Assessing the cultural and social value of Neolithic stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Assessing the cultural and social value of Neolithic stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula

T

Francisco Martínez-Sevilla Department Department Department Department

of of of of

Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Granada, Spain Archaeology, Durham University, UK Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Granada, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Campus Cartuja s/n., 18071 Granada, Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Personal ornament Stone bracelets Chronology Early Neolithic Regional groups Impressed/cardial-ware culture Iberian Peninsula

The emergence of farming societies in the western Mediterranean (c. 6000–5500 cal. BC) coincides with an increase in the presence of ornamental objects. Among these, stone bracelets stand out as markers of significant technological complexity, associated with large distribution networks. This paper presents an analysis of manufacturing waste and finished objects (1679 pieces) from 128 archaeological sites in the Iberian Peninsula. The raw materials, typological distribution, and biography of these bracelets is used to reconstruct cultural identities and to explore their social value within different regional groups. This is supported by chronological contextualization, based on stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates. It is argued that the stone bracelets represent a chronological indicator of the Early Neolithic and evidence of exchange between different social groups in the Iberian Peninsula.

1. Introduction Personal ornaments often represent visual tokens or badges that define an individuals membership of a social group (Seeger, 1975; Roach-Higgins and Eicher, 1992; Turner, 1995; Miller, 2009). As such, ornaments play an essential role within the ethnic or cultural identification of human societies, and are a means of acculturation (Bourdieu, 1977). It is for this reason that personal ornaments have attracted the attention of researchers studying different prehistoric periods. The emergence of farming societies in the western Mediterranean (c. 6000–5500 cal. BC) coincides with an increase in the presence of ornamental objects. The cultural complexity of personal ornaments also increased in terms of quantity, technology, raw materials, and aesthetics during the Neolithic. Thus, they become an element of vital importance for the study of socioeconomic relationships within and between the first farming communities (e.g., Wright and Garrard, 2003; Micheli, 2012; Fromont, 2013). Body ornaments from Neolithic populations in the Iberian Peninsula predominantly comprise pendants, drilled teeth, necklace beads, rings, and bracelets made of different rock types and seashells. These ornaments are considered to be temporal markers, indicators of exchange, and elements of socioeconomic differentiation in the Iberian Peninsula (Rubio De Miguel, 1993, Noain Maura, 1996; Pascual Benito, 1998; Gavilán Ceballos and Rafael Penco, 1999; Harrison and Orozco Köhler, 2001; Orozco-Köhler, 2016).

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101080 Received 12 December 2018; Received in revised form 20 July 2019 0278-4165/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Stone bracelets are one of the most important cultural elements associated with the first Neolithic societies in much of the western Mediterranean. The technological complexity of bracelet production highlights the beginnings of craft specialization, and the social organization that underlies it, across different regions of the Mediterranean (Wright and Garrard, 2003; Wright et al., 2008; Astruc et al., 2011; Baysal et al., 2015). The use of bracelets is associated with Early Neolithic cultures, and continues into the Middle Neolithic. These bracelets are distributed throughout Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain. Their abundance, manufacturing complexity, and raw materials have become a reference point for studying the socioeconomic relationships of the first farming societies. Previous studies of bracelets in western Europe have considered aspects such as typology, raw materials, functionality, and circulation to demonstrate their use by Neolithic populations as cultural markers throughout France (Pailler, 2007; Fromont, 2013; Pétrequin et al., 2017) and northern Italy (Micheli, 2012). This paper presents an archaeological analysis of stone bracelets in the Early Neolithic societies of the Iberian Peninsula, to address the following aims: (1) To determine the chronological framework of their production and use, based on stratigraphic context and associated radiocarbon dates; and (2) To reconstruct cultural identities and social values based on their geographical distribution, use, repair, and reuse.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 1. General area of study with the geographic regions as defined in the text: (1) southern Iberia; (2) Iberian Levant; (3) northern Iberia; (4) central Iberia; (5) southwestern Iberia. Location of the main archaeological sites mentioned in the text and in the supplementary data table of dates (Table 2): (1) Cortijo Cevico (LojaGranada); (2) Los Castillejos (Montefrío-Granada); (3) Cueva de Los Mármoles (Priego de Córdoba-Córdoba); (4) Cueva de los Murciélagos (Zuheros-Córdoba); (5) Cueva del Toro (Antequera-Málaga); (6) Cueva de la Mujer (Alhama-Granada); (7) Cueva de Nerja (Maro- Málaga); (8) Cabecicos Negros (Vera-Almería); (9) Cerro Virtud (Cuevas de Almanzora-Almería); (10) Cueva del Agua (Prado Negro-Granada); (11) Cueva del Calamorro (Benalmádena-Málaga); (12) Cueva de la Pulsera (Antequera-Málaga); (13) Hoyo de la Mina (La Araña-Málaga); (14) Cueva de la Solapilla (Mollina-Málaga); (15) Cueva de los Botijos (Benalmádena-Málaga); (16) Cueva de La Serreta (Cieza-Murcia); (17) Abrigos del Pozo (Calasparra-Murcia); (18) Cova de Les Cendres (Teulada- Alicante); (19) Cova de l’Or (Beniarrés-Alicante); (20) Benamer (Muro-Alicante); (21) Cova de la Sarsa (Bocairent-Valencia); (22) Cova Ampla del Montgó (Xábia-Alicante); (23) Cova Fosca (Ares del MaestreCastellón); (24) La Draga (Banyoles-Girona); (25) La Revilla del Campo (Ambrona-Soria); (26) Cueva de La Vaquera (Torreiglesias-Madrid); (27) Valada do Mato (Évora-Portugal); (28) Castillo de Doña Mencía (Córdoba).

2. Materials and methods

an EF 100 mm f/2.8 USM macro lens. The nature of the raw material was determined through macroscopic observation. The rock variety of the bracelets is highly diverse and complex, therefore they are classified into three broad lithological groups: (1) foliated metamorphic rocks (shales, schists); (2) marbles; and (3) sedimentary rocks without metamorphism (limestones). To ensure chronometric hygiene, only archaeological sites with secure stratigraphic contexts and stone bracelets directly associated with radiocarbon dates were selected (n = 117) (Pettitt et al., 2003). Given the scarcity of stratigraphic contexts for which there are both stone bracelets and absolute radiocarbon dates, all types of datable material were selected. It should be noted that the radiocarbon dates from marine seashells at Cabecicos Negros were calibrated according to the marine reservoir corrections (Cámalich Massieu and Martín Socas, 2013). Furthermore, wood samples from La Draga site were selected only when they showed less than 100 years standard deviation to avoid old wood offsets (Bogdanovic et al., 2015; Bogdanovic and Tarrús, 2018). The oldest dates for domestic elements in the Iberian Peninsula are around c. 5500 cal. BC (Oms et al., 2014; Bernabeu Auban et al., 2018; Martín-Socas et al., 2018). Therefore, older radiocarbon dates, or clear outliers, were excluded from the analysis (n = 3). Apart from these exceptions, all available dates from these stratigraphic contexts were used in this study. Thus, 114 radiocarbon dates from 16 archaeological sites were used to estimate the chronological range of the stone bracelet phenomenon (Supplementary Table 2). The radiocarbon dates

