpis River and pebble mining since the 1960’s (Fumanal 1994). Consequently, only parts of the original site were preserved in three areas, and archaeologists from the Universitat de València conducted a salvage excavation from 1988 to 1993. One large sector (Sector A) was excavated along with a number of structures visible on the surface or in erosion cuts (Pascual and Bernabeu 1994).

Samples for technological analysis were taken from Stratum II of Sector A and Silo 6. Stratum II of the V-shaped ditch consisted of compact, uniform sands with some medium sized pebbles. In total, 15m2 were excavated to a maximum depth of 83cm. The majority of archaeological

Excavations were focused on Sector A because this was the area with the least degree of impact from mining and fluvial erosion (Pascual and Bernabeu 1994:17). Five levels of archaeological deposits were documented, of which strata 49

remains was concentrated in the lower 30cm of the stratum, and consisted primarily of ceramics, charcoal and dispersed ashes. A radiocarbon date of charcoal from the stratum resulted in an uncalibrated date of 4490+/-60 BP (3192+/-116 cal. BC 1 sigma). A total of 81 vessels were identified (Bernabeu and Orozco 1994:31) and 61 were sampled for technological analysis (Table 5.2).

were excavated in natural layers. The quantity of pits and their distribution on the site was impetus to extend excavations to other areas deemed in danger. Excavations in the spring and summer of 2003 uncovered more Neolithic storage pit features as well as medieval Islamic burials. Materials found in the pit features are still under study and consisted of undecorated pottery, polished stone axes, lithics, domestic animal remains, and burnt daub. All of these materials are typical of the Late Neolithic (NIIb; see Niuet), but no absolute dates are available. A total of 56 vessels from12 storage pits were analyzed (Table 5.2; Figure 5.3). In addition to amplifying the Late Neolithic sample from Niuet, the material from La Colata provides a test of uniformity. As described in Chapter 3, Late Neolithic pottery is considered to be not only very diagnostic but also uniform across space. By analyzing materials from La Colata, situated at only 20 km from the Alcoi Basin, the variation in ceramic technology during the Late Neolithic could be addressed.

Silo 6 is a pit feature located ca. 23m to the south-west of the V-shaped ditch. The surface had been cut by erosion, and the feature was easily identifiable on the surface. A maximum depth of 30cm was preserved, and the feature had a maximum diameter of 140cm at the surface and 150cm just 10cm below the surface. The base of the pit was slightly convex, and it was filled with brown earth with abundant ash and charcoal. The last 10cm of the pit consisted of compact ash. An uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 4260+/-60 BP (2826+/-95 cal. BC 1 sigma) was received for a charcoal sample from this feature. A total of 5 vessels were identified (Bernabeu and Orozco 1994:31), and all of these were sampled for technological analysis. La Colata The site of La Colata is located in the Albaida valley outside the town of Montaverner, just north of the Alcoi Basin (Figure 5.1). It was identified during the construction of an industrial complex in the area and underwent a rescue excavation. The first intervention took place during January 2003 and 46 Neolithic features of diverse typologies were documented (Diez and Gómez 2003; Figure 5.3).

Summary Samples for ceramic technological analysis were taken from seven sites in and around the Alcoi Basin. As this chapter illustrates, I collected samples from a variety of site types (cave/rock shelter and open-air) spanning the Neolithic. Samples from over 500 vessels were analyzed, constituting the largest study of Neolithic pottery technology in the Alcoi Basin to date. In the following chapter, I summarize the data available for Neolithic pottery, focusing on the typology used in the Alcoi Basin. In addition, I discuss

The features were largely interpreted as storage pits and

50

the limited technological data for Neolithic pottery manufacture in the region that is already available, as well as studies on ceramic technology in adjacent regions. This will provide the analytical background for the results of the current analysis in Chapters 7 and 8.

51

subsequently elaborated on and revised (Bernabeu and Guitart 1993; Bernabeu and Orozco 1994; Bernabeu and Molina n.d.) is based on two sets of data: metric and morphological. It spans the Neolithic and Bronze Age and was conceptualized to provide a basis for studying change through time. Therefore, the typology is not a summary of a specific time period, but rather an amalgam of ceramic shapes and types found in the region over a 3000-year period (Bernabeu 1989:11). The Neolithic I assemblages only occupy a part of the typology, and often a typological group is not represented in all periods. For this reason, the typology is primarily descriptive in nature. Its utility lies foremost in the clear manner in which ceramic vessels can be described (Bernabeu 1989:11).

