emergence, collapse and continuity of the first political system in the guadalquivir basin: Úbeda

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ jaa

Emergence, collapse and continuity of the first political system in the GuadalquivirBasin from the fourth to the second millennium BC: The long-term sequence ofÚbeda (Spain)

Francisco Nocete a,*, Rafael Lizcano b, Ana Peramo a, Encarnación Gómez b

a MIDAS Research Group, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, Univ. of Huelva, Spainb Department of Archaeology, World Heritage Service, Úbeda, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 October 2009Revision received 1 March 2010Available online xxxx

Keywords:SpainÚbedaLong-term sequenceThird millennium BCSystem collapseCopper industryAgrarian intensificationLabour force control

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jaa.2010.03.001

* Corresponding author. Address: Edif. Marie CurUniv. of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain. Fax: +34 959 2

E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Nocete).

Please cite this article in press as: Nocete, F., et ato the second millennium BC: The long-term se

a b s t r a c t

Over the last decade, a long-running archaeological project in the Guadalquivir Basin (Spain) hasidentified the emergence (c. 3000 BC) and collapse (between c. 2500 and c. 2300 BC) of a regionalinter-settlement hierarchical system centred on the south-western Pyrite Belt and the Lower Guadalqui-vir Basin.

Recently, a systematic program of interdisciplinary research on a settlement in the Upper GuadalquivirValley (Úbeda, Spain) confirms this process and suggests a link between the emergence and collapse ofthe first supra-regional inter-settlement hierarchical system and the rise and decline of the copper indus-try. It also shows how the settlements in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin, through a social system based onthe intensification and control of agrarian surplus and labour force, preceded and were autonomous withrespect to the first inter-settlement hierarchical framework centred around the south-western Pyrite Beltand Lower Guadalquivir Basin from c. 3000 to c. 2500 BC. It also shows how they were able to resist thecollapse of this system from c. 2500 BC to c. 2300 BC, materialising later (c. 2200–2000 BC) as a differentinter-settlement hierarchical framework system, centred in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin and based onthe control of population and land.

� 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

During the last three decades, the study of the archaeological re-cord from the fourth to second millennia BC in South Spain hasbrought to light an autonomous and exemplary model to explainthe emergence of the earliest political systems and social inequality.

During the 20th century, Spanish Archaeology has been domi-nated by culture history and the interpretation of society and socialchange in terms of culture, ethnicity and diffusion. The first pro-posal of alternative models to culture history and diffusionismcame, from 1976 to 1984, in the approaches of Anglo-Americanneo-evolutionism and its interpretation of the south-east Spainarchaeological sequence between the Copper and Bronze Ages interms of cross-cultural comparisons (e.g. tribe, big-man, chiefdom)of the ethnographic record (e.g. Chapman, 1978, 1981, 1982;Gilman, 1976, 1981; Harrison and Gilman, 1977; Mathers, 1984;Ramos, 1981). In this framework, the first ranked societies in theCopper Age ‘‘were made up of larger, more sedentary populationswho invested greater labour in their domestic structures, the forti-

ll rights reserved.

ie, Campus del Carmen S/N,19462.

l. Emergence, collapse and contquence of Úbeda (Spain). J. An

fications that enclosed them and the communal tombs that accom-panied them. . . There were no major capital investments inproduction and no major changes in the means of production.Through time there is evidence for increased social tension andphysical conflict. . . The location of productive activities within set-tlement spaces provides some evidence for specialisation and sur-plus production (e.g. flint arrowheads, copper metallurgy) butmainly domestic production. Storage may have become morehousehold – than lineage – based, although this would be in con-tradiction with the treatment of the dead, which now suggestsinequalities in access to wealth and exotic items between lineages”(Chapman, 2003, 158–159). They were identified as simple group-oriented or collaborative chiefdoms.

Between 1984 and the present, the criticism of neo-evolution-ary cross-cultural interpretations by the approaches of historicalmaterialism (e.g. Lull, 1983; Nocete, 1984a) and extensive andintensive survey projects in the south-east Spain (e.g. Arribaset al., 1987; Arteaga, 1987; Castro et al., 1999; Chapman et al.,1987; Contreras et al., 1986, 1987; Nocete, 1989) created new pro-posals. These focused on the material condition of life as the basisof society and social change, and the analysis of production andrelations of production in the study of the archaeological recordaround three factors in the process: the control of the natural con-

inuity of the first political system in the Guadalquivir Basin from the fourththropol. Archaeol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2010.03.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.03.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa


2 F. Nocete et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

dition of production (e.g. Chapman, 1990; Gilman, 1987, 1991), thecontrol of the products (e.g. Chapman, 1990; Ramos, 1998; Harri-son, 1993) and the control of the labour force (e.g. Castro et al.,1999; Nocete, 1989; Lizcano et al., 1997). In this new approach,the redefinition of types of social production and an analysis ofexploitation in relation to the concepts of class, surplus and prop-erty have important implication for the analysis of the concept ofstratified societies, and, particularly, for the identification of theearliest societies based on relations of class (that is, state societies)during the third millennium BC (e.g. Nocete, 1989, 1994a,b, 2000;Lull and Risch, 1995; Molina et al., 2004; Molina and Cámara, 2005)between c. 2200 BC and c. 1500 BC. A more up-dated discussion ofthe background evidence and theories in south-east Spain can beseen in the recent syntheses developed by Cámara and Molina(2006) and Chapman (2008).

However, the main change in the explanation of the emergenceof political systems and social inequality in South Spain came fromthe introduction of historical materialism theories and an exten-sive and intensive survey project, in the mid-1980s, in a new area,the Guadalquivir Basin.

In contrast to the south-east (c. 50,000 km2), in the GuadalquivirBasis area (c. 222,000 km2), with the main alluvial valley(Guadalquivir Valley) and the main copper mining district (south-western Pyrite Belt) in the Iberian Peninsula, a long-running inter-disciplinary research project suggests an earlier and more complexprocess of the emergence of regional centres of aggregated popula-tion in enclosed/fortified settlements of up to 300 hectares, the useof copper objects as instruments of production rather than as itemswith a purely symbolic or ‘prestige’ value, large-scale copper pro-duction, an inter-settlement hierarchical framework and the infer-ence of societies based on relations of class at the start of the thirdmillennium BC (e.g. Nocete, 1984a,b, 1989, 1994a,b, 2000, 2001;Nocete et al., 2005a,b, 2008). This project also suggests the collapseof the inter-settlement hierarchical system in the Lower Guadalqui-vir Basin between c. 2500 BC and c. 2300 BC and its replacement byanother such system centred in the Upper Guadalquivir Basinbetween c. 2200 BC and c. 2000 BC.

In order to explain the causes of, as well as the relationship be-tween, the collapse of the inter-settlement hierarchical politicalsystem centred in the Lower Guadalquivir Basin between c. 2500BC and c. 2300 BC and the rise of the inter-settlement hierarchicalpolitical system in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin between c. 2200and c. 2000 BC, we have undertaken a long-term evaluation (fromthe fourth to the second millennia BC) in the settlement of Úbeda,in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin, that preceded and resisted thesystems’ collapse.

In what follows, we offer a summary of the theoretical ideas andarchaeological setting in the Guadalquivir Basin, a synthesis of theresearch in Úbeda and, lastly, an initial explanation about the re-gional processes of change.

The Guadalquivir Basin: a summary of the theoretical andarchaeological contexts

Between 1899 and 1980s, the fieldwork on the fourth, third andsecond millennia BC in the Guadalquivir Basin was sporadic, un-systematic (e.g. absence of intensive and extensive survey projects,absence of environmental and economic records, absence of radio-carbon dates) and centred on the burials and the interpretation ofsociety and social change in terms of culture, ethnicity and diffu-sion (e.g. Almagro, 1962; Berdichewsky, 1964; Bonsor, 1899; Carri-azo, 1962; Cerdán et al., 1952; Collantes, 1969; Fernández andRuiz, 1978; Leisner and Leisner, 1943, 1956).

The first proposal of alternative models to culture history anddiffusionism came in the mid-1980s through an intensive and

Please cite this article in press as: Nocete, F., et al. Emergence, collapse and contto the second millennium BC: The long-term sequence of Úbeda (Spain). J. An

extensive survey project centred in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin(Campiñas Project: Nocete, 1984a,b, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1994a,b)and based on the approaches of historical materialism. This projectlocated and analysed (by cluster and component principal analysisof site and catchment location) 210 sites (between the fourth andsecond millennia BC) and created (by the intensive and extensivedocumentation in 11 sites such as Alcores, Albalate, Cazalilla, Cot-ijo de la Torre, Los Pozos, Cerro de la Horca, Sevilleja, Atalayuelas,Gil de Olid, Puente Tablas and Peñalosa: in Nocete (1994a)) thefirst long-term sequence (third and second millennia BC) in theGuadalquivir Basin.

This research showed the development, at c. 2200 BC, of a hier-archical inter-settlement framework involving a planning of defen-sive systems as an effect of a colonisation guided by largemovements of population, from a previous pattern of aggregatedpopulation in enclosed/fortified settlements and oriented to themaximisation of cereal production. Nevertheless, the hierarchicalinter-settlement framework that started c. 2200 BC in the UpperGuadalquivir Basin suggested an underlying political motive, sincethe settlement hierarchy (in exponential distribution) coincideswith the maximisation of strategic intervention over that of subsis-tence productivity. In this territorial framework, the basis of thesurplus was the control of people (labour force) within the terri-tory and not the control of exchange networks. Thus, the primatecentres (e.g. Alcores, Albalate-Berral) were located in such a wayas to optimise such control with a major development of defen-sive–offensives measures. In this context, surplus was accumulatedas a result of a new pattern of territoriality with planned/directedcolonisation and through a form of exploitation that appears to betranslated from the kinship sphere to the relationship betweensites. Here, the unequal distribution of the means of coercion (for-tifications) inter-settlement and the presence of sites specialised incoercion (towers) reveal an intra-regional system of physical coer-cion which begins to be imposed as a means of exploitation in anearliest example of relations of class and state society.

During the 1990s, a similar intensive and extensive survey pro-ject (Odiel Project: Nocete et al., 1993, 1997, 1999, 2000) centredon the south-western Pyrite Belt, one of the most important min-ing districts on Earth (Sáez et al., 1996) and next to the Lower Gua-dalquivir Basin, identified and analysed (by cluster and principalcomponents analysis of site and catchment location) 610 archaeo-logical sites (between the sixth and second millennia BC) and cre-ated the first long-term sequence for the third millennium BC insouth-western Spain.

This project showed how, prior to the development of the soci-eties that in c. 2200 BC imposed an intensive system of subjugationof agrarian populations by means of an explicit use of coercion inthe Upper Guadalquivir Basin, a political system based on a differ-ent hierarchical inter-settlement framework centred on miningexploitation (e.g. copper, variscite, volcanic rock) had been devel-oped at the beginning of the third millennium BC in the south-wes-tern Pyrite Belt. In this survey project, an interdisciplinary researchprogram (chronological, geochemical, isotopic, petrological, mor-phometric and contextual analyses) of copper production in themining-metallurgical settlement of Cabezo Juré identified a highand previously unknown degree of technical complexity, a rigidspatial division of labour, and an optimised industrial productionduring the first half of the third millennium BC (Nocete, 2004;Sáez et al., 2003). In a parallel way this showed how the politicalmanagement of this industrial production was run by an elitegroup who had no direct link to the mining and metallurgical activ-ities, yet controlled the specialised and dependent metallurgicactivity and the circulation of its products. This was achieved bythe control over labour through an exclusive control of the meansof destruction (fortifications and weapons), storage-subsistence(water cistern and grain containers), means of transport (horses),



F. Nocete et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

means of production (furnaces) and means of social reproduction(by exotic products such as gold, oolitic limestone blades, pottery,marble and variscite).