The geographic scope of this study is the Iberian Peninsula (Fig. 1). Five regional zones were defined by the distribution frequency of the bracelets and the number of archaeological sites. Distinctive geographical characteristics reinforce their use as analytical units: (1) Andalusia (southern Iberia), defined by the central Betic Cordillera delimited by the Segura river to the east and the Guadalquivir valley to the west; (2) Levant, formed by the east Mediterranean coast from the Segura river to the Ebro Delta, and occupying the current autonomous communities of Murcia and Valencia; (3) central Iberia, broadly comprising the plateaus to the north and south; (4) northern Iberia, formed by the Ebro valley and the southern foothills of the Pyrenees; and (5) southwestern Iberia, occupying the southwestern Atlantic façade of Portugal. The order of the regions listed above represents decreasing importance in terms of density of sites and bracelets. A total of 1679 pieces (comprising manufacturing waste and finished objects) from 128 archaeological sites were catalogued and analysed (Supplementary Table 1). This analysis derived from the direct study of 988 pieces, and references to 691 pieces from textual sources. All pieces were considered in relation to their geographical distribution. Typology and use-wear were analysed only for those bracelets that were studied directly. Use-wear analysis was conducted using a Leica EZ4 HD binocular microscope with 8X – 50X magnification. Images were captured from the microscope and using a Canon EOS 1200D camera with

2

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 2. Variability of stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula: (1), (2) and (3) Cueva del Agua (Prado Negro-Granada); (4) Cueva del Calamorro (BenalmádenaMálaga); (5) Cueva de la Pulsera (Antequera-Málaga); (6) and (10) Hoyo de la Mina (La Araña-Málaga); (7) Cueva de la Solapilla (Mollina-Málaga); (8) Cova de la Sarsa (Bocairent-Valencia); (9) Cueva de Nerja (Maro-Málaga); (11) Cueva de los Botijos (Benalmádena-Málaga).

manufactured in marble, limestone and slate/schist, whilst medium and wide types are only made from marble or limestone. Notably, there is a clear predominance in the use of marble for wide bracelets, and all wide bracelets with decorations are made of marble. Determining the function of these ringed ornaments in the Iberian Peninsula is complex. Generally, the internal diameter has been used as an indicator; smaller examples are described as rings, and those with a diameter greater than finger-width are interpreted as bracelets (Teruel Berbel, 1986). In all cases the internal diameter can be related to use above the hand by children or adults. The functionality of these ornaments is based on the following three complementary sources. Firstly, the location of these bracelets within graves, and their association with the position of the buried individual. In the Iberian Peninsula there is only one example of this type: a bracelet associated with the forearm of an individual in Murciélagos de Zuheros cave. The aDNA and osteological analysis determined the wearer to be a male, dated to the Early Neolithic (Valdiosera et al., 2018). Secondly, the study of use-wear marks. The analysis conducted on finished bracelets (380 objects) allowed use-wear traces to be identified. These are located on the interior face of the bracelets and are present on 60% of the finished objects. Depending on the hardness of the raw material and the duration of use, these traces range from a light

were calibrated using the internationally agreed atmospheric curve, IntCal13 (Reimer et al., 2013), using OxCal v4.3 to analyse the chronological data (Bronk Ramsey, 2001, 2009). Dates are reported at 2σ (95% confidence) in accordance with Millard (2014).

3. Stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula Neolithic stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula have been traditionally classified as narrow (I) and wide (II); the latter with (IIa) or without (IIb) incised parallel decorations (Teruel Berbel, 1986). This provides a broad classification, but the true morphological, and therefore typological reality, is much more complex and varied (Fig. 2). The shape of the bracelets changes according to the correlation of height and thickness. By combining the studies of typometry, raw materials, cross-sections, and decorations, four types of bracelets were established: (1) narrow (≤10 mm); (2) medium (> 10–20 mm); (3) wide (> 20 mm); and (4) decorated with parallel lines (Fig. 3). When internal diameter is also considered, three further groups can be defined: (1) small (40–60 mm); (2) medium (60–85 mm); and (3) large (85–110 mm) (Martínez-Sevilla, 2018: 226) (Fig. 4). The most commonly used raw material is marble (47.2%), followed by limestone (41.4%), then slate/schist (11.4%). Narrow bracelets are 3

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 3. Typometric and typological classification used for the distribution analyses.

(Fig. 5: A) or even double perforations (Fig. 5: B and H).

lustre on manufacturing marks (Fig. 5: F), to heavy polish that has eliminated them (Fig. 5: G). These patinas and polishes are a product of contact with the skin and acidic body fluids over a sufficiently prolonged period (Vanhaeren et al., 2013). The absence of use-wear traces on a significant number of objects (40%) may be due to short or sporadic use or, perhaps, no use at all. Finally, the metric study of bracelet internal diameter. This can be related to the position of the bracelet on the arm based on dimensions of the human body, age, and gender. Morphometric analysis suggests the bracelets would have been worn above the elbow. Similar examples have been recorded from Neolithic burials in the north of France and Belgium, in the culture of Villeneuve-Germain/Blicquy (Fromont, 2013: 257). The correlation between the internal diameter of the bracelets and anthropometric measurements indicate their use by both infants and adults, the latter of either sex (Martínez-Sevilla, 2018:238). Reuse and repair of these objects was not common and is evident on only 5.2% of the studied bracelets. Wide bracelets were repaired by means of perforations that were later tied together (Fig. 6: 1 and 2), whereas narrow bracelets were repaired by two articulating pieces (Fig. 6: 3). Fragments were reused as pendants, either vertically (Fig. 6: 4) or horizontally (Fig. 6: 5). Use-wear traces on the areas of repair show that these objects were used for prolonged periods of time after they had been repaired, with evidence for use-wear made by the laces

4. The workshops Twenty-six sites were catalogued, with bracelets at varying stages of manufacture. These workshops are located in Andalusia, with the exceptions of La Serreta cave (Martínez-Sevilla and Salmerón Juan, 2014) and Los Abrigos del Pozo (Martínez Sánchez, 1994), which are situated between Andalusia and the Levant. The majority (77%) of the unfinished bracelets were found in open-air settlements, the remaining 23% being recovered from seasonally occupied caves. Evidence for the manufacture of stone bracelets is also found in stable open-air settlements, and occasionally in contexts related to more sporadic activities such as herding, hunting, or collecting a range of resources. In the last ten years we have argued that many of the caves in Andalusia were strongly associated with funerary and worship activities (e.g., Carrasco Rus and Pachón Romero, 2009; Carrasco Rus et al., 2010; Carrasco Rus and Martínez-Sevilla, 2014; Carrasco Rus et al., 2016; Martínez-Sevilla, 2018). This interpretation is based on several lines of evidence: (1) cave morphology: these are often chasms and caves that were difficult to access or to inhabit; (2) the presence of primary burials (e.g., Mengíbar et al., 1981; García Sánchez and Jiménez Brobeil, 1985; Valdiosera et al., 2018), and frequent secondary 4

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 4. Relationship between internal and external diameters of the stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula. Types by internal diameter: (1) small (40–60 mm); (2) medium (60–85 mm); (3) large (85–110 mm).