Chapter 6: The Ceramics of Neolithic Valencia Since pottery as an artifact class generally preserves well in the archaeological record, its analysis has long played an important methodological role in defining cultural chronologies in addition to understanding past human lifeways. The transition to farming communities in the Western Mediterranean is closely linked to pottery production and it is no surprise that ceramic studies have been at the forefront of archaeological research (e.g., Arnal et al. 1987; Ayala et al. 1999; Barnett 1989, 1990, 1995a, 1995b, 2000; Binder and Courtin 1987; Binder et al. 1994; Chapman 1988; García and Olaetxea 1992; Gernigon 2000; Jedikian 2000; Vaquer 1987). In Valencia, this has particularly been the case in the past 30 years (e.g., Asquerino 1976, 1998; Bernabeu 1989, 1999; Bernabeu and Martí 1992; Pérez 1999; Martí and Juan-Cabanilles 1987, 1997; Gallart 1980). In this chapter, I summarize the findings of ceramic analyses and the chronological and cultural structure they have helped to create. To this end, a brief discussion of the typology and decorative methods used by researchers at the University of Valencia who conducted the typological and stylistic analyses of the ceramic assemblages studied here is essential. The typological and stylistic data are important elements for interpreting shifts in technological practice, and reference is made to typological categories throughout Chapter 7. Few technological analyses on ceramics have been conducted on Neolithic assemblages in Valencia (e.g., Bernabeu et al. 2007; Bernabeu et al. 2009; Gallart 1980; McClure et al. 2006; McClure 2007; McClure and Molina 2008). In contrast, a wide range of studies on lithic and bone tool technology has been recently published (e.g. García 2002; Pascual 1998; Orozco 1999) and studies on ceramic technology in France are quite common (e.g., Arnal et al. 1987; Barnett 1989, 1995a, 2000; Manen 2000, 2002; Manen and Guilaine 2007). In the following, I summarize the findings of previous technology-oriented ceramic studies in Valencia and provide a context for the analysis results presented in Chapter 7. By summarizing previous findings on technological practices, the analysis presented here is placed into a broader methodological framework.

The typology is divided into Class, Group, Type and Subtype (Figure 6.1). Within this system, a vessel is categorized into a Class based on only one attribute: the Depth Index (height/maximum diameter) that functions as an indicator of vessel proportions. This index is considered particularly useful as a primary attribute since it grasps the variation within an assemblage into classes that have a functional element (Bernabeu 1989:12). This is particularly the case with Class C vessels that have a Depth Index higher than 0.7. These vessels are deep or very deep, they may be open or closed, large or small, but always difficult for certain functions such as food consumption. Indeed, this class of vessels is often related to the transport or storage of liquids or solids, or cooking ware (such as ollas). In contrast, Class A vessels have a Depth Index equal to or less than 0.45 and consist of flat or very flat vessels and include plates, open bowls, and serving vessels. This class appears to be closely linked with food consumption (Bernabeu 1989:12). Within each Class, vessels are categorized into Group, Type, and Subtype based on metric and morphological attributes. Morphological attributes include lip, rim, body and base shape and the presence/absence of handles and their morphology (see Bernabeu 1989; Molina and Bernabeu in press for details). In essence, Class A includes plates and open, shallow bowls that are sometimes flat (fuentes, escudillas, cazuelas). In contrast, Class B consists of bowls with simple or composed profiles. Class C members include an array of vessels with necks of all sizes. It is in this group that jars, cooking pots (ollas), and larger storage vessels (orzas, tinajas) are categorized. As mentioned above, all of these types tend to have smaller openings. Finally, Class D consists largely of otherwise unclassifiable vessels, and includes micro-vessels, little bottles, and twin vessels. It is important to note that although the typology is based on an amalgamation of forms found throughout the Neolithic, a distinct shift in the representation of certain forms is visible archaeologically. Specifically, Class A pottery, i.e., open forms such as plates and shallow dishes, are practically unknown before the Neolithic IIb. During the Neolithic I, pottery ranges in form between large and small vessels, often globular (although not exclusively), with many bowls, jars, and ollas

Typology and Chronology The bulk of Neolithic ceramic studies have focused on understanding the variation in vessel form and decoration through time. In a seminal work by Bernabeu (1989), a typology and chronology of Neolithic pottery was established that has since been the foundation of pottery studies in Valencia. The monograph focuses on the Neolithic ceramic assemblages from 5 sites: Cova de la Sarsa, Cova de l’Or, Ereta de Pedregal, Cova d’En Pardo, and Cova Ampla del Montgó, with data from a range of previously studied Bell Beaker habitation and burial sites added (Bernabeu 1984, 1989). The typology established by Bernabeu (1989), and 52

