Originally published as J.A.BARCELO, 1999 Patriarchs, Bandits and Warriors.

An analysis of Social Interaction in Bronze Age South Western Iberian peninsula. In Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Monographien des Rmisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum No. 43, pp. 223-243

PATRIARCHS, BANDITS AND WARRIORS. An analysis of Social Interaction in Bronze Age Southwestern Iberian Peninsula.
JUAN A. BARCELO
UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA Divisi de Prehistria. Facultat de Lletres. Edifici B. 08193 BELLATERRA (Spain)

1. INTRODUCTION

Despite a most common belief, I do not think the key question in the study of social dynamics must be 'guessing' the way different social groups 'invented' social inequalities, but studying their 'resistance' against the social division of labour which lays inside any production system becoming into a social stratification or society of classes. We can see it fairly clear when studying the Prehistory of South-western Iberian Peninsula. Many authors consider this case as a typical 'secondary focus for the Origins of the State' which gives way to the formation of complex societies. They think that, in the same way as it happens along all Western Europe, these societies could not have adopted a farm and herding production system with a strong metallurgical basis, which requires a rather complex and sophisticated social division of labour, until at a very late time (ca. 750 BC). However, Southwestern Iberian Peninsula shows the breaking down of the domestic mode of production and the adoption of a more complex and diversified socioeconomic system which had already been adopted before the year 3000 BC. However, this transformation did not give way to a society of classes in the following centuries, it experienced some changes which rather seem a 'simplification' of the social division of labour than a hardening of the division into social classes. We may see then the Bronze Age in the Southwest as a clear example of the 'resistance' against the formation of a state based on its social

stratification. In the neighbour regions this process happened in a different way (Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, that is, the culture of El Argar) and gave way to a society of classes around 2500/2000 BC(1). The different social dynamics which may be seen in these regions may relay upon the different degree of development reached by the permanent structures of the social division of labour. These structures were just temporary in some places (Southwest), but permanent in some others (Southeast). Contradicting Gilman (1987) and Chapman (1990), this difference does not only relay upon the ecological features which can be found in each area. The irregularity and scarcity of the rainfall regime may be one of the reason for a permanency of strong differentiation in the working process in the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, but not the only one. The social groups living in arid zones not always share the same evolution, although the focus which originate complex societies may seem to arose in an extremely difficult (intensive) production environment. Before applying blindfolded the following equation:
+ climatic harshness - production yield of the ecosystem + production intensification = social division of labour

we should remember that it is not a universal law, although we may consider it acceptable for explaining the social dynamics found in some places. Due to the low density of occupation in most pre-industrial societies, we must find an answer to the decision of certain groups to stay where human work is not much producing instead of moving into empty regions where life could be easier and more producing. This decision hides a net of political relationships and ways of coercion and/or imposition.

2. The First Evidences of Social Complexity in South-western Iberian Peninsula Communities living in Southern Iberian Peninsula, both Southeast and Southwest, shared a common start around year 3700/3500 BC. In spite of being called 'neolithic', they did not totally reach that point of a true producing economical system. Just a few evidences of farming practice have been found (not many flint tools with a cereal coating and a few mills). We may infer the production system was based on hunting, fishing, collecting of seafood, cattle and swidden agriculture (see Martn de la Cruz 1994a for details).

More complex societies did not make their appearance in the region until 3300 BC, as a consequence of the implementation of a totally producing economy, which was both either farming and cattle based, and followed the classical mediterranean crop rotation pattern, which required a larger social division of labour. This new economical system intensified the production system, reduced the number of settlements, focused the inhabiting of greater settlements and increased the production area which belonged to each community (fallowing requires a larger extension of land). Although the Mediterranean crop-rotation agricultural system has been considered a way to beat demographic pressure, after new studies, we understand this system did not help to increase production as the benefits obtained would not differ in the case of a gathering system. Multi-harvesting advantages rely upon crop rotation (a cereal-fallow-pod vegetable cycle regenerates farming ground) and re-use of cattle derivatives in farming (fertilisers). As the traditional Mediterranean process regenerates farming ground in a short period of time (Fedeoroff and Courty 1995:134-137), we can see the need to stabilise production at short and middle term as the reason for the change in 3300 BC. This stabilisation reduced the variability of the production yields in such an irregular ecosystem as the Mediterranean. As the benefits in this new system may differ in time, the group must maximise the available work (storing would prevent scarce yields). Difficulty of organisation increases since working activities will not obtain immediate benefit and a new calendar of working benefits must be arranged. We should now study the social consequences this economical change will generate in the long run: 1) Absolute quantity of work must increase in order to generate enough surplus to implement crop rotation. If the community itself arose this larger quantity of work, traditional social mechanisms to control population will break down giving way to land coercion. The demographic pressure resulting from the new relationships of power produces a systematic occupation of land in not very inhabited regions. These new settlements will establish their own power relationships with the communities surrounding them. This economical and social system with a permanent wish for land will hurt hunter-gathering communities as these new settlements can invest in weapons because of their greater population and production surplus. More communities will fall under the new power,

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

2) After taking over the neighbour regions and increasing the production area, land with lower productivity rate will be also tapped. Due to this fact, the different groups will live in a constant struggle in order to get the best land available and an access to the hydric resources. Thus, part of the labour force will be devoted to social activities (war), adding more pressure to the need for increasing sustenance and goods production, as weapons and defence structures must now be taken also into account. This added pressure on the production system will force the increase of the production area as much as yields will decrease, and the consequence will be the exploitation of land with a lower productivity rate. Less productive land cannot be used in the same way, that is, with the former semi-sedentary production system (swidden agriculture), and crop rotation will be the only way of assuring ground regeneration and production, and the process will start again. 3) Diversity in the way of taking over land will increase after bringing into production lower productivity land. Valleys will show rests of settlements with no defence structures and which used the most fertile soils, while there can also be found settlements with no evidence of farming, but storing of surplus and its transformation into defence structures which require great investments in labour. Settlements start their own social scale, as can be inferred from the unequal distribution of prestige goods made of metal, pottery or bone. On the other hand, domestic units inside these same settlements show few traces of social hierarchy (Martn de la Cruz 1994a). Social inequality between settlements and local groups arises from stabilising social relationships on territorial scale. Groups living in marginal areas or with a non-intensive production system (hunting-gathering, seasonal farming, herding) see their power reduced when most potential land have been taken over. These more traditional groups will be forced to accept farming economy, either working as secondary agents for the farming settlements (Nocete 1989:185-220) or adopting the new production system and facing domination (banditry, military struggle and investment of labour in defence needs). 4) Production technology (ploughs, lithic tools, animal traction, water canalisation and accumulation, etc.) will be improved by this intensification of the production and the need of working investment in military

activities. There are evidences of an increasing in the social demand for production tools: sickles, hoes, axes and mills, together with the greater work required for finding way to the natural resources, as evidences of quarry and mine work and the transport and transformation of raw material show. However, the lack of raw material in some areas could explain why not all settlements manufactured those tools. Although statistical significance for this hypothesis has not been studied, larger settlements seem to concentrate production workshops for tools which later would be transferred to secondary centres in the course of an exchange process. Archaeologists have found traces of lithic tools made of nonlocal raw material all over the Southern Iberian Peninsula.Thus, we could infer that a key question for understanding power relationships on a territorial scale would be the manufacture of production tools in a few central settlements which controlled natural resources, exchange channels and/or specialised work. Since all these larger settlements can be found next to the coast or a waterway, that is, next to a natural communication road, we can assure the existence of a close relationship between the exchange of production tools and social complexity. Some of the secondary centres show rests of flint which had been used most extremely and afterwards even re-used for other functions what seems to point out the scarcity of flint and other stones in non-primary centres. The permanent need for raw material for the manufacture of production tools could not be always met. 5) Several authors (Gilman 1987, Gilman and Thornes 1985, Chapman 1990, cf. argumentation in Hernando 1987) point out the importance of the rise of water needs and the infrastructure it requires, together with the greater demand of production tools. Few evidences of irrigation infrastructure can be found in the Southwest: just the drainpipes in Valencina de la Concepcin and in Cabeza de los Vientos. When explaining the difference between Southeast and Southwest most authors tend to talk about the traces of the great investment in infrastructures for facing in extremely arid regions and which can be found in the Southeast whereas in the Southwest just part of the population was affected by not so important infrastructures because of the more regular and wetter weather (Atlantic). 6) The changes in cattle arose because of the greater demand for animals with greater working capacity or greater fertilisers production (bovine), or of larger profitability (pork). Faunal analysis show how slow and progressive this process is in neolithic societies, where hunted animals, together with fish and seafood prevailed, and where herding was just considered food storing. These