5. The finished bracelets: geographical, typological and raw material distributions

scatters of disarticulated human remains (e.g., Botella et al., 2000; Carrasco Rus et al., 2014; Carrasco Rus and Martínez-Sevilla, 2014; Santana et al., 2019); (3) the presence of large amounts of ornaments compared to open-air settlements (Martínez-Sevilla, 2018); and, finally, (4) specific paraphernalia associated with funerary rituals that are not present in open-air habitats (Carrasco Rus et al., 2014). The proposed model is flexible, as caves with good characteristics for habitation may also have been occupied seasonally. It is clear from the bracelet workshops studied that this craft was carried out alongside other subsistence and funerary activities (Martínez-Sevilla, 2010; MartínezSevilla and Salmerón Juan, 2014). The predominance of bracelet workshops within Early Neolithic open-air settlements in Andalusia reinforces the hypothesis that most of the caves were used primarily as places of worship and/or burial spaces, and not as permanent settlements (Martínez-Sevilla, 2014). In all the workshops the raw materials used in the manufacturing process are local. There are two sources: primary materials extracted from geological contexts, and secondary geological contexts in the form of river-bed stones. The discovery of the Cortijo Cevico quarry, in which there is no bracelet manufacture, indicates that workshops were not necessarily situated at places of raw material extraction (MartínezSevilla et al., 2018). Bracelets created from distant sources are invariably found to be finished products with evidence of wear. This suggests that bracelet manufacture was predominantly a domestic activity, with communities settled in different regions making bracelets using local raw materials. However, people also used ornaments obtained from other groups, that were made of exotic raw materials and were finished to an exceptional level (Martínez-Sevilla, 2010; MartínezSevilla and Salmerón Juan, 2014). The high concentration of bracelet workshops in Andalusia emphasizes the importance of this type of ornament as a cultural marker of Neolithic groups in this area, and defines the point of origin for exchange networks with other peninsular groups.

The geographic distribution of the finished bracelets indicates the existence of two large regional groups: 85% are found in Andalusia, while 12% are from the Levant. Only 3% of the bracelets belong to other regions (Fig. 7). The types of sites in which the bracelets are found is similar in the two main areas: 69% of the total in Andalusia and 76% of the samples from the Levant are concentrated in only a few cave sites (Fig. 8). In Andalusia, 88% of the objects correspond to 20 caves from across the region; while in the Levant, 50% of the bracelets are located in only 3 caves (Cova de ĺOr, Cova de la Sarsa and Cova Fosca). The predominance of bracelets within cave sites is also apparent in relation to the number of Early Neolithic open-air settlements known and excavated in Andalusia (Carrasco Rus et al., 2011; Carrasco Rus et al., 2016; Martínez Sánchez and Vera Rodríguez, 2017) and the Levant (Jover Maestre et al., 2019). From 113 sites studied in these two areas, open-air sites with bracelets total 58, whereas there are 55 cave sites with bracelets. This sample provides confidence that the percentages are representative of the contexts and geographical distributions of bracelets. Across the Iberian Peninsula, recovery contexts include excavations, surface prospections and stray finds from a range of occupied sites including the open-air sites and caves. The quantity of bracelets recorded is unrelated to whether or not a site has been excavated. For example, in Andalusia, several excavation campaigns at Murciélagos de Zuheros cave yielded 63 bracelets (Vera Rodríguez and Martínez Fernández, 2012) whereas at Cueva del Agua de Prado Negro, 70 bracelets were collected during superficial surveys (Martínez-Sevilla, 2018: 59). Thus, the similarity in the number of pieces cannot be attributed to the method of archaeological recovery. Furthermore, in the Levant, excavated caves such as Cova de les Cendres yielded 4 bracelets (Pascual Benito, 2009), whilst Cova de ĺOr contained 29 pieces (MartínezSevilla, 2018: 100). For the Levant, the number of pieces appears to be related to the type of site, rather than a lack of research. Analysis of typology shows that narrow bracelets are the most 5

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 5. (1) Wide bracelets with double repair (Cova de l’Or, Beniarrés-Alicante): (A) Perforation with wear by tying, (B) Double perforation and wear by tying; (2) Vertical pendant (Cova de l’Or, Beniarrés-Alicante): (C) Perforation with broad wear by tying, (D) Upper part rounded and polished by use; (3) Narrow bracelets with little use (Cueva del Agua, Prado Negro-Granada): (E) Inner zone with little use, presenting traces of manufacturing by abrasion; (4) Narrow bracelets with intermediate use (Cueva de la Pastora, Caniles-Granada): (F) Inner zone with wear by use; (5) Horizontal pendant (Cova de la Sarsa, Bocairent-Valencia): (G) Inner zone with intense wear by use, (H) Double perforation, wear by tying and edge rounded and polished by use.

Andalusia. As with marble, the slate and schist outcrops are mainly located in the Internal Zones of the Betic Mountain Range.

uniformly distributed across the areas defined in this paper (Fig. 9). Medium-sized bracelets present a homogeneous distribution in the two main areas of Andalusia and the Levant, but are more concentrated in the Levant. Wide bracelets are more characteristic of Andalusia and are scarce in the Levant. The geographical distribution of bracelets with incised decoration (in the form of engraved lines) is the most distinctive being almost exclusively attributable to Andalusia, with only five located in the remaining zones (four in the Levant and one in central Iberia). The most frequently represented raw material is marble (Fig. 10), which also displays the largest degree of dispersion with respect to its primary geological sources. In the south of the Iberian Peninsula marble is found in the Internal Zones of the Betic Mountain Range, mainly in the Malaguide, Alpujarride and Nevado-Filabride geological complexes (Vera, 2004:347). It also occurs sporadically alongside materials from the Trias of Antequera, within the External Zones of the Betic Mountain Range (Sanz De Galdeano et al., 2008). In the Andalusian region it is the most commonly used raw material for bracelet manufacture, and the highest concentrations of bracelets occur in areas near to marble-rich geological contexts. Limestone bracelets are mainly associated with the External Zones of the Betic Mountain Range where this stone is predominant, and are therefore more frequent in the Levant than in

6. Contextual and chronological framework of the production and use of stone bracelets One of the most difficult problems when evaluating Iberian stone bracelets is the scarcity of directly associated absolute radiocarbon dates. It is also possible that these objects had a long tradition of use, and appear throughout the archaeological record in more recent sites, probably collected and reused from older contexts. With these caveats in mind, a general chronological framework for their use and manufacture can be suggested. In Andalusia (Fig. 1: A) nine sites contain stratigraphic sequences with associated bracelets. To the southeast, the open-air settlement of Cabecicos Negros in the Vera Basin (Almeria) contains a context exclusively related to the manufacture of ornaments (Cámalich Massieu and Martín Socas, 2013). The open-air settlement of Cerro Virtud also has bracelets related to Phase 1, prior to a collective burial dated to the Late Neolithic that appears after a temporal hiatus (Montero Ruiz and Ruiz Taboada, 1996; Ruiz Taboada and Montero, 1999). Los Castillejos open-air settlement and La Mujer cave are situated in 6

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 6. Types of repair and reuse. (1) and (2) Wide articulated bracelets (Cueva de los Botijos, Benalmádena-Málaga); (3) Narrow articulated bracelets; (4) Vertical pendant with one perforation; (5) Horizontal pendant with two perforations (Cova de la Sarsa, Bocairent-Valencia).

