bell beaker and the evolution of resource management...

Bell Beaker and the evolution of resource management strategies inthe southwest of the Iberian Peninsula

Daniel García Rivero a, *, Jesús María Jurado Nú~nez b, Ruth Taylor a

a Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Seville, Do~na María de Padilla s/n, 41004, Seville, Spainb Sixphere Ltd., Ram!on y Cajal 1, 41702, Dos Hermanas, Seville, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 28 May 2015Received in revised form18 April 2016Accepted 27 May 2016

Keywords:BeakerPlain common potteryStratigraphic sequencesAbsolute chronologyInferential statisticsEconomyRisk

a b s t r a c t

This paper addresses the plain common pottery associated with Beaker contexts in the Southwest of theIberian Peninsula. The detailed systematic study focuses on the pottery assemblage provided by one ofthe region’s most important settlements, San Blas (Badajoz, Spain), while comparisons are made withother important sites in the study area. By means of the stratigraphic, typological and statistical analysisof the data, the main patterns of change in this material culture throughout the temporal sequence areidenti!ed and the historical explanatory factors are inferred. Speci!cally, during the second half of the3rd millennium cal BC, an important change took place in the management of economic risk, which ismaterialised by a signi!cant reduction in food storage and by the more immediate direct or indirectconsumption of resources. We suggest that these patterns re"ect a shift towards a short-term projectionof the future, in a context with strong evidence of instability.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the early 20th century, the Iberian Peninsula became asso-ciated with the development of the Bell Beaker phenomenon(Castillo, 1922, 1928; Blance, 1960; Schmidt, 1915; Siret, 1913)(Fig.1), andmany authors today still defend the estuary of the TagusRiver as its place of origin (Case, 2004; Müller and van Willigen,2001; Salanova, 2004, 2005; Strahm, 1979) (but see Alday, 2001;Lanting and van der Waals, 1976). The available data and thedepth of knowledge on the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the IberianPeninsula has grown considerably since the in"uential work by R.Harrison (1977) leading to a renewed and dynamic !eld of research(García Rivero, 2007, 2008; Garrido-Pena, 1997, 2000; Guerra andLiesau, 2016; Lazarich, 1999; Prieto-Martínez and Salanova, 2011;Rojo-Guerra et al., 2005).

There is, however, an important outstanding task in the study ofBell Beaker. Little is known about the plain common pottery(hereafter, PCP) that is found in Beaker contexts and, speci!cally, itstypological evolution over time has not been addressed systemat-ically. PCP from Beaker contexts has been studied in some European

regions (Besse, 1996, 2004; Besse and Strahm, 2001; Leonini,2004a,b; Shennan, 1976; Strahm, 2004), while in the IberianPeninsula this material has rarely been the object of speci!c ana-lyses (e.g. Cardoso, 2011a, 2011b; Cardoso et al., 2013; Prieto-Martínez, 2011a, 2011b; Tavares da Silva, 1971). The few existingstudies provide the relative frequencies of the different forms in theoverall site assemblages but have not addressed the evolution ofPCP throughout the stratigraphic sequences. Seriations of potteryhave been carried out for the site of Zambujal, but only on thedecorated pottery (Beaker and acacia leaf) and the so-called coposcilíndricos (Kunst, 1995). A seriation of PCP has recently been putforward for the site of Porto das Carretas (Soares and Tavares daSilva, 2010). It compares the two general phases of the settlement(pre-Beaker and Beaker) but does not analyse the evolution of thePCP assemblages throughout the Beaker stratigraphy.

Our concept of evolution is based on the notion that the di-versity within material culture assemblages changes over time andthroughout space (see Lycett, 2015 for an updated theoretical re-view). The forces behind change are produced by behaviouralinnovation of individuals as well as by sorting processes that takeplace within the populations (García Rivero, 2016; Mesoudi, 2011;O’Brien and Lyman, 2000; Shennan, 2002). These sorting pro-cesses are generated by situations in which different types ofpressure provoke a differential bias in the replication of the traits of

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. García Rivero), [email protected]

(J.M. Jurado Nú~nez), [email protected] (R. Taylor).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.05.0120305-4403/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Archaeological Science 72 (2016) 10e24

the cultural assemblage. The observation of different relative fre-quencies enables us to formulate and test hypotheses regarding thedifferential replication of cultural traits in assemblages over time.Such an approach helps understand the reasons behind the in-crease and decline of different archaeological materials and pro-vides explanations of cultural change.

The study of the evolution of cultural traits and assemblagesrequires suitable units to be measured and tracked before they aresystematically analysed and explained. In this paper, we are inter-ested in the Bell Beaker phenomenon of the Middle Basin of theGuadiana River (Fig.1). Our case study is the site of San Blas (Cheles,Badajoz, Spain). Previous work has been carried out on the potteryof this site (Kohring, 2011, 2012; Kohring et al., 2007), althoughfrom a different methodological and analytical perspective, andwith different questions and aims from those presented in thispaper. Our study addresses the typological and functional evolutionof the PCP associated with the Beaker contexts of this site in orderto explore the key factors behind cultural change in these pop-ulations during a speci!c time span. The central aim here is thecreation of a model of change for these wares and the extraction ofinferences regarding the main historical factors that may havein"uenced the use of the different pottery types over time. As wewill see, a consistent hypothesis to explain our results is related to achange in the strategies of resource and risk management, as evi-denced by the patterns of consumption and storage, during thesecond half of 3rd millennium cal BC.

2. Material and methods

Our study is based on the archaeological data provided by theexcavations of the settlement of San Blas (Cheles, Badajoz) in

which one of the authors took part (DGR). The choice of this casestudy is supported by several factors. Firstly, San Blas is one of themost important Copper Age sites of the region, both in size(Fig. 2) and in the diversity and complexity of its structures: thesite is forti!ed by a system of ditches, walls and towers, withcomplex defensive systems in the accesses to the settlement (cf.Hurtado, 2004); domestic huts of different types and chronolog-ical phases are documented, as well as areas of technologicalproduction. Secondly, the site has provided a large volume ofrecent data from the open excavation of different areas. Particu-larly, the volume of PCP associated with Beaker contexts is sub-stantial. Finally, the stratigraphic and chronological information isdetailed and reliable, and is further supported by a number ofradiocarbon dates.

Most of the excavated areas of the prehistoric settlement of SanBlas display two well-differentiated chronological phases, charac-terised by two different models of round huts. Type A huts werebuilt upon a stone base but had entirely organic walls and roof. Thishut type is associated with the earliest phase of the settlement thatspanned the late 4th millennium and the !rst half of the 3rd mil-lennium cal BC (Table 1). Type B huts were built of dry stone wallwith an organic roof, and were also slightly larger in diameter thanthe earlier structures. They belong to the second phase of the site,dated to the second half of the 3rd millennium cal BC.

Our interest here resides in the Beaker contexts, de!ned as allexcavated archaeological structures and levels containing Beakerpottery. The Beaker contexts belong to three archaeological areas,J27, H22 and H23 (Fig. 2). All three display the two chronologicalphases outlined above. J27 is located inside the citadel and pre-serves the remains of an area of habitat with a superposition ofdomestic structures (Fig. 3). Two Type A huts are documented

Fig. 1. Location of the main geographic areas and river basins of the Southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and of the Copper Age settlements mentioned in the text.

