Blanco-González, A. (2015): Past fragments: from ceramics to social practices in later prehistoric...

Journal of Social Archaeology

2015, Vol. 15(3) 342–365

! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1469605315591256

jsa.sagepub.com

Article

Past fragments: Fromceramics to socialpractices in laterprehistoric Iberia

Antonio Blanco-GonzalezDepartamento de Prehistoria, Universidad de Valladolid, Facultad

de Filosofıa y Letras, Valladolid, Spain

Abstract

Sunken features backfilled with domestic refuse represent the prevailing depositional

context-type in later prehistory worldwide. Despite being so, this evidence remains

poorly understood and has only received sporadic attention, chiefly within Anglophone

archaeologies. This paper focuses on ceramics from a suite of such intricate contexts

(cut features, burials, settlements, barrows) from Iberia in a diachronic and comparative

perspective, from the Early Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age (5500–1100 BC). A total

of 10,800 potsherds were examined with a taphonomic and refitting protocol attentive

to formation dynamics and tracking intentionality. Results suggest that most of the

studied assemblages are unplanned by-products of social life. From the earliest pot-

tery-using communities, habitual actions conditioned the eventual preservation of the

extant archaeological record. Fragmentation and deposition were key social practices,

ultimately representing enduring trans-cultural phenomena. This research challenges

uncontested interpretive premises, namely the ‘reflectionist’ standpoint, and disproves

consensual and undue concepts frequently used in mainstream accounts of later

prehistory.

Keywords

Depositional practice, fragmentation, intentionality, formation processes, ceramic

taphonomy, later prehistory

Corresponding author:

Antonio Blanco-Gonzalez, Departamento de Prehistoria, Universidad de Valladolid, Facultad de Filosofıa y

Letras, Plaza del Campus s/n, 47011 Valladolid, Spain.

Email: [email protected]

at Library - Periodicals Dept on December 15, 2015jsa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jsa.sagepub.com/

Introduction

Archaeological research is based on established scholarly principles. Some of them,once criticised (e.g. Bruck, 1999), are sensible and helpful, whereas others remainuncontested and pervaded by ethnocentric and positivist ideas. Among the latterprejudices, the ‘reflectionist’ standpoint (Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007: 71) isespecially widespread and resilient. This misleading perspective is encapsulated inthe ‘Pompeii premise’ (Schiffer, 1985), i.e. a view of the archaeological record as afaithful, unproblematic reflection of past actions and values passively fossilised atdiscrete slices of time (Lucas, 2012: 102–103). A series of fallacious expectationsfollow from this ‘reflectionist’ attitude: (a) the existing evidence supposedly mirrorslifestyles and original equipment while in use; (b) breakage and incompleteness areenvisaged as unavoidable side effects of sampling bias, or natural features irrespect-ive of depositional context; and (c) beyond the funerary/ritual realm, the contri-bution of past intentionality to the formation of the material record is considerednegligible and can be downplayed. Recent research on depositional practices andthe formation dynamics of the archaeological evidence (e.g. Beadsmoore et al.,2010; Garrow, 2006; Mills and Walker, 2008; Rıdky et al., 2014) has shed import-ant new light to start reappraising such long-held assumptions. Besides this, inrecent years an increasing array of archaeological contributions addressing mater-ial culture in social terms have emerged, with novel, ‘bottom-up’ approaches gain-ing ground. Depositional practices, materiality, the social lives or itineraries ofthings, and the mutualistic relationships between humans and things encapsulatethis new agenda (e.g. Gosden and Marshall, 1999; Hodder, 2012; Jennings, 2014;Knappett, 2005; Meskell, 2004; Mills and Walker, 2008; Thomas, 1999).

Enquiry on later prehistory in the Iberian Peninsula, from the Neolithic throughthe Bronze Age (5500–850 cal BC), has been very uneven. Generalist ‘top-down’accounts (Gamble, 2001: 78–81) are the mainstream and have given rise to large-scale narratives in terms of gradual processes of politico-economic development(Cruz Berrocal et al., 2013). In the better-known south-east, well-preserved tombswith rich furnishings and deeply stratified settlements are available. Sophisticatedassessments have been gained and scholars are now aware that ‘contextual, deposi-tional and taphonomic factors have not been appropriately considered’ (Arandaet al., 2015: 75). By contrast, archaeology in the northern half of Iberia yields analternate predominance of either funerary or domestic evidence, chiefly associatedwith humble pits and gullies (Colomer et al., 1998). Such sunken features representthe prevailing later prehistoric evidence worldwide, but they have been too oftenoverlooked. For the Iberian inner plateau or Meseta (Figure 1), the ambiguity andevasiveness of its empirical basis have ultimately reinforced a scholarly empiricistand ‘reflectionist’ background. Some authors (e.g. Dıaz-del-Rıo, 2001: 118–125;Martınez Navarrete, 1988: 886–888) stressed the prospects of studying formationprocesses as a crucial way for understanding how this archaeological record wasconfigured and what sort of social practices might have been behind it. Interest onthese issues has lately escalated and such research questions are now in the Iberian

Blanco-Gonzalez 343



research agenda (Liesau et al., 2014b; Marquez-Romero and Jimenez-Jaimez, 2013;Vale, 2010; Weiss-Krejci, 2011).