communities evolve into societies where the need for animal energy (traction, transport, fertilising) forces the domestication of certain animals and affects food storing. Traces of very distinct cattle can be found all over the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula: the rests of hunted animals in the settlements on the plain as in Valencina de la Concepcin show the need for keeping more 'traditional' working processes and resources even the more 'sedentary' settlements still have. 7) The changes in the production generated the rise of surplus production and thus the number and size of storing structures had to increase. A new and different room is designed for the storage of this surplus (cereal and other raw material), for instance, storing pits placed in the middle of the village and surrounded by living units (huts). From 3400 BC the number of storing structures (pits) increases in a permanent way. From 3000-2800 BC there is evidence for a joint development of a surplus production system and the fortification of the productive unit (Chapman 1995, Gonalves 1995, Martn de la Cruz 1994a and 1994b, Monge Soares et. al.,1994). Once intensive farming economy has been established around 3300/3100 BC, the number of fortified settlements increases in order to solve the problems arisen by the greater working investments. The need for protecting the surplus obtained and the social activities of the local elite will harden the group cohesion and stimulate war ideology and the struggle with the neighbour settlements. However, we must not think the number of these fortified places was very large or even homogeneous, neither in the Southeast nor in the Southwest, where just 5% of the settlements were fortified (Martn de la Cruz 1994a, Chapman 1995). Although there were no fortified settlements in lower Guadalquivir, we cannot consider it an undeveloped area. The huge size of villages as Valencina de la Concepcin, Hoza de la Torre, La Pijotilla, Ferreira do Alemtejo, El Gandul and others, their complex organisation divided into different activity areas used as huts, storage-pits or workshops, and the arrangement of their necropolis show how intensive their sophisticated production systems were, the highly elaborated social division of labour there was and the gap between producers and non-producers. On the other hand, the high quantity of tombs with prestige goods such as bell-beakers and copper items (Serna 1989) show the existence of important social differences above the ones of kinship. The lack of traditional stone walls do not imply the lack of defence, in some sites (Carmona, cf. Cardenete et al. 1992), defensive trenchs have been discovered around the main settlement, 8) Non-producing social agents start their appearance together with new planing (crop rotation, distribution of human labour and animal energy,

farming calendar, weather forecasting, fortune-telling and worship) and decision taking activities (fallowing ground, work distribution and long run benefits). Social distance between producing and non-producing agents increases, affecting work and decision taking. This process will go on and arose the appearance of social exclusion practices when delivering the benefits of working investment and some individuals and/or groups will be excluded from it. Producer survival will not depend on their working capacity , but on their relationship with those linked to the same working process. Producers lose autonomy and decision taking capacity, although their survival rate increases in a social environment in permanent struggle. We may give for certain this process is not generalised all over the area, but focused where farming economies keep more intensive and permanent structures. Most human groups will fight against being ruled by these power relationships, and thus military struggle and social instability will increase. Banditry and military struggle rise together with the generalisation of the ways of exchange among territorial groups. 9) We may compare the production and exchange rise (even theft or loot) with the need of certain social groups to keep a social identity different from the rest of the population with which they keep a ruling relationship, result of the social distance between them. Archaeological evidence shows that the increase of the gap between one or several individuals and the rest of the community makes ornamental production, exchange of exotic goods and greater violence between different communities rises (Nocete 1989, Vicent 1995). But along all this period no traces of a breaking down between the political unit and common systems of decision taking are found, as the continuity of collective funeral rites could prove. The domestic group takes political decisions, that is, individuals do not differ according to their non-producing status or the ownership of the means of production. Non-productive agents realize their power capability through kinship networks, becoming patriarchs of the group. Domestic groups (groups of individuals linked by kinship) will keep dependent because of the need for a social division of labour derived from the economical system. The consequence of this will be the different degree of decision taking every social agent has, depending on the hierarchical scale established among kin groups. We can infer the existence of deep power relationships, although they do not give way to a society of classes. There is no social elite, but a complex net of ruling relationships which will affect the decision taking capacity each agent and kinship group have. These dependency cannot only be found inside domestic groups (different sexes and ages), but also

inside local groups (among domestic groups) and, specially, among different local groups as well. 10) We must see the generalisation of collective funeral rites as a social structure where common decision taking depends on the social group (kinship) every individual belongs to. These groups rule over the access to the means of production and the place every social agent keeps for the distribution of the differed benefits from common investment on work. For social relationships it will be more important belonging to a community than the ownership of land. Opposing the evidences found in the Southeast, where different kinship lineages co-operate in a common social and economical structure, the existence of little dolmenic tombs and very little settlements let us consider small independent groups (4-6 individuals) living all over the land on a non permanent way (Hurtado 1995). But even between these groups some evidences of a slow leadership tendency inside the group has been found, as in some places there are traces of room kept by certain individuals (Hurtado and Garcia Sanjuan 1996). Individuals start keeping different social status inside the community, as ideology in funeral rites shows. We must see Southern Iberian Peninsula as a group of social islands of different nature, since not all settlements adopted the same social and economical system, and the intensity of occupation is relatively low (Garca Sajuan 1996:445). We see communities with a permanent farming production system (for instance, Porcuna, in middle Guadalquivir valley; Valencina de la Concepcin, in lower Guadalquivir; Sao Bras 1, in low Guadiana; Monte da Tumba, in Sado valley; Sao Pedro, Leceia and Zambujal, in low Tajo; Gonalves 1995, Martn de la Cruz 1994a, Chapman 1995, Kunst 1995, Hurtado and Garcia Sanjuan 1996) where production has been intensified according to the Mediterranean crop rotation, which means the storage of surplus, building of permanent fortified settlements and the establishing of power relationships of territory in the neighbourhood. At the same time, other communities will still be farming, cattle and/or huntergathering and fishing, living in seasonal or semipermanent settlements; intensification of production will not be up to a low degree and storage of surplus will be low (Cruz-Aun et.al. 1992, Ruiz-Mata 1994, Hurtado and Garcia Sanjuan 1996). Survey projects in some areas suggest the existence of isolated farms, with 10-20 inhabitants, separated by short distances (400-1000 m.)(cf. Garca Sanjuan 1996:220-236).

The isolation and power relationships did not totally lead to the inequality between different social groups at the territory level, but it shows the degree of adaptation the different groups reached. Coercion imposed by more powerful communities is not the only reason why not all communities reached the same level of production. Some of them carried on with the same production system they had always had and kept under control their inner contradictions, and avoiding intensive production systems and an increasingly complex social division of labour.