Impressa are found from Italy to the Ligurian coast, whereas Cardial impressed ceramics are found from the Provence to Portugal, spanning wide areas of the western Mediterranean. In addition, 14 more restricted ‘subgroups’ have been identified based on ceramic decoration and vessel form (Guilaine 1976). Within this second group, the ceramic sequence is traditionally seen as Cardial wares being followed by regionalization of decoration during an ‘epi-Cardial’ impressed ware phase of the Early Neolithic. Critiques of the stratigraphic sequences (Zilhao 1993) suggest that these two phases may be more contemporaneous than previously thought (Barnett 1990a; see also van Willingen 2001). In Valencia, the ceramic sequence is only loosely identified with the Cardial – Epicardial distinction made in southern France. Studies of stratified cave sites such as Cova de l’Or (Bernabeu 1989) have noted shifts in the proportions of Cardial impressed ceramics and other impressions and decorations, and the regionalization of ceramic types subsequent to a Cardial phase is assumed. Early radiocarbon dates from non-Cardial bearing sites on the Meseta in central Spain indicate that chronological issues of regionalization needed revision in Spain as well (Rojo et al. 2006). Recently, Bernabeu et al. (2009) analyzed pottery from El Barranquet, a coastal site in Valencia. The pottery was distinctive from typical Early Neolithic assemblages in that it included a significant proportion of non-Cardial impressions similar to Impressa pottery and parallels to the early pottery from the central Meseta. Technologically the assemblage from El Barranquet is also different from more typical Early Neolithic assemblages in Valencia. This recent finding suggests that the traditional view of a Cardial Neolithic spread to the Iberian Peninsula must be revised and reinforces the notion that agricultural settlement was more complex and diverse in timing and origin than previously thought (Bernabeu et al. 2009; see also Manen et al. 2007).

Figure 6.1. Basic Neolithic typology (Bernabeu and Molina n.d.)

Rim Diameter (Db) Maximum Diameter (Dm) Height (H) Neck Height (Hdc) Neck Diameter (Dc) Tangential Point Height (Hpt) Tangential Point Diameter (Dpt) Indices Height Index (Rim diameter/maximum diameter) Depth Index (Height/max. diameter) Neck elevation index (Neck height/height) Narrowing index (Neck diameter/rim diameter) Tangential Point Elevation Index (Tangential Point Height/height) Widening Index (Tangential Point Diameter/neck diameter) in the assemblages. In contrast, Neolithic IIb assemblages tend towards more open forms such as plates and shallow bowls, although jars and ollas are still produced. Detailed descriptions of typological groups, types and subtypes are found in Bernabeu (1989).

The typology and decorative techniques of Neolithic ceramics in Valencia outlined above provides the chronological framework for the study of pottery technology presented in Chapter 7. A typological and stylistic analysis of the ceramic assemblages studied here were conducted by Joan Bernabeu, Lluís Molina, and Pau García at the University of Valencia using the guidelines described above. With the typological and stylistic information already available, the technological analysis presented here could discriminate between vessel forms and chronological periods.

If the typology is largely limited to a descriptive tool to help characterize a ceramic assemblage, the presence and type of decoration is the main tool for chronological placement. As described in Chapter 3 (see also Table 3.1), a range of decorative types were produced during the Neolithic, and the presence of some, such as Cardial impression or esgrafiada, is a clear chronological marker. The identification of decorative technique, therefore, is essential for characterizing cultural change during the Neolithic.

Technology Few studies of technological practice in ceramic production have been conducted on Neolithic pottery in Valencia. Ceramic analysis as commonly practiced in the region focuses on decorative style and typology, but some technological data are also collected. These are usually limited to general characteristics: reparations, wall thickness, surface treatment, firing, and temper. These

Debate on the chronological position of some decorative types in the Western Mediterranean has arisen, particularly regarding pottery found in southern France (Zilhao 1993; see discussion in Barnett 2000; van Willingen 1999, 2001). In the Western Mediterranean, the initial pottery horizon shows two different distributions. Decorative and technologically distinct types of pottery such as 53