In Cabezo Juré, the contextual analysis suggests (Nocete, 2004,2006) that the greater part of the site (95%) lying on its northernand southern slopes was densely occupied with copper-workingprocesses. The remaining 5%, lying in the fortress on the summit,was contemporary with, but dissociated from, this activity. Thecontrast between the character of the fortress and its external con-tacts on the one hand and the dedicated industry of the metal-working areas on the other shows the existence of a deep socialasymmetry between two sectors of the population. Although bothsocial groups shared a similar consumption of meat (cow, pig, deer,wild boar), the residents of the fortified place consumed threetimes as much as their equivalents in the north village. The peopleoccupying the summit had at their exclusive disposal the onlymeans of defence (weapons, fortification). They also had exclusiveaccess to the circulation networks of exotic food (sea shell) and im-ports (pottery and marble cups, stone blades, gold ornaments, etc.),the reward for which can only have been copper products. Theoccupants of the village, living outside the fortified place, withoutmeans of defence and with no access to such rare products of exo-tic origin, engaged in intensive and specialised metallurgic produc-tion, as well as ore extraction, transportation and the systematicexploitation of the forests for fuel. The animal bone evidence sug-gests that they had little right to dispose of either the horses thatfacilitated the transport of copper ore, or of the herds of sheepfor dairy and textile production. Nor is there evidence for storagefacilities that would suggest some access to surplus. Numbers ofterracotta figurines, featuring riders or fertility themes were foundin the residential areas of the north village. These perhaps point tothe development of an integrating ideology or group identity; butthe use of such standard idols could also suggest the ideologicalapparatus of class, justifying the social relationships of CabezoJuré and hiding their inequalities in a legitimating myth. The impli-cation is that, without participating in the processes of production,the residents of the fortified place had exclusive access to the re-wards of production, protection and social reproduction (horses,sheep, cistern, fortification, etc.). By contrast, in spite of makinguse of a wide range of tools and materials, the villagers had noownership of the principal means of production (furnaces) or de-fence (fortification). This transformation of the social relationshipsof production and the introduction of new forms of social organisa-tion in which the inequalities were enlarged and reproduced withgreater facility was possible for many reasons: firstly, the occupa-

Fig. 1. Hierarchical inter-settlement system in the Guadalquivir Basin c. 3000 BC adaptsettlement; triangle: megalithic necropolis; square: mining-settlement). (A) Peripheral tprimate pattern in the Lower Guadalquivir Basin (3: Valencina; 4: Carmona). (C) Modula


tion of a new territory and the absence of the traditions and socialrelationships of agrarian forms of society in which the producershave control of the means of production; secondly, the appropria-tion of a new resource (copper) foreign to the agrarian history andits social limitations; and lastly, the need for mechanisms to ensurethe continuity of production and circulation, through economicdependency and a political network. Thus, a profoundly asymmet-rical and unequal social form is developed, in which one group ofthe population expresses itself as the dominant class through itsmonopoly of the use of force and the ownership of horses andsheep, as well as of a new and critical resource, namely copper, thatdid not have to be subjected to the traditions and limitations of col-lective property (such as land). By annexing the furnaces of copperore reduction to the fortified place, from which the huts of the pro-ducers are excluded, and having exclusive use of the main meansof transport (the horse), they materialised their ownership overthe mines and the workforce.

Between 2000 and 2001, in order to contrast the south-westernPyrite Belt vs. Upper Guadalquivir Basin social models and explaintheir relationships, a systematic and long-term study (between thesixth and second millennia BC) of the settlements, burials and ter-ritorial planning along the Guadalquivir Basin (Nocete, 2000, 2001)identified a prior and linear process in kinship segregation andranking (in terms of a lineage-societies model from Dupré andRey (1973), Gailey and Patterson (1988), Meillassoux (1977), Noc-ete (1989, 2000), Plog (1990), and Rey (1975)), a prior and linearprocess in the emergence of regional centres of aggregated popula-tion in enclosed/fortified settlements (in terms of Renfrew’s (1975)Early State Module and the spatial modular-patterns model fromAdams and Jones (1981), Bintliff (1982), Cherry (1987), Renfrew(1985), Nocete (1984a, 1989), and Paynter (1985)) in the CentralGuadalquivir Basin and an inter-regional interaction with the cir-culation of goods between agrarian and mining territories in thelast quarter of the fourth millennium BC. In addition, the studynoted the emergence of a more complex regional political systemin the Lower Guadalquivir Basin at the start of the third millen-nium BC (Fig. 1A) based on a hierarchical inter-settlement system(in terms of the spatial primate-patterns model from Bruneau(1982), Higham et al. (1982), Hodges (1982), Nocete (1984a,b,1989), Paynter (1985), Stein (1999)), on the intensification of theagrarian and artisan production, on the increased circulation ofgoods and raw materials and on a division of labour by territory.

This diachronic study of the archaeological record suggestedthat the hierarchical inter-settlement framework, the intensifica-tion of production and the intensive territorial division of labour

ed from Nocete (2001): 131. (circle: unfortified settlement; circle empty: fortifiederritory in the Iberian Pyrite Belt (1: La Junta; 2: Cabezo Juré). (B) Hierarchical andr pattern in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin (5: Albalate-Berral; 6: Alcores; 7: Úbeda).




ARTICLE IN PRESS

was the result of an early core/periphery relationship (in terms ofcore/peripheries models from Amin (1974), Bate and Nocete(1993), Chase-Dunn and Hall (1991, 1995), Gailey and Patterson(1988), Modelsky and Thompson (1995), Sanderson and Hall(1995), and Stanley and Alexander (1992)) generated as a resultof the social, economic and ecological contradictions and limitsof the earliest-class society, together with the extensive and pro-gressive organisation and control of the labour force and a central-ised circulation of products and raw material (for earliest-classsociety and earliest-state societies models see Bate and Nocete(1993), Gailey and Patterson (1988), and Nocete (1989, 2000,2001)).

The inability to apply direct violence within the lines of rela-tionships (within-settlement) to increase a direct organisationand control of labour (intensive) in order to materialise theinequality in the agrarian communities of the Guadalquivir Basin,during the fourth millennium BC, produced the following: an in-crease of the ideological apparatus (e.g. figurines), supra-regionalcentralisation in the circulation of products and raw materials,and an alternative (extensive and progressive in space and time)system based on the external (inter-settlement) organisation andcontrol of the labour force and the transformation of surroundingsocieties through the rise of large regional centres (of aggregateprevious and dispersal populations) in enclosed/fortified settle-ments relatively distant (c. 10 km) from one another and locatedin regions of the greatest productive potential (the modular pat-tern) during the last quarter of the fourth millennium BC.

In addition, the limitations of this system, centred on agrarianproduction and relationships, to organise an internal craft special-isation and the progressive need for external mining products(such as copper artefacts) associated with the reproduction of so-cial inequality caused an additional transformation of surroundingsocieties during the last quarter of the fourth millennium BC: theperipheral emergence of settlements specialised in their produc-tion (such as the copper mining-settlement of Cabezo Juré in thesouth-western Iberian Pyrite Belt) and distribution (such as thesettlement of Valencina in the Lower Guadalquivir Basin).

The continuity of these two processes suggests the emergenceof the first hierarchical inter-settlement system in the Guadalqui-vir Basin at the start of the third millennium BC (Fig. 1) and theappearance of the over 300 hectare site of Valencina. With itsperipheral position to the system, its location near the maritimeexit next to the south-western mining district, the presence in itof raw material coming from all the geographical areas of southernIberia (marble, gold, variscite, flint, oolitic limestone, volcanicrocks, copper ores, etc.) and artisan areas linked to it (Noceteet al., 2008), Valencina became an entrance/exit gateway (in termsof gateways models from Hodges (1982) and Nocete (1989)) anddistribution centre of raw material and products from regional(e.g. copper), supra-regional (e.g. variscite, flint, marble) and trans-continental (e.g. ivory) networks, as well as the head of a primaryterritorial network (in terms of exponential distribution of settle-ments surfaces form Higham et al. (1982), Nocete (1984a,b,1989), Paynter (1985) in the Guadalquivir Basin.

Between 2002 and 2005, a new interdisciplinary research pro-gram regarding the production and circulation of products (e.g.pottery, ivory, gold, variscite, copper, marble, etc.) along the Gua-dalquivir Basin during the fourth and third millennia BC (PIGMLI-OM Project: Nocete, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008; Nocete et al.,2005a,b) identified and confirmed the direct relationship betweenthe agrarian settlements in the Guadalquivir Basin and the miningcountryside in the surrounding mountains (south-western PyriteBelt, north Ossa Morena, south Subbetic, etc.). Similarly, this sug-gested a link between the intensity and form of this distributionand the hierarchical and territorial expansion rhythms in the Gua-dalquivir Basin.


In this research program, the distribution of large oolitic lime-stone blades in the inter-settlement system of the Guadalquivir Ba-sin and surrounding countryside (Nocete et al., 2005a) suggests theexpression and reproduction of political inequalities in term of Rat-nagar (2001) model. The circulation of silicified oolitic limestoneblades acts as a parameter that allows for the explanation of themobility of other products, such as marble, pottery, variscite,sheets, gold, and copper. It also supports the identification of anearly and representative core/periphery system characteristic ofthe inter-regional precapitalist structures where social interaction– as an essential requisite for the reproduction of social classes andof their dominance mechanism – leads to relationships of depen-dence and inter territorial domination (in terms of core/peripheryconcept from Bate and Nocete (1993), Chase-Dunn and Hall (1991,1995), Gailey and Patterson (1988), Kristiansen (1991), Mathienand McGuire (1986), McGuire (1989), Modelsky and Thompson(1995), Nocete (1988, 1989, 2000, 2001), Sanderson and Hall(1995), Stanley and Alexander (1992)). It identified, in the first halfof the third millennium BC, the limits of the political territory, andthe inequalities of their hierarchical inter- and intra-social body, itscentral settlements at a regional scale, the dominant elite withinthem, and the subordinated social groups. Moreover, this circula-tion of blades goes beyond a mere recognition of the type of socialrelationships existing from and between the elite, where politicalfigures acquired and kept their power by controlling the circulationof valuables necessary for debt payments, damages and other cer-emonial functions, determining the relationships in the manage-ment of the earliest Guadalquivir Valleys political system. Thishierarchical inter-social body took control of the external circula-tion networks as an indirect mechanism for organising and con-trolling the labour force, accumulating surplus, reproducinginequalities and at the same time making the elite the main bene-factors. This was achieved by centralising the circulation of otherproducts aimed at supporting the specialised artisan sector andthe agricultural intensification process, as well as by situating itsmain political centre in the periphery and becoming a prioritystructure.

By 2005–2008, the analyses of the archaeological record (with-in-settlements) and the environmental impacts of this inter-settle-ment hierarchical system suggested that mining and smeltingwere particularly significant in the political and hierarchical frame-work between c. 3000 and c. 2500 BC.

The large scale of copper production was confirmed in its envi-ronmental impact. The pollen and charcoal analyses in two settle-ments from the south-western Pyrite Belt, Cabezo Juré (Nocete,2004, 2006) and La Junta (Nocete, 2005, 2008), suggested a rapid(from c. 3000 BC to c. 2500 BC) deforestation, on a regional scale,and showed the relationship between trees felled and fuel for met-allurgic production. In addition, the terrestrial and phytoplanktonbio-indicators in sediment cores from the coastal zone of the Gua-diana River confirmed this deforestation on a regional scale c. 2500BC (González et al., 2003) in the south-western Spain. At the sametime, the presence of high concentrations of Cu, Pb, Zn and As insediments of the Tinto River (in the south-west) c. 2500 BC withthe presence of slag remains and minute charcoal fragments sug-gested regional scale pollution linked to the copper mining andsmelting activity (Leblanc et al., 2000). In addition, by c. 2500 BCheavy metal pollution, on a regional scale, associated with the cop-per mining and smelting activity is noted in the waters of the Gulfof Cádiz, and can be measured in a biological indicator (the marinemollusc shells Venerupis decussata) from the Tinto-Odiel (in thesouth-west) and Guadalquivir (in Lower Guadalquivir Basin) estu-aries by trace elements such as Cu, Zn and As (Nocete et al., 2005b,2006).