D. García Rivero et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 72 (2016) 10e24 11

beneath one Type B hut. Areas H22 and H23 are contiguous and arelocated only a few metres outside of the citadel (Fig. 2). They pro-vide a similar archaeological record with one Type A hut under twosuccessive Type B huts (Fig. 4). With the exception of a single sherdin context 64 of Area H22, all of the Beaker contexts correspond tolevels and structures belonging to the second phase of the settle-ment. Area J27 displays 6 Beaker contexts, Area H22 has 2 and AreaH23 has 3 (Table 2).

Judging by their stratigraphic characteristics, these Beakercontexts may have been formed over long periods of time. A singleradiocarbon date comes from H22 (2477e2394 cal BCE1) (Table 1),from a level located between its two Beaker contexts and belongingto the !rst use of the second Type B hut. Another radiocarbonsample dates a Type B hut context without Beaker pottery in AreaK7 (Fig. 2) (2568e2519 BCE) (Table 1). Both of these dates providereferences for the beginning of the second phase of the settlement.The analysis of the evolution of the PCP record carried out in thispaper is related to this phase, materialised by the construction ofdry stone wall huts (Type B), and dated to the second half of the 3rdmillennium cal BC.

A pottery typology has been designed for the classi!cation of

the PCP of the Beaker contexts of San Blas. The classi!cation systemis structured essentially by morphology, and shape and size areconsidered as indicators of function. The close relationship be-tween form and function has been explored extensively inarchaeology (Hurt and Rakita, 2001; O’Brien and Lyman, 2003) andalso in other !elds of study such as biology (Gould, 2002) and en-gineering (Rinderle, 1987). The basic principle that supports therelationship between form and function is the same in all of these!elds: all things possess a form, created by any number of traits,which act in concert to produce a functional unit. Pottery may bede!ned conceptually as a fundamental category of utilitarian ma-terial culture. This does not reduce the many dimensions of pottery,but rather acknowledges its central place in a wide spectrum ofhuman activities, including the practices of food preparation, con-sumption and storage.

Ceramic ethnoarchaeology has been of great importance inexploring the relationships between the intended function and theactual use of pottery (Arnold, 1985; David and Kramer, 2001;Hegmon, 2000; Kramer, 1979; Longacre, 1991; Stark, 2003). Inten-ded function, understood as the purpose for which a vessel isdesigned, is conditioned during pottery production by its tech-nomorphological characteristics (Albero, 2014; Quinn, 2013; Rice,1987). Vessel shape and size are arguably the main indicators ofintended function, while relationships between form and fabric arefar less de!nite. The archaeometric fabric analyses of Beaker

Fig. 2. Topography of the site of San Blas (Badajoz province, Spain) and location of the settlement enclosures and the excavated archaeological areas.

Table 1Radiocarbon dates from the settlement of San Blas. (Recalibrated by the authors from Hurtado, 2004).

Sample location Settlement phase Lab code RCYBP 95.4% p cal BCEa p!b 68.2% p cal BCE p!

SBc/K27d/8e 1st Phase Beta-178655 4560 ± 40 BP 3243e3102 BCE 0.549 3369e3327 BCE 0.404SB/F5/33 1st Phase Beta-169546 4420 ± 40 BP 3122e2918 BCE 0.773 3100e3006 BCE 0.652SB/J25/12 1st Phase Beta-178653 4330 ± 40 BP 3027e2887 BCE 0.967 2943e2898 BCE 0.576SB/E9/38 1st Phase Beta-178650 4030 ± 40 BP 2639e2468 BCE 0.946 2581e2481 BCE 1SB/K7/37 2nd Phase Beta-178654 3980 ± 40 BP 2581e2399 BCE 0.949 2568e2519 BCE 0.582SB/H22/29 2nd Phase Beta-178651 3930 ± 40 BP 2496e2293 BCE 0.932 2477e2394 BCE 0.683SB/J24/15 2nd Phase Beta-178652 3800 ± 40 BP 2350e2132 BCE 0.935 2293e2196 BCE 0.834

a Calibrations are made in software Calib 7.0 based on IntCal 13 data sets.b Probability distribution according to Reimer et al., 2013.c Settlement: San Blas.d Area ID.e Context number.

1 The radiocarbon dates indicated in the text correspond to the 68.2% p calibra-tion ranges.

D. García Rivero et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 72 (2016) 10e2412

assemblages (decorated and plainwares) carried out so far have notdetected any signi!cant correlation between typology andcomposition (Prieto-Martínez et al., 2015; Soares and Tavares daSilva, 2010: 236). The absence of style-fabric relationships hasbeen suggested for the coetaneous embossed, incised and plainpottery of La Pijotilla (G!omez et al., 1999). At the site of San Blasitself, fabric analysis indicates that while a number of chainesoperatoires may have coexisted within a common technologicalframework, compositional and mineralogical differences are notdetected between the different morphological types (Kohring,2011; Kohring et al., 2007).

The re!nement of the methods of use alteration analysis (Skibo,

2013) and lipid residue analysis (Nieuwenhuyse et al., 2015) isgradually providing evidence of the use of ceramics in archaeo-logical contexts. Lipid residue analyses have been carried out onsome Beaker and PCP (Bueno et al., 2005; Guerra, 2006; Prieto-Martínez, 2011c; Rojo-Guerra et al., 2006, 2008), but the datacurrently available does not support any exclusive relationshipbetween pottery forms and contents.

Despite the introduction of new methods in the study ofarchaeological ceramics, typology remains a fundamental base towhich all other levels of information may be added. Vessel shapeand size enable us to establish broad formal groups with func-tional associations, which may be re!ned by further methods.

Fig. 3. Plan of Area J27. The Type B hut contains Bell Beaker and other decorated and plain common wares, several stone vessels, a dagger and an idol.


Fig. 4. Area H22 with the archaeological remains of several huts. The best-preserved, in the upper level, conserves the entire stone circle and several internal structures. Other wallsare documented outside of the hut and are related to the main structure.

Table 2Description of the Beaker contexts of Areas J27, H22 and H23.

J27 - Area description

Inside the citadel. It includes two Type A huts beneath one Type B hut. All of the Beaker contexts of this area belong to the Type B hutContext number Context descriptionEM Thin depositional level over the wall of the hut and therefore dated after its use-life28 Possibly the last "oor level around the time of abandonment31 Possible earth "oor level45 Preparation level for a later stone "oor68 Fill of a small hole in the earliest "oor50 Earliest "oor of the Type B dry stone wall hut

H22 e Area description

Outside of the citadel. It includes one Type A hut under two successive Type B hutsContext number Context description11 Most recent "oor level of the second Type B hut

e Radiocarbon date (2477"2394 cal BCE " 68.2% p)

64 Last "oor level of the Type A hut

H23 - Area description

Contiguous to Area H22Context number Context description6 Floor level close to the surface19 Depositional level over context 1010 Depositional level of soil around and over the Type B hut and dated after its use-life


Assemblage assessment through morphometric typology is suit-able for in- and off-site comparative studies of potteryassemblages.