categories were not created with a chaîne opératoire approach in mind, and therefore confound some data regarding different points on the production sequence. Reparations (laña) are post-firing perforations made to repair a vessel fracture. This variable is documented as present or absent in most studies. Wall thickness is limited to placing vessels in one of three general categories: fine (9mm). This characteristic is also used in the present study (Chapter 7). Interior and exterior surface treatments are characterized as eroded, smoothed, well smoothed (espatulado), polished/burnished (bruñido), slipped, or combed. This variable was changed for the purposes of the present analysis, where the presence of a slip was made into its own category, independent of other types of surface treatments. The application of a slip is a very different technological process than finishing a surface through smoothing, and it may take place at a different point in the manufacturing sequence. Since the chaîne opératoire methodology was used as the organizing concept in this study, the common category of surface treatment needed to be modified. This is also the case with the firing category. Firing has heretofore been described as reduced, oxidized, alternating, or irregular. This characterization is focused more on the coloring of the vessel than the firing technique per se. Finally, temper is grouped by quantity (few, medium, many), size (small, large, mixed), and type (organic: vegetal, shell; inorganic: calcite, quartz, mica, limestone, ceramic, other). These determinations are made macro-visually and are difficult to standardize. The quantity and size of inclusions were standardized in this study using comparative measures (see Chapter 7 for more details). The identification of inclusions macrovisually was also attempted here during the first phase of the analysis in order to make preliminary groupings of inclusion types. However, comparison with thin section data suggests that this method is not appropriate, since it is often difficult to identify calcites of various sources (shell, dolomite) other than in thin section. In addition, ‘ceramic temper’ (i.e. grog) is practically impossible to identify macro-visually. As is shown in Chapter 7, grog tempering is an essential technique in Neolithic Ia pottery production, and has gone largely undetected due to these methodological limitations.

Cova de l’Or, Cova Bernarda, Cova del Barranc Fondo, Cova de la Sarsa, and Cova de les Cendres. The bulk of the analysis rests on material from Cova de l’Or (n=557), with fewer than 10 samples from each of the other sites. The study intended to add information on mineralogical composition, morphological structure of ceramic pastes, and tempering agents to the more commonly documented data on typology and decoration (Gallart 1980:57). The methods employed were chosen for their flexibility and based on concrete technologies available to archaeologists at the time: binocular microscope, X-ray diffraction, and two types of electron microscopes. The methodology developed was to provide a model for the analysis of ceramics from any type of archaeological site (Gallart 1980:58). Gallart (1980) used a binocular microscope to identify inclusions and she discusses their effects on vessel surfaces, hardness, color and form. Her study addressed the way in which ceramic pastes were mixed (types and distribution of inclusions), and attempted to identify vessels made in a similar fashion or fragments belonging to the same vessel. X-ray diffraction was used to identify the mineralogical content of clay pastes. With these data, the study determined the mineralogical composition of vessels and their relative proportions. Finally, Gallart used a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a transmission electron microscope (TEM) to identify the morphology of minerals as well as porosity, texture, and microstructure. In sum, the study characterized the structure and morphology of the ceramic pastes and permitted the accumulation of data on ceramic technology such as type, morphology and proportion of temper present in pastes, porosity, and slip identification. Methodologically, Gallart (1980) first analyzed samples with the binocular microscope to identify inclusion categories and sort samples into groups. Once these basic groups were established, a representative selection of each group was taken for X-ray diffraction, TEM, and SEM analysis. This second step confirmed the mineralogical identification and resulted in new data on the mineralogical composition and ceramic paste structures (Gallart 1980:61). Gallart (1980) identified a total of 8 technological groups for the Neolithic samples from Cova de l’Or, of which 7 were discreet groups based primarily on inclusions and the final group consisted of fragments that were distinct from groups 1-7 but not similar to one another. Group 1 was characterized by small quantities of calcite inclusions, and X-ray fluorescence showed trace levels of quartz and feldspar. By using X-ray fluorescence, Gallart was also usually able to identify clay minerals. In the case of Group 1, these consisted primarily of illite and suggested that the vessel had been fired to a maximum temperature of 450˚ to 500˚C since otherwise these minerals would begin to disintegrate. According to Gallart (1980:62), the inclusions in these pastes were natural, and not intentionally added by the potter. In the case of Group 2,

In addition to technological variables documented in the common ceramic analysis practice of researchers working in Valencia, a few studies have focused exclusively on Neolithic ceramic technology. In the following, I summarize the results of technological analysis of material from Cova de l’Or (Gallart 1980) and other studies in adjacent regions of Granada and Aragón. Ceramic Technology in Valencia Technology has long been a mainstay of lithic and bone tool analyses in Valencia, however relatively few such studies are available for Neolithic ceramics. The exception is research published by Gallart (1980) on material from 54