Framed by this intellectual backdrop, a two-year post-doctoral research project1

was designed to tackle the later prehistoric Iberian evidence with a fresh approach.This investigation is distinctive inasmuch as it adopts a self-critical stance to addressformation processes, relies on a systematic methodology to assess taphonomy in acomparative and diachronic approach, and interprets the outcomes from anon-positivist background. Enquiry focused on hand-made ceramics, the mostomnipresent archaeological material, whose informative potential has been hithertounderexploited. This paper draws on the results of that research. Its aims are twofold:(a) to contribute to the discussion of fragmentation and intentionality in the archaeo-logical record; and (b) to test the value of careful observation of theminutiae ofmaterialculture to support complementary microscale or ‘bottom-up’ social narratives.

Fragmentation and intentionality

Over the last decade, a number of contributions have reinvigorated the originaldisciplinary interest in archaeological objects, and social insights are being gained

Figure 1. Central Iberia and sites mentioned in the text. 1. Molino Sanchon (Zamora); 2. San

Roman de Hornija (Valladolid); 3. Pico Castro (Palencia); 4. El Cerro (Burgos); 5. La Lampara

(Soria); 6. El Alto III (Soria); 7. Camino de las Yeseras (Madrid); 8. El Ventorro (Madrid); 9.

Humanejos (Madrid); 10. Valdeprados (Avila); 11. Los Tiesos I (Avila); 12. Fuente Lirio (Avila);

13. El Morcuero (Avila).

344 Journal of Social Archaeology 15(3)



from a suite of innovative perspectives. In a fairly simplistic but operational way,these can be grouped into: (a) multidisciplinary-driven approaches revolvingaround materiality and human–thing relationships (e.g. Hodder, 2012; Jones,2012; Knappett, 2005; Meskell, 2004; Mills and Walker, 2008), and (b) anupturn in interest in the archaeological physicality of items (particularly ceramics)to illuminate the circumstances surrounding their entering the material record (e.g.Brudenell and Cooper, 2008; Edwards, 2012; Garrow, 2006, 2012; Jennings, 2014;Lamdin-Whymark, 2008). Thus, studies of archaeological materials may eitheradhere to sophisticated philosophically grounded frameworks, with the risk ofoverlooking how and why these items survived, or resort to geoscientific and tapho-nomic strategies which might disregard contingent cultural conditions. Thus, whentackling the archaeological record, there is a growing risk of disconnection betweenour interpretive and analytical considerations (cf. Lucas, 2012: 87–91).

At the interface of this riddling split reside fragmentation theory (Chapman,2000, 2012; Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007) and intentionality in the archaeo-logical evidence (David, 2004; Davis, 1992; Dornan-Fish, 2012). Fragmentationis frequently referred to in literature as a mere trope, a taken-for-granted attributeof ancient materials. However, this overwhelming condition of the subject matterof archaeology deserves proper analysis. If adequately problematized andobserved, such a variable may offer valuable information on the ways past remainsentered the archaeological record. From the early 2000s, the ‘fragmenterist’ strand(Chapman, 2000; Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007: 113–171) has argued for thedeliberate breakage of things as a genuine social practice, traceable in diverse pre-historic societies. This theory has attempted to integrate high level social theorywith detailed hands-on analysis of items (Bailey, 2001: 1181; Jones, 2012: 19;Matthews, 2007: 186). Besides that, criticism on some early assumptions (Bailey,2001: 1182) prompted further discussion on formation dynamics (Chapman andGaydarska, 2007: 71–79). However, a defining aspect of the deliberate fragmenta-tion theory’s formulation remains controversial – ascertaining whether brokenobjects may be considered planned end products or fortuitous by-products(Bailey, 2001: 1182; Lucas, 2012: 98; Milisauskas, 2002: 889). This latter pointconnects with the second mentioned theme: intentionality and its archaeologicaldiagnosis. Linking subjective mental deliberation to its physical correlates repre-sents an unresolved challenge (Lucas, 2012: 23–29). Current standpoints (David,2004: 67; Davis, 1992: 336–337; Russell, 2004: 64) conclude that archaeologicalremnants can only be partially and indirectly surmised as mediated results ofpast will.