3.- Transformation and 'crisis' at the end of the Calcolithic Period At the end of the period 2500/2100 BC fortified settlements and most of the bigger villages seem to be suddenly abandoned (Hurtado 1995, Chapman 1995, Ruiz Mata 1994, Martn de la Cruz 1994a), although we can find some very important exceptions. For instance, Zambujal was left around year 2000 BC (consequence of a war), but after a time it was rebuilt and inhabited until year 1600 BC. In El Gandul, we have not found proof of having been left between the Calcolithic and the Bronze Age; the same runs for Zahora, in the valley of the river Barbate or Sao Bras 1, in the lower valley of the river Guadiana. Llanete de los Moros (middle valley ofthe river Guadalquivir) was not abandoned, but reached a higher population. In Carmona, there is estratigraphic continuity between calcolithic burials, early/middle bronze age, late bronze age and early iron age ones, showing the lack of crisis or interruptions in human settlement (Fernandez Cantos 1996:41-54). Settlements in the middle valley of the river Guadalquivir were not abandoned, as the ones in Porcuna show (Los Alcores and El Albalate). Both places grew up together as if they were twins. They were placed at each side of river Salado and controlled the entrance to the valley and the communication roads. The only transformation we can see during this period between the Calcolithic and the Bronze Age, is the difference in the style of the fortifications: the semicircular bastions of the former changed into circular towers during the second (Arteaga et. al., 1991:228). In the Southwest, the Calcolithic complex society stops in the second millennium as some authors agree on saying. Katina Lillios (quoted by Chapman 1995:32) talks about the effects of prestige items economy had on the environment. The need of everyday greater quantities of food and wood they demanded provoked lower yields until collapsing the system. The intensification of land use during Calcolithic (plough, crop rotation and increasing animal

energy) and social transformation (inequality, war, banditry) gave way to a demographic increase and more land had to be colonised. The result was the degradation of agricultural soils and forests what produced the abandonment of new colonized land (Stevenson & Harrison 1992, Martn de la Cruz 1994b). The hypothesis above has many evidences against. On the one hand, the chronological diversity of this phenomenon: some villages were left around 2100 BC; other villages were inhabited without interruption; others were just sporadically inhabited. On the other hand, we find proof of deforestation in the Southwest from the 3000 BC on, that is, when fortified settlements were in their highest point, and this fact did not cause their abandonment in that historical period. We know from the analysis of pollen carried out in the settlement of Monturque, in the middle valley of the river Guadalquivir (Lopez Palomo 1993) that deforestation started at the time of its foundation. In other words, the effects of over-production can be seen since the beginnings of the new productive system, and not after 1000 years. Consequently it is unreasonable to think that ecological degradation was the main cause of settlement abandonment. Fedeoroff and Courtys study (1995) on the Vera bassin, in the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, show a climatic crisis of draughts and pouring rains from years 2300-1960 BC, that is when the crisis resulting from the leaving of fortifications and the new wave of colonisation started. We know of the inner erosion of farming land, their loss of balance and the first coming out of bad land. We can see proof of fires which burnt forests and damaged ground, what made increase the erosion of farming and non-farming land together with the increase of the eolic activity. Sudden floods changed relief and landscape greatly. After these authors, the crisis cannot be due to anthropic reasons, and the size the fires reached does not talk about a human origin. This same crisis can be found in other places along the Mediterranean Coast. We see the same loss of forests and rise of fires in the Southwest, in the pollen remains of Acebrn (Huelva) (cf. Stevenson and Moore 1988, Stevenson and Harrison 1992, Martn de la Cruz 1994b), although these authors argue for human, farming, metallurgical and cattle reasons. There are also traces of a rise in the fluvial and eolic sedimentation in the yields on the coast or close to a waterway. C-14 gives proof of three cases of bay fulfilling in the mouth of the river Guadalquivir, and we may relation them with the erosion in the river. Evidence dates these three cases at the end of the Neolithic (3300BC), Middle Calcolithic (2680-2380 BC) and at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (1280-1220 BC) (Arteaga et. al., 1995). The deforestation due to farming reasons has also been related to the rise in the eolic processes of

sand sedimentation happened in a lot of settlements (Borja 1995, Arteaga et. al. 1995). But whatever the reason, intensification of farming (human nature), or result of climatic changes, these transformations coincide with the leaving of these fortified villages and the interruption of the bell-beaker exchange networks as well. In case an ecological transformation in Southern Iberian Peninsula could be proved, the leaving of certain areas and the continuing inhabiting of others could be better understood as particular ways of adaptation to a phenomenon with different consequences in different places. Some settlements are abandoned. This fact does not produce a depopulation of the area, but only a change in the settlement pattern: from a dispersed pattern to a more concentrated one (Nocete 1989: 196ff, Garca Sanjuan 1996:293ff). Social change is not due to the decrease of economical yields, nevertheless the different communities had to overcome the transformations happened in the natural environment, what they did all over the South in a very different way. When farming yields started decreasing, violence in the relationship between the difference communities resulted, what may explain the violent destruction of Zambujal (in the lower valley of Tajo) and Cazalilla (in the middle valley of the river Guadalquivir). Because of the leaving or destruction of the most significant villages, the system of social interaction (labour exchange, taxes, raw material and/or means of production) stopped working and a new one had to be 'invented'. As fortified villages were linked to the exchange of means of production made of flint (agriculture tools), when their demand stops, the collapse of the whole system will follow in a short time. 4. The Nature of Social Relationships in the Second Millennium The Second Millennium in the Southwest is featured by the great effort done by most human groups in order to reinforce their own group identity, adopting some distinct cultural ways in the fields of funerary rites, iconography, pottery and metal production. We see here not only how different the situation is from the one in the Third Millennium, but from the one in the Southeast at the same time as well (El Argar). The most likely explanation is the lack of a centralised and organised political structure in the Southwest, whereas in the Southeast it is in process of development: southeastern material culture becomes standardised as a consequence of a social, economical and political system focused on expansionism and based on the domination of the neighbour groups from a main

focus, where production social relationships have evolved into a class society (Ruiz et al. 1992, Lull & Risch 1996). Settlements that arose in the Southeast in the Second Millennium -the ones which managed to adapt to the new situation- are completely different from the former ones they come from, because they maximize land control despite the increase, too huge in some cases, of consumer costs of sustenance within the own settlements: classical fortified villages built on heights, surrounded by walls and lacking of farming ground and, even, of water resources in the neighbourhood. We may infer that it appears a new economical system, where defence overcomes work productivity in importance (distance from the main production areas). The defence of the new settlements requires increased side working costs and elite will increase their consumption of work surplus (Gilman and Thornes 1985, Gilman 1987, Vicent 1991). The higher the social inequality, the less visible was storing and social accumulation of surplus. Communal storage-pits used during the former period tend to disappear, whereas the quantity of containers inside the houses increases. It makes us believe that access to them remained within their 'owners' (Chapman 1995:36). Individual funerary rites become the rule and their social differences will be expressed according to the quantity and diversity of the furnishing they include. Kinship stops being a criteria for membership to the group, which now will be marked by the relationship between the worker, means of production and produced goods from that particular person and anyone working side to side. Along this period we will see deep changes in land structure in certain areas of the middle Guadalquivir. These changes seem to work alongside the ones which take place in the Southeast. From 2100 BC onwards, settlement in the middle Guadalquivir will change and expand into marginal land, contradicting the so called 'crisis' in the Southwest. The rise of settlements does not seem to rely upon an organic increase of the population, but on a land colonisation with clear marks of uneven land distribution. The diversity of the settlements comes to reinforce this hypothesis: fortified central sites, farming villages, hillforts and mining settlements with temporary occupation (Nocete 1989:220ff). Land centralisation rises in some places and power relationships concentrates thanks to the high complexity some settlements reach. They are big villages of over 1 ha. of extension and placed in the only land where farming production economy is possible. Because of being placed on the plain, their defence becomes most important. We can see other little settlements (0.25 ha. of extension) placed in near land and whose importance relies on the strategic function they have, due to