The types considered here are derived from the geometricrelationship between the form of a vessel and the ideal represen-tation of a sphere or ellipsoid as it is truncated progressively from

top to bottom. Other morphological features such as the thickeningof the rim or the presence of a carination have also been taken intoaccount. Our PCP typology includes 7 types (Fig. 5). The correlationsbetween each of the geometric de!nitions, their morphologicaldescriptions, and their assumed functional categories and commonnames are detailed in Table 3, along with the available metric data.The size range of the different vessel types supports the validity ofthe proposed functions.

Once identi!ed and classi!ed according to typology, the PCPgroups are quanti!ed statistically and their relative frequencies areestablished, both for the overall assemblage and for the threearchaeological areas under studyeJ27, H22, and H23. For each area,a temporal sequence is created which re"ects the evolution of therelative frequencies of the different PCP types in the successivestratigraphic episodes.

A chi-squared test is conducted in order to establish whether nodifferences exist in the distribution of the pottery types betweenthe three areas under study (H0) or, on the contrary, that there aresigni!cant differences (H1). This test enables us to verify that therelative frequencies of the types are similar in the different samplesand, therefore, that the diversity of the samples is stable andcomparable between areas. If this is the case then the typologicalpatterns observed in any of the archaeological areas may beextrapolated and generalised with full assurance to the overallassemblage of PCP.

The areas with reliable contexts and quantitatively suitablepottery assemblages have been the object of several statistical an-alyses comparing the samples documented in each of the strati-graphic levels. The comparison of the distributions of the relativefrequencies of the different pottery types throughout the sequenceenables the observation of correlations between types and of sig-ni!cant changes in their evolution over time. Speci!cally, the testsconducted are: a) Kendall’s W to compare the samples from eachcontext; b) Pearson correlations and c) linear regression to analysethe possible signi!cant correlations between different potterytypes.

The stratigraphic and typological analyses enable us to establishthe evolutionary sequence of PCP. Moreover, the statistical analysisenables us to explore the underlying patterns of cultural change,and to assess the most relevant inferences and explanations for thereconstruction of its evolution, function and use.

3. Results

The 11 excavated Beaker contexts of San Blas (see Table 2) haveyielded 20 Beaker pots. These are important in de!ning the

Fig. 5. Typology of the plain common pottery from the Bell Beaker contexts of thesettlement of San Blas. The line drawings are shown at the same scale, based on theaverage rim diameter of each type (I: 40.6 cm; II: 28 cm; III: 18.5 cm; IV: 22.5 cm; V:26 cm; VI: 28.7 cm; and VII: 11.1 cm).

Table 3Correlations between the geometric de!nitions, the morphological descriptions, and the assumed functional categories of the plain common pottery types.

Type Geometric de!nition Morphological description Size (cm)a Functional categories

I Spherical and ellipsoidal form Closed globular vessel 22.2/40.6/59 Storage Storage vesselII Spherical form with straight walls Straight walled vessel 28/28/28b Domestic BasinIII Form constituted by the lower ! of

the sphere or ellipsoidOpen globular vessel 16/18.5/21 Cooking Cooking vessel

IV Hemispherical and semi-ellipsoidalform

Hemispherical andsemi-ellipsoidal vessel

7/22.5/38 Serving Bowl

V Shallow form belonging to the lowersection of the sphere or ellipsoid

Flattish open vessel(with a wide variety of rims)

18/26/34 Serving Plate

VI Shallow form belonging to the lowersection of the sphere or ellipsoid witha "attened base

Shallow vessel(with a "attened base)

23.4/28.7/34 Serving Dish

VII Composite form with a hemisphericallower body and a hyperbolic neck

S-pro!le carinated vessel 11.1/11.1/11.1c Serving (drinking) Drinking vessel

a Minimum Rim Diameter/Average Rim Diameter/Maximum Rim Diameter.b There is metric information for a single vessel.c Idem.


contexts and assemblages of PCP under analysis in this study, butthey are not the focus of our attention here. The Beaker contexts ofSan Blas have also yielded a total of 302 PCP vessels, 196 of whichcan be classi!ed typologically.

Fig. 6a illustrates the relative frequencies of the PCP types withinthe overall assemblage of the Beaker contexts, while Fig. 6b illus-trates these frequencies for the three archaeological areas. Thegeneral pattern of typological diversity, with the exception of smalldetails, is the same in the three areas. The predominant types, farahead of the others, are Types IV, V and III ebowls, plates andcooking vessels (Table 3).

Area J27 has 14 Beaker pots (Figs. 7 and 8) and 169 PCP vessels(110 typologically identi!able) belonging to 6 contexts (Table 2). Allof the contexts have between over 10 and over 30 typologicallyidenti!able vessels. Fig. 9a illustrates the frequencies of thedifferent pottery types throughout the stratigraphic sequence,

while Fig. 9b shows a seriation of their relative percentages. Themost common types eand those present in all levels-are Types IV,III and V: bowls, cooking vessels and plates. However, the temporalsequence indicates that the relative proportions of the differentpottery types are not constant over time. There is a progressiveincrease of Type V (plates). The values of this type vary from <10%of the context assemblage of the initial stratigraphic level (context50) to >30% in the last level of prehistoric use of the hut (context28). (Context EM is later than the period of use of the hut). There isalso a decrease of Type I (storage vessels) (Table 3). The percentageof this type drops from 25% of the context assemblage of context 50to approximately 3% in context 28. There may be a slight increase inType VII, drinking vessels similar to that of the typical Beaker forms,although this tendency must be taken with caution due to the laterdate of context EM.

H22 has provided 2 Beaker pots (Figs. 8 and 10) and 84 PCP

Fig. 6. a) Relative frequencies of the different types of plain common pottery for (a) the overall assemblage under study, and (b) the three archaeological areas (J27, H22 and H23).


vessels (56 typologically identi!able). The best-represented pot-tery types are Types IV, III and V: bowls, plates and cooking vessels(Fig. 11a and b). The stratigraphical sequence of H22 includes onlytwo contexts (Table 2), and the second contains only a dozentypologically identi!able vessels. The patterns of change inferredfrom this area must therefore be treated with caution. Type Iestorage vessels-is present in the !rst stratigraphic level but ab-sent from the second. On the contrary, Types VI and VII edishesand drinking vessels-appear only in the second level. The pro-portion of Type V eplates- decreases between the !rst and secondlevels. Types III and IV are also less well represented in absolutevalues in the second level, although Fig. 11b indicates a relative

increase of Type IV and a relative decrease of Type III over time.Area H23 has provided 3 Beaker pots (Figs. 8 and 10) and 30

typologically identi!able PCP vessels from three contexts (Table 2).However, the detailed analysis of the stratigraphy and thematerialsrecovered indicates that these contexts are affected by Roman ac-tivities. The prehistoric materials recovered from these contexts,although much more abundant than those from historical periods,have suffered changes in the precise location of the !nds. It istherefore more reasonable and precautious to exclude the in-ferences obtained from the study of H23.