In the light of this state of affairs, two important points need to be made.First, any decision with material consequences follows cultural pathways ofdoing, so that outcomes are somehow constrained by space–time fields of pos-sibilities (David, 2004: 67–68; Jones, 2012: 125). Second, the original testing fieldfor the deliberate fragmentation premise was the Balkan Neolithic, with a focuson ‘common but special objects’ (Chapman, 2012: 130) such as fired clay figur-ines and body shell ornaments (Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007: 113–171).

Blanco-Gonzalez 345



The circulation of these things in daily life was far from secluded (contra Bailey,2001: 1182), and their informative potential has been realized (Chapman andGaydarska, 2007: 7). Nonetheless, such artifacts might have mobilized exclusivecultural precepts dealing with their formalized social termination. The heuristicvalue of more mundane portable objects to illuminate prehistoric socialitydeserves further attention (Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007: 204). Inshort, the present appearance of archaeological materials might have been theresult of both preconceived and casual past actions. To tell apart both possibi-lities, we are to integrate the more ubiquitous and accessible items in ouraccounts.

Drawing on the above discussion, this research implements a ‘bottom-up’approach to infer decisive information from the physical consequences of pastsocial life. The key questions addressed here are: Is the empirical basis undiffer-entiated and inscrutable or can any contrasts and regularities be identified? Whatmay reveal a highly detailed characterization of the circumstances experienced bythe surviving material evidence? What was the contribution of past social prac-tices and intentionality to the extant archaeological fraction? Can fragmentationcoupled with taphonomy inform of unknown and complex formation circum-stances? This paper encompasses a broad spectrum of variability whereby insightson the ways prehistoric people engaged with their material world may be gained.It collates context-specific cases in a long-term perspective, from the earliestceramic-making Neolithic communities (c. 5500 BC) to the Late Bronze Age(c. 1100 BC).2 The analysis concentrated on pottery, the prime imperishablemedium (Braun, 1983) for basic everyday household equipment among thosesmall-scale societies. Drawing on literature (e.g. Beadsmoore et al., 2010;Brudenell and Cooper, 2008; Garrow, 2012; Jennings, 2015; LaMotta andSchiffer, 1999; Porcic, 2012; Rıdky et al., 2014), a template of hypotheticaldepositional dynamics and their estimated taphonomic and fragmentation pat-terns were outlined (Table 1). An assemblage-oriented strategy (Lucas, 2012: 75,91–123) was implemented. It consists of an integrated refitting and taphonomicprotocol (Blanco-Gonzalez and Chapman, 2014a, 2014b; Blanco-Gonzalez et al.,2014) designed to evaluate a series of variables informative of the final stages ofceramics: number of conjoining and ‘orphan’ sherds (i.e. items lacking local refit,cf. Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007: 81) represented parent vessels, size, and ero-sion of potsherds. This procedure was systematically applied to 10,797 sherdsfrom eight thoroughly excavated but poorly understood sites (Figure 1, Table2). Such attributes and indices refer only to the studied features which, save threecases of complete excavation, represent a minor section of the total area of sites(Table 2). Observed values were compared against three depositional ‘touchstone’scenarios (Table 1). This comparative strategy allowed demarcating the initialsuite of empirical variability. The understanding of results from a non-positivisticviewpoint explicitly circumvents qualifying the evidence based on our own sim-plistic and curtailing classifications (Bruck, 1999; Thomas, 1999). The followingsections revise the findings in order to synthesize the lessons obtained.




Table 1. Estimated archaeological patterns according to three archetypical depositional

scenarios.

Variables Pompeii-like context Planned end product Fortuitous by-product

Type of debris De facto refuse, i.e. still

usable things prema-

turely left behind with-

out undergoing proper

conventional discard.

Deposits, i.e. carefully

placed items with

explicit

consciousness.

Material culture pat-

terning, i.e. cumula-

tive random

aggregates of items,

unconsidered (even

inadvertent) effects

of habitual practice.

Status in the

depositional

cycle and

temporality

Systemic assemblage in

use, in primary position

(in situ). Items within

the context are mainly

synchronous and may

respond to short

temporalities.

Items in primary and

secondary (i.e.

abandoned,

retrieved and

deposited) pos-

itions. They may

respond to varied

temporalities and

may be time-

averaged.

Secondary and tertiary

(i.e. deposited,

retrieved and rede-

posited) residues.

Diverse (including

very prolonged)

temporalities. Time-

averaged

palimpsests.