secure stratigraphic levels have been identified: Los Mármoles and Murciélagos de Zuheros. The entire chaîne opératoire for the manufacture of bracelets was recorded in the first cave (Martínez-Sevilla, 2010) and is associated with the Early Neolithic phase (Peña-Chocarro et al., 2013). In Murciélagos de Zuheros cave there are mainly finished bracelets, but some unfinished pieces have also been documented; these also correspond to the Early Neolithic phase (Vera Rodríguez and Martínez Fernández, 2012). The only bracelet associated with a burial in a primary context was found at this site, the burial being dated to 5296–5076 cal. BC 2σ (6226 ± 20 BP, wk-40844) (Valdiosera et al., 2018). Bracelets were also recovered from the site of Castillo de Doña

the central area of the mountain ranges of Granada province. In Los Castillejos 77% of the bracelets are located between Phases 1 and 11b (Martínez-Sevilla, 2018:67), throughout a long stratigraphic sequence belonging to the Early and Middle Neolithic periods (Cámara Serrano et al., 2016), and prior to a phase in which the settlement was temporarily abandoned (Molina González et al., 2017). In La Mujer cave the bracelets, some of which are decorated, are associated with the fills of two burials (Pellicer Catalán, 1964) belonging to Phase 5, the oldest radiocarbon dated phase of the site that spans 5301–4850 cal. BC 2σ (Carrasco Rus and Martínez-Sevilla, 2014). In the Subbetic region of Cordoba, two caves with bracelets from

Fig. 7. Distribution of finished bracelets and production waste in the defined geographical areas. 7

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 8. Frequency of different archaeological sites with stone bracelets in the defined geographical areas.

Fig. 9. Typological frequency in the defined geographical areas.

et al., 2013). In the Levant of the Iberian Peninsula, three sites with bracelets have been radiocarbon dated: Los Abrigos del Pozo, Cova de les Cendres, and Benàmer (Fig. 1: B). Los Abrigos del Pozo is situated in the easternmost part of the region by the Segura river, and stone bracelets have been documented within the Early Neolithic level IV (Martínez Sánchez, 1994). On the Mediterranean coast, Cova de les Cendres has occupation deposits dating from the Early Neolithic to the Bronze Age. This sequence comprises a total of 21 levels, which alternate between occupation material and burnt deposits (Bernabeu Aubán and Molina Balaguer, 2009). Two narrow bracelets made of shale, and two medium-type bracelets made of limestone, were recovered in the Early

Mencía, an open-air settlement in the Guadalquivir Valley, near the Subbetic of Cordoba, which has a short occupation sequence dated to the first third of the 5th millennium cal. BC (Martínez Sánchez and Vera Rodríguez, 2017: 27). In the interior of the province of Malaga is El Toro cave, which contains a sequence of four phases corresponding to the Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age. The stone bracelets here belong to Early Neolithic Phase IV, the oldest phase of the site (Martín Socas et al., 2004). Nerja cave, near the coast of Málaga, has a dated sequence that begins during the Early Neolithic and continues until the Early Copper Age. Stone bracelets are one of the most common ornaments associated with the Early Neolithic phase here (Aura Tortosa 8

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 10. Frequency of bracelet raw materials in the main geographical areas.

from marble (Bosch Lloret et al., 2000). In the southwestern region (Fig. 1: E) there is also only one site: the open-air settlement of Valada do Mato (Évora-Alentejo). Excavations uncovered structures dated by a single charcoal sample to the end of the 5th millennium cal. BC. This context, with cardial pottery and one bracelet, has been assigned to the Early Neolithic phase of this area (Diniz, 2001). In summary, the 114 radiocarbon dates belong to 16 sites. It is acknowledged that the numbers of samples from the sites are unequal, which can lead to some bias in the probability distribution. Despite this, these dates can be used to define approximate boundaries for the chronology of these ornaments throughout the different regions (Fig. 11). In Andalusia, 76 absolute radiocarbon dates are distributed between c. 5500 cal. BC and c. 4800 cal. BC., with a greater representation from c. 5300 cal. BC onward. In the Levant there is a wider chronological range, from c. 5500 to 4400 cal. BC. The only outlier belongs to pit EU 2006 from the site of Benàmer, which has the most recent date of the samples (4612–4346 cal. BC 2σ; 5670 ± 60 BP, CNA681). Considering the presence of previous fractures on the bracelets, and decorated pottery fragments from this stratigraphic unit, it can be suggested that these materials are redeposited debris related to the oldest phase documented in Sector 1 (Phase II) (Torregrosa Giménez et al., 2011). Therefore, this date must be considered with caution when constructing the chronology for bracelet use in the Levant. In the remaining three areas, dates lie mainly between c. 5330 and c. 4800 cal. BC. This later chronology could reflect the fact that these bracelets are situated in secondary areas, away from their primary region of manufacture, however the dates are still concordant with those obtained in Andalusia. The chronology of stone bracelets from the Iberian Peninsula is similar to other European cultural contexts. Among the Neolithic cultures of the French coast and north of Italy these elements are associated with cardial pottery and the uptake of agriculture during the first half of the 6th millennium cal. BC (Micheli, 2012; van Willigen, 2018). The peak in use of these ornaments in France occurs during the Villeneuve-Germain/Blicquy culture, the Rubané culture (Fromont, 2013), and the Early Central-Atlantic Neolithic (Pailler, 2007). In terms of absolute dates, the phenomenon of stone bracelets in these European areas spans

Neolithic layers (Pascual Benito, 2009). These deposits have a 500–600 year occupation span, between 5500/5000 and 4900 cal. BC (Bernabeu Aubán and Molina Balaguer, 2009). The third location, Benàmer, is an open-air site formed of several pits filled with clasts and archaeological material that represent a total of four phases, radiocarbon dated from the Late Mesolithic to the Postcardial Neolithic (Torregrosa Giménez et al., 2011). Two bracelets were recovered and are attributed to Phase III (Postcardial Neolithic IC, 4600–4300 cal. BC). One narrow bracelet, made from shale, was recovered from pit EU 2006, which is dated to 4612–4346 cal. BC 2σ (5670 ± 60 BP, CNA681); the other bracelet is a wide type made in limestone and associated with pit EU 2075, attributed to Phases III-IV (4600–3800 cal. BC). The presence of old fractures in these bracelets and the occurrence of sherds of decorated pottery has led to the suggestion that the materials within these stratigraphic units represent waste, and that they are related to an older phase documented in Sector 1 (Torregrosa Giménez et al., 2011). In the central area of the Iberian Peninsula there are only two known sites with bracelets securely associated with dated contexts: La Vaquera cave and La Revilla open-air site (Fig. 1: C). The former is one of the most important Neolithic sites in the interior of the Iberian Peninsula. Three Neolithic phases have been identified. Phase I corresponds to the Early Neolithic; Phase II is the Late Neolithic; and Phase III spans the transition between the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic (Estremera, 2003). The bracelets are associated with Phase I, which is characterized by pottery with incised and imprinted decoration, as well as almagras red pottery painted with ochre. La Revilla is an open-air site formed of pits or negative features, which have been interpreted as household areas that were frequented seasonally over a millennium. A narrow stone bracelet was documented in Structure 12. Dates obtained from domestic fauna place the occupation in the last third of the 5th millennium cal. BC (Rojo Guerra et al., 2006). In the north of the Iberian Peninsula there is only one site: La Draga, a lakeside settlement located in Banyolas (Fig. 1: D). A series of absolute radiocarbon dates obtained from organic material recovered from the settlement indicate an uninterrupted occupation sequence from 5361 to 5223 cal. BC to 5000–4796 cal. BC 2σ (Bogdanovic et al., 2015; Bogdanovic and Tarrús, 2018). Stone bracelets are infrequently at the site, with only four bracelets (three narrow and one medium) made 9