their height and sight. Their fortifications consist on a complex system of concentric circles with a central tower divided into different compartments. These latter settlements draw the border line of a political region, whose main resource seems to be the exploitation of metal (Nocete 1989). We see here the importance of protecting surplus and labour force together with means of production such as land and metal outcrops. Pealosa, a fortified village on the plain, shows how mining and metal resources are transferred from extraction focus (likely temporary) to the main centres, where the metallurgical process from ore extraction to the manufacture of tools takes place. 19 bronze badges of the same size, shape and thickness were found in Obra de los Moros, what makes us think we are facing a standardised production addressed to distribution and exchange, confirming so that the social structure we find in different places of the middle and high Guadalquivir is a result of social division of labour related to metallurgy and exchange. There are traces of metallurgical activity all over the village of Pealosa (the several areas do not seem to be specialised) and dwellings show structural homogeneity: there are no houses with signs of higher power than others and no signs of the production processes which took place in them can be found. But this must not lead us to regard it as an egalitarian society: the differences in funerary furnishing prove this latter consideration. All domestic units seem to contribute to the production process (even metallurgical). The existence of prestige/wealth items shows the control some elite had over their distribution, ensuring so an uneven delivery of exchange goods. This fact becomes of the greatest importance when we realise that this area is the North-western border of the southeastern societies expansionism. Along the middle and high valleys of the river Guadalquivir we can see traces of a rather complex society, where social differences take place after the increasing social division of labour. Although Pealosa is the village where information is greater in quantity and quality, we can generalize the pattern it shows thanks to the proliferation of tombs (cists and common graves and a few burials inside caves) with 'wealthy' furnishing (swords, silver knives) and the finding of some important hoards with pieces of metal (Lopez Rey 1994). This same pattern would even reach Setefilla (Aubet et. al., 1983). One of the main findings in this village was its powerful fortification, which made it totally different from the rest of villages in the lower valley of the river Guadalquivir. Also important is the Setefilla triple burial, where some interesting prestige gods were found (a halberd and a sword). Unless future research proves the expansion of this pattern into the

South, to Gandul or Carmona, for example (cf. Fernandez Cantos 1996), we must believe societies with intensive production systems were focused on the mountains alongside the middle river Guadalquivir and exploited copper settlements in Sierra Morena (Pealosa) or the roads which led from the Guadalquivir to the middle valley of the river Guadiana, where we can also find similar fortified villages (Hurtado 1995, Diaz-Andreu 1995). It seems likely the social and economical transformation in this region was not of local origin, but adapted from the pattern in the Southeast, whose expansion reached high Guadalquivir from 1800 BC onwards. The much more organised and 'military' land occupation, the intensification of mining and metallurgical production in areas with low farming production can rely upon the demand for different goods, which come from a more complex social and economical area, where social contradictions between producers and non-producers increase the domination of the neighbour regions. The great quantity of ingots we find makes us believe in the existence of a non local market for them. Cereal becomes a political value when it starts being changed for manufactured goods (storage-pits and mills in villages far from farming regions). Cereal will be stored up in fortified acropolis, from which it will be delivered among the other members of the social group. Cereal production seems to come from villages lower in the social hierarchy, which are kept aside from far distance exchange (Nocete 1989: 196ff). But as this pattern reaches settlements far from mining centres (Setefilla, for example), we must remember the relationship between Southeast and its neighbourhood overcomes metal and it includes other goods (wood, leather, cattle, etc.), which may have helped the process of social differentiation. Mining-metallurgical production in those areas would satisfy an increasing local demand resulting from an every time more intensive production system, consequence of the outer demand. We must not either forget that not all the production from the villages in middle Guadalquivir valley was sent to the south-eastern border. El Argar neighbourhood and some of the communities in the high valley of the river Guadalquivir, which follow the argaric social system, had their own demand on the furthest societies and established their own dependence relationships. We must not explain the society in Setefilla according to its links with El Argar, but to the relationships established by the local social elite with their neighbour communities which followed the argaric pattern.

When Southeastern social system collapsed around 1600 BC, an involution and crisis also began in the high and middle valleys of the Guadalquivir. The stratified society in expansion, which had established relationships of domination with its neighbourhood, reached its height during the period 1800-1700 BC. After 1600 B.C. the process becomes different. Although settlements are not yet abandoned, and we find the same tecnomorphological features, funerary rites change and less items will go together with power relationships. The result is the decrease of the quantity of metal we find in tombs. Production specialisation, which some populations in the argaric domination system (land tax) had adopted, disappears at the same time and the different areas will return to their own economical systems. Production system will not be based upon neighbourhood domination any more, and local groups will grow up in self-sufficiency once again. I do not intend to explain in this paper the argaric crisis (cf. Lull 1984, Chapman 1995), but we must not forget that the crisis in some places, Pealosa, for example, seems linked to the argaric one (Nocete 1989:220), as we must also remember the importance of the argaric domination relationships for the social complexity during the Bronze Age. When elite cannot keep social system, which follows the pattern of Southeast any longer, it must die. So, Pealosa will be left as a result of the crisis in the Southeast and we do not see any traces of population until the third century B.C. Fortifications are destroyed (evidence of military struggle) and left both in Setefilla and in Cerro de la Encantada, and just a little population remains in much more simple dwellings and with no use of fortifications. Settlement in the South-western border (Algarve, Alemtejo, Lower Tajo) is totally different. When calcolithic fortified villages were left, land occupation did not stop but changed dramatically. Villages there are not very well known but we cannot compare them with the ones in the middle and high Guadalquivir, since there was a total lack of fortifications and no evidences of surplus store and social division of labour. The isolated farms also disappear in this period (Garca Sanjuan 1996:331). However, we are not in front of a depopulation phenomenon, but in front of a transformation of the economic system, once the contradictions in the previous one did not allow their reproduction. Great differences among villages (fortification vs. isolated farms) are not any longer visible in the archaeological record. Settlement is now territorially homogenous, but internal differences appear. There is no evidence of intensive productive systems, specially there is no evidence of a systematic production of exchange items.

The only evidence of social inequality we find is kept within their funerary rites and the importance of prestige goods exhibition. Burials show great poverty: we just find furnishing in a few cases and no prestige goods (swords) (Gomes et. al., 1986, Barcel 1989, Garca Sanjun 1994, 1996). All the items we see in the tombs are of domestic use, although they could have pointed out the function or social role of the person buried there. Differences between the furnishing in male and female tombs has more importance (no metal items among women) (Garca Sanjun 1994:224). Evidence of this distinction can rely upon the presence of miner hammers and/or rests of copper smelting in some cists found in the lower valley of the river Guadiana. But the poverty these tombs show, does not mean their populations did not manufacture and produce prestige goods. We have found a big quantity of swords and other weapons and copper items in several hoards in that area. Another circumstance which featured those groups was their use of menhir-statues and stelae for funerary reasons, which had swords, halberds, axes and symbolic items engraved (Barcel 1989). On the other hand, some of the necropolis of cists (Atalaia, Santa Vitoria, Provena, Alfarrobeira and others) show a very complex organisation system, where tombs were grouped around one or two bigger cists in the middle, although these latter ones did not have furnishing of better quality either in greater quantity (Garca Sanjun 1994). In case we inferred each burial group as an evidence for a kinship group, individual status would depend on their part and function inside the same kinship, and difference among families would be highly marked. The lack of furnishing in male tombs would enlighten social status as something acquired and not inherited (Garca Sanjun 1994:226). It is interesting to point out that the biggest necropolis, with a more complex structure than the others, are just found in villages close to mining areas and on the best farming land. The lack of a foreign centre, whose demand for exchange goods enhanced the intensification of certain productions in the South-western periphery, and the lack of a great enough internal social division of labour (a productive system only partially intensified) avoided the development of complex social relationships of production, like the ones in the middle and high Guadalquivir valley. The greater the group dependence on complex production systems, the stronger the social contradictions we find will be. Due to this fact, full farming communities, with a more intensive productive system, and a stronger social division of labour, which need means of production made of metal, show more evidence of social distinction, being different from the fishing communities on the coast, with a less intensive productive system.