Contributing for-

mation factors

Unexpected and sudden

abandonment due to

natural (e.g. flooding,

earthquake, conflagra-

tion, landslide) or

human-induced epi-

sodes (violent

destruction).

Pre-planned termin-

ation activities in

accordance with

routine norms

(most cases of

formal deposits) or

according to excep-

tional (even impro-

vised) rules under

abnormal circum-

stances (deviant

burials or

abandonments).

Manifold casual com-

binations of natural

and anthropogenic

agencies. Accretion

and depletion pro-

cesses may inter-

mingle, resulting in

the diminution of

the extant material

fraction.

Location and spatial

patterning

Items retain full original

spatial patterning.

Potsherds from the

same parent vessel lie

together (accidental

and in situ breakage).

May retain past spatial

patterning. Parts of

the same item lie

together.

Original spatial pat-

terning has been

severely distorted

and irretrievably

lost, so that primary

activities (if ever)

can be hardly

surmised.

Completeness and

fracture patterns

Mainly whole items: ves-

sels lacking voids or

lacunae (save minority

parts missed or des-

troyed in the

Both entire and partial

items are expected.

In situ breakage: all

parts from the same

item lie together.

Deliberate smashing

Mainly partial items,

fractured elsewhere

(off-site breakage).

Whole items are

not expected, but

they may occur.

(continued)

Blanco-Gonzalez 347



Table 1. Continued

Variables Pompeii-like context Planned end product Fortuitous by-product

excavation). Natural

and on-site breakage.

of pot: impact point

and radial fractures

are apparent.

Natural breakage of

pot: lacking impact

point.

Preservation and

taphonomic

condition

Negligible or null wea-

thering, ‘freshly broken’

fractures. Large assem-

blages of items feature

uniform condition (e.g.

thermal deformation or

sooting if destroyed by

fire).

Depending on the

temporality of items

when deposited.

Assemblages of

items undergoing

similar degradation

processess may

exhibit homoge-

neous condition.

Depending on the

temporality of each

item when entered

the context.

Manifold prospect-

ive alterations

affecting particular

items in multiple

ways.

Size Sherds from the same

parent vessel tend to

be homogeneous.

Medium-large sizes

from coarse vessels

predominate.

Sherds from the same

parent vessel tend

to be homogeneous

and feature

medium–large sizes

(save the impact

point¼ disappeared

matter and much

smaller sherds).

A great deal of het-

erogeneity is

expected, even

among sherds from

the same parent

vessel, due to fur-

ther post-breakage

diminution. Small

size items may

predominate.

Refitting items High number of rejoinable

items.

Depending on the

completeness of

items when

deposited.

Low number of rejoin-

able items.

Orphan items

(lacking local

refits)

Low or null number (but

plausible occurrence of

remaining micro-refuse

on surfaces).

Depending on the

completeness of

items when

deposited.

High number of

orphan portions.

Heuristic potential

for archaeo-

logical

interpretation

The most reliable source

for inferring everyday

social life (customary

household inventory

and belongings, habitual

chores etc.). Pre-aban-

donment modifications

cannot be ruled out.

Informative of pur-

poseful gestures

(both standard

cases and outliers)

aimed at disposing

of something in a

particular way in

order to get some-

thing else (irretriev-

able goals).

Informative of every-

day practice, i.e.

ordinary social

practices aimed at

further purposes.

Spurious relation-

ship to original

activities.




Tab

le2.

Tap

honom

icre

sults.

Site

Peri

od

Conte

xt

type

Studie

dco

nte

xts

Tota

l

site

/stu

die

d

area

(sq

m)

Tota

l/st

udie

d

sherd

s(%

)

Refit

ting

sherd

s(%

)

Par

ent

pots

Orp

han

sherd

s(%

)

Smal

l

(%)

Mediu

m

(%)

Lar

ge

(%)

Fresh

(%)

Slig

ht

(%)

Worn

-out

(%)

La

Lam

par

aEar

ly Neolit

hic

Low

land

pit

site

Pits

1,2,3,9,10,

13,17,18

130,0

00/1

250

1349

(100)

354

(26)

64

995

(74)

35

43

22

83

11

6

Fuente

Lir

ioC

hal

colit

hic

Hom

est

ead

Hut

&5

pits

in

Sect

or

1

40,0

00/9

42856

(100)

1382

(48)

140

1474

(52)

752

34

92

53

ElVento

rro

Chal

colit

hic

Low

land

pit

site

Pits

08,09,010,

011,012

&

Pithouse

013

Unknow

n/4

436578

/

3837

(11)

730

(19)

310

3107

(81)

55

42

360

39

1

Val

depra

dos

Chal

colit

hic

Isola

ted

shaf

t

Buri

alpit

20

254

(100)