The chi-squared test to check for differences between the PCPassemblages of the three areas (Table 4) provides the value p! 0.66

Fig. 7. Drawings of the Beaker pottery from Area J27. The drawings are shown in stratigraphic order. The identi!cation codes for each pot contain the archaeological area, thecontext, and the sherd number.


Fig. 8. Photographs of a selection of Beaker pots from Areas J27, H22, and H23. The identi!cation codes for each pot contain the archaeological area, the context, and the sherdnumber.


(Table 5). There is therefore no evidence on the basis of which toreject H0. The three samples display similar compositions and theinferences extracted from any one of these samples may beextrapolated to the overall site assemblage of PCP. Therefore, wefocus on Area J27, since it has the most reliable stratigraphy andquantitatively suitable pottery assemblage.

Kendall’s W test, conducted in order to establish whether thereis a signi!cant relationship between the 6 contexts of J27 on thebasis of the frequencies of the PCP (Table 6), gives the coef!cient0.74 with a value p ! 0 (Table 7). H0 is that there is no relationshipbetween the samples, in this case the different context assem-blages. The statistical evidence rejects H0 and supports the rela-tionship between the contexts and the relative frequencies of theirpottery types, and thus reinforces the functional unity of this area.

When the chronologically consecutive contexts are comparedone to one, the situation is quite different (Table 8). A close rela-tionship between consecutive contexts would be expected, in thesense that the diversity of the material culture contained in

successive layers should not have changed much. There are tworelationships within a 90% con!dence interval, the transitions be-tween contexts 68 and 45 and 28 and EM, but none of the !vepossible relationships (transitions) between the consecutive con-texts display signi!cant p values on the basis of which to reject thenull hypothesis. It may be suggested, therefore, that the differencesin the variability of the PCP between the consecutive levels of J27correspond to patterns of non random change and constitute evi-dence of particular behavioural patterns. This empirical observa-tion implies a historical explanatory factor, independently ofwhether we succeed in discovering it or not.

Pearson correlations and linear regressions have been con-ducted in order to detect the existence of strong relationships be-tween any of the 7 pottery types (see Fig. 5 and Table 3). ThePearson coef!cient can vary between "1 and 1. The closer it is tothe extreme values, the stronger the relationship between twopottery types, that is, the higher their mutual dependence. On thecontrary, the values closest to 0 re"ect a greater independence. As is

a

b

Fig. 9. (a) Relative frequencies and (b) relative percentages of the different types of plain common pottery throughout the stratigraphic and chronological sequence of Area J27. Thegraph reads from left (the earliest context, 50) to right (the latest context, EM).


summarised in Table 9, the closest correlations are establishedbetween Types III and IV ("0.91) and Types I and V ("0.67), i.e.between cooking vessels and bowls, on the one hand, and betweenstorage vessels and plates, on the other (Fig. 5).

This information can be combined with that provided by thelinear regressions (Fig. 12 and Table 10). The values with sta-tistical signi!cance in the ANOVA test indicate that the variablesare related (H0 is that the degree of relationship between thevariables is null). The best !tting regression is that of the rela-tionship between Types III and IV, with a highly statisticallysigni!cant value of p ! 0.01. The evolution of these two potterytypes over time, cooking vessels and bowls, is therefore signif-icantly linked.

4. Discussion

The PCP record documented in the Beaker contexts of San Blas(Fig. 6) is dominated by bowls (Type IV) (as previously observed byKohring et al., 2007), plates (Type V), and cooking vessels (Type III).

In terms of regional comparisons, the scarce studies that havequanti!ed the PCP of the Beaker contexts of the Iberian Southwestfocus essentially on the Tagus Estuary (Fig. 1). At the settlement ofPenha Verde (Sintra), with an occupation throughout the whole ofthe second half of the 3rd millennium BC, the most frequent forms,in decreasing order of importance, are the homologues to our typesIV, V and III (based on 75 vessels, cf. Cardoso, 2011b), thus dis-playing an identical pattern to that observed at San Blas (Fig. 6a). AtFreiria (Cascais), occupied during the last quarter of the 3rd mil-lennium BC, the predominant types are the homologues to ourtypes IV and III, while our type V, well-represented at San Blas, isbarely documented (based on 368 vessels, cf. Cardoso et al., 2013). Asimilar pattern is displayed at the settlement of Lei~ao (Oeiras) inwhich the most common types are again the homologues to ourtypes IV and III (based on 49 vessels, cf. Cardoso, 2011a).

In proximity to San Blas, the site of Porto das Carretas displayssimilar patterns to those identi!ed at San Blas. In the potterysample belonging to the Beaker phase (2500e2200 cal BCE) (160vessels), the most frequent forms are the homologues to our typesV, IV and III (Soares and Tavares da Silva, 2010). The frequency andrelative proportions of the different PCP types have been comparedbetween the pre-Beaker and the Beaker phases of the settlement,but their evolution during the Beaker phase has not beenaddressed. The results from Porto das Carretas are therefore notimmediately comparable to those of this study.

Our study of the PCP of San Blas has enabled us to detect some

Fig. 10. Drawings of the Beaker pottery from Areas H22 and H23. The drawings areshown in stratigraphic order. The identi!cation codes for each pot contain thearchaeological area, the context, and the sherd number.

a

b

Fig. 11. (a) Relative frequencies and (b) relative percentages of the different types ofplain common pottery throughout the stratigraphic and chronological sequence ofArea H22. The graph reads from left (the earliest context, 64) to right (the latestcontext, 11).


very suggestive patterns of change throughout the Beaker phase ofthe site that require the formulation of appropriate historical hy-potheses in order to identify the underlying factors that mayexplain the signi!cant changes in the differential production anduse of certain pottery types over time.

One of the most noteworthy patterns is the strong correlationbetween Types III and IV, that is, between cooking vessels andbowls. The Pearson coef!cient and the linear regression indicate asigni!cant statistical correlation between the two. This correlationis negative, indicating that the increase in one is directly propor-tional to the decrease in the other. We are therefore faced with anegative coevolution between the two most frequent pottery typesof the settlement. It must be noted that the direction of change isnot constant and does not display a clear accumulative linear di-rection. Rather it takes both directions throughout the sequence(note in Fig. 12 the way in which the pattern becomes invertedbetween one context and the next).

Another noteworthy pattern is the progressive decrease of TypeIestorage vessels. Additionally, there is a decrease in the number ofstorage pits, or at least in their location inside of the huts, duringthe second phase of the site (Hurtado, 2004: 151). Both containers,storage vessels and pits located inside of the huts, thus converge ina tendency towards the reduction of the volume of food storage.Area H22 is a case in point, providing a radiocarbon date of2477e2394 cal BCE, after which there are no Type I vessels.

Type V eplates- increases throughout the temporal sequence,thus indicating the more widespread use of this type of serviceform over time. This tendency may re"ect the increase in the size ofthe units that ate together and it is interesting to note that the TypeB huts (belonging to the second phase of the site, 2568e2196 calBCE), are generally slightly larger in internal wall diameter than theType A huts (belonging to the !rst phase, 3369e3327 cal BCE on-wards) ecf. Table 1. Moreover, the increase of Type V and thedecrease of Type I are signi!cantly correlated by the Pearson value"0.67 (Table 9), thus the increase of the number of plates and thereduction of storage vessels are dependent.