The large-scale of social transformations (appearance of newclasses within the centre and periphery of a clear political system)



Fig. 2. Location of the large stratigraphic sequence registered in the city of Úbeda(Jaén, Spain).


ARTICLE IN PRESS

and processes of territorial domination (core/periphery relation-ships through the production and circulation of raw material andcraft products) in the formation process of the hierarchical system(in terms of Costin (2004), Gailey and Patterson (1988), Patterson(2005), and Schortman and Urban (2004)) linked to copper produc-tion was confirmed in Cabezo Juré and Valencina. The archaeolog-ical contexts in the copper workshop of Cabezo Juré (Nocete, 2006),in the south-western Pyrite Belt, and the nine hectares of copper-working in the primary centre and the system-gateway of Valenci-na (Nocete et al., 2008), in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley, within acomplex spatial division of labour, pointed to a model of ‘‘full-timeattached artisan” (in terms of Brumfield and Earle (1987), Clark(1995), and Clark and Perry (1990)) and ‘‘retained workshops” (interm of Costin (1991)), up until now registered only in the largeIranian political centres of the third millennium BC (Tosi, 1984).

However, the evolution of territorial planning and the sequencesof Cabezo Juré (Nocete, 2006), La Junta (Nocete, 2008) and Valencina(Nocete et al., 2008), in addition to other nearby, dated sequences inthe Lower Guadalquivir Basin (e.g. Carmona (Conlins, 2004), Amar-guillo (Cabrero, 1997) and Alamillo (Lara et al., 2005)), when com-pared with the evolution of territorial planning and the sequencesof Albalate, Cortijo de la Torre, Cerro de la Horca, Peñalosa (Nocete,1994a), in addition of other nearby, dated sequences in the UpperGuadalquivir Basin (e.g. Berral (Nocete, 2001) and Marroquíes (Liz-cano et al., 2004; Nocete, 2001; Pérez and Cámara, 1999; Pérez andSánchez, 1999)), suggest an additional key factor to the explanationof this inter-settlement hierarchical system: between c. 2500 and c.2300 BC this specialised copper workshop industry, the circulationof products and the inter-settlement hierarchical system centredon the Lower Guadalquivir Basin and south-western Pyrite Belt col-lapsed (Nocete, 2001, 2006, 2008; Nocete et al., 2005a,b, 2006, 2008).In contrast, from c. 2200 to 2000 BC, another specialised workshopcopper industry, another circulation of products and another inter-settlement hierarchical framework system emerged in the UpperGuadalquivir Basin:

� By c. 2500 BC, in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley, the coppersmelting quarter of Valencina was abandoned and the area ofthis primary centre decreased (Nocete et al., 2008). A similarprocess was documented in the nearest sites of Carmona (Con-lins, 2004), Amarguillo (Cabrero, 1997) and Alamillo (Laraet al., 2005) in the Lower Guadalquivir Basin.

� By c. 2400 BC, in the south-western Pyrite Belt, the smallerdefensive sites such as La Junta (Nocete, 2005, 2008) were aban-doned, and the biggest mining and smelting settlements such asCabezo Juré (Nocete, 2004, 2006) reduced the intensity of copperproduction. As a result, the deforestation and heavy metal pollu-tion associated with the copper mining and smelting activitydrastically decreased (Nocete et al., 2005b, 2006).

� By c. 2300 BC, in the south-western Pyrite Belt, the biggest min-ing and smelting settlements, such as Cabezo Juré, were aban-doned (Nocete, 2004, 2006).

� By c. 2200 BC, in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin emerged a hier-archical inter-settlement system involving a planning of defen-sive systems, such as that documented in the 1980s by theCampiñas Project (Nocete, 1984a,b, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1994a,b).

� By c. 2100 to 2000 BC, in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin thereemerged a specialised copper workshop industry in peripheralmining and smelting settlements, such as Peñalosa, in the miningdistrict of Linares-La Carolina (Contreras et al., 1986, 1987; Noce-te, 1989, 2001) and the circulation of copper ores and the rise ofcopper workshops areas in regional centres, such as Guta, Tiesas,Aragonesas, Castulo or Marroquíes (Nocete, 2001, 147–155).

In this sense, the study of the long-term sequence (from thefourth to the second millennia BC) from Úbeda, in the Upper Gua-


dalquivir Basin (Fig. 1) suggests an initial explanation about thecauses of, as well as the relationship between, the collapse of thesouth-western inter-settlement hierarchical political system (Low-er Guadalquivir Basin and south-western Pyrite Belt) between c.2500 and c. 2300 BC and the rise of the north-eastern (Upper Gua-dalquivir Basin) inter-settlement hierarchical political system be-tween c. 2200 and c. 2000 BC.

The long-term sequence from Úbeda (fourth – second millenniaBC): a summary

Úbeda is, at present, one of the most interesting and valuablearchaeological sites within the Iberian heritage. Together withthe uninterrupted occupation of the last 6000 years lies a pioneerprogram of interdisciplinary scientific research that turns this set-tlement into an exceptional and unique laboratory for explainingand displaying the history of the birth of the City and the centralsettlement in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin in an exemplary way.Similarly, its location on the edge (Fig. 2) of the present city ofÚbeda (World Heritage Site), through a program of ‘‘public use”,materialises and orchestrates a model of sustainable developmentfor the community residing in its surroundings and a framework ofsocial integration and cohesion, creating training programs aimedat integrating its community into the future project of this city.This program of ‘‘public use” and their archaeological backgroundcan be seen in the recent edition developed by Lizcano et al.(2009). In the next pages, we offer a summary of the archaeologicalsetting.

In a researched area of 2960 m2, radiocarbon dating (Table 1)has identified an uninterrupted development of prehistoric urban-ism (in terms of Chapman (1995)) between the second quarter ofthe fourth millennium BC and the first quarter of the second mil-lennium BC. This provides the means to interpret, through the re-sults of the interdisciplinary program of scientific analysis (pollen,seeds, fauna, raw materials, artefacts, etc.), the historical process ofthe first agrarian societies of the Upper Guadalquivir Basin and,with it, the origin and transformation of the regional centres ofaggregated population in enclosed/fortified settlements in theGuadalquivir Basin.

The settlement and the development of its constructive systemswere the expression and effect of the consolidation process of anearly agrarian society which, with over 2000 years of development,finds its roots within the fourth millennium BC.

The first settlement (second quarter of the fourth millenniumBC/last quarter of the third millennium BC) was initially formedby a fortification and an organic pattern of circular structures(Fig. 3 A) with constructions of adobe and vegetal elements, as wellas levels excavated in the ground. These structures were small and



Table 114C calibration in Úbeda by Cal Pal 2005 and OxCal v3 10 2005.

Nª Ref. archaeology UB Context Sample Ref. laboratory System Age BP 1 Sigma 2 Sigma Direct CalendarAge Cal BC

1 1178 (F7B) Domestic Barley seeds Beta 229,721 AMS 4780 ± 80 3645–3383 3703–3367 3533 ± 1032 2299 (F36) Domestic Barley seeds Ua 26,017 AMS 4495 ± 40 3341–3095 3358–3024 3217 ± 933 1436 (F11) Domestic Barley seeds Ua 229,720 AMS 4470 ± 70 3343–3020 3365–2912 3170 ± 1314 1225 (F15A) Domestic Barley seeds Beta 229,719 AMS 4420 ± 60 3265–2923 3344–2903 3119 ± 1455 1685 (F7G) Domestic Barley seeds Ua 34,705 AMS 4415 ± 35 3093–2937 3318–2916 3041 ± 736 5109 (E12) Burial Barley seeds Ua 34,715 AMS 4300 ± 35 2914–2892 3004–2880 2937 ± 377 1318 (F20) Lithic manufacturation Barley seeds Ua 34,704 AMS 4300 ± 35 2914–2892 3004–2880 2937 ± 378 1403 (F15B) Domestic Barley seeds Beta 229,718 AMS 4270 ± 60 2912–2877 3017–2697 2869 ± 989 1334 (F25) Domestic Barley seeds Beta 229,717 AMS 4210 ± 40 2887–2758 2901–2670 2799 ± 81

10 11,113 Domestic Barley seeds Ua 21,453 AMS 4210 ± 45 2889–2707 2904–2636 2795 ± 8411 4698 Domestic Barley seeds Ua 34,711 AMS 4180 ± 40 2875–2678 2891–2624 2778 ± 8112 4930 Domestic Barley seeds Ua 34,713 AMS 4175 ± 35 2875–2678 2886–2627 2778 ± 7913 1382 (F19A) Domestic Barley seeds Beta 229,716 AMS 4170 ± 50 2878–2638 2894–2577 2753 ± 9214 4993 Domestic Barley seeds Ua 34,714 AMS 4155 ± 40 2872–2635 2883–2578 2757 ± 8615 1074 (F10A) Lithic manufacturation Barley seeds Ua 34,703 AMS 4150 ± 35 2871–2635 2879–2579 2756 ± 8516 1060 (F7) Ores and slag Oak Beta 229,722 AMS 4130 ± 60 2871–2578 2888–2492 2727 ± 10617 2493 (F50) Domestic Barley seeds Ua 26,014 AMS 4120 ± 40 2860–2581 2874–2567 2730 ± 10018 4464 Ores and slag Oak Ua 34,710 AMS 4100 ± 35 2840–2577 2866–2498 2715 ± 11119 1797 (F17) Burial, crucibles, ores, and slag Oak Ua 34,706 AMS 4090 ± 35 2835–2575 2861–2495 2708 ± 11520 4324 Domestic Barley seeds Ua 34,708 AMS 4085 ± 35 2834–2574 2858–2493 2705 ± 11721 4740 Crucibles, ores and slag Oak Ua 34,712 AMS 4085 ± 40 2835–2572 2863–2490 2703 ± 11822 2199 (F18) Burial F 18 Barley seeds Ua 26,019 AMS 4070 ± 45 2833–2497 2860–2476 2669 ± 13023 1977 (F43) Domestic Barley seeds Ua 26,016 AMS 4060 ± 40 2627–2496 2852–2476 2623 ± 10124 4276 Ores and slag Oak Ua 34,707 AMS 3925 ± 35 2471–2347 2546–2295 2413 ± 5525 4366 Ores and slag Oak Ua 34,709 AMS 3865 ± 35 2456–2285 2465–2204 2360 ± 6926 6030 Ores and slag Oak CSIC 1769 AMS 3791 ± 45 2288–2141 2400–2045 2230 ± 7027 7019 Ores and slag Oak CSIC 1822 AMS 3788 ± 32 2281–2146 2297–2134 2221 ± 5628 2961 Ores and slag Oak Ua 26,013 AMS 3705 ± 35 2190–2033 2200–1976 2102 ± 5329 2742 Domestic and burial Barley seeds Ua 36,015 AMS 3620 ± 45 2031–1919 2132–1882 1992 ± 5930 6084 Domestic and burial Barley seeds CSIC 1821 AMS 3611 ± 32 2022–1923 2113–1887 1976 ± 4131 2627 Domestic and burial Barley seeds Ua 26,012 AMS 3575 ± 45 1972–1884 2032–1772 1927 ± 6732 2512 Domestic and burial (Ivory) Barley seeds Ua 26,020 AMS 3545 ± 45 1941–1779 2020–1747 1874 ± 7033 8161 Domestic and burial (Ivory) Barley seeds CSIC 1820 AMS 3504 ± 31 1885–1762 1920–1741 1831 ± 48

Fig. 3. The constructive process in Úbeda. (A) c. 3000 BC; (B) c. 2200 BC; (C) c. 2000 BC.