78

(31)

16

176

(69)

22

65

13

63

21

16

Los

Tie

sos

IC

hal

colit

hic

Bar

row

Whole

monum

ent

116

236

(100)

51

(21)

29

185

(79)

32

62

611

57

32

ElM

orc

uero

Chal

colit

hic

Bar

row

Whole

monum

ent

80

543

(100)

124

(23)

45

419

(77)

26

66

814

59

27

ElC

err

oM

iddle

Bro

nze

Age

Low

land

pit

site

Pits

2,4,6,10,11,

14,15,17,22,

23,24,25,27

&29

Unknow

n/5

50

1441/3

12

(22)

144

(46)

123

168

(54)

47

30

23

72

26

2

Pic

oC

astr

oLat

eB

ronze

Age

Hill

top

pit

site

Sect

or

IV(9

pits)

&

Sect

or

V(1

4

pits)

120,0

00/2

50

1410

(100)

267

(19)

84

1143

(81)

12

45

43

66

29

5

Note

:Si

zeca

tego

ries:

smal

l(<

12.5

cm2);

mediu

m(1

2.5

–66.5

cm2);

larg

e(>

66.5

cm2).

Ero

sion

cate

gori

es:

fresh

(no

abra

sion);

slig

ht

wear

;w

orn

-out

(sev

ere

lyero

ded).

Blanco-Gonzalez 349



Figure 2. Early Neolithic site of La Lampara. (a) Funerary ritual in Pit 1, note participants

breaking vessels and deposition of the jug (Rojo et al., 2008: 84). (b) Jug featuring facial human

traits with missing neck from Pit 1 (after Rojo et al., 2008: figs. 186 and 187).




Neolithic engagements with pottery (c. 5500–3300 BC)

Megalithic monuments and funerary customs dated to the late fifth and fourthmillennia BC (Middle Neolithic) feature highly in traditional accounts of thisperiod, at the expense of less visible settlement archaeology. Fortunately, thispanorama is improving (Dıaz-del-Rıo, 2001; Jorge, 2014; Weiss-Krejci, 2011); nar-ratives now cover an extended timescale and a richer variety of Neolithic deposi-tional contexts, predominantly of early date (c. 5500–4400 BC) (Balsera et al., 2015:141–142). These include settlements, mainly open-air and cave occupations, andmortuary expressions, such as pit burials and the deposition of dismemberedhuman remains (Garrido-Pena et al., 2012; Weiss-Krejci, 2011).

The pit site of La Lampara (Figure 1, no. 5) is one such lowland habitat, andtestifies to activities that took place at a temporary camp repeatedly occupiedthroughout the second half of the sixth millennium BC (Rojo et al., 2008).Excavations affected 1% of the estimated site and unearthed 18 dug-out features(Table 2), some probably used as ground storage silos, but all eventually filled withsettlement debris, including one of the earliest ceramic assemblages in Iberia.Excavators (Rojo et al., 2008) posited the key role of deliberate fragmentationand selective deposition as characteristic cultural traits in the unearthed evidence(Figure 2). Re-examination of the ceramic assemblage confirmed and pinpointedsuch claims. Six of the sunken features are linked by refitting sherds which indicatetheir coeval infilling with waste discarded shortly before (83% of the total ceramicsexhibits good preservation) (Table 2). The high proportion of small- to medium-sized sherds (78%) may reflect prolonged trampling over the course of reoccupa-tions. The burial of an old woman in Pit 1 (Figure 2a) involved certain formalities(Rojo et al., 2008: 81–86, 379–393): the body was accompanied by a jug exhibitinga sharp fracture and a missing neck. This jug features incised decorations depictinga bearded human face or facial tattoo, enhanced by its fracture (Rojo et al., 2008:377–379) (Figure 2b). Its breakage pattern, with a neat rupture affecting the wholeupper part and lacking any cracks or signs of impact in the heavier bottom, sug-gests deliberate fragmentation. This vessel was likely regarded as a meaning-ladenthing, purposefully divided and then carefully placed at the woman’s feet (Figure2a). This was not the only intentional action recognized there. The layers coveringthe corpse yielded 246 potsherds showing a ‘freshly broken’ appearance. The refit-ting operation indicates 126 secure or probable matching sherds belonging to atleast 21 partial vessels, probably broken on occasion of the mortuary ceremony.No irrefutable proofs for this possibility were identified.