calcite is also the most common inclusion, although larger in size and higher in quantity than in Group 1. Quartz, mica, illite and vermiculite were also identified (Gallart 1980: 63). The presence of vermiculite suggests vessels were only fired to 300˚- 400˚ C. Groups 3 and 4 are very similar pastes tempered with calcite that differ only in inclusion size. Trace amounts of quartz were identified through X-ray fluorescence. No clay minerals were noted. In contrast to Groups 1 and 2 that only consisted of undecorated fragments, incised, combed and one carved (esgrafiada) fragments were members of Group 3/4. Group 5 is also characterized by calcite inclusions and illite was identified. The ceramics pertaining to this group were termed ‘crude’, and the calcite inclusions are thought to be natural inclusions in the clays. A number of decorative types, including cordons, combed, and impressed vessels fall into this category. Group 6 presents a departure from the calcite-dominated pastes. In this group, inclusions are practically not visible and only small amounts of quartz and calcite were noted. Gallart interprets these as natural inclusions, suggesting that the clay raw materials were of such a quality that potters had no need to add any tempering agents into the pastes. The largest number of analyzed fragments from Cova de l’Or fall into this group (n=222), and decorative techniques include cordons, impressed and incised decorations, mamelones, and Cardial impressions. Finally, Group 7 (n=206) is the second largest group identified. Inclusions were also difficult to identify in this group, although X-ray fluorescence results indicate more quartz and less calcite than in other groups. The lack of inclusions led the researcher to hypothesize that these vessels were made from a relatively pure clay and that organic material may have been used as a tempering agent – either by being a natural inclusion or intentionally added to the clay by potters (Gallart 1980: 70). Decorative techniques in this group are dominated by Cardial and other impressions. The presence of montmorillonite as the clay mineral suggests that these vessels were fired to less than 500˚C.

vessels in the Neolithic II. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 7, the findings of the present technological analysis are similar to Gallart’s results in many ways, thus expanding the geographical distribution of these technological trends (see also McClure 2007; McClure et al. 2006). Calcite and quartz dominate the mineral inclusions found in vessels from a range of Neolithic sites in the region. The main difference, however, lies in the results obtained for the Neolithic Ia materials, which would likely fall into Gallart’s Group 6 and 7. The use of thin section petrography facilitated the identification of grog (crushed ceramics) as a tempering agent. The use of grog as a tempering agent was particularly common in the case of Cardial impressed pottery. Since grog consists of crushed ceramics, it is practically unidentifiable when looking through a binocular microscope. In addition, since grog temper is made from readily available ceramic fragments (e.g., broken sherds from an old vessel, firing wasters, etc.), one would not expect the grog inclusions to differ dramatically in paste from the vessel being studied, and therefore the elemental and X-ray fluorescence results would not differ. Grog inclusions are practically only identifiable in thin section. Since Gallart’s study did not include a petrographic analysis, it is not surprising that she did not identify grog as a common inclusion type in Neolithic Ia ceramics. Her characterization of Neolithic paste inclusions must therefore be revised, especially regarding the potential role of organic inclusions in Neolithic Ia pottery production that were not identified in the petrographic analysis. The results of this analysis are presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 7. Studies of Neolithic Ceramic Technology in Adjacent Regions: Granada and Aragón Studies on ceramic pastes are more common in other parts of the Iberian Peninsula. Only a few archaeologists in Aragón and Granada are studying technological aspects of pottery production (e.g., Gallart and López 1988; Capel et al. 1982; Capel et al. 1992). In contrast to the definition of technology used in this dissertation, conceptualized as the chaîne opératoire, technological studies in these regions are largely limited to paste analysis.

Gallart’s study was the first ceramic analysis in Valencia that focused on clay pastes and inclusion types. By using a range of techniques, she was able to demonstrate that Neolithic potters used a number of different raw materials to produce the pottery found at Cova de l’Or. In addition, she identified trends in pottery production techniques that suggested that Cardial impressed vessels were made with a distinct type of clay than other Neolithic pottery. Indeed, her analysis of ceramic pastes within the stratigraphic sequence at Cova de l’Or indicated technological shifts in pottery production during this period. In the earliest phases (dominated by Cardial pottery; NIa), she identifies a high quality ceramic production: ‘una gran perfección en su tecnología de fabricación’ (a great perfection in production technology; Gallart 1980:88) that begins to diminish through time. This trajectory continues with calcitedominated pastes in the Neolithic II that is interpreted as a shift from storage vessels in the Neolithic I to cooking

In Aragón, Gallart and López (1988) conducted a similar study to Gallart’s (1980) Cova de l’Or research on ceramic pastes from the Neolithic cave site of Chaves (Casbas, Huesca). Using the same methodologies as applied to the Cova de l’Or material, the authors analyzed a series of ceramic fragments from stratigraphic contexts at Cueva de Chaves. Here they found that the inclusions were limited to quartz and calcite (with trace amounts of feldspar, plagioclase, and amphibole) that only differed in proportion through time. With the help of cluster analysis, they were able to define 5 paste groups based on the relative proportions of clay minerals and inclusions. They suggest that shifts in ceramic pastes are visible from clays with few primarily quartz inclusions to a greater 55

proportion of calcite later in time. This generally mirrors the pattern Gallart identified for Cova de l’Or (Gallart 1980), although the proportion of quartz is much higher at Cueva de Chaves.