ARTICLE IN PRESS


had multiple uses: human and animal (dogs, cows) burials, dumpsand residential areas (household) with the preparation and con-sumption of food, manufacturing (pressure-flaked) of stone arte-fact (sickle blades) and textile activities (loom weights) (Fig. 4).

With the start of the last quarter of the third millennium BC,this settlement underwent a partial transformation. The houses,whose designs continue to be circular, appear, for the first time,different, constructed with masonry plinths (Fig. 3 B). It grew insize and a technical and spatial division of labour began to developwithin the houses (preparation and consumption of food, manufac-turing of stone artefacts, copper-working and textiles were differ-entiated in space) (Fig. 5). The absence of rubbish dumps suggestsnew concepts of periodic cleaning and spatial division of functions.One of them, perhaps the most noticeable one, is found in the ab-sence of burial areas in the habitat, a fact that indicates the exis-tence of true burial sites situated outside the living quarters.

With the start of the second millennium BC, a deep restructur-ing and transformation of the settlement begins to develop which,endowed with a greater complexity, gives shape to a new construc-tive process. Following a general terracing, a constructive pattern isinitiated, characterised now by houses of rectangular format (Fig. 3C). These present a higher level of internal spatial division of labourwithin the houses (consumption/production spaces were differen-tiated by constructive means) and offer, as a novelty, the inclusionof burials under its floors with various methods of burial interment(in chambers, ceramic cups, etc.) (Fig. 6).

This account of the origin and transformation of the settlementhas a parallel shared narrative in the levels of economic organisa-tion. The first occupation of Úbeda (c. 3500 BC–c. 3000 BC) showshow the origin of the regional centres of aggregated population inenclosed/fortified settlements is linked to the residential, defensiveand other needs of an agrarian community. It was characterised by



Fig. 4. Plan of archaeological contexts between c. 3500 BC and c. 2500 BC. Areas F7B (Direct Calendar Age Cal BC 3533 ± 103), F7G (Direct Calendar Age Cal BC 3041 ± 73) andF7E (Direct Calendar Age Cal BC 2727 ± 106).

Fig. 5. Plan of archaeological context between c. 2200 BC and c. 2000 BC. Area 2B (Direct Calendar Age Cal BC 2102 ± 53).


ARTICLE IN PRESS

a stable agriculture based on cereals, legumes and an incipient ol-ive grove (Table 2 and Fig. 7). Next to it, and despite important fish-ing and river (Unio, Barbus) harvesting (Pérez, 2009) and hunting


(deer, wild boars, roebucks, rabbits, etc.), a solid ranching of cows,pigs, sheep, goats and horses was developed (Riqueme, 2009)which guaranteed the meat, dairy and textile supply, as well as



Fig. 6. Plan of archaeological contexts between c. 2000 BC and 1800 BC. Area 2A (Direct Calendar Age Cal BC 1831 ± 48).


ARTICLE IN PRESS

the development of activities to support agriculture (draught, trac-tion) (Table 3). Together with this initial model, there was a localsupply (<10 km) of abiotic resources (e.g. clay, stone) coming fromthe South (Guadalquivir River) and North (Guadalimar River) (Nie-to, 2009; Nocete et al., 2009a,b; Sáez, 2009) and an important tex-tile activity using both animal fibres (wool) and vegetable ones(linen) and linked to the loom weights presence (Fig. 4: areasF7B and F7G).

Between the start and the last quarter of the third millenniumBC, the pollen sequence points to a process of development andconsolidation of the initial economic model (Fig. 7). The agricul-tural development increased, involving an increase in the defores-tation of pine and birch forests. The tree mass was reduced from70% to 30%, and the pollen records identify this process in relationto the increase of the cultivated surface areas of cereals, legumesand olive trees. In like manner, the emergence of an oak forest inrelation to the increase of the pig (Fig. 7 and Table 3) determinesa change in the ranching profile with the consolidation of this spe-cies as the principal protein intake. The decrease in hunting pointsto the link between hunting activities and the safeguarding of theharvests as well as to the definite consolidation of ranching as themain source of meat supply. Similarly, the supply system of abioticresources (e.g. clay, stone) begins to surpass the local scale, withthe ever more numerous arrivals of raw materials (e.g. flint) andproducts (mills, hammers, axes and chisels polished in volcanicstone) on a regional scale coming from the northern and southern(>100 km) slopes of the Guadalquivir Valley (Ossa-Morena, Sub-


betic Mountains, etc.) (Nieto, 2009; Nocete et al., 2009a,b; Sáez,2009). In addition, the appearance of new artisan sectors, such asthe metallurgic activity (confirmed by the presence of copper ores,slag and crucibles: Fig. 4: area F7E and Fig. 5) suggests a new tech-nological and social setting (Nocete et al., 2009a,b).

With the start of the second millennium BC, this system sees it-self markedly transformed. The deforestation has reached its max-imum development, with the tree mass at levels below 20% (Fig. 7).However, this does not respond exclusively to the progression ofthe harvested areas. The increase in plants such as poacea, lentiscus,etc., points to a change in landscape, with grazing land becomingdominant at a regional scale, as is equally registered by the nearest(10 km) pollen sequence of Baeza (Fuentes et al., 2007). Nonethe-less, this process does not correspond to a climactic change, butrather to the development of a new and more intensive exploita-tion of the territory, where sheep ranching acquires great promi-nence (Table 3). Likewise, the incorporation of Úbeda into morecomplex political and territorial networks involved deep economictransformations. The disappearance (absence of copper ores, slagand crucibles in the archaeological context: Fig. 6) of the local met-allurgical handicrafts and a regional supply of metallic productscoming from the nearest (20 km) mining district of Linares (con-firmed by lead isotope analyses in all the metallic products – e.g.copper punches, points and daggers; silver bracelets-between c.2100 BC and 1800 BC: Nocete et al., 2009a,b); the increase in thetextile (loom weights) activity (Fig. 6); the presence of new activ-ities of agricultural transformation, such as the manufacture of



Table 2Evolution of seeds presence in the dated (14C) domestic context from Úbeda (Spain).

Seeds c. 3500–c. 3000 c. 2200–c. 2000 c. 2000–c. 1800BC BC BC

N� % N� % N� %

Hordeum vulgare c.f. nudum 105 9.75 2075 19.83 202 6.81Hordeum vulgare c.f. nudum – frag. 43 3.99 422 4.03 75 2.53Hordeum vulgare var. nudum 31 2.88 9 0.08 – –Hordeum vulgare var. nudum – frag. 7 0.65 2 0.01 – –Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare 122 11.33 5 0.04 48 1.62Hordeum vulgare – frag. 45 4.18 – – 25 0.84Hordeum/Triticum 34 3.15 341 3.25 60 2.02Hordeum/Triticum – frag. 256 24.72 1865 17.82 438 14.78Raquis frag. – – 1 0.01 – –Lathynus sativum/cicera – – 1 0.01 5 0.16Lathynus sativum/cicera – frag. – – 1 0.01 6 0.20Leguminosa – frag. 3 0.27 – – – –Lolium sp. – – 1 0.01 2 0.06Malva sp. – – 1 0.01 – –Medicago sp. – – 1 0.01 – –Phalaris sp. – – 1 0.01 1 0.03Pisum sativum L. – – 82 0.78 87 2.93Pisum sativum L. – frag. – – 5 0.04 6 0.20cf Pisum sativum L. – – 2 0.01 – –Triticum aestivum/durum 350 32.52 3722 35.57 649 23.39Triticum aestivum/durum – frag 58 5.33 407 3.89 72 2.43Triticum aestivum/durum tipo compactum 6 0.55 39 0.37 4 0.13Triticum monococcum – – 328 3.35 6 0.20Triticum monococcum – frag. – – 18 0.17 3 0.10Triticum dicoccum 6 0.55 66 0.63 125 4.22Triticum dicoccum – frag. 1 0.09 5 0.05 10 0.33Tubérculo – frag. – – 1 0.01 1 0.03Vicia faba L. 9 0.83 886 8.28 817 27.58Vicia faba – frag. – – 38 0.36 38 1.28Vicia sp. – – 1 0.01 – –Vicia/Pisum – frag. – – 136 1.29 282 9.52

Total 1076 10,462 2962

Fig. 7. Pollen percentage diagram of the long-term sequence in Úbeda.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

malt through barley fermentation (Buxó, 2009); the presence ofproducts of transcontinental origin, such as ivory bracelets(Fig. 6) of Elephas Maximus identified by Fourier Transform InfraRed Spectroscopy and the Schreger structure of the objects (Noce-te, 2009); or the increase of foreign stone products are all evidenceof this, and of a regional division of labour in which Úbeda will spe-cialise in the agriculture, ranching, pottery and textile sectors.

Nonetheless, the origin as well as the constructive and eco-nomic transformations that shape the appearance and develop-ment of the regional centres of aggregated population in


enclosed/fortified settlements is of a different nature, dependanton the constructions of social relationships (property, inequalities,etc.) which determine the need and ways to arrange the systems ofattached and constant residence of the previous, dispersed small-settlements in one location.

Even though in order to recognise the specific format of the so-cial relationships we should wait for the possibility to rely on anextensive record of each one of the settlement-phases, the evalua-tion of 21 household contexts (Table 4) dated between c. 3500 BCand c. 1800 BC (such as F7B/F36/F11/F7G between c. 3500 BC and



Table 3Evolution of faunal consume in the dated (14C) domestic context from Las Eras (Úbeda, Spain).

Specimen N� of samples Identified samples (%) Weight in grams Weight identified (%)

Context by c. 3500–c. 3000 BCBos taurus 13 5.12 839 33.35Ovis aries 21 8.27 687 27.3Ovis aries/Capra hircus 80 31.50Capra hircus 3 1.18Sus domesticus 38 14.96 316 12.56Equus caballus 2 0.79 53 2.11Cervus elaphus 7 2.76 77 3.06Oryctolagus cuniculus 88 34.65 72 2.86Lepus granatensis 1 0.39 2 0.08Bos primigenius 1 0.39 470 18.68Identified 254 2516Unidentified 274 720Total 528 3159

Context by c. 3000–c. 2500 BCBos taurus 129 14.86 6677 38.93Ovis aries 17 1.96 2099 12.24Ovis aries/Capra hircus 242 27.88Capra hircus 5 0.58Sus domesticus 278 32.03 4464 26.03Canis familiaris 8 0.92 63 0.37Equus caballus 33 3.80 2847 16.60Cervus elaphus 47 5.42 943 5.50Oryctolagus cuniculus 108 12.44 49 0.28Lynx pardina 1 0.11 8 0.05Identified 868 17,150Unidentified 1360 7027Total 2228 24,177

Context by c. 2500–c. 2200 BCBos taurus 187 13.78 10,506 37.67Ovis aries 30 2.21 3889 13.95Ovis aries/Capra hircus 458 33.75Capra hircus 5 0.37Sus domesticus 415 30.58 6186 22.18Canis familiaris 46 3.39 217 0.78Equus caballus 61 4.50 3821 13.70Bos primigenius 2 0.15 1260 4.52Cervus elaphus 76 5.60 1952 7.00Capreolus capreolus 1 0.07 5 0.02Oryctolagus cuniculus 72 5.31 46 0.16Lepus granatensis 4 0.29 5 0.02Identified 1357 27,887Unidentified 1921 8929Total 3278 36,816

Context by c. 2200–c. 2000 BCBos taurus 188 16.01 9295 36.69Ovis aries 31 2.64 3777 14.91Ovis aries/Capra hircus 340 28.96Capra hircus 10 0.85Sus domesticus 431 36.71 7490 29.56Canis familiaris 7 0.60 62 0.25Equus caballus 29 2.47 2611 10.30Cervus elaphus 69 5.88 2052 8.10Oryctolagus cuniculus 66 5.62 47 0.18Lepus granatensis 3 0.26 3 0.01Identified 1174 25,337Unidentified 1696 8683Total 2870 34,020

Context by c. 2000–c. 1800 BCBos taurus 35 13.11 1385 42.49Ovis aries 9 3.37 1044 32.02Ovis aries/Capra hircus 137 51.31Capra hircus 3 1.12Sus domesticus 61 22.85 763 23.40Canis familiaris 4 1.50 13 0.40Cervus elaphus 2 0.75 42 1.29Oryctolagus cuniculus 16 5.99 13 0.40Identified 267 3260Unidentified 417 1239Total 684 4499


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article in press as: Nocete, F., et al. Emergence, collapse and continuity of the first political system in the Guadalquivir Basin from the fourthto the second millennium BC: The long-term sequence of Úbeda (Spain). J. Anthropol. Archaeol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2010.03.001


Table 4Archaeological frequencies in household-contexts dated by 14C in Úbeda.