Petrographic analyses (Blanco-Gonzalez et al., 2014) led to a more accuratediagnosis of several probable matching pairs, which provide information on theirtemporality and allow raising new interpretations. In Pit 13, fragments exhibitingcontrasting post-breakage alterations (reuse, weathering, burning) belonged to acommon vessel (Figure 3a). Thus, they underwent diverse degradation processesfor a prolonged period before they entered this feature. Another two large slabsbearing applied decoration (Figure 3b) and sensibly published as parts of the same

Blanco-Gonzalez 351



coarse jar (Rojo et al., 2008: 140, Figure 115, no. 1) actually derived from twoparent jars. Such portions, sharing eye-catching features (unique in the excavatedsector), hardly passed unnoticed to people disposing of them. Their joint occur-rence within Pit 13 may be haphazard, but the possibility of their entering the samewell because of their formal resemblance is also worth considering; perhaps suchlarge chunks were piled and handled together, or maybe they had some meaningand were deemed to finish together.

In short, beyond the mortuary realm, there is scope for considering patterningand human agency among the most frequent physical correlates of social life in theEarly Neolithic. It has been suggested (Rojo et al., 2008) that the wandering semi-mobile settlement patterns characterized in these temporary camps may match arationale akin to that held by subsequent Neolithic communities in other Europeanareas (Thomas, 1999). In this light, the formal closure of pits and the showcasedpeculiarities in the treatment of ceramics might be envisaged as mnemonicresources aimed at marking the landscape at important social episodes.

Depositional stories in the Chalcolithic (c. 3300–2200 BC)

After a millennium (c. 4400–3400 BC) of scant activity (Balsera et al., 2015: 141–142), the third millennium BC in Iberia left a much more visible, and hence inves-tigated, archaeology. The evidence is now far more copious and apparently moreexplicit in utilitarian terms, and this has facilitated an overindulgent and barelycritical ‘reflectionist’ attitude. A varied array of testimonies is known: funerarycontexts (e.g. megaliths, tumuli, tholoi, charnel-houses, inhumations in naturaland artificial caves, burial pits, etc.), abundant open-air settlements, rock art,and interspersed ditched enclosures (Bueno et al., 2008; Dıaz-del-Rıo, 2001,

Figure 3. Early Neolithic sherds from Pit 13 at La Lampara. (a) Fragments M & N from the

same grooved bowl showing divergent appearance. (b) Similar looking potsherds O & P with

applied ropes from two different parent jars.




2004; Weiss-Krejci, 2011). Some of these contexts are examined here to betterunderstand their archaeological nature.

Fuente Lirio (Figure 1, no. 12) is a Chalcolithic homestead (Fabian, 2006: 128–155). Over 2800 potsherds found within a round hut 6 m in diameter were char-acterised with the taphonomic protocol (Table 2). At least 140 serving bowls,cooking pots and coarse jars were identified, generally very well preserved (freshcategory: 92%), but also featuring eroded sherds (8%), numerous small–mediumpieces (59%) and 52% are ‘orphan’ fragments (Table 2). These values do not fitthose expected in an abruptly sealed dwelling akin to a ‘Pompeii-like’ context filledwith de facto refuse, i.e. still usable items abandoned in situ (Porcic, 2012: 25–37;Schiffer, 1985; cf. Table 1). Ceramics yielded by this hut were more likely everydaywaste of a household disposing of its turnover for a relatively short period (<10years) in the vicinity (hence their low abrasion degree), subsequently partlyretrieved (high number of ‘orphan’ sherds) and dumped into the structure duringthe abandonment stage (cf. LaMotta and Schiffer, 1999: 22–24).

This domestic image vividly contrasts with the so-called ‘Pithouse 013’ at ElVentorro (Figure 1, no. 8). This extraordinarily rich sunken feature contained39,700 items in 44 m2, including ceramics, flints, faunal debris, querns, coppercrucibles and slag, and a few human remains (Dıaz-del-Rıo, 2006: 73). A subsetof nearly 4000 potsherds was assessed, including 111 fragments from at least 48 BellBeakers (Table 2). ‘Pithouse 013’ was initially interpreted as a slow build-up ofoccupation floors regularly cleaned; if this were the case, only scarce and tinyresidues were to be expected (LaMotta and Schiffer, 1999: 21). Our reassessment(Blanco-Gonzalez and Chapman, 2014b) does not support such a reading.Taphonomic values obtained from this assemblage (Table 2) are comparable tothose from the fills of Neolithic monumental ditches (Rıdky et al., 2014: 595–596)and point to a ditch segment filled with a bulky and heterogeneous mixture of itemswith a prolonged temporality, reaching back up to several decades. This detritusincluded recently broken remains (60% are fresh sherds) and secondary small(55%) and erratic residues (39% are slightly eroded) probably interred duringsocial gatherings. This contrasts with Fuente Lirio, where 7% are small potsherdsand only 5% are slightly eroded (Table 2). Importantly, comparisons were madebetween coarse and supposedly highly valuable pottery. Beaker drinking bowls andbeakers, and large carinated bowls for solid foodstuff were deployed in those com-mensality ceremonies (Garrido-Pena et al., 2011), broken and immediately dis-carded (large sizes, negligible erosion). However, a quarter of the Beaker sherds,including those featuring schematic designs regarded as highly symbolic (Figure4a), underwent the same degradation processes as the plain coarse wares. Thus, atthis terminal stage, such things did not receive any distinctive treatment (Blanco-Gonzalez and Chapman, 2014b: 95).