In some of these communities we can find some traces of increasing in social contradictions, but none in the ones in lower Guadalquivir, lower Guadiana and, rather surprisingly, in the mining region of the mountains of Huelva, where no transformation into a more complex society seems visible. Villages are very simple, their population temporary and their economy based on cattle and the exploitation of local resources, specially fishing and seafood or hunting and vegetables gathering. Their economical system was rather based upon cattle and regarded farming as a secondary activity, mining and metallurgy being just for domestic sake and not for exchange (Hurtado & Garca Sanjun 1996, Prez Macas 1995). In lower Guadalquivir and the mountainous region of Huelva necropolis are also composed by cists, although they do not follow a structured display, but appeared scattered on the heights which surround the village. In lower Guadalquivir and Guadalete burials are placed below dwellings (as it happens in the middle Guadalquivir valley) but their furnishing is totally different (Lpez Palomo 1993). However, the presence of some prestige goods (silver knives) in some of the tombs in that region leads us to think they were neither so isolated nor their social structure was so idyllic (Rovira 1995). Some authors tend to consider the existence of a crisis, similar to the one experienced by the groups living in the Southeast, in middle and high Guadalquivir region and they conclude the region was totally left at that time (Escacena and Beln 1993). It has been written this crisis would have taken place along all the Atlantic Coast, although not necessarily at the same time (RuizGlvez 1995:189). In Southern England it started by the year 1600 B.C.. and went on until 1200 B.C. As it happens during the Calcolithic period, this inconstant human population is explained according to the bad use of the farming and grazing land until their exhaustion. But the lack of enough empirical data stops us from keeping of this hypothesis. A total leaving of the area would be most wrong (Aubet 1997 , Fernandez Cantos 1996: 46). 5. Atlantic Connections and the End of Bronze Age The word 'crisis' would not help us to explain the situation in Southwest around 1200 B.C. We could just mention the collapse of the exchange system, which had been ruled from the Southeast. When the outer demand for exchange goods stops, we see the return of non intensive production systems, which were based on herding, non intensive farming and the use of local resources. But this situation will differ in every distinct area.

Whereas the production system in low and middle Guadalquivir valley continue to be not much intensive, from 1200 B.C. in the lower valley of the river Guadiana and the neighbour mountains, rich in mineral resources (copper, lead and silver), population keeps within a few fortified centres whose situation gave them strategic control, and mining and metallurgical production increases. We can regard Chinfln, a fortified village, as an example of this transformation: from a scattered settlement into another one surrounding this settlement, which was placed on the best producing land and next to water springs and copper outcrops. When dwelling moves into settlements placed on visible places with difficult access, we see the decrease of the importance of farming, which gives way to an enhancing of defences next to the biggest metal outcrop, its main feature. From 1000-900 B.C. the village of El Trastejn suffers a transformation in the way of using resources and metallurgical production acquires greater regard. The lower part of the village is specialised in metal work and the quantity of worked material increases and, thus, the activities it is related to, such as building ovens, and manufacture of lithic tools. Production technology for pottery and metallurgy develops, and it appears for the first time real bronze (Garca Sanjun 1996). Other mining regions experience a similar transformation in their production systems: Ro Tinto (Prez Macas 1995), Aznalcllar, close to the lower valley of Guadalquivir (Gmez et. al., 1994, Hunt 1995) and in areas next to Algarve and Alemtejo (Hurtado and Garca Sanjun 1996). Burials show the first evidence of social distinction (silver furnishing in La Parrita, tombs with architectonic differences in La Traviesa, cf. Prez Macas 1995, Hurtado and Garca Sanjun 1996) and we see traces of copper and silver as furnishing, what leads us to think social division of labour was rather developed, and each production activity had its own social status. We must link the changes in the production system to the new exchange network, which from now on will link Southwest with Northern Atlantic and Middle Mediterranean (Ruiz Glvez 1995), and probably also North Africa. The Ra de Huelva hoard can be regarded as an example of it. We do not have enough data to assure the existence of a complex society in the mining area in Southwest, however, there is enough evidence to consider that groups which controlled mineral resources displayed a much more complex social organisation than the ones we find in the fishing settlements at the coast (Gmez et. al, 1994, Campos and Gmez 1995). Along south-western coast plain (Algarve, lower valley of Guadiana, lower valley of Guadalquivir), population focuses in the best farming and/or grazing land and keep aside from the area next

to the mouth of Guadiana. Populations are just little groupings with a lack of evidences for social complexity and living in huts with simple functional structures (storage-pits, ovens) and without any fortification or control over production area. Human groups were based on an economy of farming and fishing , without great surplus or social storing, and living on the use of local resources, specially from the sea. Typical villages would be San Bartolom de Almonte, Las Beatillas, Campillo, El Pozancn and others. Settlement in the middle and high Guadalquivir valley also show, a not permanent occupation, as we see in the simple huts and the lack of fortifications in Carmona, Setefilla, Llanete de los Moros, Colina de los Quemados, Ategua, Torre Paredones and Puente Tablas. The production system is not intensive and gives importance to herding. However, the poor archaeological record should not make us deduce the existence of an egalitarian and simple society. The existence of a collection of Engraved Stelae showing anthropomorphic motives and prestige goods and symbols of power, such as swords, fibulae of Italian typology, war chariots, and weapons points out a society with a social elite over the rest of the population and who extracts power from the military struggle and the loot they produce (Barcel 1989, Galn 1993). It is important to consider that the archaeological record does not show the difference between peaceful exchange (trade) and war or banditry loot. In Southwest signals of change generalise about 820 B.C. and show settlement concentration on a few centres (Ruiz Rodriguez 1995). A large quantity of the former simple villages were left, some others experienced transformations and new centres arose. Although space is dwelt in a different way, settlements keep the same features we had seen in the former periods. The abundance of sickles and mills show the intensification of farming, but more important is the generalisation of metallurgical activities in all villages in the area, whatever their distance from the mining region: the examples are Pealosa del Campo, San Bartolom and Pozancn. All huts show evidence of metallurgical activities and silver transformation, not copper, and we do not see any sign of social exclusion. However, not long afterwards, most of these villages will be left and new centres occupied, which will be fortified for the first time: Niebla, Tejada la Vieja and Aznalcllar (Gmez et. al., 1994). Aznalcllar will be the only one placed in a mine, whereas Tejada and Niebla focus land control and access to the metal resources.