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 11. Summed probability of radiocarbon dates for archaeological contexts with stone bracelets in the different geographical areas. The white circles represent the mean of each date: southwestern Iberia n = 1; northern Iberia n = 28; central Iberia n = 7; Iberian Levant n = 4 and southern Iberia n = 74. Radiocarbon dates are listed in Supplementary Table 2.

of bracelets belong to this geographic region; (2) the workshops are located exclusively in the south; and (3) certain types of bracelet are specific to the region, including wide bracelets and those decorated with parallel lines. In the Levant, bracelets can also be considered as cultural identifiers of the Early Neolithic communities (Orozco-Köhler, 2016). Here, however, these objects must have arrived by means of exchange. This has been confirmed through raw material analysis of the bracelets from Cova de la Sarsa, which are made from schist from the Internal Zone of the Betic Mountain Range of Andalusia, around 200 km away (OrozcoKöhler, 2000). This is also the case for the wide marble bracelet from La Serreta cave, raw material for which comes from the Betic Mountain Range around 150 km away (Martínez-Sevilla and Salmerón Juan, 2014). Similarly, limestone bracelets manufactured at the La Serreta cave workshop are distributed throughout the Levant and southeastern Iberia (Martínez-Sevilla, 2018: 261). The circulation of other polished stone objects, such as axes and adzes, indicate similar exchange routes between Andalusia and the Levant during the Early Neolithic (Lozano Rodríguez et al., 2017). The social value of these objects can be inferred from their repeated use, repair, and/or reuse. This is more frequently represented in the Levant than in Andalusia (Fig. 12), suggesting that bracelets had a higher social value in the Levant, perhaps unsurprising given the fact that they were exotic ornaments that were obtained, in most cases, by means of exchange networks. Furthermore, the presence of double repairs or extreme use-wear, as represented by high levels of polishing on some of the bracelets from the Levant, adds a further aspect of complexity to the biography of these special objects (Fig. 5: 1, 2 and 5). This

c. 5600–4600 cal. BC, which corresponds to the beginning of agricultural lifestyles and the maximum consolidation of the Early Neolithic societies. 7. Cultural identity and social value Ornaments in general, and bracelets in particular, are objects designed to be worn as personal decoration. The recurrence of these elements within the archaeological record, within a restricted timeframe and geographic distribution, is surely related to the cultural identity of the people who wore them. In this sense, the distribution of bracelets, the workshops where they were made, and their chronology allow them to be considered as cultural identifiers of the first Neolithic communities of the Iberian Peninsula. These ornamental elements appear associated with the earliest Neolithic material culture and are present throughout wide areas of southern and eastern Iberia. The results of this study have allowed the identification of two cultural groups that developed independently in two large geographic areas: Andalusia and the Levant. The presence of bracelets in other regions of the Iberian Peninsula may seem less significant, but again they are chronologically characteristic of the Early Neolithic. In both regions the arrival of agriculture and animal husbandry is, according to the most recently reported radiocarbon dates, synchronic and possibly related to cardial pottery (Carrasco Rus et al., 2016; Martín-Socas et al., 2018; Bernabeu Auban et al., 2018). The analysis indicates that bracelets can be interpreted as representative of the identity of the Neolithic communities of Andalusia. This is corroborated by several key factors: (1) 85% of the total number 10

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Fig. 12. Frequency of bracelets and repaired/reused bracelets in the main geographical areas.

Iberia. Likewise, the only known workshops that produce these rings are in the Levant and central Iberia (Pascual Benito, 1996; Yravedra Sainz De Los Terreros et al., 2006). The difference in the distribution of rings and bracelets seems to correspond to aesthetic preferences or cultural identities from the different geographic regions. In combination, this archaeological evidence indicates the emergence of different cultural groups. Regional differences are also present within each group, although further consideration of this is beyond the remit of this paper.

data indicates that these were objects with high personal and social value, which could even be considered as heirlooms (Lillios, 1999). It is worth noting that 50% of the bracelets documented in the Levant were recovered from only three caves, especially since bracelets are not common ornaments in this area when compared with Andalusia. Cova de ĺOr, Cova de la Sarsa and Cova Fosca together yielded 60 finished bracelets while the remaining 60 found in this zone are distributed between 33 other sites. The accumulations of these ornaments with high social value strongly suggest that these three caves had a special significance for the Early Neolithic communities in the Levant. The distinct cultural identities of the Andalusian and Levantine groups are characterized by the use and production of bracelets, in addition to other cultural markers such as pottery decoration, rock art, cannibalism, and the use of other types of ornaments. In Andalusia, cardial decoration on pottery has a short time-span and is quickly substituted by other types of decorative techniques; in the Levant, cardial decoration was much more common and had a longer chronological range (García-Martinez De Lagrán, 2015; Carrasco Rus et al., 2016). Rock art associated with the first Neolithic communities also presents some differences: in Andalusia, Schematic art is predominant, while in the Levant, Macro-schematic and Levantine art develops. These artistic styles have previously been used to define the different cultural groups (Cruz-Berrocal and Vicent-García, 2007). Equally, the representation of human figures with bracelets in Levantine art has been considered as a chronological marker of Early Neolithic cultures (Martí Oliver and Juan-Cabanilles, 2002; Fernández-López de Pablo, 2014). The presence of cannibalism and skull-cups could also be another indicator of the cultural differences between Andalusia and the Levant in the Early Neolithic. In the Iberian Peninsula, all known examples for this phenomenon are found in Andalusia, in caves such as El Toro, Las Majólicas, La Carigüela, Malarmuerzo, and Los Mármoles (Santana et al., 2019). In all these caves, bracelets are the most numerous ornaments and share the same chronological span as the cannibalistic practices. Only one site in the Levant has human remains that feature anthropic marks, but this is dated two thousand years earlier, to the Mesolithic period (Morales Pérez et al., 2017). In the Levant and central Iberia, the most common elements are rings made of bone or antler, which contrasts with the predominance of bracelets in Andalusia. Only 9 rings have been found in Andalusia, compared to 235 documented in the Levant and 24 in north and central