Phases 3500–3000 BC 3000–2500 BC 2500–2200 BC 2200–2000 BC 2000–1800 BC

Household-contexts dated by 14C 4 7 4 3 3Consumption of fauna (in grams) 3159 24,177 15,236 22,126 4499Consumption of malacofauna (in grams) 140 270 180 2600 100Seeds of cereals and legumes 320 636 10,462 2692Grain storage pottery-vessels (5–20 l) 10 9 7 9Grain storage pottery-vessels (20–50 l) 9 7Grain storage pits (50–100 l) 4Grain storage pits (>200 l) 2Consumption pottery-vessels 25 40 28 32 30Pottery cheese press 3 5Small grinding stones in local raw material (<2000 g) 8 20 16 9 5Large grinding stones in foreign raw material (>5000 g) 3 7Bone tools (punch, scraper, needle) 17 20 17 8 4Bone ornaments (figurines) 1Polished stone tools (axes, hammers, adzes) in local raw material 9 5Polished stone tools (axes, hammers, adzes) in foreign raw material 15 12 5 3Polished stone ornaments (collar beads, archers bracelets) in foreign raw

material1 1 4 150

Polished marble ornaments (vessels, figurines) 1 1 3Residues of flaked activity (in grams) in local raw material 5230 1200 150 60 22Residues of flaked activity (in grams) in foreign raw material 20Flaked blades (<10 cm) in local raw material 15 13 3Flaked blades (<10 cm) in foreign raw material 12 11 9 7Flaked blades (>20 cm) in local raw materialFlaked blades (>20 cm) in foreign raw material 7 18 19Flaked sickles blades in local raw material 6 5Flaked sickles blades in foreign raw material 7 5Flaked sickle teeth in local raw material 1 2Flaked sickle teeth in foreign raw material 3 3 10 25Flaked arrowhead in local raw materialFlaked arrowhead in foreign raw material 3 1 20Copper ore (in grams) 15 30 42Copper slag (in grams) 3 12 18Clay crucibles 2 3 6Copper points in local raw material 1Copper points in foreign raw material 1 2Copper daggers in foreign raw material (under-floor burial) 2Copper knifes in local raw material 1 2Copper knifes in foreign raw materialCopper punches in local raw material 1 3 3Copper punches in foreign raw material 6Silver ornaments in foreign raw material (under-floor burial) 7Ivory bracelets 6Spinning clay bowls-fusaioles (10 g) 8Curve-shape clay loom weights (10–30 g) 19 36Circular-shape clay loom weights (50–100 g) 10Circular-shape clay loom weights (200–500 g) 12Pyramidal truncated-shape clay loom weights (100–200 g) 3 8Rectangular-shape clay loom weights (10–30 g) 16 12Rectangular-shape clay loom weights (100–200 g) 3 4 6Rectangular-shape clay loom weights (500–1100 g) 10


ARTICLE IN PRESS

c. 3000 BC; F15B/F25/F19A/F10A/F7E/F50/F17 between c. 3000 BCand c. 2500 BC; EA2/EA4/EA6/EA7 between c. 2500 BC and c. 2200BC; E5B1/E6B1/E2B between c. 2200 BC and c. 2000 BC; E2A/E2B/E2C between c. 2000 BC and c. 1800 BC), allows us to make an ini-tial proposal.

The explorations of the residential spaces in Úbeda support theinferred development of the agrarian system from the fourth mil-lennium BC and allow us to correlate it with the one that materia-lised in the transformation of the settlement. The first economicand construction model (by c. 3500 BC–c. 3000 BC) suggests theexpression of a social system in which the residential units aremere units of consumption (Fig. 4 and Table 4). The presence ofpolished adze-axes and flaked sickle blades, as opposed to the ab-sence of grain storage and large grinding stones, as well as of eco-nomic asymmetry (absence of differences in internal activities, inaccess to productive activities and consumption) and the presenceof a fortification suggest a model (tested in the local settlements ofMartos and Los Pozos: Nocete, 1994a; Lizcano, 1999) of collective


appropriation and defence of the territory and/or forms of depen-dent peasantry deprived of property (if an internal asymmetrywas detected in the group) in a system of lineages (tested in thesettlement of Albalate-Berral: Nocete, 2001). Contrary to this mod-el, after c. 3000 BC, the progressive appearance of cereal storage(pottery-vessels and pits) and large grinding stones in the houses(Table 4) point to new forms of social organisation based on theprivate property of the land and the herd. The change in exter-nal/internal grain storage and large grinding stones from c.3500–3000 BC to c. 3000–2200 BC suggests a change from commu-nity or lineage group to individual household property.

However, the progressive inter-household differences based onlarge grain storage (pottery-vessels and pits), large grinding stonesand possible inequalities in access to productive activities (such asthe inter-household differences based on presence/absence ofloom weights) and food consumption after c. 2200 BC (Figs. 5and 6; Table 4) suggest the unequal property of the land and theherd as bases of social inequalities.




ARTICLE IN PRESS

Similarly, exploring the sectors of craft production allows us togo one step further in the explanation, given that its arrival wasclosely linked to the origin of the regional centres of aggregatedpopulation in enclosed/fortified settlements, and its developmentto its subsequent transformation. Hence the emergence, at thestart of the third millennium BC, of new craft sectors inside thehouses – such as copper metallurgy (Fig. 4: F7E; Table 4) – suggestan initial link between the individual household property, the indi-vidual household surplus and the emergence of copper. Similarly, itsuggests the limitations of this model of agrarian society to orga-nise craft specialisation (full-time craftsmanship). After c. 2200BC and with the gradual increase of the land as private property(in terms of grain storage and grinding stones present within thehouses: Figs. 5 and 6; Table 4) and the private and unequal grainstorage, the craftsmanship grew and gave impulse to a technicaland spatial division of labour (Fig. 5) that affected first the settle-ment itself, transforming its constructive system, and subse-quently, in the second millennium BC, the entire territory (inter-settlement division of labour).

Nonetheless, it is within the sphere of consumption where wecan further advance in the characterisation of social relationships,as it correlates all these changes with a progressive development ofinequality and social conflict. Within this sphere, and succeeding

Fig. 8. Arrowheads

Fig. 9. Ivory bracele


the social model during the fourth millennium BC, when no hous-ing units display differences in the consumption of foods and arte-facts and enjoy a homogeneous social distribution, the year 2200BC gives rise to a new scenario marked by the progressive increaseof new foreign products dissociated from the needs of the agrariansector (Table 4) and with an unequal inter-household distribution(Lizcano and Gómez, 2009). This is the case in the appearance ofthe sophisticated cut arrow heads (Figs. 5 and 8) in 2200 BC (whenhunting has decreased) and the ivory bracelets (Fig. 9), the silverbracelets and copper weapons (e.g. points and daggers) duringthe first quarter of the second millennium BC (linked to the house-hold with large grain storage, such as E2A: Fig. 6), which, addition-ally indicate that, parallel to the distinction, the competition andthe social segregation, the use of force and violence (coercion)has become one of the instruments to mediate in socialrelationships.

We can record another one of the correlations of this process inthe settlement itself. The results of the analysis of human remainsand their burial sites allow us to identify two differentiated popu-lation models. The first one (Fig. 10), occurring between the firstoccupation and the last quarter of the third millennium BC (Table5), exhibits a population that in spite of having a short life expec-tancy (men 20 and 40 years old, women 12 and 14 years old), par-

(c. 2200 BC).

ts (c. 1800 BC).



Fig. 10. Male burial (c. 3000 BC): Tomb E 12.

Table 5Age and sex data in human burial.

Burial Sex Age (years)

Context by c. 3000 BC–c. 3500 BCF 17 Female 12–13F 18 Male 20–21F 18 Female 13–14E 12 Man 30–35

Context by c. 2000 BC to c. 1800 BCT 2 Male 1–2T 3 Male 2–3T 4 Female 19T 7 Male 10T 9 Male 50–59T 9 Male 40–49T 10 Male 35–40T 11 Female 19T 12 Female 39–40T 13 Male 39–40T 14 Male <1T 15 ¿? 7T 46 Male 39–40

Fig. 11. Dog burial (c. 3000 BC).

Fig. 12. Burials c. 1800 BC. (A) Tomb T 12 (female burial) and (B) Tomb T 14(children burial).


ARTICLE IN PRESS

ticularly relevant in women due to complications in childbirth, en-joyed good health and food conditions, and were capable of surviv-ing child diseases. Tall for this period (reaching 1.70 m), men andwomen show strong muscles in their upper and lower limbs, deter-mining the concurrence of both in the agrarian tasks and with nosubstantial discriminatory differences of gender (Jiménez et al.,2009). The absence of differentiated burial treatment betweenmen and women indicates, additionally, the non-existence of ide-ologies designed to generate, reproduce and/or justify gender seg-regation. Similarly, the absence of buried young individualssuggests a system in which the access to social roles was deter-mined, initially, by age. In contrast, the burial of sacrificed animals(cows and dogs), points to a complex system of ideological organi-sation of the group (Fig. 11) documented along the GuadalquivirBasin (Conlins, 2004; Lizcano, 1999; Lizcano et al., 1997).

Unfortunately, we are unable, for the time being, to determinethe evolution of the physical features of the population duringthe last quarter of the third millennium BC, given that the burialspheres were removed from domestic contexts as well as the set-tlement as a whole and we shall have to wait for the identificationand recording of these burial sites. However, this intended separa-


tion of the world of life from the world of death, and the appear-ance of the first necropolises (e.g. megalithic tombs, hypogea),allows us to verify the model of evolution towards the publicreproduction and materialisation of differentiated and segregatedlineages in Úbeda. This suggests the definite consolidation of firstclass societies in the hierarchical cores of the agrarian territory inthe Valley of Guadalquivir (Nocete, 2001), of which Úbeda repre-sents one of the most characteristic forms, the modular pattern.

The second model (Figs. 12 and 13), which begins in the secondmillennium BC (Table 5), involves the return of the burials to theliving areas, and with them the generation of a new ideological set-ting in which inequality is shown in the family and individualspheres, with a clear hereditary component. This shows that childindividuals are now present and with them, the possibility of ful-filling a more complete exploration. At c. 38%, child mortality (Ta-ble 5) initiates the characterisation process of a population that, in



Fig. 13. Burial c. 1800 BC. Tomb T 13 (male burial): distribution of silver products.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

spite of increasing its life expectancy (men 59 years old and wo-men 45 years old), experienced a more deficient nutrition (basedon carbohydrates) that caused serious effects in their health(growth problems, etc.) (Jiménez et al., 2009). The average heightdecreases and the different muscles developed indicate sexualdimorphism in the division of labour (Jiménez et al., 2009). Themen maintain the muscle development of all limbs and the execu-tion of agricultural tasks (Jiménez et al., 2009). However, the in-crease in slipped discs, fractures, etc. indicates a noteworthyincrease in the intensity of the work, as well as more violent life-styles (Jiménez et al., 2009). For their part, the women, with a vis-ible loss in the development of leg muscle, appear to have started apath that has separated them from the fields and are carrying outthe upkeep of the artisan sectors in the domestic sphere (textilemanufacture, use of grinding stones, etc.) indicating a segregationof gender (Jiménez et al., 2009). Correlated with the appearance ofdimorphism in the burial treatment, it now becomes possible toexplore the first materialisation of gender inequalities in thesettlement.