In contrast, bowls (cuencos) generally have high levels of calcite. Carved (esgrafiada) ceramics have high levels of mica without any other phyllo-silicates as among the ollas. This appears to be associated with only this type of vessel (Navarette et al. 1991:249). The authors argue that this is evidence for the preparation of a clay paste to make a specific type of vessel, and the laminated character of mica allows potters to decorate the vessel post-firing. Finally, the production of almagra ceramics, known primarily from this region, has been identified as a technique that specifically mixes clay and hematites to create a red-tinted paint that oxidizes during firing. Differences in the clay matrix effects how the paint is absorbed. As a result, the authors were further able to distinguish between paint, slip, and gouache in the production of almagra ceramics.

In contrast, researchers in Andalusia have published a number of studies on Neolithic ceramic paste analyses (e.g., Capel et al. 1982; Capel et al. 1992; Navarette et al. 1991). In a monograph summarizing the state of research, Navarette et al. (1991) place their ceramic analysis within the context of cultural developments in the Province of Granada. Data on ceramic pastes were generated through a suite of techniques similar to Gallart’s (1980) study at Cova de l’Or: 1) X-ray diffraction to identify the mineralogical content of pastes; 2) a chemical analysis to determine iron levels, especially of almagra (red slipped/painted) ceramics; 3) optical analysis with a binocular microscope to characterize the paste and size of inclusions; and 4) physical methods for determining density and porosity. These data were then evaluated by statistical means, using factor analysis and variation analysis. A total of 133 samples from 18 Neolithic sites in Granada were analyzed in this manner.

Current State of Research on Ceramic Technology in Valencia This brief summary of ceramic technological analyses in Valencia, Aragón, and Granada exemplify two points. First, technological studies of Neolithic ceramics in the region remain limited in number. Despite the ubiquity of ceramics at Spanish Neolithic sites and the importance given typologies and decorations in reconstructions of past human behavior, the technological aspects of ceramic production have remained understudied. Second, similar techniques have been used to study ceramic assemblages in Aragón, Granada, and Valencia. These focus on the identification and structure of minerals, with secondary emphasis on firing temperatures and source locations. The methodologies employed to address these issues are appropriate. In this book, however, the conceptualization of what constitutes technological practice is slightly different: by employing a production sequence approach, this study necessarily needs to collect different kinds of data. In the process, the analysis of thin sections of Neolithic ceramics has identified the widespread use of grog temper during the early Neolithic that is undetectable by the techniques used in the other studies. Chapter 7 presents the methods and results of the macro-visual and petrographic analyses of Neolithic pottery from sites in and around the Alcoi Basin.

The study shows that the mineralogical components of the pastes differed between sites and are correlated with their specific geological surroundings, resulting in the interpretation that potters made their products locally at each site. In terms of production practices, the authors were able to identify the existence of technological modifications of production between the early Neolithic and the beginning of the Copper Age, particularly at the sites with stratigraphic sequences spanning this time period. The authors interpret these changes in qualitative terms: the initial Neolithic pottery is ‘better’ made than the Middle Neolithic, which in turn is ‘better’ than the Late or Final Neolithic (Navarette et al. 1991:247). One interpretation is that the potters in the Early Neolithic carefully selected their raw materials, particularly the clays, whereas later in time potters took what was readily available. Firing temperature is identified as between 700˚ and 800˚ throughout the sequence, suggesting that the same firing technology was practiced through time, regardless of clay types and inclusions used. Among contemporary cave sites in the province, the researchers found that two production groups can be distinguished: one with a well developed pottery tradition and the other with a less developed one. At the Neolithic open-air Poblado de los Castillejos (Montefrio), pottery practices shifted from a well-developed technology in the Early Neolithic to more coarse wares later in time (Navarette et al. 1991). In addition to the chronological shifts identified, the analysis evidenced correlations between clay matrices and vessel form and decoration (Navarette et al. 1991: 247). Ceramic pastes with high levels of phyllo-silicates (mixtures of mica, smectite, clorite and paragonite) and low to medium levels of calcite are positively correlated with pots (ollas). 56

Analytical Methods

Chapter 7: The Macro-Visual and Microscopic Analysis

Defining the Sample: Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV) Ceramics in Spanish Neolithic sites are generally fragmented, and only under unusual circumstances can entire vessels be reconstructed from fragments uncovered at archaeological sites. The direct relationship between original vessel size and resulting potential fragment number is an analytical challenge for archaeologists, and the number of fragments recovered at a site is not a good proxy for number of vessels. As a result, Spanish archaeologists use fragments with diagnostic elements such as rims, handles, and decoration as a proxy for vessels (e.g., Bernabeu 1989). Similar to the concept of Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) in faunal analysis, treating the ceramic material in this way allows archaeologists to create a minimum number of vessels from the total number of fragments collected (Rice 1987: 292; see also Millett 1979; Orton 1982).