Alongside this same period fortified villages based upon copper production were left (Trastejn, Chinfln) and new centres close to silver outcrops will appear. The settlement in Rio Tinto moves from Cerro de las Tres Aguilas into Cerro Salomn, as a consequence of the concentration of the scattered population all over the mining region. In this mining settlement we can see a most meaningful change : metallurgical activity takes place inside the mine (Cortalago) and the village becomes a dwelling and transformation workshop. Intensification on production of this metal gives way to a change in the social division of labour, enhancing activity specialisation (and spacing) (Prez Macas 1995:283). The same process took place in the mines of Tharsis, whose dwelling part remained in the village placed on a height in Pico del Oro and the manufacture workshops occupied the lower ground of that hill (Prez Macas 1995:285). The decay of copper mining in the Southwest takes place at the same time as metallurgical activities linked to silver production increase, so that we should infer the existence of an outer demand with constant and high proportions. As the production system in these new communities mostly depends on silver production, we suppose copper mining decayed as a consequence of the labour investments on silver production as copper could not find trading benefits once iron metallurgy did come up (Rovira 1995: 397). For summarising, copper metallurgy disappeared from most Southwest, due to the low production potential of the copper mining centres, the little interest local centres had in manufacturing bronze items and specially, because of the new outer demand, which was totally different from the local one. This transformation was the first consequence after the Atlantic-Mediterranean exchange system changed. From then on, they would start a new linking with a colonial economy expanding from Eastern Mediterranean. When new Phoenician colonial factories where created on the Southern coast, local social relations of production experienced both quantitative and qualitative transformations, which ended with the integration of native communities into a colonial economy of outer control. 6. The last turn of the screw: the integration of local societies into a permanent dependence structure. The Colonial System Neither all native communities, nor all members within a group experienced a similar integration into the colonial economy. This prevented the distribution of exchange goods from colonial provenience (wheeled pottery, for instance) of

being homogeneous within the communities and inside a same community either (Aubet, Barcel and Delgado 1996). We regard then the lack of wheeled pottery as an evidence of the effect power relationships had (either outside or inside the group). We see the rise of native centres with a strong colonial basis on the mouth of the biggest rivers: Huelva on the Tinto-Odiel estuary (Fernandez Jurado 1989), likely Castro Marim, on the mouth of the Guadiana river, Castillo de Doa Blanca, in the Bay of Cdiz, Sevilla, Carambolo, Lebrija, Evora and others in the Bay of the Guadalquivir river, where the native production system derives from the colonial one. This area, neighbour to the colonial system, will establish dependence relationships with the native centres inside, and the production system will experience a territorial division, which will divide centres of first order manufacturing prestige goods for the colonial market (integrating Phoenician factories and native communities into an uneven exchange) from centres of second order, which will provide sustenance goods, raw material and working power. The new colonial system will be extraordinary complex because in the native neighbourhood very different levels will be found depending on their integration into the colonial system, not due to their distance, but to their access to the exchange and power network established by the native settlements with higher profits from the colonial market. This way, some native centres far from the coast and decision and organisation colonial centres will be able to keep control over some raw material the colonial market will be in great need of, and will obtain high profits from this monopoly. We see this in the silver production area in the mountains of Huelva. But, in spite of the great importance of silver production for the new colonial economy, Phoenician colonisation meant much more than metal exchange, and we see groups placed far from the colonising centre in the middle and high valley of the river Guadalquivir controlling their local resources and exchanging with the far colonial market over the native roads, subduing so their neighbour groups and becoming an independent political territory, where from the 7th. Century B.C. onwards, a complex society will be founded. 7. From Patriarchs, Warriors and Bandits to Class Society We must never regard the history of any society as a succession of 'frozen' phases. Neolithic society was not followed by a calcolithic society and this latter one did not 'collapse' at the end of its vital cycle. Any kind of human society is a dynamic organism which suffers from a steady transformation because of the

everyday newly born tensions and contradictions, even though it can take them centuries to appear in social and/or economical behaviour. This paper intends to show the slow transformation the heterogeneous collection of societies which lived in the Southwest Iberian Peninsula went through as a result of the increasing social division of labour and the social inequality local groups had. Social exchange changed and became more complex (from banditry to their integration in an international economical system with a colonial basis) and, at the same time, dependence and power relationships increased in extension and intensity. The accumulation of social contradictions prevented traditional systems of decision making to work (see also Barcel 1992, Barcel 1995). Social dynamics in the Southwest Iberian Peninsula during the period 3000 - 750 BC. did not follow a linear 'progress' or evolution. It is not difficult to see the growing complexity and the strength dependency and power relationships get, but this progress does not happen along a straight line. Not every settlement in the Southwest experienced a similar evolution, but it depended on its local conditions and the way they interacted with other settlements. Even when household is self-sufficient and social division of labour not much developed, societies are unequal. Production household units do not lack of surplus storage because of underdeveloped technology or not too much work power, but because of their politics: labour does not buy social status. Due to this fact, the nature of social power depends on the quantity, nature and intensity of the interaction any one or any group can keep outside their own local group. Firstly, we must take into account 'violent' interaction, where the warrior or bandit tends to be interested in keeping his warlike status and hoards loot, enhancing thus his military triumph or creating alliances with members of his own group or from the neighbour groups, and disregarding the control over production economy. Military chieftainship does not mean a centralised economical management, but the existence of a chieftain or war lord, who has to be fed by the group whether in war or peace. The war lord and his followers do not have any other specified economical or political function than the need of being fed and provided with weapons by the rest of the community. As ethnography shows, the quantity each domestic unit will give depends on its own possibilities and it does not need a great investment in labour. When war lasts and turns into chronic struggle (true war or banditry), the Chieftain rises in power: he will not control production, but he will be able to call up all men.

However, chieftainship depends on success in war, what makes it a very competitive system and unreliable to maintain any power relationship. A new process starts, where political power is institutionalised: there is struggle in order to reach not only self prestige, but a determinate social function. It is not important to be so more than someone else, but keeping this importance and reaching this sole function, which will give access to power. Population is kept between two opponents: firstly, social function tends to a centralisation in order to ensure political control, and economical as well. Secondly, an unbalanced force which comes straight from the competition the domestic groups struggle in, to keep their own power marks, which may allow them to avoid or hinder the action of any domestic group with the centralising social function. 'Peaceful interaction' (exchanging goods and people) helps to build dependence, domination and power relationships. When social distance between social agents in the interaction increases, exchange goods will be delivered back with decreasing delay and every time it will be more difficult to keep a balance between given and returned goods, what will give way to struggle. The bigger the exchange network is, the more adaptable and less ritualised the interaction will be, as it will stop being steadfast. Ownership of the desired prestige goods will justify the interaction. Exchange relationships with outside will be different from those inside the group, because they may be stored up (the more outside interactions someone makes, the more likely they will be, because profit will be reached in shorter time). The consequence is the increasing demand for exchange goods. Domestic units which change their production and reproduction system according to the new situation, will control the interaction system and will prevent its access to other domestic units which have not changed. Domination will be kept inside the unit, which monopolises prestige goods and outside interaction. When monopolised, prestige goods rise in worth (their buying becomes difficult and their are not owned by all the group members), which signifies a change: the item becomes as important as the relationship, so that the storing from exchange goods from outside will be as important as having kept interaction with outside groups. Value in prestige goods changes because its use-value is taken on by its exchange-value. When the traditional utility an item has gives way to its conversion into an interaction symbol, it becomes less transferred and gains new self value in relation with the difficulty its acquisition means. The demand for prestige goods rises in intensity and individuals and social groups will compete for their acquisition and storage. Relationships with outside change too. Any one

in possession of a prestige good may take part in them, not only community 'representatives' (patriarchs). The investment of some quantity of labour and work time in manufacturing precious goods becomes profitable. Labour must be reorganised and some activities left in order to focus all efforts in this production. Domestic units will have to bring from outside everything they do not produce and dependence relationships between domestic groups will be established. When some domestic units leave an activity, we can understand it has been taken on by another unit. Domestic groups keep now not only alliances, but produced goods and even labour as well, in some cases when production process does not own a particular unit of production. Not all domestic units reach the same power. Some of them do not have enough labour power to face all their needs. Demographic pressure becomes a solving method: quantity of sons and daughters in each family unit increases in order to increase their labour power, reproduction capacity and political relationships within the community (women exchange). The domestic units which adapted their reproduction system to the new situation obtained more advantages than the more traditional ones. As each group adapts differently to the new social, economical and political circumstances, some of them will obtain greater political regard because they will make outside interaction more profitable, but this social part will not become constant. Power resource is too weak and moody to transform prestige and primacy in political life in a constant coercion in the economical field. Moreover, domestic groups compete for the search of political power, what prevents power exploitation: the system does not evolve towards a palace economy, where a single individual owns and controls all resources. As soon as some resources become storable, competition for their control (political power) starts. This situation will just be possible when the demand for prestige goods becomes constant, that is, when outside social agents keep asking for the same items for the sake of political alliances. This is what happens with metal (copper, iron, gold, silver), an item whose demand keeps constant and is used to increase the relationships with foreign groups: the need of certain materials forces a certain group to establish contact with the suppliers. The situation is, thus, different from the one we have been studying, where there is an increasing demand for storable goods. When the production system and the social relationships of production on outside production systems become entailed, they give way to the intensification of production, which is the cause of the breaking up of the traditional way of