This break in the settlement design – the economic-social orga-nisation that shapes Úbeda, and which we can generalise to themost eastern zone of the Upper Guadalquivir Basin – correspondsto a break in the physical profile of the population itself, openingup the possibility of evaluating the cultural and political dimor-phism which, in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin, brought about theseparation and probably the confrontation of its eastern and wes-tern populations. Disregarding whether a process of populationmovement from south-east Iberia towards the Upper GuadalquivirValley, or a process of class segregation (which will have to betested in future phases of research), we must point out that thestrong cultural rupture of Úbeda after c. 2200 BC coincides in timewith a strong increase in the defensive models of neighbouringsocieties, such as those occupying Las Campiñas. In them, emergeda new inter-settlement framework of a small number of heavilyfortified centres located at the centre of a territory of agriculturalproduction, with smaller defensive sites (towers) placed for theirvisual and physical control (Nocete, 1994b).

Discussion and conclusions

This research identifies the start of the political system in theGuadalquivir Basin (Spain) in the first half of the fourth millenniumBC through the agrarian intensification and the rise of large regio-nal centres of aggregate populations in enclosed/fortified settle-ments relatively distant from one another (±10 km) and locatedin regions of the greatest productive potential a modular pattern.Similarly, it links the widespread adoption of copper metallurgy


and supra-regional circulation of products with the growth of thepopulation concentration and the consolidation of the modularpattern in the Guadalquivir Basin in the last quarter of the fourthmillennium BC. Moreover, it relates the centralisation of a supra-regional circulation of products and raw material, the intensifica-tion of copper production and the territorial division of labour tothe rise of an inter-settlement hierarchical framework and aperipheral primate centre (primate pattern) in the south-easternand Lower Guadalquivir Basin c. 3000 BC.

However, it also shows how the degrees of their political sys-tem, circulation, territorial division of labour, copper productionand environmental impact on the Upper Guadalquivir Basin werecontrary to those in the south-western Pyrite Belt and Lower Gua-dalquivir Basin during the third millennium BC.

� From c. 3000 to c. 2500 BC, an intensified copper production andlarge regional raw material circulation in the south-western Pyr-ite Belt and Lower Guadalquivir Basin caused high levels ofimpact on the environment (deforestation, water pollution,etc.) and gave rise to an (the first) inter-settlement hierarchicalsystem with the emergence of mining-settlements and a pri-mate-peripheral centre in Valencina based on the control ofthe external and internal (regional and supra-regional) circula-tion of raw material and products.

� In contrast, in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin the modular patterncontinued and the territorial division of labour was limited. Thelong-term sequence of Úbeda suggests a process of agrarianintensification and an increase in surplus and population, butshows a local level of products and raw material circulation, acopper-working characterised by small-scale and non-specia-lised production and a limited environmental impact (low defor-estation process) strictly related to agro-pastoral economies.

� From c. 2500 to c. 2300 BC, the specialised copper workshopindustry declines, the mining-settlements and the circulationof raw material decreases and the inter-settlement hierarchicalsystem collapses in the south-western Pyrite Belt and LowerGuadalquivir Basin.

� In contrast, the long-term sequence of Úbeda confirms the con-tinuity of the modular pattern in the Upper Guadalquivir Basinand suggests an agrarian intensification as well as an increasein the population and in the circulation of raw materials andproducts on a regional level.

� From c. 2200 to c. 2000 BC, the Upper Guadalquivir Basin sees anincrease in the copper production and large regional and supra-regional raw material circulation with the emergence of a newinter-settlement hierarchical system and a new copper work-shop industry located along the north-eastern GuadalquivirBasin periphery (Nocete, 1988, 1989, 1994a,b, 2001).

This unequal development (Lower Guadalquivir Basin andsouth-western Pyrite Belt vs. Upper Guadalquivir Basin) suggestsan initial link between the rise and decline of the first inter-settle-ment hierarchical system with a primate and peripheral centre(primate pattern: Nocete, 2001; Nocete et al., 2005b), the central-isation of a supra-regional circulation of products and raw materi-als, the territorial division of labour and the adoption of aspecialised workshop for copper metallurgy. Similarly, it suggeststhe existence of two economic models and two alternative socio-political processes (Lower Guadalquivir Basin and south-westernPyrite Belt vs. Upper Guadalquivir Basin) preceding the decline ofthe specialised copper workshop industry, the decrease in the min-ing-settlements and circulation of raw materials, and in the finalcollapse of the inter-settlement hierarchical system in the south-western Pyrite Belt and Lower Guadalquivir Basin from c. 2500 toc. 2300. It also shows how the settlements in the Upper Guadalqui-vir Basin, such as Úbeda, through a system based on the intensifi-




ARTICLE IN PRESS

cation and control of agrarian surplus and labour force, wereautonomous with respect to the first inter-settlement hierarchicalsystem centred around the south-western Pyrite Belt and LowerGuadalquivir Basin from c. 3000 to c. 2500 BC, and how they wereable to resist the collapse from c. 2500 BC to c. 2300 BC material-ising later (c. 2200 to c. 2000 BC) a different inter-settlement hier-archical system centred in the north-eastern Guadalquivir Basin(Nocete, 1994a,b, 2001) and based on the control of people andland.

The archaeological record of Úbeda indicates that the modularpattern of the Upper Guadalquivir Basin preceded and continuedduring and after the first inter-settlement hierarchical system lo-cated in the south-western Pyrite Belt and Lower Guadalquivir Ba-sin. Similarly, it suggests an environmental-productive stable andautonomous system.

In contrast, the archaeological records from Cabezo Juré, La Jun-ta and Valencina indicate that the inter-settlement hierarchicalsystem centred in the south-western Pyrite Belt and Low Guadal-quivir Basin started c. 3000 BC and collapsed from c. 2500 to c.2300. Similarly, it suggests an environmental-productive unstableand dependent system as a consequence of: (1) the copper-work-ing specialisation, (2) the regional inequality and dependence onthe mining district (south-western Pyrite Belt) and the primateand peripheral centre (Valencina) with respect to the surplus from

Fig. 14. Settlement pattern in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin c. 3500

Fig. 15. Settlement pattern in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin c. 3000 B


the agrarian settlements of the Guadalquivir Basin, (3) the emer-gence of new social relationships by a division of labour into (arti-san, peasant, non-producer, etc.) and between (mining, gateway,agrarian, etc.) settlements and (4) the (unsustainable?) high levelof environmental (deforestation, heavy metal pollution) impact.

However, the long-term sequence of Úbeda, in addition to theevolution of the spatial pattern in Central and Upper GuadalquivirBasin (Nocete, 1989, 1994a,b) and the archaeological record fromthe Albalate-Berral and Alcores settlements (Nocete, 2001) suggestan additional explanation regarding the resistance of the modularpattern and its continuity after the collapse of the inter-settlementhierarchical system in the south-western Pyrite Belt and LowerGuadalquivir Basin: the modular pattern was a more efficientpolitical system in the reproduction of the early class society(Myrhe, 1977; Bintliff, 1982; Nocete, 2000).

Úbeda suggests an initial link between the start of the modularpattern (Figs. 14 and 15) and the emergence of social inequality.With an initial low level of technological development, a local sup-ply of resources and production on a domestic scale, surplus canonly be increased by a concentration of the population (tested inthe spatial pattern evolution: Figs. 14 and 15), an expansion ofthe resource catchment area (tested in the pollen diagram and sup-ply sources: Fig. 7; Table 4) and, simultaneously, by an increase inworking hours and in the intensity of the work (tested in the

BC (adapted from Lizcano (1999), Nocete (1989, 1994a,b, 2001).

C (adapted from Lizcano (1999), Nocete (1989, 1994a,b, 2001)).



Fig. 16. Evolution in the agrarian technology: the flint sickles ((A) c. 3000 BC; (B) c.2200 BC; (C) c. 2000 BC). Direct Calendar Age Cal BC.


ARTICLE IN PRESS

anthropological study). However, the modular pattern does notonly imply (therefore) more adaptive advantages, but rather thepresence of a political management, together with an aggregatedpopulation, which serve to create more complex and unequal so-cial relations, especially when this concentration involves the un-equal integration of a previously autonomous local populationand where the surplus generated by said intensification is not allo-cated to the improvement of the reproductive capacity of the soci-ety as a whole. This can be seen in the progressive increase in theregional and supra-regional supply and technological productionof the symbols of power and political prominence (weapons, lux-ury products, iconographic representations, etc.) in comparisonwith the continuity in the supply and technological production ofagrarian artefacts (Table 4 and Fig. 16).

This last approach suggests that the organisation and control ofthe labour force by an increase and/or concentration in the popu-lation is established as the predominant means for increasing sur-plus. The human labour was increased to support theappropriation of surplus. In addition to wealth, physical and ideo-logical coercion guarantee the unequal accumulation of the surplus

Fig. 17. Settlement pattern in the Upper Guadalquivir Basin c. 2200 B


generated. In this way only could wealth be produced and recon-verted into goods for reproducing and increasing social inequality.Nevertheless, it suggests an additional link between the limitationsof this agrarian society (with the population centred around agrar-ian production) to organise an internal craft specialisation, the pro-gressive need for products associated with the reproduction ofsocial inequality (such as copper artefacts), the regional circulationof products, and the peripheral emergence of settlements specia-lised in their production and distribution.

The non-collapse of this system from c. 2500 to c. 2300 BC andan increase in the unequal presence of cereal storage, grindingstones, foreign products not linked with the needs of the agrariansector (ivory, marble, silver, etc.) and means of coercion (weapons)in some residences in Úbeda after c. 2200 BC suggest the emer-gence of a class society based on the private and unequal propertyof the land and herds, and the appearance of a dependant peas-antry deprived of agrarian property and the means of defence.

This internal record of Úbeda, in addition to the range of thenew inter-settlement hierarchical framework that emerged in theUpper Guadalquivir Basin from c. 2200 to c. 2000 BC (Fig. 17), sug-gests the consolidation of an organisation and control of the labourforce by coercion as the predominant means to increase surplusand reproduce inequality, confirms this alternative way in thepolitical process and explains their resistance and continuity afterthe collapse of the south-western Pyrite Belt and Lower Guadalqui-vir Basin inter-settlement hierarchical system through its politicalefficiency in the reproduction of an earliest-class society.

Hence, the new inter-settlement hierarchical system centred inthe Upper Guadalquivir Basin from c. 2200 to c. 2000 BC is notfound within a unique primate and peripheral centre oriented to-wards the control of an exchange network, as occurs in the LowerGuadalquivir Basin from c. 3000 to c. 2500 BC. The new primate-re-gional centres were located in a central position within the settle-ment pattern. This fact, in addition to the unequal distribution ofthe means of (defence and destruction) coercion (e.g. fortification,weapons, etc.) and the emergence of sites specialised in coercion(e.g. towers) suggests, once more, that the basis for creating sur-plus is not found only in the control of exchange or in the distribu-tion of raw material and products. In the Upper Guadalquivir Basin,from c. 2200 BC to 2000 BC (Nocete, 1994b), and from c. 3500 BC to2200 BC, the main objective of the surplus was to control the landas well as the people within the territory.

Lastly, the relationships between the copper industry and theemergence and collapse of the first south-western European in-ter-settlement hierarchical system, in addition to other similarprocesses of the first specialised mining and smelting industries

C (adapted from Lizcano (1999), Nocete (1989, 1994a,b, 2001)).