8. Conclusion A total of 1679 pieces of manufacturing waste and finished bracelets from 128 sites from the Iberian Peninsula were analysed. This has provided a detailed understanding of the phenomenon of stone bracelets in the Early Neolithic societies of different areas. These ornaments were primarily used as bracelets and their production, use, and circulation reveal differences in the socioeconomic organization of early farmer and herder populations. The presence of stone bracelets in both domestic and funerary or ritualized contexts confirms that they were part of the social life of Neolithic communities of the Iberian Peninsula, and part of their social identification. The stratigraphy and absolute radiocarbon dates associated with the manufacture and use of these stone bracelets spans a period from c. 5500 to c. 4800 cal. BC. (Fig. 13). The craftsmanship of stone bracelets disappears from the archaeological record in the Middle Neolithic (c. 4800–4200 cal. BC), and remains absent in the Late Neolithic (c. 4200–3000 cal. BC), when the first megalithic monuments are built (Aranda Jiménez et al., 2017). This chronological delimitation responds to a cultural shift in the Neolithic populations in the southern Iberian Peninsula. The geographical and quantitative distribution of the finished bracelets and workshops determine that this phenomenon was associated with the first Neolithic communities of Andalusia. It has been defined through the analysis of the bracelets, supplemented by other archaeological evidence, that two main cultural groups developed independently, one in Andalusia and the other in the Iberian Levant. Most of the bracelets in the Levant area would have reached this area through trading networks, giving them greater social value. This is reflected in the number of repairs and degree of reuse and, more 11

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Revoloció Neolítica: La Draga, el poblat dels prodigis. Museo d́ Arqueologia de Catalunya, pp. 21–27. Bosch Lloret, A., Chinchilla Sánchez, J., Tarrús Galter, J. (Eds.), 2000. El poblat lacustre neolític de la Draga. Excavacions de 1990 a 1998. Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya. Monografies del CASC, Girona, pp. 2. Botella, M., Alemán, I., Jiménez, S., 2000. Los huesos humanos: manipulación y alteraciones. Barcelona, Bellaterra. Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge. Bronk Ramsey, C., 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43 (2), 355–363. Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51 (1), 337–360. Carrasco Rus, J., Pachón Romero, J.A., 2009. Algunas cuestiones sobre el registro arqueológico de la Cueva de los Murciélagos de Albuñol (Granada) en el contexto neolítico andaluz y sus posibles relaciones con las representaciones esquemáticas. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 19, 227–287. Carrasco Rus, J., Pachón Romero, J.A., Martínez-Sevilla, F., 2010. Las necrópolis neolíticas en Sierra Harana y estribaciones (Granada) Nuevos modelos interpretativos. ANTIQVITAS 22, 21–33. Carrasco Rus, J., Martínez-Sevilla, F., Gámiz Jiménez, J., 2011. Algunas cuestiones sobre los asentamientos al aire libre del Neolítico Antiguo/Medio en ‘La Vega’ de Granada”. ANTIQVITAS 23, 47–71. Carrasco Rus, J., Martínez-Sevilla, F., Gámiz Jiménez, M., Pachón Romero, J.G., Gámiz Caro, J., Jiménez Brobeil, S., 2014. Los registros funerarios neolíticos de la Sima “LJ11” (Loja, Granada) Nuevos datos y cronologías. ANTIQVITAS 26, 5–41. Carrasco Rus, J., Martínez-Sevilla, F., 2014. Las cronologías absolutas del Neolítico Antiguo en el sur de la península ibérica. Nuevas dataciones. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina, XXX, pp. 57–80. Carrasco Rus, J., Morgado, A., Martínez-Sevilla, F., 2016. Implantación y desarrollo de los grupos neolíticos del sur de la Península Ibérica. Reflexiones sobre algunos modelos interpretativos desde los inicios del siglo XXI. In: Del Neolitic a ĺEdat del Bronce en el Mediterrani occidental. Estudis en homenatge a Bernart Martí Oliver. Trabajos varios SIP, Valencia, pp. 159–180. Cruz-Berrocal, M., Vicent-García, J.M., 2007. Rock art as an archaeological and social indicator: the neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula. J. Anthopological Archaeology 26, 676–697. Cámara Serrano, J.A., Afonso, J.A., Molina-González, F., 2016. La ocupación de las Peñas de los Gitanos (Montefrío, Granada) desde el Neolítico al mundo romano. Asentamiento y ritual funerario. In: Pedregosa Mejías, R.J. (Ed.), Arqueología e Historia de un paisaje singular: la Peña de los Gitanos de Montefrío (Granada). Excm. Ayuntamiento de Montefrío, Jaén, pp. 18–121. Cámalich Massieu, M.D., Martín Socas, D., 2013. Los inicios del Neolítico en Andalucía. Entre la tradición y la innovación. Menga 4, 103–132. Diniz, M., 2001. Uma datação absoluta para o sítio do Neolítico antigo da Valada do Mato, Évora. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 4 (2), 111–113. Estremera, M.S., 2003. Primeros agricultores y ganaderos en la Meseta norte: el Neolítico de la Cueva de la Vaquera (Torreiglesias, Segovia). Zamora: Arqueología en Castilla y León 11. Junta de Castilla León. Fernández-López de Pablo, J., 2014. Art traditions, cultural interactions and symbolic contexts during the Neolithic transition in the Eastern Iberian Peninsula. In: Manen, C., Perrin, Th., Guilaine, J. (Eds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. The Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean. Errance, Paris, pp. 371–404. Fromont, N., 2013. Anneaux et cultures du néolithique ancien: production, circulation et utilisation entre massifs ardennais et armoricain. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 2499. García Sánchez, M., Jiménez Brobeil, S.A., 1985. Restos humanos neolíticos de Alhama de Granada. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 10, 67–101. García-Martinez De Lagrán, I., 2015. Recent data and approaches on the Neolithization of the Iberian Peninsula. Eur. J. Archaeology 18, 429–453. Gavilán Ceballos, B., Rafael Penco, J.J., 1999. Análisis de la industria ornamental de la Cueva de los Murciélagos de Zuheros (Córdoba). In: II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibèrica, Universitat de València. Valencia: SAGVNTVM PLAV EXTRA 2, pp. 157–162. Harrison, R.J., Orozco Köhler, T., 2001. Beyond characterisation. Polished stone exchange in the Western Mediterranean 5500–2000 BC. Oxford J. Archaeology 20 (2), 107–127. Jover Maestre, F.J., Pastor Quiles, M., Torregrosa Giménez, P., 2019. Advances in the analysis of households in the early neolithic groups of the Iberian Peninsula: Deciphering a partial archaeological record. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 53, 1–21. Lillios, K.T., 1999. Objects of memory: the ethnography and archaeology of heirlooms. J. Archaeological Method Theory 6 (3), 235–262. Lozano Rodríguez, J.A., Puga Rodríguez, E., García-Casco, A., Martínez-Sevilla, F., Contreras Cortés, F., Carrasco Rus, J., Martín-Algarra, A., 2017. First evidence of prehistoric eclogite quarrying for polished tools and their circulation on the Iberian Peninsula. Geoarchaeology 00, 1–22. Martí Oliver, B., Juan-Cabanilles, J., 2002. La decoració de les ceràmiques neolítiques i la seua relació amb les pintures rupestres dels Abrics de La Sarga. In: Hernández, M.S., Segura, J.M. (Eds.), La Sarga. Arte rupestre y territorio. Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo, Alcoi, pp. 147–169. Martínez Sánchez, C., 1994. Nueva datación de C-14 para el Neolítico de Murcia: Los Abrigos del Pozo (Calasparra). Trabajos de Prehistoria 52, 157–161. Martínez Sánchez, R.M., Vera Rodríguez, J.A. (Eds.), 2017. El enclave neolítico al aire libre del Castillo de Doña Mencía (Córdoba). Una mirada a los primeros agricultores y ganaderos de las campiñas del Guadalquivir Medio. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva, Huelva. Martín-Socas, D., Camalich Massieu, M.D., Caro Herrero, J.L., Rodríguez-Santos, F.J.,