organising the society. Firstly, this process takes place within a limited area (Southern Iberian Peninsula), but it expands and reaches an international sphere (Atlantic at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and later in the Mediterranean) and ends integrating a very complex colonial economy with its main focus in Eastern and Central Mediterranean. This production was not intensified because of its own subsistence needs, but of the political needs local groups suffered from. That is, production must be intensified and work processes otherwise structured in order to feed a new political structure. Some labour will be invested in political activities outside the domestic unit. So, we can understand that production is not intensified in order to increase the quantity of goods (surplus storage), but to make amends for the quantity of work the centralisation of political activities require. When colonial market suddenly appears in this local system of group interaction, the political system will have to be newly built. A colonizer is interested in increasing the acquisition of exchange goods, what will lead him to accept an exchange with all population able to produce these goods. A single domestic unit will never find it easy to meet the needs of the colonial market, even disposing of a great working power on the manufacturing of these goods. The nature of Social Power changes. The quantity of goods natives receive from colonisers will depend on the quantity of exchange goods they produce. There is now a new quantitative relationship among the goods themselves, which will change the nature of the exchanged goods value. We can now understand the importance colonial market gives to the perishable prestige goods: wine, clothes, food, etc. Natives are forced to a constant renewal of their interaction with colonisers, transforming the native market for prestige goods and producing a huge increase in the movement of goods in both directions. Prestige items become goods because of the value they have themselves, and not only because of the social relationship they give way to. This merchandising does not only take place between natives and colonisers, but it will leave brand in the relationships natives have among themselves. These relationships among domestic groups will not tend to rise in prestige, but to the acquisition of a greater quantity of exchanged goods, which will enable the acquisition of a greater quantity of colonial goods. The resource of prestige will be now the total quantity of items received from the social interaction with colonisers. Wealth accumulation becomes a certain social behaviour and some domestic units will find profit when developing the specialised work processes colonial market requires, and which did no find use within the local group.

When a non-market economy is integrated within a colonial economy, the quantity of work on their own sustenance decreases and it is focused on the production of exchangeable surplus. But not all domestic units and communities can compete the same way. The only people who can exchange, are those who produce exchange goods. This production will depend on the total quantity of work the domestic unit of production has available and the quantity of work not immediately required by sustenance. People traffic (non specialised workers and craftsmen) becomes even as important as exchange goods traffic. The most important domestic groups rise in power and gather people because of the control they keep on working power and surplus traffic. Land moving increases too, because native communities with more profits from colonial economy attract native surplus of working power. Native settlements will contract workers from non colonised areas, the same as colonisers have already done. Social dynamics become different because the lack of balance between domestic groups relies on production criteria and for the first time keeps aside from kinship or social and political links. There is a new dependence relationship between domestic units, and it will structure power relations, not only because of politics, but of economics too. The accumulation of colonial and exchange goods for the colonial market becomes a matter of fact because the usual work in the domestic unit is not enough for the new situation demands. Individuals who belonged to the main group in their own right, must now compete with other individuals willing to reach the same power marks. Although their previous circumstances of power -quantity of their political linking inside and outside the community - have not disappeared, do not prove to be enough in front of the offer colonisers provide, who give a much greater quantity of prestige goods than native groups did. Notes (1) All dates are given as C-14 calibrated dates, following the Stuiver-Pearson Curve. For up-to-date information about Iberian dates, see Castro, Lull and Mic 1996.

References.
ARTEAGA,O., MUOZ, J.R., ROOS, A.M., NOCETE, F., 1991, Balance a medio plazo del Proyecto Porcuna. Anuario Arqueolgico de Andaluca. 1991. vol. II., pp. 295-301

ARTEAGA,O., SCHULZ,H.D., ROOS, A.M., 1995, El problema del Lacus Ligustinus. Investigaciones geoarqueolgicas entorno a las marismas del guadalquivir. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez. pp., 63-85 AUBET,M.E., 1997, A propsitos de una vieja Estela Saguntum. No. 30 pp. 163-172 AUBET, M.E. SERNA, M.R., ESCACENA, J.L., RUIZ-DELGADO, M.M., 1983, La Mesa de Setefilla. Lora del Rio (Sevilla). Campaa de 1979. Excavaciones Arqueolgicas en Espaa, No. 122. AUBET, M.E., BARCELO, J.A., DELGADO, A. 1996 Kinship, Gender and Exchange: The Origins of Tartessiant Aristocracy. UISPP, XIII Congress, Forl (Italy). BARCELO, J.A., 1989, Arqueologa, Lgica y Estadstica. Un Anlisis de las Estelas Decoradas de la Edad del Bronce en la Pennsula Ibrica. Bellaterra, UAB Press. BARCELO, J.A., 1992, Una Interpretacin Socioeconmica de la Edad del Bronce en en Sudoeste de la pennsula Ibrica, Trabajos de Prehistoria, vol. 49, pp. 245-289 BARCELO, J.A., 1995, Sociedad y Economa en el Bronce Final Tartsico. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez., pp. 441- 463. BORJA,F., 1995, Paleogeografa de las Costas atlnticas de Andaluca durante el Holoceno Medio-Superior. Prehistoria Reciente, Protohistoria y fases recientes. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez., pp. 55-62. CAMPOS,J., GOMEZ,F., 1995, El territorio onubense durante el Bronce Final. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez., pp. 101-142. CARDENETE, R., et al., 1992., Excavaciones arqueolgicas de urgencia en el solar de la Plazuela de Lasso, s/n. Carmona, Sevilla Anuario Arqueolgico de Andaluca 90. vol. III., pp. 563-574. CASTRO,P., LULL,V., MIC,R., 1996., Cronologa de la prehistoria Receiente de la Pennsula Ibrica y Baleares (c. 2800-900 cal.ANE) . BAR International Series, S652). Oxford. CHAPMAN, R., 1990, Emerging Complexity. The later prehistory of south-east Spain, Iberia and the west Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press., CHAPMAN,R., 1995, Urbanism in Copper and Bronze Age Iberia?. En Social Complexity and the development of towns in Iberia. Edited by B.Cunliffe and S. Keay. London: The British Academy. pp. 5-21. CRUZ-AUON,R., MORENO,E., CACERES,P., 1992, Registros de la expresin poblacional durante el III Milenio en Andaluca Occidental. Spal vol., 1, pp., 125-149. DIAZ-ANDREU, M., 1995a, Late Prehistoric Social Change in the Southern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula. En The origins of complex societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia. Edited by K.T. Lillios. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory (Archaeological Series, 8), pp. 97-120 ESCACENA, J.L., BELEN,M., 1992, Las comunidades pre-rromanas en Andaluca Occidental Complutum, vol. 2-3, pp., 65-88. FEODOROFF,N., COURTY,M.A., 1995, Le rle respectif des facteurs anthropiques et naturels dans la dynamique actuelle et passe des pausages mditerranens. cas du bassin de Vera, sud-est de lEspagne.