“How do we know in the first place which attributes we should measure, and how do we know we should be measuring, say, a variable to the nearest tenth of a millimeter, the presumption being that measurement to the nearest millimeter is insufficient? There must be some theory – a set of things and statements about how those things interact that provide explanations – that guides analysis, because it is theory and its derivative propositions that suggest which attributes are relevant and at what scale they should be measured” (Lyman and O’Brien 2002:74). In this chapter I present the results of the macro-visual and microscopic analysis of Neolithic ceramic collections from in and around the Alcoi Basin. The variables chosen for this study characterize the chaîne opératoire or technological processes of vessel formation and include data on paste constituents as well as attributes of the finished product. A distinction is made between attributes that are only visible to the potter during production (e.g., paste constituents, size, shape, quantity and sorting of inclusions) and attributes that refer to the finished vessel and are identifiable to a larger audience (e.g., vessel form, surface treatment, decoration, etc.). The first of these attributes are only available to the researcher when a fresh break is present on the vessel – they are not visible or definable from the exterior or when a vessel is whole. Rather, these attributes provide the data on the early stages of the chaîne opératoire, specifically on the manufacturing processes that are individual to the potter as they rely on a potter’s decisions. As a result, production traditions may be definable using these attributes. In contrast, other members of the community evaluate the finished product, and may have expectations concerning vessel form, design, or function. There are, however, distinct processes by which to produce similar looking end products (see Vitelli 1989). It is precisely these differences in attributes that will provide data to test hypotheses of cultural transmission during the Neolithic outlined in Chapter 4.

The use of a minimum number of vessels in analysis is important in two ways. First, it provides a subset of the ceramic collection for analysis that is consistent in its definition and allows the researcher to compare categories of diagnostic elements (rims, handles, decoration) while limiting the effects of degree of fragmentation. Bernabeu (1989: 58 figs III.4 and III.5) illustrates this issue in his analysis of early Neolithic decorative techniques on ceramics from Sector J at Cova de l’Or (Table 7.1). Of the total ceramic assemblage, only 27% of fragments are decorated in level JIII and 73% are undecorated. However, the subset of vessels defined by a minimum number of vessels (‘formas’) shows a very different picture of the extent of decoration on early Neolithic ceramics. Here, 79% of vessels are decorated from the same level. This is not surprising when compared to the cases of known whole vessels. Decorative motifs tend to be located on the upper third of early Neolithic vessels. Therefore, one would expect a large number of undecorated fragments from decorated vessels, inflating the number of undecorated fragments in the assemblage (Bernabeu 1989). Second, and more importantly, a minimum number of vessels provides the means to untangle the ceramic assemblage into culturally and behaviorally significant categories. Although people broke and deposited ceramic vessels prehistorically (intentionally or unintentionally), the survival of fragments to the present is largely a result of post-depositional processes. The creation and use of vessels, however, is clearly a result of human behavior. By utilizing a ‘minimum number of vessels’, the ceramic assemblage becomes analytically meaningful for examining prehistoric human behavior. The largest drawback is that sample sizes are substantially reduced (see Table 7.1). The materials analyzed in the present technological study were limited to fragments that constituted vessels, that is the minimum number of vessels identified for the site, and

A detailed analysis of Neolithic ceramic materials from the seven sites in and around the Alcoi Basin was conducted. In the following, I discuss the analytical methods employed in the macro-visual and microscopic study, including attributes, refiring, and petrographic analyses. Due to the dominance of relatively small sample sizes for any given time period at a site, the data presented here remain largely descriptive and are not presented in a statistically quantitative manner. As a result, the patterns identified should be understood as trends that require further testing. I present the results of these analyses by site (in loose chronological order). Finally, I discuss and compare the results between sites, focusing on changes through time. Chapter 8 then turns to the results of the elemental analysis. 57

Table 7.1. Decorated and undecorated fragments and vessels from Sector J, Cova de l’Or (adapted from Bernabeu 1989: 58, figs III.4 and III.5)

Level

Total Fragments Decorated # %

Undecorated # %

Total Vessels Decorated # %

Undecorated # %

JIII JII

256 106

27 19

708 442

73 81

26 11

79 65

7 6

21 45

JI

33

9

351

81

11

92

1

8

henceforth will be referred to as ‘vessels’ or sherds.

the collection.