Fig. 13. Summed probability of radiocarbon dates for archaeological contexts with stone bracelets in the Iberian Peninsula. Radiocarbon dates are listed in Supplementary Table 2.

generally, in the long biography of these ornaments. Declaration of Competing Interest None. Acknowledgements This work was made possible thanks to a postdoctoral research grant from the University of Granada (Plan Propio de Perfeccionamiento de Doctores) and was carried out in the Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK. I would like to thank Mario Gutiérrez Rodríguez for making the distribution map; Prof. Chris Scarre for his support; Charles Bashore Acero, Stephanie Piper and Kate Sharpe for the English edits; and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101080. References Astruc, L., Vargiolu, R., Ben Tkaya, M., Balkan-Atli, N., Özbas Aran, M., Zahouani, H., 2011. Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia). J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 3415–3424. Aura Tortosa, J.E., Jordá Pardo, J.F., García Borja, P., García Puchol, O., Badal García, E., Pérez Ripoll, M., Pérez Jordá, G., Pascual Benito, J.L., Carrión Marco, Y., Morales, J.V., 2013. Una perspectiva mediterránea sobre el proceso de neolitización. Los datos de la Cueva de Nerja en el contexto de Andalucía (España). Menga 4, 53–77. Aranda Jiménez, G., Lozano Medina, Á., Camalich Massieu, M.D., Martín Socas, D., Rodríguez Santos, F.J., Trujillo Mederos, A., Santana Cabrera, J., Nonza-Micaelli, A., Clop García, X., 2017. La cronología radiocarbónica de las primeras manifestaciones megalíticas en el sureste de la Península Ibérica: las necrópolis de Las Churuletas, La Atalaya y Llano del Jautón (Purchena, Almería). Trabajos de Prehistoria 74 (2), 257–277. Baysal, E., Baysal, A., Türkcan, A.U., Nazaroff, A., 2015. Early specialized production? A Chalcolithic stone bracelet workshop at Kanlitaş, Turkey. Oxford J. Archaeology 34 (3), 235–257. Bernabeu Aubán, J., Molina Balaguer, Ll., (Eds.), 2009. La Cova de les Cendres (MorairaTeulada, Alicante). Serie Mayor 6. MARQ. Diputació d’Alacant. Bernabeu Auban, J., García Puchol, O., Orozco-Köhler, T., 2018. New insights relating to the beginning of the Neolithic in the eastern Spain: Evaluating empirical data and modelled predictions. Quat. Int. 470, 439–450. Bogdanovic, I., Bosch, A., Buxó, R., Chinchilla, J., Palomo, A., Piqué, R., Saña, M., Tarrús, J., Terradas, X., 2015. La Draga en el contexto de las evidencias de ocupación del lago de Banyoles. In: Gonçalves, V.S., Diniz, M., Sousa, A.C. (Eds.), 5°Congresso do Neolítico Peninsular. Actas. Centro da Arqueologia de Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, pp. 228–235. Bogdanovic, I., Tarrús, J., 2018. Cronología. In: Palomo, A., Terradas, X., (Eds.), La

12

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 55 (2019) 101080

F. Martínez-Sevilla

Pettitt, P.B., Davies, W., Gamble, C.S., Richards, M.B., 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30 (12), 1685–1693. Pétrequin, P., Pétrequin, A.-M., Pailler, Y., Buthod-Ruffier, D., Cassen, S., Eibl, F., Errera, M. & Prodeo, F., 2017. Les anneaux-disques réguliers à section triangulare en jade ou en serpentinite. In: Pétrequin, P., Gauthier, E., Pétrequin, A.-M., (Eds.), JADE objetssignes et interpretations sociales des jades alpins dans ĺEurope néolithique. Presses universitaires de Franch-Comté y Centre de recherche archéologique de la vallée de l'Ain, Dynamiques territoriales 10 (Tomes 3), pp. 611–638. Peña-Chocarro, L., Pérez Jordà, G., Morales Mateos, J., Vera Rodríguez, J.A., 2013. y llegaron los agricultores: agricultura y recolección en el occidente del Mediterráneo. Menga 4, 15–33. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Turney, C.S.M., Van Der Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869–1887. Roach-Higgins, M.E., Eicher, J.B., 1992. Dress and identity. Clothing Text. Res. J. 10 (4), 1–8. Rojo Guerra, M.A., Kunst, M., García, I., Garrido, R., Morán, G., 2006. La neolitización de la Meseta norte a la luz del C-14: análisis de 47 dataciones absolutas inéditas de dos yacimientos domésticos del valle de Ambrona, Soria, España. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 26, 39–100. Rubio De Miguel, I., 1993. La función social del adorno personal en el Neolítico de la Península Ibérica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 20, 27–58. Ruiz Taboada, A., Montero, I., 1999. Ocupaciones neolíticas en Cerro Virtud: Estratigrafía y Dataciones. In: II Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibèrica. Universitat de València. Valencia: SAGUNTUM-PLAV EXTRA-2, pp. 207–211. Santana, J., Rodríguez-Santos, F.J., Camalich-Massieu, M.D., Martín-Socas, D., Fregel, R., et al., 2019. Aggressive or funerary cannibalism? Skull-cup and human bone manipulation in Cueva de El Toro (Early Neolithic, southern Iberia). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23805. Sanz De Galdeano, C., Lozano, J.A., Puga Rodríguez, E., 2008. El ‘Trías de Antequera’: naturaleza, origen y estructura. Revista de la Sociedad Geológica de España 21 (3–4), 111–124. Seeger, A., 1975. The meaning of body ornaments: a Suyá example. Ethnology 14 (3), 211–224. Teruel Berbel, M.S., 1986. Objetos de adorno en el Neolítico de Andalucía Oriental. Síntesis tipológica. Cuaderno de prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada 11, 9–26. Torregrosa Giménez, P., Jover Maestre, F.J., López Seguí, E., (Eds.), 2011. Benàmer (Muro d’Alcoi, Alicante). Mesolíticos y neolíticos en las tierras meridionales valencianas. Serie de Trabajos Varios del SIP, pp. 112. Turner, T., 1995. Social body and embodied subject: bodiliness, subjectivity, and sociality among the Kayapo. Cultural Anthropology 10 (2), 143–170. Valdiosera, C., Günther, T., Vera-Rodríguez, J.C., Ureña, I., Iriarte, E., Rodríguez-Varela, R., Simões, L.G., Martínez-Sánchez, R.M., Svensson, E.M., Malmström, H., Rodríguez, L., Bermúdez De Castro, J.A., Carbonell, E., Alday, A., Hernández Vera, J.A., Götherström, A., Carretero, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Smitha, C.I., Jakobsson, M., 2018. Four millennia of Iberian biomolecular prehistory illustrate the impact of prehistoric migrations at the far end of Eurasia. PNAS 115 (13), 3428–3433. van Willigen, S., 2018. Between Cardial and Linearbandkeramik: From no-mańs-land to communication sphere. Quat. Int. 470, 333–352. Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Van Niekerk, K.L., Henshilwood, C.S., Erasmus, R.M., 2013. Thinking strings: additional evidence for personal ornament use in the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 64 (6), 500–517. Vera Rodríguez, J.C., Martínez Fernández, M., 2012. El contexto de la producción y circulación de cerámicas y elementos de adorno en el Neolítico Antiguo del sur de Córdoba. RUBRICATUM 5, 273–280. Vera, J.A., (Ed.), 2004. Geología de España. IGME. Wright, K., Garrard, A., 2003. Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia: New evidence from Jordan. Antiquity 77 (296), 267–284. Wright, K.I., Critchley, P., Garrard, A., Baird, D., Bains, R., Groom, S., 2008. Stone bead technologies and early craft specialization: insights from two Neolithic sites in eastern Jordan. Levant 40 (2), 131–165. Yravedra Sainz De Los Terreros, J., Maicas Ramos, R., Consuegra Rodríguez, S. & DíazDel-Río Español, P., 2006. Anillos para una mina. Industria ósea y fauna de la mina de sílex neolítica de Casa Montero (Madrid). In: Hernández Pérez, M.S., Soler Díaz, J.A., López Padilla, J.A., (Eds.), IV Congreso del Neolítico Peninsular II, pp. 240–247.