ARTICLE IN PRESS

(Abbott and Wolfe, 2003), provide a powerful vehicle for reflecting(Hornborg and Crumley, 2007) on the limits and (social–political–environmental) sustainability of ancient and modern PoliticalSystems, such as pollution, territorial division of labour, unequalcirculation of raw material-products and political and economicdependence.

Acknowledgments

This publication has been carried out within the objectives andthe financial framework of an archaeological project (PIGMALIOMPB 98-0958, BHA2002-0437-C02-02) and a collaboration agree-ment between the University of Huelva and the City Council ofÚbeda. We thank the team responsible for developing the registra-tion and analysis of the archaeological remains of Úbeda: C. Pérez:Department of Archaeology, World Heritage Service, Úbeda; Drs. R.Sáez, J.M. Nieto, M.R. Bayona, N. Inacio, M., D. Abril and J.C. Pérez-Quintero: University of Huelva; Drs. J.S. Carrion and N. Fuentes:University of Murcia; Drs. J.A. Riquelme and S. Jiménez: Universityof Granada; Drs. J.I. Gil-Ibarguchi and J.F. Santos: Iniversity of Vas-que Country and Dr. R. Buxó: National Museum of Catalonia. Wegratefully thank R. Nelson and R.W. Chapman for the commentsand text-revision.

References

Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., 2003. Intensive pre-incan metallurgy recorded by lakesediments from the Bolivian Andes. Science 301, 1893–1895.

Adams, R.E., Jones, R.C., 1981. Spatial patterns and regional growth among ClassicMaya cities. American Antiquity 46, 301–322.

Almagro, M., 1962. El ajuar del Dolmen de la Pastora de Valencina del Aljarafe(Sevilla). Sus paralelos y cronología. Trabajos de Prehistoria V, 5–35.

Amin, S., 1974. Sobre el desarrollo desigual de las formaciones sociales. Anagrama,Barcelona.

Arribas, A., Molina, F., Carrión, F., Contreras, F., Martínez, G., Ramos, A., Sáez, L., De laTorre, F., Blanco, I., Martínez, J., 1987. Informe preliminar de los resultadosobtenidos durante la VI campaña de excavaciones en el poblado de Los Millares(Santa Fe de Mondujar, Almería, 1985) Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1985II, 245–265.

Arteaga, O., 1987. Excavaciones arqueológicas sistemáticas en el Cerro de losAlcores (Porcuna, Jaén). Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1985 II, 279–288.

Bate, L.F., Nocete, F., 1993. Marxismo y Arqueología. Un fantasma recorre laarqueología, no sólo en Europa. Arqrítica 6, 7–12.

Berdichewsky, B., 1964. Los enterramientos en cuevas artificiales del Bronce IHispánico. Bibl. Praeh. Hisp., IV, Madrid.

Bintliff, J., 1982. Settle pattern, lands tenure and social structure: a diachronicalmodel. In: Renfrew, C., Shennan, S. (Eds.), Ranking, Resource and Exchange.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 106–113.

Bonsor, G., 1899. Les colonies agricoles pré-romaines de la Vallée du Bétis, Paris.Brumfield, E.M., Earle, T., 1987. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Bruneau, M., 1982. Mode of production and spatial organization in Thailand:

process and trends. Antipode 14, 1–25.Buxó, R., 2009. Análisis carpológico. In: Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las

Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor y uso social del patrimonio arqueológico deÚbeda (Jaén). Huelva University Press, Huelva, pp. 157–166.

Cabrero, R., 1997. El poblado metalúrgico del Amarguillo II en Los Molares (Sevilla)y su entorno inmediato en la Campiña. Ultimas analíticas realizadas. AnuarioArqueológico de Andalucía 1993 II, 131–141.

Cámara, J.A., Molina, F., 2006. Selection of data, determinism and scientificrelevance in interpretation of a social development in the Late Prehistory ofthe Iberian Southeast. In: Díaz, P., García, L. (Eds.), Social Inequality in IberianLate Prehistory. British Archaeological Report 1525, Oxford, pp. 21–35.

Carriazo, J.M., 1962. El Dolmen de Ontiveros. Homenaje al Profesor Cayetano deMergelina. University Murcia Press, Murcia, pp. 209–230.

Castro, P.V., Chapman, R.W., Gili, S., Lull, V., Micó, R., Rihuete, C., 1999. ProyectoGatas 2. La dinámica arqueoeológica de la ocupación prehistórica, Junta deAndalucía, Sevilla.

Cerdán, C., Leisner, G., Leisner, V., 1952. Los sepulcros megalíticos de Huelva.Excavaciones Arqueológicas del Plan Nacional de 1942. Informes y memorias26, Madrid.

Chapman, R.W., 1978. The evidence for prehistoric water control in south-eastSpain. Journal of Arid Environments 1, 261–274.

Chapman, R.W., 1981. Archaeological theory and communal burial in prehistoricEurope. In: Hodder, I., Isaac, G., Hammond, N. (Eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studiesin Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 387–411.


Chapman, R.W., 1982. Autonomy, ranking and resources in Iberian Prehistory. In:Renfrew, C., Shennan, S. (Eds.), Ranking, Resource and Exchange. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 46–51.

Chapman, R.W., 1990. Emerging Complexity. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Chapman, R.W., 1995. Urbanism in copper age and bronze age Iberia? Proceeding ofthe British Academy 86, 29–46.

Chapman, R.W., 2003. Archeologies of Complexity. Routledge, London.Chapman, R.W., 2008. Producing inequalities: regional sequences in later

prehistoric Southern Spain. Journal World Prehistory 21, 195–260.Chapman, R.W., Lull, V., Picazo, M., Sanahuja, M.E., 1987. Proyecto Gatas: sociedad y

economía en el sudeste de España c. 2500-800 a.n.e. La prospecciónarqueológica. British Archaeological Reports Series 348, Oxford.

Chase-Dunn, C., Hall, T., 1991. Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds.Westview Press, Boulder.

Chase-Dunn, C., Hall, T., 1995. Cross-World system comparison. Similarities anddifferences. In: Sanderson, S. (Ed.), Civilisation and World Systems.Studying. World-Historical Change. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, pp.109–135.

Cherry, J.F., 1987. Power in space: archaeological and geographical studies on theState. In: Wagstaff, J.M. (Ed.), Landscape & Culture. Archaeological Perspectives.Basil Blackwell, pp. 146–172.

Clark, J.E., 1995. Craft specialization as an archaeological category. Research inEconomic Anthropology 16, 267–294.

Clark, J.E., Perry, W.J., 1990. Craft specialization and cultural complexity. Research inEconomic Anthropology 12, 289–346.

Collantes, F., 1969. El dolmen de Matarrubilla. Tartessos y sus problemas. VSimposium sobre Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez 1968), vol. 13. University ofBarcelona Press, Barcelona, pp. 47–61.

Conlins, E., 2004. El poblado calcolítico de Carmona. Simposio de Prehistoria Cuevade Nerja III Las Primeras sociedades metalúrgicas en Andalucía, Málaga., pp.370–378.

Contreras, F., Nocete, F., Sánchez, M., 1986. Análisis histórico de las comunidades dela Edad del Bronce en la Depresión Linares – Bailén y el frente meridional deSierra Morena. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1985 II, 141–159.

Contreras, F., Nocete, F., Sánchez, M., 1987. Primera campaña de excavación en elyacimiento de la Edad del Bronce de Peñalosa (Baños de la Encina, Jaén).Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1986 II, 342–352.

Costin, C.L., 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, andexplaining the organization of production. In: Schiffer, M. (Ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3. The University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 1–56.

Costin, C.L., 2004. Craft economies in ancient Andean states. In: Feinman, G.M.,Nicholas, L.M. (Eds.), Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies. TheUniversity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 189–221.

Dupré, G., Rey, P., 1973. Reflections on the pertinence of a theory of exchange.Economy and Society 2.

Fernández, F., Ruiz, D., 1978. El tholos del Cerro de la Cabeza, en Valencina de laConcepción (Sevilla). Trabajos de Prehistoria 35, 193–224.

Fuentes, N., Carrión, J.S., Fernández, S., Nocete, F., Lizcano, R., Pérez, C., 2007. Análisispolínico de los yacimientos arqueológicos Cerro del Alcázar de Baeza y Las Erasdel Alcázar de Úbeda (Jaén). Anales de Biología 29, 85–93.

Gailey, C.H., Patterson, T., 1988. State formation and uneven development. In:Gledhill, J., Bender, B., Larson, M.T. (Eds.), State and Society, London, pp. 71–90.

Gilman, A., 1976. Bronze Age dynamics in south-east Spain. DialecticalAnthropology 1, 307–319.

Gilman, A., 1981. The development of social stratification in Bronze Age Europe.Current Anthropology 22, 1–23.

Gilman, A., 1987. Regadío y conflicto en sociedades acéfalas. Boletín del Seminariode Estudios de Arte y Arqueología liii 59, 72.

Gilman, A., 1991. Trajectories towards social complexity in later prehistory of theMediterranean. In: Earle, T. (Ed.), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 146–168.

González, F.J., Polvillo, O., Boski, T., Moura, D., Andrés, J.R., 2003. Biomarkerspatterns in a time–resolved holocene/terminal Pleistocene sedimentarysequence from the Guadiana river estuarine area (SW Portugal/Spain border).Organic Geochemistry 34, 1601–1613.

Harrison, R., 1993. La intensificación económica y la integración del modo pastorildurante la Edad del Bronce. I congreso de Arqueología Peninsular, Oporto, pp.235–299.

Harrison, R.J., Gilman, A., 1977. Trade in the second and third millennia BC betweenthe Maghreb and Iberia. In: Markotic, V. (Ed.), Ancient Europe and theMediterranean: Studies in Honour of Hugh Hencken. Aris and Phillips,Warminster, pp. 90–104.

Higham, F.W., Kijngam, A., Manly, B.F., 1982. Site location and site hierarchy inprehistoric Thailand. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 48, 1–27.

Hodges, R., 1982. The evolution of gateway communities: their socioeconomicimplication. In: Renfrew, C., Shennan, S. (Eds.), Ranking, Resource and Exchange.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 117–123.

Hornborg, A., Crumley, C., 2007. The World System and the Earth System. Left CoastPress, Walnut Creek.

Jiménez, S., García, M., Al Oumaoui, I., 2009. Análisis paleoantropológico. In:Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor yuso social del patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva UniversityPress, Huelva, pp. 410–465.




ARTICLE IN PRESS

Kristiansen, K., 1991. Chiefdoms, states and system of social evolution. In: Earle, T.(Ed.), Chiefdoms, Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 16–43.

Lara, D., Barragán, D., Garrido, M., 2005. El asentamiento calcolítico del Parque deMiraflores (Sevilla): Resultados preliminares. Spal 13, 245–255.

Leblanc, M., Morales, J.A., Borrego, J., Elbaz-Poulichet, F., 2000. 4500 year-oldpollution in southwestern Spain: long-term implications for modern miningpollution. Economic Geology 95, 655–662.

Leisner, G., Leisner, V., 1943. Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halbinsel. Ester Teil:Der Süden. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, vol. 17, Berlin.

Leisner, G., Leisner, V., 1956. Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halbinsel. DerWestern. Madrider Forschungen 1. Berlin.

Lizcano, R., 1999. El Polideportivo de Martos (Jaén): un yacimiento neolítico del IVMilenio A.C. Cajasur, Córdoba.

Lizcano, R., Gómez, E., 2009. Áreas de excavación, metodología de registro yresultados. In: Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto depuesta en valor y uso social del patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén).Huelva University Press, Huelva, pp. 26–96.

Lizcano, R., Cámara, J.A., Riquelme, J.A., Cañabate, M.L., Sánchez, A.S., Afonso, J.A.,1997. El Polideportivo de Martos. Producción económica y símbolos decohesión en un asentamiento del Neolítico Final en las Campiñas del AltoGuadalquivir. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 16–17,5–101.