During the chronological interval between 2568 and 2196 calBCE at San Blas, an evolution of the economic and social systemstook place, which appears to have caused major changes in thestorage and consumption of resources and in the manipulation ofthe strategies for the management of risk. On the basis of our re-sults, we may suggest that, over time, this population invested lessin the storage of food for the months and year ahead and consumedthe resources more immediately, either directly (food) or indirectly(secondary trade products). This behavioural shift appears to implya short- rather than a mid- to long-term projection of the future,the reasons for which may have stemmed from a number of in-ternal and external social and environmental circumstances.

Table 4Quanti!cation of the different types of plain common pottery for the three Beaker areas (J27, H22 and H23).

Area Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI Type VII TNVAa

J27 9 3 26 40 25 3 4 110H22 3 0 10 21 18 2 2 56H23 2 0 5 7 13 1 2 30TNVT b 14 3 41 68 56 6 8 196

a TNVA: Total number of vessels per area.b TNVT: Total number of vessels per type.

Table 5Result of the chi-squared test for the three samples from Areas J27, H22 and H23.

Statistic Value df Sig. Asint. (2-Tails)

Pearson chi-squared 9.53 12.00 0.66Similarity 10.52 12.00 0.57Lineal-by-Lineal Association 4.07 1.00 0.04N valid cases 196.00

Table 6Frequencies of the different types of plain common pottery for the 6 contexts of AreaJ27.

Contexts Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI Type VII

50 3 0 2 6 1 0 068 2 1 9 5 5 0 145 2 2 3 9 5 0 031 0 0 3 4 2 3 028 1 0 6 13 10 0 1EM 1 0 3 3 2 0 2

Table 7Kendall’s W test for the frequencies of the differenttypes of plain common pottery for the area assemblageof J27.

Mid-range

Type I 3.67Type II 2.17Type III 5.67Type IV 6.67Type V 5.00Type VI 2.17Type VII 2.67N 6Kendall’s W 0.74Chi-squared 26.49df 6Sign. Asint. 00

Table 8P values for the comparison between the consecutive contexts of J27.

2nd- 68 3rd - 45 4th - 31 5th - 28 6th e EM

1st e 50a 0.112nde 68 0.093rd e 45 0.174th e 31 0.175th e 28 0.08

a Note that the table reads from left to right. For example, the relationship be-tween the !rst two consecutive contexts (50 and 68) has a p value of 0.11. (SeeTable 2 for the descriptions of J27 contexts).

Table 9Pearson correlation values between the different types of plain common potteryfrom Area J27.

Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI Type VII

Type I 0.03 "0.26 0.48 "0.67 "0.53 "0.09Type II "0.18 0.05 0.28 "0.28 "0.30Type III "0.91 0.02 0.08 0.35Type IV "0.16 "0.15 "0.55Type V "0.19 0.01Type VI "0.29


The explanation of this change in the strategies of resource andrisk management in this population is beyond the scope of thepresent study since this question requires further approaches to theassessment, analysis and testing of the available archaeologicalinformation. We cannot at present con!rm that the main cause ofthis change was related to the internal evolution of the populationand an accelerated process of social hierarchization based onprestige economies (e.g. García Rivero, 2008; 2009; Garrido-Pena,2000; Hurtado, 2005). The economic and social inferences of ourstudy are based on the Beaker contexts of San Blas. Considering thespeci!c nature of these contexts, we must consider that our resultsmay not necessarily be extensive to the population of the settle-ment as a whole. In this sense it will be interesting to follow up infuture work on whether the evolution of the PCP assemblages issimilar throughout all of the areas of the settlements or whetherthere are different evolutionary patterns that may indicate signif-icant intrademic differences.

An external factor, namely environmental change, may have hadan equally decisive impact on the strategies of resource and riskmanagement of the populations under study. Recent palaeoclimaticstudies of the Iberian Peninsula have detected a sharp fall in the

salinity index of the lacustrine waters between 2500 and 2000 calBCE, which would re"ect a decrease in the level of humidity of theenvironment (Morell!on et al., 2008). According to the main re-constructions of the Iberian palaeoclimate, generalised conditionsof relative aridity were reached by 2000 cal BCE (Cacho et al., 2010:19 ff.). In the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, speci!cally, recentassessments based on high-resolution palynological records havehighlighted 2200 cal BCE (Lillios et al., 2016: 147 ff.) as the point ofin"exion of the increase in aridity.

Independently of whether the primary cause behind thechanges in resource and risk management strategies throughoutthe 2568e2196 cal BCE timespan was internal or external to thesesocieties, there is further archaeological evidence of factors thatmay have fueled the changes in the economy and future planningof these groups. In Western European Prehistory, the increase inthe volume of archaeological evidences of violence and warfare isdated in the 3rd millennium BCE (Guilaine and Zammit, 2005: 124ff.). In the Southwest of the Iberian Peninsula (see Chapman,2008; Kunst, 2006; Valera, 2013), large scale defensive struc-tures become a common feature of settlements, with the diggingof ditches and the construction of forti!cations including wallsand towers, arrowheads become numerous and are worked onboth sides and in perfect symmetry, and by around 2500 cal BCEother weapons such as metal daggers and spears become wide-spread. Close to San Blas, there are evidences of settlements thatwere destroyed and burnt violently in the second half of the 3rdmillennium BCE, and that display later phases of reconstruction ofthe houses and the forti!cations (Enríquez, 1990; Hurtado andEnríquez, 1991).

New questions and techniques in forensic research have pro-vided direct evidence of interpersonal violence in the Late Prehis-tory of the Iberian Peninsula (Armendariz et al., 1994; Kunst, 2000;

Fig. 12. Linear regression between the plain common pottery Types III and IV from Area J27.

Table 10P values of linear regressions between the different types of plain common potteryfrom Area J27.

Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI Type VII

Type I 0.95 0.62 0.33 0.14 0.28 0.87Type II 0.73 0.92 0.59 0.59 0.57Type III 0.01 0.98 0.88 0.49Type IV 0.76 0.78 0.26Type V 0.71 0.98Type VI 0.57


Mercadal and Agustí, 2006; Vegas et al., 2012). In the particular caseof the Southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, there is a signi!cantnumber of burials dated in the 3rd millennium BCE that displayfractured bones, cutmarks and embedded arrowheads that areconsistent with violent deaths (Oosterbeek and Tom!e, 2012; Silvaand Marques, 2010; Silva et al., 2012, 2014).

The wealth of archaeological evidence of diverse natureeincluding the changes observed in material culture assemblages,climatic and palynological alterations, and anthropological evi-dence of interpersonal violence- provide indications of factors thatin"uenced and possibly promoted the rapid collapse of the Chal-colithic period around 2200e2000 cal BCE. Although some authorsmaintain the idea of a gradual transition between Chalcolithic andBronze Age (see Hurtado, 2000; Pav!on, 2008: 7; Schubart, 1971),the southern regions of the Iberian Peninsula as a whole displayevidence of a considerable change between the archaeological re-cords of the two periods. In the Southwest, Bronze Age populationsappear to be substitutes rather than heirs of the previous societies(García Rivero and Escacena, 2015). In the Southeast, at the samedate, most Chalcolithic settlements were burnt to the ground andabandoned, and most Bronze Age settlements occupied new loca-tions (Lull et al., 2010: 14).