2018. The beginning of the neolithic in Andalusia. Quat. Int. 470, 451–471. Martín Socas, D., Cámalich Massieu, M.D., González Quintero, P., 2004. La cueva de El Toro (Sierra de El Torcal-Antequera- Málaga). Un modelo de ocupación Ganadera en el Territorio Andaluz entre el VI y II milenios ANE. Arqueología Monografías. Consejería de Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. Martínez-Sevilla, F., 2010. Un taller neolítico de brazaletes de piedra en la cueva de los Mármoles (Priego de Córdoba). ANTIQVITAS 22, 35–55. Martínez-Sevilla & Salmerón Juan, J., 2014. La artesanía de los brazaletes líticos de la Cueva-Sima de la Serreta (Cieza, Murcia): Tecnología, útiles y funcionalidad del sitio. Zephyrus, LXXIV, pp. 65–87. Martínez-Sevilla, F., 2014. Los contextos de producción de brazaletes de piedra neolíticos en el sur de la Península Ibérica y sus implicaciones socioeconómicas. In: García Alfonso, E. (Ed.), Movilidad, Contacto y Cambio. Actas del II Congreso de Prehistoria de Andalucía, Sevilla, pp. 317–328. Martínez-Sevilla, F., 2018. Brazaletes de piedra neolíticos en la península ibérica (VI-V milenio a. C.): tecnología, funcionalidad y circulación. Br. Archaeological Rep., Int. Ser. 2913. Martínez-Sevilla, F., Carrasco Rus, J., Lozano Rodríguez, J.A., Jiménez Cobos, F., Gutiérrez Rodríguez, M., 2018. Un sitio de extracción de mármol para hacer brazaletes: la cantera neolítica de Cortijo Cevico (Ventorros de San José-Loja, Granada). Trabajos de Prehistoria 75 (2), 344–360. Mengíbar, J.L., Muñoz, M.J., González, M.J., 1981. Nuevos hábitats neolíticos en el sector 2 oriental de Sierra Gorda (Granada). Antropología y Paleoecología Humana 2, 55–78. Micheli, R., 2012. Personal ornaments, Neolithic groups and social identities: some insights into Northern Italy. Documenta Praehistorica 227–255. Millard, A.R., 2014. Conventions for reporting radiocarbon determinations. Radiocarbon 56 (2), 555–559. Miller, J., 2009. Things as persons: body ornaments and alterity among the Mamaindê (Nambikwara). In: Santos-Granero, F. (Ed.), The Occult Life of Things: Native Amazonian Theories of Materiality and Personhood. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 60–80. Molina González, F., Cámara Serrano, J.A., Afonso Marrero, J.A., Martínez Fernández, G., Gámiz Caro, J., Capel Martínez, J., 2017. Hiatus in archeological multilevel site: Los Castillejos in Las Peñas de los Gitanos (Montefrío, Granada). In: Angelini, A., Cupitó, M. (Eds.), Limiti e oltre-beyond limits. Studi in onore de Giovanni Leonardi, Padova, pp. 91–100. Montero Ruiz, I., Ruiz Taboada, A., 1996. Enterramiento colectivo y metalurgia en el yacimiento neolítico de Cerro Virtud (Cuevas de Almanzora, Almería). Trabajos de Prehistoria 53 (2), 55–75. Morales Pérez, J.V., Salazar-García, D.C., de Miguel Ibáñez, M.P., Miret, C., Jordá Pardo, J.F., Verdasco Cebrián, C., Pérez Ripoll, M., Aura Tortosa, J.E., 2017. Funerary practices or food delicatessen? Human remains with anthropic marks from the Western Mediterranean Mesolithic. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 45, 115–130. Noain Maura, M.J., 1996. El adorno personal del Neolítico peninsular. Sus contenidos simbólicos y económicos. In: Molist, M., Bosch, J., (Eds.), I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica. Formació e implantació de les comunitats agricoles. (GaváBellaterra 1995). RUBRICATUM 1(1), pp. 270–278. Oms, F.X., Esteve, X., Mestres, J., Martín, P., Martins, H., 2014. La neolitización del nordeste de la Península Ibérica: datos radiocarbónicos y culturales de los asentamientos al aire libre del Penedès. Trabajos de Prehistoria 71, 42–55. Orozco-Köhler, T., 2016. Los brazaletes de esquisto: un elemento de la identidad cardial. In: Del Neolitic a ĺEdat del Bronce en el Mediterrani occidental. Estudis en homenatge a Bernart Martí Oliver. Valencia: Trabajos varios SIP 117, pp. 141–146. Orozco-Köhler, T., 2000. Aprovisionamiento e Intercambio: análisis petrológico del utillaje pulimentado en la Prehistoria Reciente del País Valenciano (España). British Archaeological Reports. International Series 867. Pailler, Y., 2007. Des dernières industries à trapèzes à l'affirmation du Néolithique en Bretagne occidentale (5500-3500 av. J.-C.). British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1648. Pascual Benito, J.LL., 1998. Utillaje óseo, adornos e ídolos neolíticos valencianos. Serie de Trabajos Varios del SIP. 95. Diputación Provincial de Valencia. Pascual Benito, J.LL., 2009. El utillaje en materia dura animal, los adornos y otros objetos simbólicos de la Cova de les Cendres. In: Bernabeu, J., Molina, LL., (Eds.), La Cova de les Cendres (Moraira-Teulada, Alicante). Estudios, pp. 202–225. Pascual Benito, J.LL., 1996. Los anillos neolíticos de la Península Ibérica. In: Molist, M., Bosch, J., (Eds.), I Congrés del Neolític a la Península Ibérica. Formació e implantació de les comunitats agricoles, (Gavá-Bellaterra 1995). RUBRICATUM 1(1), pp. 279–289. Pellicer Catalán, M., 1964. Actividades de la Delegación de Zona de la Provincia de Granada durante los años 1957–1962. Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico, VI 1–3, 304–350.

13