Lizcano, R., Cámara, J.A., Contreras, F., Pérez, C., Burgos, A., 2004. Continuidad ycambio en las comunidades calcolíticas del Alto Guadalquivir. III. SimposioCueva de Nerja, Málaga, pp. 159–175.

Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A., 2009. Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor y usosocial del patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva University Press,Huelva.

Lull, V., 1983. La ‘cultura’ de El Argar. Un modelo para el estudio de las formacioneseconómico-sociales prehistóricas. Akal, Madrid.

Lull, V., Risch, R., 1995. El estado argárico. Verdolay 7, 97–109.Mathers, C., 1984. Beyond the grave: the context and wider implication of mortuary

practices in south-east Spain. In: Blagf, T. Jones, R., Keay S. (Eds.) Pappers inIberian Archaeology. BAR International Series 193, Oxford, pp. 13–46.

Mathien, F.J., McGuire, R., 1986. Ripples in the Chichimec Sea. New Consideration ofSouthwestern–Mesoamerican Interaction. Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

McGuire, R., 1989. The greater southwest as a periphery of Mesoamerica. In:Champion, T. (Ed.), Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology.Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 40–66.

Meillassoux, C., 1977. Mujeres, Graneros y Capitales. Siglo XXI, México.Modelsky, G., Thompson, W.R., 1995. Leading Sectors and World Power: The

Coevolution of Global Politics Economies. University of South Carolina Press.Molina, F., y Cámara, J.A., 2005. Guía del yacimiento arqueológico de los Millares.

Consejería de Cultura, Sevilla.Molina F., Cámara, J.A., Capel, J., Nájera, T., Sáez, L., 2004. Los Millares y la

periodización de la Prehistoria Reciente del Sureste. Simposio de PrehistoriaCueva de Nerja III Las Primeras sociedades metalúrgicas en Andalucía, Málaga,pp. 142–148.

Myrhe, B., 1977. Agrarian development, settlement history and social organizationin southwest Norway in the Iron Age. In: Kristiansen, K., Paludan-Muller, C.(Eds.), New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. National Museum,Copenhagen, pp. 224–269.

Nieto, J.M., 2009. Los recursos abióticos y el entorno geológico. In: Lizcano, R.,Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor y uso socialdel patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva University Press, Huelva,pp. 208–214.

Nocete, F., 1984a. Jefaturas y territorio: una visión crítica. Cuadernos de Prehistoriade la Universidad de Granada 9, 289–304.

Nocete, F., 1984b. Elementos para un estudio del patrón de asentamiento en laCampiña occidental del Alto Guadalquivir durante la Edad del Cobre.Arqueología Espacial 4, 91–102.

Nocete, F., 1986. Una historia agraria. El proceso de consolidación de las bases de laeconomía de producción. In: Ruiz, A., Molinos, M., Hornos, F. (Eds.), Arqueologíaen Jaén, Jaén, pp. 91–101.

Nocete, F., 1988. Estómagos bípedos/estómagos políticos. Arqueología Espacial 12,119–139.

Nocete, F., 1989. El Espacio de la Coerción. La transición al estado en las campiñasdel Alto Guadalquivir (España), 3000-1500 AC. British Archaeological Report,International Series 492, Oxford.

Nocete, F., 1994a. La formación del Estado en las Campiñas del Alto Guadalquivir(3000-1500 ane). Monografías de Arte y Arqueología. Granada University Press,Granada.

Nocete, F., 1994b. Space as coercion: the transition to the state in the socialformations of la Campiña, Upper Guadalquivir Valley, Spain. ca.1900-1600 B.C..Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13, 171–200.

Nocete, F., 2000. Las relaciones y contradicciones Centro/Periferia de la sociedadclasista inicial. Hacia la definición de una unidad arqueológica para laevaluación empírica de los estados prístinos.. Boletín de AntropologíaAmericana 34, 39–52.

Nocete, F., 2001. Tercer Milenio A.N.E. Relaciones y contradicciones Centro/Periferiaen el Valle del Guadalquivir. Bellaterra-Arqueología, Barcelona.

Nocete, F., 2004. Odiel. Proyecto de investigación arqueológica para el análisis delorigen de la desigualdad social en el Suroeste de la Península Ibérica.Monografías de Arqueología 19. Consejería de Cultura de la Junta deAndalucía, Sevilla.


Nocete, F., 2005. Andévalo, patrimonio arqueológico: el yacimiento de La Junta delos Ríos. Modelo de recuperación, análisis e interpretación del registroarqueológico en la Presa del Andévalo. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid.

Nocete, F., 2006. The first specialised copper industry in the Iberian Peninsula:Cabezo Juré (2900-2200 BC). Antiquity 80, 646–654.

Nocete, F., 2008. El yacimiento de La Junta de los Ríos. Monografías de Arqueología29. Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla.

Nocete, F., 2009. Indicadores de la gestión de restos bióticos instrumentales. In:Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor yuso social del patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva UniversityPress, Huelva, pp. 195–207.

Nocete, F., Orihuela, A., Peña, M. 1993. Odiel 3000-1000. Un modelo de análisishistórico para la contrastación del proceso de jerarquización social. AnuarioArqueológico de Andalucía 1991 II, 259–266.

Nocete, F., Orihuela, A., Peramo, A., 1997. Cabezo Juré. 2500 AC. DiputaciónProvincial de Huelva, Huelva.

Nocete, F., Lizcano, R., Orihuela, A., Linares, J.A., Otero, R., Escalera, P., Parrales, F.,Romero, J.C., 1999. I campaña de excavación arqueológica en el Cerro Juré(Alosno, Huelva), 1994. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1994 II, 86–92.

Nocete, F., Lizcano, R., Linares, J.A., Escalera, P., Orihuela, A., Pérez, J.M., Rodríguez,M., Garrido, N., Aquino, N., Alcázar, J.M., Alex, E., 2000. Segunda campaña deexcavación arqueológica sistemática en el yacimiento de Cabezo Juré (Alosno,Huelva). Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1997 II, 09-114.

Nocete, F., Sáez, R., Nieto, J.M., Cruz-Auñon, R., Cabrero, R., Alex, E., Bayona, M.R.,2005a. Circulation of silicified oolitic limestone blades in South-Iberia (Spainand Portugal) during the third millennium B.C.: an expression of a core/periphery framework. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 62–81.

Nocete, F., Alex, E., Nieto, J.M., Sáez, R., Bayona, M.R., 2005b. An Archaeologicalapproach to regional environmental pollution in the south-western IberianPeninsula related to Third millennium BC mining and metallurgy. Journal ofArchaeological Science 32, 1566–1576.

Nocete, F., Alex, E., Nieto, J.M., Sáez, R., Inacio, N., Bayona, M., 2006. Intensidad eintensificación en la primera minería del cobre especializada de la PenínsulaIbérica (III milenio a.n.e.): la identificación arqueológica de un proceso regionalde deforestación y polución. Rampas 7, 33–49.

Nocete, F., Queipo, G., Sáez, R., Nieto, J.M., Inacio, N., Bayona, M.R., Peramo, A.,Vargas, J.M., Cruz-Auñón, R., 2008. The smelting quarter of Valencina de laConcepción (Seville, Spain): the specialised copper industry in a political centreof the Guadalquivir Valley during the Third millennium BC (2750–2500 BC).Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 717–732.

Nocete, F., Sáez, R., Gil-Ibarguchi, I., Santos, F.J., 2009a. Los minerales de cobre parala fabricación de productos metálicos. In: Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A.(Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor y uso social del patrimonioarqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva University Press, Huelva, pp. 274–283.

Nocete, F., Sáez, R., Nieto, J.M., 2009b. Los soportes y productos de piedra tallada. In:Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor yuso social del patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva UniversityPress, Huelva, pp. 267–273.

Patterson, T.C., 2005. Craft specialization, the reorganization of production relationsand state formation. Journal of Social Archaeology 5, 307–337.

Paynter, R., 1985. Models of Spatial Inequality: Settlement Patterns in HistoricalArchaeology. New York Academic Press, New York.

Pérez, J.C., 2009. Análisis arqueozoológico de bivalvos. In: Lizcano, R., Nocete, F.,Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor y uso social delpatrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva University Press, Huelva, pp.202–214.

Pérez, C., Cámara, J.A., 1999. Intervención arqueológica en MB (Jaén) Sectorurbanístico RP4 parcela G3. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1995 III, 256–270.

Pérez, C., Sánchez, R., 1999. Intervención arqueológica en Marroquíes Bajos (Jaén).Parcela E 2–4 (Sector UA 23). Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1995 III, 271–288.

Plog, S., 1990. Agriculture, sedentism and environment in the evolution of politicalsystem. In: Upham, S. (Ed.), The Evolution of Political Systems. Sociopolitics inSmall-scale Sedentary Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.177–199.

Ramos, A., 1981. Interpretaciones secuenciales y culturales de la Edad del Cobre enla zona meridional de la península Ibérica: la alternativa del materialismocultural. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Diversidad de Granada 6, 242–256.

Ramos, A., 1998. La minera, la artesanía y el intercambio de silex durante la Edad delCobre en el Sudeste de la Península Ibérica. In: Delibes, G. (Ed.), Minerales ymetales en la prehistoria reciente. Algunos testimonios de su explotación y laboreoen la Península Ibérica). Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, pp. 13–40.

Ratnagar, S., 2001. The Bronze Age. Unique instance of a preindustrial worldsystem? Current Anthropology 42 (3), 351–379.

Renfrew, C., 1975. Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration andcommunication. In: Sablof, J.A., Lamberg-Karlowsky, C.C. (Eds.), AncientCivilizarion and Trade. School of American Research Press, Alburquerque, pp.3–59.

Renfrew, C., 1985. Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh.

Rey, P.P., 1975. The linage mode of production. Critique of Anthropology 3, 27–79.Riqueme, J.A., 2009. Análisis arqueozoológico de mamíferos. In: Lizcano, R., Nocete,

F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor y uso social delpatrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva University Press, Huelva, pp.167–201.




ARTICLE IN PRESS

Sáez, R., 2009. Los materiales de construcción y productos de piedra pulida. In:Lizcano, R., Nocete, F., Peramo, A. (Eds.), Las Eras. Proyecto de puesta en valor yuso social del patrimonio arqueológico de Úbeda (Jaén). Huelva UniversityPress, Huelva, pp. 215–265.

Sáez, R., Almodovar, G., Pascual, E., 1996. Geological constraints on massivesulphide genesis in the Iberian Pyrite Belt. Ore Geological Review 11, 429–451.

Sáez, R., Nocete, F., Nieto, J.M., Capitán, M.A., Rovira, S., 2003. The extractivemetallurgy of copper from Cabezo Juré, Huelva, Spain: chemical andmineralogical study of slags dated to the third millennium BC. The CanadianMineralogist 41, 627–638.

Sanderson, S., Hall, T.D., 1995. Introduction. In: Sanderson, S. (Ed.), Civilisation andWorld Systems. Studying World-Historical Change. Altamira Press, WalnutCreek, pp. 229–238.


Schortman, E.M., Urban, P.A., 2004. Modelling the roles of craft production inancient political economies. Journal of Archaeological Research 12, 185–226.

Stanley, R., Alexander, R., 1992. The political economy of core-periphery systems.In: Schortram, E., Urban, P. (Eds.), Resources, Power and InterregionalInteraction. Plenum, New York, pp. 17–21.

Stein, G.J., 1999. Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies and Interaction inUruk Mesopotamia. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Tosi, M., 1984. The notion of craft specialization and its representation in thearchaeological record of early states in the Turanian Basin. In: Sprigs, M. (Ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 22–52.



emergence, collapse and continuity of the first political system in the guadalquivir basin: Úbeda

Documents

domestic production

means of production

culture history

surplus production

archaeological project

terms of culture

south spain hasbrought

social inequality