The tendencies observed in the PCP record of the Beaker con-texts of San Blas are strongly suggestive of important changes in thestrategies of resource and risk management. Whatever the primaryreason behind the drastic economic and social changes that tookplace during the second half of the 3rd millennium cal BCE in theSouthwest of the Iberian Peninsula, just before the collapse of theCopper Age, the unstable and disrupted social context suggested bythis study is highly plausible. Future studies and the application ofnew perspectives and methods (e.g. Selover, 2015; Smith, 2015)may help broaden the explanatory model set out in this paper andaddress issues of great relevance for the knowledge of humancultural change not only in the past but also in the present (White,2010).

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the University of Seville, especiallythe Research Group HUM-949 of the PAI of the Andalusian Junta,and the San Blas archaeological team for their support. The authorsalso wish to thank the editorial work of Dr. Thilo Rehren and thevaluable comments of the anonymous reviewers which helped toimprove the clarity of the paper.

References

Albero, D., 2014. Materiality, Techniques and Society in Pottery Production. TheTechnological Study of Archaeological Ceramics through Paste Analysis. DeGruyter Open, Warsaw.

Alday, A., 2001. Vías de intercambio y promoci!on del campaniforme marítimo ymixto sobre el interior peninsular. Cuadernos Arqueol. Univ. Navar. 9, 111e174.

Armendariz, J., Irigarai, S., Etxeberria, F., 1994. New evidence of prehistoric arrowwounds in the Iberian Peninsula. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 4 (3), 215e222.

Arnold, D.E., 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Besse, M., 1996. Le campaniforme en France. Analyse de la c!eramique d’accom-pagnement. British Archaeological Reports 635. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.

Besse, M., 2004. Bell Beaker common ware during the third millennium BC inEurope. In: Czebreszuk, J. (Ed.), Similar but Different: Bell Beakers in Europe.Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, pp. 127e148.

Besse, M., Strahm, C., 2001. The components of the Bell Beaker complex. In:Nicolis, F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers Today, Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols in Pre-historic Europe, vol. 1. Servizio Beni Culturali, Trento, pp. 103e110.

Blance, B.M., 1960. The Origin and Development of the Early Bronze Age in theIberian Peninsula. PhD dissertation. University of Edinburgh.

Bueno, P., Barroso, R., Balbín, R., 2005. Ritual campaniforme, ritual colectivo: laNecr!opolis de cuevas arti!ciales del Valle de las Higueras, Huecas, Toledo. Trab.Prehist. 62 (2), 67e90.

Cacho, I., Valero Garc!es, B., Gonz!alez Samp!eriz, P., 2010. Revisi!on de las

reconstrucciones paleoclim!aticas en la Península Ib!erica desde el últimoperiodo glacial. In: P!erez, F.F., Boscolo, R. (Eds.), Clima en Espa~na: Pasado,presente y futuro. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci!on, Madrid, pp. 9e24.

Cardoso, J.L., 2011a. Ocupaç~ao campaniforme de Lei~ao (Oeiras). Estud. Arqueol.Oeiras 18, 9e32.

Cardoso, J.L., 2011b. O povoado calcolítico da Penha Verde (Sintra). Estud. Arqueol.Oeiras 18, 467e551.

Cardoso, J.L., Cardoso, G., Encarnaç~ao, J.D., 2013. O campaniforme de Freiria (Cas-cais). Estud. Arqueol. Oeiras 20, 525e588.

Case, H., 2004. Beakers and the Beaker culture. In: Czebreszuk, J. (Ed.), Similar butDifferent: Bell Beakers in Europe. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan,pp. 11e34.

Castillo, A., 1922. La cer!amica incisa de la cultura de las cuevas de la PenínsulaIb!erica y el problema del origen de la especie del vaso campaniforme. Anu. Univ.Barc. 1e20.

Castillo, A., 1928. La cultura del vaso campaniforme. Su origen y extensi!on enEuropa. Universidad del Barcelona, Barcelona.

Chapman, R., 2008. Producing inequalities: regional sequences in later prehistoricsouthern Spain. J. World Prehist. 21 (3e4), 195e260.

David, N., Kramer, C., 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Enríquez, J.J., 1990. El Calcolítico o Edad del Cobre de la Cuenca Extreme~na delGuadiana: Los poblados. Museo Arqueol!ogico Provincial de Badajoz, Badajoz.

García Rivero, D., 2007. Campaniforme y territorio en la Cuenca Media del Guadi-ana. Spal 15, 71e102.

García Rivero, D., 2008. Campaniforme y rituales estrat!egicos en la Cuenca Media yBaja del Guadiana (Suroeste de la Península Ib!erica). British ArchaeologicalReports S1837. Archaeopress, Oxford.

García Rivero, D., 2009. Bell Beaker and social hierarchy in the Southwest of theIberian Peninsula. An approach from evolutionary archaeology. In: Cardillo, M.,L!opez, G. (Eds.), Arqueología y Evoluci!on. Teoría, metodología y casos de estu-dio. Editorial Sb. Colecci!on de Complejidad Humana, Buenos Aires, pp. 49e72.

García Rivero, D., 2016. Darwinian archaeology and cultural phylogenetics. In:Mendoza-Straffon, L. (Ed.), Cultural Phylogenetics: Concepts and Applications inArcheology. Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, pp. 43e72.

García Rivero, D., Escacena, J.L., 2015. Del Calcolítico al Bronce antiguo en el Gua-dalquivir inferior. El Cerro de San Juan (Coria del Río, Sevilla) y el ‘modelo dereemplazo’. Zephyrus 76, 15e38.

Garrido-Pena, R., 1997. Bell Beakers in the southern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula:socioeconomic context and new data. Oxf. J. Archaeol. 16 (2), 187e209.

Garrido-Pena, R., 2000. El campaniforme en La Meseta Central de la PenínsulaIb!erica (c. 2500e2000 AC.). British Archaeological Reports 892. John and EricaHedges Ltd., Oxford.

G!omez, A., Polvorinos, A., Ontalba, A., Respaldiza, A., Hurtado, V., Kiss, A.Z., Bor-beline-Kiss, I., 1999. Estudio arqueom!etrico de cer!amicas calcolíticas del yaci-miento de La Pijotilla (Badajoz, Spain). In: Actes del IV Congr!es Europeu sobreCeramica Antigua. Govern d’Andorra, Andorra, pp. 159e167.

Gould, S.J., 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

Guerra, E., 2006. Sobre la funci!on y el signi!cado de la cer!amica campaniforme a laluz de los an!alisis de contenidos. Trab. Prehist. 63 (1), 69e84.

Guerra, E., Liesau, C.L.V., 2016. Analysis of the economic foundations supporting thesocial supremacy of the Beaker groups. In: Proceedings of the XVII UISPP WorldCongress. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Guilaine, J., Zammit, J., 2005. The Origins of War. Violence in Prehistory. BlackwellPublishing, Malden.