Beyond the expected placement of entire Bell-Beaker vessels in funerary contexts(e.g. Bueno et al. 2008), an array of ‘oddities’ is being recognised during the thirdmillennium BC, such as the smashing-on-deposition (Jones, 2012: 132). A case inpoint is a large Beaker carinated bowl (Figure 4b) thrown into a shaft at Molino

Blanco-Gonzalez 353



Sanchon (Figure 1, no. 1). It has been related to the ritualised closing of this saltprocessing site, as a way to give thanks for the release of valuable substances(Abarquero et al., 2012: 331–334; Guerra-Doce et al., 2011: 814, 816). The discov-ery of incomplete Beaker vessels in contexts sealed during this period is also wide-spread (e.g. Liesau et al., 2014b). At the causewayed enclosure of Camino de lasYeseras (Figure 1, no. 7), this occurrence has been understood within extendedcycles of retrieval, manipulation, and exhibition of relics from ancestors – involvinghuman remains (especially skulls and large bones), pottery, and metal items (Liesauet al., 2014a: 141–147). Partial Beaker wares fractured elsewhere and subsequentlyhandled and selectively deposited are also well-known practices (Garrido-Penaet al., 2011: 122, 125). Examination of the ceramic sample from Valdeprados(Figure 1, no. 10) confirmed such a sequence. There, a heap of dismemberedhuman bones from a male was accompanied by a gold sheet, a copper dagger,and three Palmela spearheads. The fill yielded 254 sherds, 69% of them withoutconjoins (Table 2) including 30 decorated Beaker sherds from three beakers andtwo complete plain vessels. A plain beaker was certainly smashed inside the pit; allits fragments were found in there, they exhibit homogeneous erosion, and theimpact point is very apparent (Table 1). However, the incised beakers were notdestroyed in situ, as previously thought (Garrido-Pena et al., 2011: 125). Sincethese sherds exhibit intense attrition marks, they were most likely gathered fromelsewhere and brought there. This pattern goes hand-in-hand with the hypothesisof the manipulation of relics (Liesau et al., 2014b; Woodward, 2002) and is clearlyrecognised in several Beaker-associated tumuli, such as the El Alto III barrow(Figure 1, no. 6) (Rojo et al., 2014: 33–34) or Los Tiesos I and El Morcuero(Figure 1, nos. 11 and 13) (Blanco-Gonzalez, 2014a: 4–6). These two monumentsshow over 75% of ‘orphan’ sherds, and a third of their assemblages are highly

Figure 4. (a) Highly abraded Beaker potsherds from El Ventorro showing a schematic sun

and a deer’s antlers. (b) Large Bell Beaker smashed on deposition at Molino Sanchon (after

Abarquero et al., 2012: lam. 164 and Guerra-Doce et al., 2011: fig. 9). Scales in cm.




abraded (Table 2), indicating off-site breakage and prolonged degradation (Table1). Finally, partial Bell-Beaker goods also indicate intentional destruction for fur-ther purposes. At Humanejos (Figure 1, no. 9), a matchless hypogeum tomb with aladder and a large burial pit had been looted and their contents intentionallybroken and dispersed during the Beaker period. Such desecration acts were likelyaimed at obliterating the memory of those buried there, in a context of factionaldispute (Flores-Fernandez and Garrido-Pena, 2014).