Macro-visual Analysis Entire collections of vessels (n=510) from seven Neolithic sites were analyzed macro-visually at the Archaeology Laboratory at the University of Valencia, the Valencia Museum of Prehistory, and the Alcoi Museum. Analysis consisted of documenting traces of manufacturing using a 5X and 10X hand lens following Rye (1981) and Orton et al. (1993), such as forming technique, firing atmosphere, cracks, and surface treatments (Table 7.2). Paste analysis consisted of documenting size, relative quantity, sorting, and macro-visual angularity of inclusions as well as paste texture. Color of fragment exterior, interior, and paste were determined using a Munsell Soil Color Chart under natural light conditions.

As shown in Table 7.2, surface treatments range from untreated to burnished or polished. Technologically, simple smoothing may be created through the addition of water or a wet fabric to smooth the surface as a final step in production. ‘Espatulado’ refers qualitatively higher smoothing, usually with the help of a tool or wet fabric. Finally, polishing or burnishing is produced by rubbing a hard object, often a stone, on the surface of a vessel that is leather-hard. This process realigns the clay particles and results in a harder vessel with a more brilliant sheen. All types of surface treatment were found on Neolithic vessels analyzed in this study. In order to estimate vessel hardness, a Moh’s scale was used to scratch test the interior and exterior surfaces. Moh’s scale is a relative scale of hardness that uses minerals with known hardness to determine a sample’s hardness by scratching the sample. The Moh’s mineral will only be able to scratch a softer surface. This hardness test was employed to help characterize the collection and to determine if hardness, a result of paste recipe, firing technique, and surface treatment varied between sites or time periods. Although differences in hardness were noted, the primary difference appeared to result from postdepositional processes: open air sites tended to have lower hardness values than cave sites.

Traces of manufacturing procedures were identified, including variables such as surface treatments, firing atmosphere, and forming marks. Data on paste types and recipes are approximated through the identification of inclusions in thin section (general category based on the predominance of a certain inclusion type), as well as the size, quantity and sorting of inclusions and paste texture. Finally, data on use wear patterns were also collected. All variables were analyzed following the methodologies described in Rye (1981) and Orton et al. (1993). Paste characteristics and manufacturing procedures are located in different areas along the chaîne opératoire. Paste characteristics focus on the decisions made by potters during the early stages of vessel production, whereas decisions about forming marks, surface treatments, and firing practices are all later steps in the production sequence.

Finally, one category reported here is ‘size group’. The term is somewhat misleading, since it refers to the wall thickness of a vessel, which is not necessarily correlated with vessel size. The determination is made by an average measurement of wall thickness. Although vessels tend to vary in the thickness of their walls, an average measurement was chosen to categorize pottery into thick, medium, and thin walled vessels. This is typically done in ceramic studies in Valencia, and the terminology was adopted here.

Manufacturing Procedures: Marks, Surface Treatment, and Hardness The samples studied included marks visible on the surface, such as wiping and drag marks (created by smoothing the surface when inclusions are present). Handbuilt pottery is usually formed by coiling, slab building, pinching, or a combination of these. However, the manufacturing technique is not always readily identifiable since most pottery manufacture includes a number of subsequent treatments after initial forming, obliterating the characteristic features of the primary manufacturing technique (see also Rye 1981). For this reason, forming techniques were only recognizable on a small fraction of

Firing: Firing Atmospheres and Cracks In the macro-visual analysis variables of the firing process are confined to data on firing atmosphere provided by color and nature of the core of the vessel, and cracks on the surfaces of the vessel due to firing. Rye (1981:116, figure 104) provided the guidelines for the identification of a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere. Firing atmospheres in open pit firing are difficult to regulate, and often result 58

Table 7.2. Attributes used in analysis of ceramic vessels Variable

Attributes

Reference

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES

Coiling; pinching; slab; mold

Rye 1981: 66-72

APPLICATION TECHNIQUE

Application, modeling

Rye 1981: 93-95

CORES

Oxidized: no organics, organics possible, organics; Reduced: no organics (diffuse core margins), no organics (no core), organics (diffuse core margins), organics possible (no core), cooled rapidly (sharp core margin), cooled rapidly (double core)

Rye 1981: 115118, fig. 104

CRACKS

Fire cracks, star-shaped cracks, spalling, dunting cracks

Rye 1981: 111114

SURFACE MARKINGS

Casts, ridges, facets, drag marks, wiping

Rye 1981: 59-60

TEXTURE

Subconchoidal, smooth, fine, irregular, hackly, laminated

Orton et al. 1993: 235

INCLUSION SIZE

Silt (