Harrison, R.J., 1977. The Bell Beaker Cultures of Spain and Portugal. PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Massachusetts, Cambridge.

Hegmon, M., 2000. Advances in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. J. Archaeol. MethodTheory 7 (3), 129e137.

Hurt, T.D., Rakita, G.F.M., 2001. Style and Function. Conceptual Issues in Evolu-tionary Archaeology. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut, London.

Hurtado, V., 2000. El proceso de transici!on a la Edad del Bronce en la Cuenca Mediadel Guadiana. Ruptura o continuidad. In: Actas del 3º Congresso de ArqueologiaPeninsular, 4. Adecap, Porto, pp. 381e398.

Hurtado, V., 2004. El asentamiento forti!cado de San Blas (Cheles, Badajoz). IIImilenio AC. Trab. Prehist. 61 (1), 141e155.

Hurtado, V., 2005. The Bell Beaker culture in extremadura. Assessment of socio-economical change process in the Tagus and Guadiana Middle bassins. In:Rojo, M.A., Garrido, R., García, I. (Eds.), Bell Beakers in the Iberian Peninsula andTheir European Context. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, pp. 337e349.

Hurtado, V., Enríquez, J.J., 1991. Excavaciones en Palacio Quemado (Alange, Badajoz).Informe Preliminar. Extremad. Arqueol. 2, 69e88.

Kohring, S., 2011. Social complexity as a multi-scalar concept: pottery technologies,’communities of practice’ and the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Nor. Archaeol. Rev.44 (2), 145e163.

Kohring, S., 2012. A scalar perspective to social complexity: complex relations andcomplex questions. In: Kienlin, T.L., Zimmermann, A. (Eds.), Beyond Elites. Al-ternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations, vol. II.Habelt, Bonn, pp. 327e328.

Kohring, S., Odriozola, C., Hurtado P!erez, V., 2007. Materialising ‘complex’ socialrelationships. Technology, production and consumption in a Copper Age com-munity. In: Kohring, S., Wynne-Jones, S. (Eds.), Socialising Complexity. Struc-ture, Integration and Power in the Past. Oxbow Press, Oxford, pp. 100e117.

Kramer, C., 1979. Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology.


Columbia University Press, New York.Kunst, M., 1995. Ceramica do Zambujal e novos resultados para a cronología da

cer!amica calcolítca. In: Kunst, M. (Ed.), Origens, estructuras e relaç~oes dasculturas calcolíticas da Península Ib!erica. Instituto Portugues do Patrim!onioArquitect!onico e Arqueol!ogico, Lisboa, pp. 21e29.

Kunst, M., 2000. A guerra no Calcolítico na Península Ib!erica. Era Arqueol. 2,128e142.

Kunst, M., 2006. Zambujal and the enclosures of the Iberian Peninsula. In:Harding, A., Sievers, S., Venclov!a, N. (Eds.), Enclosing the Past: Inside andoutside in Prehistory. Collis, Shef!eld, pp. 76e98.

Lanting, J.N., van der Waals, J.D., 1976. Beaker culture relations in the lower Rhinebasin. In: Lanting, J.N., van der Waals, J.D. (Eds.), Glockenbecher Symposium(Oberried1974). Fibula-Van Dishoeck, Bussum, Haarlem, pp. 1e80.

Lazarich, M., 1999. El Campaniforme en Andalucía Occidental. Universidad de C!adiz,C!adiz.

Leonini, V., 2004a. La ceramica commune nei contesti insediativi del Campaniformeitaliano. I: la documentazione dell’Italia settentrionale. Riv. Sci. Preist. 54,337e410.

Leonini, V., 2004b. La ceramique domestique du Campaniforme de lItalie Centrale etSeptentionale. In: Czebreszuk, J. (Ed.), Similar but Different: Bell Beakers inEurope. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, pp. 149e170.

Lillios, K.T., Blanco-Gonz!alez, A., Drake, B.L., L!opez-S!aez, A., 2016. Mid-late Holoceneclimate, demography, and cultural dynamics in Iberia: a multi-proxy approach.Quat. Sci. Rev. 135, 138e153.

Longacre, W.A., 1991. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

Lull, V., Mic!o, R., Rihuete, C., Risch, R., 2010. Las relaciones políticas y econ!omicas deEl Argar. Menga 1, 11e36.

Lycett, S.J., 2015. Cultural evolutionary approaches to artifact variation over timeand space: basis, progress, and prospects. J. Archaeol. Sci. 56, 21e31.

Mercadal, O., Agustí, B., 2006. Comportaments agressius a la Prehist"oria Recent. Ladesmiti!caci!o del bon salvatge? Cypsela 16 (5), 37e49.

Mesoudi, A., 2011. Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Evolutionary Theory CanExplain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. University of Chi-cago Press, Chicago.

Morell!on, M., Valero-Garc!es, B., Moreno, A., Gonz!alez-Samp!eriz, P., Mata, P.,Romero, O., Maestro, M., Navas, A., 2008. Holocene palaeohydrology andclimate variability in northeastern Spain: the sedimentary record of LakeEstanya (Pre-Pyrenean range). Quat. Int. 181 (1), 15e31.

Müller, J., van Willigen, S., 2001. New radiocarbon evidence for european BellBeakers and the consequences for the diffusion of the Bell Beaker phenomenon.In: Nicolis, F. (Ed.), Bell Beakers Today, Pottery, People, Culture, Symbols inPrehistoric Europe, vol. I. Servizio Beni Culturali, Trento, pp. 59e80.

Nieuwenhuyse, O., Roffet-Salque, M., Evershed, R., Akkermans, P.M., Russell, A.,2015. Tracing pottery use and the emergence of secondary product exploitationthrough lipid residue analysis at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad (Syria).J. Archaeol. Sci. 64, 54e66.

O’Brien, M.J., Lyman, R.L., 2000. Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: a SystematicApproach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

O’Brien, M.J., Lyman, R.L., 2003. Style, Function, Transmission. EvolutionaryArchaeological Perspectives. Utah University Press, Salk Lake.

Oosterbeek, L., Tom!e, T., 2012. Evidence of traumatic skeletal injuries in the col-lective burial caves of the Nab~ao Valley, central Portugal. In: Schulting, R.,Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones. Neolithic Violence in a Eu-ropean Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 304e315.

Pav!on, I., 2008. La Edad del Bronce en la ‘Tierra de Barros’: nuevos hallazgos en elCerro del Castillo de Alange (Badajoz). Nonnullus 3, 5e15.

Prieto-Martínez, M.P., 2011a. El !area arqueol!ogica de A Lagoa. La cer!amica comoexpresi!on de divisi!on social. In: Prieto-Martínez, M.P., Salanova, L. (Eds.), Lascomunidades campaniformes en Galicia. Cambios sociales en el III y II mileniosBC en el NW de la Península Ib!erica. Diputaci!on de Pontevedra, Pontevedra,pp. 47e59.