LHomme et la dgradation de lenvironment. Xvme Rencontre dArchologie et dHistoire dAntibes. Editions APDCA, Juan-les-Pins. pp. 115-142 FERNANDEZ CANTOS,A., 1996., La simbologa del poder en ls necrpolis tartsicas. M.A. Thesis. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Barcelona. FERNANDEZ JURADO, J., 1989, Tartessos y Huelva. Huelva Arqueologica. Diputacin de Huelva. GALAN, E., 1993, Estelas, Paisaje y Territorio en el Bronce Final del Suroeste de la peninsula Ibrica. Complutum vol. Extra No. 3. Universidad Complutense, Madrid. GARCIA SANJUAN,L., 1994, Registro funerario y Relaciones sociales en el SO (1500-1100 a.n.e): indicadores estadsticos preliminares. Arqueologa en el entorno del bajo Guadiana. Huelva: Grupo de Investigacin Arqueolgica del patrimonio del Suroeste., pp. 209-238. GARCIA SANJUAN, L., 1996, Un anlisis de los orgenes de la Estratificacin Social en la Prehistoria del Suroeste de la Pennsula Ibrica. La Edad del Bronce (c. 1700-1100 a.n.e/2100-1300 A.N.E) en la Estribacin Occidental de Sierra Morena. PH.D. Dissertation. Universidad de Sevilla. GILMAN, A., 1987, Unequal development in Copper Age Iberian. In Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K. (eds), Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press. pp., 22-29. GILMAN, A. THORNES,J. 1985, Land use and Prehistory in Southeast Spain. London: Allen & Unwin. GOMES, M.V., et al. 1986, A Necropole de Vinha do Casao (Vila Moura, Algarve) no Contexto da Idade Do Bronze do Sudoeste Peninsular. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Num. 2. Lisboa. GOMEZ,F., CAMPOS,J., BORJA,F., CASTIEIRA,J., GARCIA RINCON, J.M., 1994, Territorio y ocupacin en la Tierra llana de Huelva. El poblamiento de la Edad del Bronce. En Arqueologa en el entorno del bajo Guadiana. Huelva: Grupo de Investigacin Arqueolgica del patrimonio del Sudoeste., pp., 329-350. GONALVES, V.S., 1995, Sitios, Horizontes e Artefactos. Leituras crticas de realidades perdidas. Cascais: Cmara Municipal. HUNT, M.A. 1995, El foco metalrgico de Aznalcllar, Sevilla. Tcnicas analticas aplicadas a la Arqueometalugia del Suroeste de la pennsula Ibrica. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez. pp. 201-215 HURTADO,V., 1995, Panorama de la Investigacin regional. En El Calcoltico a debate. Reunin de Calcoltico de la peninsula Ibrica. Sevilla 1990. Sevilla: Junta de Andaluca. Consejera de Cultura. HURTADO,V., GARCIA SANJUAN, L. 1996 Los inicios de la jerarquizacin social en el Suroeste de la pennsula Ibrica (c. 2500-1700 a.n.e). problemas Conceptuales y empricos. Saguntum (in press) KUNST, M., 1995, Central Places and Social Complexity in the Iberian Copper Age. En The origins of complex societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia. Edited by K.T. Lillios. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory (Archaeological Series, 8), pp. 32-43. LOPEZ PALOMO, L.A., 1993, Calcoltico y Edad del Bronce al Sur de Crdoba. Estratigrafa de Monturque. Crdoba: Publicaciones del Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Crdoba. LOPEZ REY,N., 1994, Armas inditas de las Edades del Cobre y del Bronce en el Museo de Priego. Antiquitas No. 5, pp., 22-32.

LULL,V., 1984, A new assesment of Argaric society and economy. In W.H. Waldren, R. Chapman, J. Lewthwaite and R.C. Kennard (eds.) The Dei Conference of Prehistory, BAR Int. Series S229. Oxford, pp. 1197-1238. LULL,V., RISCH,R., 1996., El Estado Argrico Verdolay No. 7, pp. 97-109 MARTIN DE LA CRUZ, J.C. 1994a, El Trnsito del neoltico al Calcoltico en el litoral del Sur-oeste peninsular. Excavaciones Arqueolgicas en Espaa No. 169. Madrid: Instituto de Conservacin y Restauracin de Bienes Culturales. MARTIN DE LA CRUZ, J.C., 1994b, Avance a la discusin sobre medio ambiente en la Prehistoria. La relacin Vegetacin-Fauna en el caso de Papauvas (Aljaraque, Huelva). Arqueologa en el entorno del Bajo Guadiana, Huelva: Grupo de Investigacin Arqueolgica del Patrimonio del Suroeste., pp., 201-208. MONGE SOARES,A.M., ARAUJO, M.F., PEIXOTO CABRAL, J.M., 1994, Vestigios da Prtica de Metalurgia em povoados calcoliticos da bacia do Guadiana, entre o Ardila e o Chana. En Arqueologa en el entorno del bajo Guadiana. HuelvaGrupo de Investigacin Arqueolgica del Patrimonio del Suroeste., pp., 165-200. NOCETE,F., 1989, El Espacio de la Coercin. La Transicin al Estado en las Campias del Alto Guadalquivir (Espaa). 3000-1500 a.C. Oxford: BAR (International Series, 492) PEREZ MACIAS, J.A., 1995, Poblados, centro mineros y actividades metalrgicas en el cinturn ibrico de piritas durante el Bronce Final. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez. pp. 187-200 ROVIRA,S., 1995b, De metalurgia tartsica. En Tartessos, 25 aos despus (1968-1993). Actas del Congreso commemorativo. Jerez: Biblioteca de Urbanismo y Cultura, Ayto. de Jerez. 232-240 RUIZ,M., RISCH,R., GONZALEZ MARCEN,P., CASTRO,P., LULL,V. 1992., Environmental exploitation and social structure in prehistoric southeast Spain. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5.1. pp. 3-38. RUIZ-GALVEZ,M.L., 1995, Ritos de Paso y Puntos de Paso. La Ria de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce Final Europeo. Complutum, Num. Extra No.6. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. RUIZ-MATA,D., 1994, La secuencia prehistrica reciente de la zona occidental gaditana segn las recientes investigaciones. En Arqueologa en el entorno del bajo Guadiana. Huelva: Grupo de Investigacin Arqueolgica del Patrimonio del Sudoeste., pp., 279-328. RUIZ-RODRIGUEZ,A., 1995, Plaza de Armas de Puente Tablas: New Contributions to the Knowledge of Iberian Twon planning in the Seventh to Fourth centuries BC. En Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia. Edited by B. Cunliffe and S. Keay. London: The British Academy. pp. 124-137. SERNA,M.R., 1989, El vaso campaniforme en el valle del Guadalquivir. En Tartessos. Arqueologa protohistrica del bajo Guadalquivir. Edited by M.E. Aubet. Sabadell: Ed. Ausa. pp., 21-39 STEVENSON, A.C., MOORE, P.D., 1988, Studies in the vegetational history of SW Spain. IV. Palynological investigations of a valley mire at Acebron, Huelva. Journal of Biogeography, 15, pp., 339-361. STEVENSON, A.C., HARRISON, R.J., 1992, Ancient forests in Spain: a model for land-use and dry forest management in southwest Spain from 4000 BC to 1900 AD. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, No. 58. VICENT,J., 1991, Fundamentos terico-metodolgicos para un programa de investigacin arqueo-geogrfica. En P. lpez (de.) El cambio cultural del IV al II Milenios a.C. en la Comarca Noroeste de Murcia. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas. pp. 5-96.

VICENT,J., 1995, Early Social Complexity in Iberia: Some theoretical remarks. En The origins of complex societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia. Edited by K.T. Lillios. International Monographs in Prehistory (Archaeological Series, 8).Ann Arbor, Michigan. pp. 177-183.