Prieto-Martínez, M.P., 2011b. La alfarería de las comunidades campaniformes enGalicia: contextos, cronologías y estilo. In: Prieto-Martínez, M.P., Salanova, L.(Eds.), Las comunidades campaniformes en Galicia. Cambios sociales en el III y IImilenios BC en el NW de la Península Ib!erica. Diputaci!on de Pontevedra, Pon-tevedra, pp. 345e361.

Prieto-Martínez, M.P., 2011c. Vasos troncoc!onicos y cerveza en contextos campa-niformes de Galicia. La cista de A Forxa como ejemplo. In: Prieto-Martínez, M.P.,Salanova, L. (Eds.), Las comunidades campaniformes en Galicia. Cambiossociales en el III y II milenios BC en el NW de la Península Ib!erica. Pontevedra:Diputaci!on de Pontevedra, pp. 119e125.

Prieto-Martínez, M.P., Martínez-Cortizas, A., Lantes-Su!arez, O., Guimarey, B., 2015.Bell Beaker pottery from Galicia (NW Spain): an archaeometric characterizationand provenance study of some representative sites. CuPAUAM 41, 109e125.

Prieto-Martínez, M.P., Salanova, L., 2011. Las comunidades campaniformes enGalicia. In: Cambios sociales en el III y II milenios BC en el NW de la PenínsulaIb!erica. Diputaci!on de Pontevedra, Pontevedra.

Quinn, P.S., 2013. Ceramic Petrography: the Interpretation of Archaeological Potteryand Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C.,Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Ha"idason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatt, C., Heaton, T.J.,Hoffman, D.L., 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., Staff, R.A.,Turney, C.S.M., Van der Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon agecalibration curves 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869e1887.

Rice, P., 1987. Pottery Analysis: a Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Rinderle, J.R., 1987. Function and form relationships: a basis for preliminary design.In: Waldron, M.B. (Ed.), Proceedings of the NSF Workshop on the Design Pro-cess. Ohio State University, Oakland, pp. 295e312.

Rojo-Guerra, M.A., Garrido-Pena, R., García-Martínez, I., 2005. Bell Beakers in theIberian Peninsula and their European context. Universidad de Valladolid,Valladolid.

Rojo-Guerra, M.A., Garrido-Pena, R., García-Martínez, I., 2008. No s!olo cerveza.Nuevos tipos de bebidas alcoh!olicas identi!cados en an!alisis de contenidos decer!amicas campaniformes del Valle de Ambrona (Soria). Cuad. Prehist. Univ.Granada 18, 91e105.

Rojo-Guerra, M.A., Garrido-Pena, R., García-Martínez, I., Treserras, J., Matamala, J.C.,2006. Beer and Bell Beakers: drinking Rituals in Copper age inner Iberia. Proc.Prehist. Soc. 72, 243e265.

Salanova, L., 2004. The frontiers inside the western Bell Beaker block. In:Czebreszuk, J. (Ed.), Similar but Different: Bell Beakers in Europe. Adam Mick-iewicz University, Poznan, pp. 63e75.

Salanova, L., 2005. The origins of the Bell Beaker phenomenon: breakdown, anal-ysis, mapping. In: Rojo, M.A., Garrido, R., García, I. (Eds.), Bell Beakers in theIberian Peninsula and Their European Context. Universidad de Valladolid, Val-ladolid, pp. 19e27.

Schubart, H., 1971. O Horizonte de Ferradeira. Sepulturas do Eneolítico !nal noSudoeste da Península Ib!erica. Rev. Guimar~aes 81, 189e216.

Schmidt, H., 1915. Estudios acerca de los principios de la Edad de los Metales enEspa~na. Memoria nº 8 de la Comisi!on de Investigaciones Paleontol!ogicas yPrehist!oricas. Museo de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid.

Selover, S.L., 2015. Excavating War: the Archaeology of Con"ict in Early Chalcolithicto Early Bronze III Central and Southeastern Anatolia. Unpublished DoctoralThesis. University of Chicago.

Shennan, S.J., 1976. Bell Beaker and their context in central Europe. In: Lanting, J.N.,van der Waals, J.D. (Eds.), Glockenbecher Symposium (Oberried1974). Fibula-Van Dishoeck, Bussum, Haarlem, pp. 234e239.

Shennan, S.J., 2002. Genes, Memes and Human History. Darwinian Archaeology andCultural Evolution. Thames & Hudson, London.

Silva, A.M., Boaventura, R., Ferreira, M.T., Marques, R., 2012. Skeletal evidence ofinterpersonal violence from Portuguese Late Neolithic collective burials: anoverview. In: Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones.Neolithic Violence in a European Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 317e340.

Silva, A.M., Leandro, I., Pereira, D., Costa, C., Valera, A.C., 2014. Collective secondarycremation in a pit grave: a unique funerary context in Portuguese Chalcolithicburial practices. J. Comp. Hum. Biol. 66 (1), 1e14.

Silva, A.M., Marques, R., 2010. An arrowhead injury in a Neolithic human axis fromthe natural cave of Lapa do Bugio (Sesimbra, Portugal). Anthropol. Sci. 118 (3),185e189.

Siret, L., 1913. Questions de Chronologie et d’Ethnographie Ib!eriques, vol I. PaulGeuthner, Paris.

Skibo, J.M., 2013. Understanding Pottery Function. Springer. New York.Smith, M.L., 2015. The origins of the sustainability concept: risk perception and

resource management in early urban centers. Res. Econ. Anthropol. 35,215e238.

Soares, J., Tavares da Silva, C., 2010. Campaniforme do Porto das Carretas (m!edioGuadiana). A procura de novos quadros de referencia. In: Gonçalves, V.S.,Sousa, A.C. (Eds.), Transformaç~ao e mudança no Centro e Sul de Portugal: o 4º eo 3º milenios a.n.e. Uniarq, Cascais, pp. 225e261.

Stark, M.T., 2003. Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. J. Archaeol. Res. 11(3), 193e242.

Strahm, C., 1979. Kalibration und die Herkunft der Glockenbecher. Arch. Suissesd’Anthropologie G!en!erale 43, 285e293.

Strahm, C., 2004. Die Glockenbecher-Ph#anomen aus der Sicht der Komplement#ar-Keramik. In: Czebreszuk, J. (Ed.), Similar but Different: Bell Beakers in Europe.Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, pp. 101e126.

Tavares da Silva, C., 1971. O povoado pr!e-historico da Rotura. Notas sobre a cera-mica. Actas do II Congr. Nac. Arqueol. 175e201.

Valera, A.C., 2013. Recintos de fossos da Pr!e-Hist!oria Recente em Portugal. Inves-tigaç~ao, discursos, salvaguarda e divulgaç~ao. Al-Madan 18, 93e110.

Vegas, J.I., Armendariz, A., Etxebarria, F., Fern!andez, M.S., Herrasti, L., 2012. Pre-historic violence in northern Spain: San Juan ante Portam Latinam. In:Schulting, R., Fibiger, L. (Eds.), Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones. NeolithicViolence in a European Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 265e302.

White, I., 2010. Water and the City: Risk, Resilience and Planning for a SustainableFuture. Routledge, New York.


bell beaker and the evolution of resource management...

Documents