The social lives of Bronze Age people and things(1800–1100 BC)

In the northern half of Iberia, most Bronze Age remains are recovered from delib-erately filled sunken features, the almost unique depositional type-context (e.g.Colomer et al., 1998: 58). This is especially true in the Central Meseta. In trad-itional accounts (e.g. Fernandez Castro, 1995), the second millennium BC in thismacro-region was led by wandering herders who were technologically underdevel-oped (ephemeral occupations in pit sites), politically regressive, and isolated fromlarge-distance exchange networks (lacking elite burials or prestige items). This cli-ched vision was reinforced by their perpetuation of long-lasting traditions: pit-digging on lowland spots occupied by their predecessors; reuse of old caves andmegaliths; and striking decorative resemblances with earlier potteries. Such narra-tives do not adequately match the elusive remnants left by those peoples, whosemateriality seems at odds with conventional ways of archaeological inference(Blanco-Gonzalez, 2015). In short, the ‘reflectionist’ stance has played a particu-larly ominous and misleading role here. New lines of enquiry are proving useful indiscrediting such stereotypical but pervasive and durable readings. It is increasinglyclear that dwellings were systematically dismantled and the customary funeraryritual was the exposure of corpses, normative procedures leading to no traceablevestiges, save exceptions under abnormal circumstances (Blanco-Gonzalez, 2015;Esparza et al., 2012). As a consequence, reconstructions of subsistence lifestylesand social organisation are especially intricate (Delibes and Romero, 2011; Dıaz-del-Rıo, 2001). Even the most seminal arguments, such as the duality of low-lyingfarmsteads and hilltop steadily inhabited sites (Arnaiz and Montero, 2011: 559–561) need a more in-depth examination. The taphonomic and refitting examinationof several ceramic assemblages (Table 2) was aimed at tackling such questions.

The Middle Bronze Age (1800–1450 BC) lowland pit site of El Cerro (Figure 1,no. 4) yielded unusual findings from undisturbed contexts, such as a semi-sunkendwelling, a triple burial pit with children and Neolithic and Beaker ceramics. Thecharacterization of a selected ceramic collection from 14 features instigated arethinking of their formation dynamics, stressing the terminal stages (Sanchez-Polo and Blanco-Gonzalez, 2014). Most pits were casually filled with randomaggregates of refuse made up of recently broken (fresh sherds: 72%) and veryfragmented ceramics (47% are small sherds) (Table 2). However, several depositsexhibit a greater deal of intentional arrangement: the inhumation of three children

Blanco-Gonzalez 355



in a gully, the placement of a cow’s leg in a nearby shaft, and the cache of EarlyNeolithic ceramics on top of a subsoil feature of Bronze Age date (Figure 5a). Theradiocarbon-dated children were interred simultaneously, and, according toaDNA, were siblings (Sanchez-Polo and Blanco-Gonzalez, 2014: 7–9). It seemsplausible that the concurrent deaths of three young members of a family mighthave altered its social and cosmological order. The archaeological evidence at ElCerro might be accounted for as an extraordinary response by the living group. Itlikely prompted the abandonment of the polluted hut and its ancillary pits, thedeviant inhumation of the corpses and the mobilization and final deposition ofpotent ancestral relics (Lillios, 1999) or otherworldly tokens – the anachronisticpotsherds.

The Late Bronze Age (1450–1150 BC) hilltop site of Pico Castro (Figure 1,no. 3) is one of these prominent steep crags regarded as central places. The

Figure 5. (a) Cache of well-preserved Early Neolithic sherds from Bronze Age feature at El

Cerro (Photos: A. L. Palomino and A. Sanchez). (b) Vessels with outstanding social biographies

from Pit 23 at Pico Castro. Scales in cm.




taphonomic and refitting operation with ceramics from 23 pits from Sectors IVand V at its summit (representing 0.2% of the total site) was conducted toevaluate the temporal dynamics of its occupations (Table 2). The very low rep-resentativeness of vessels within the studied features (81% are orphan sherds)and contrasting values in their preservation condition (66% are freshly brokenand 29% lowly eroded) suggest diverse temporalities and formation trajectoriesbetween Sectors IV and V, 230 m apart. Thus, rather than being a permanentsettlement, Pico Castro was probably used for centuries as a seasonal gatheringplace (Blanco-Gonzalez, 2014b: 452). Again, most cut features were filled withdetrital re-deposited residues, but there are also remarkable patterned depositsinvolving selective deposition of things. Pit 23 stands out as an almost uniqueassemblage of complete or almost entire ceramic vessels placed together: threebowls exhibiting geometric decorations (some are one-off astral motifs) and sev-eral coarse pots and jars (Figure 5b). Their thorough examination demonstratedprolonged social lives after breakage, and protracted abandonment gestures(Blanco-Gonzalez, 2014b). These involved the detachment of sherds, theirundergoing an array of degradation processes (calcite accretion, attrition, expos-ure over fire), and eventual gathering and gluing prior to their inverted place-ment (Figure 5b).

To sum up, there is room to advocate the contribution of culturally idiosyncraticpractices in the ways of managing material culture during the second millennium inCentral Iberia. Average ways of disposing of waste (Garrow, 2012: 109–113) aimedat erasing all material remains from the earth’s surface. Fortunately, especiallyvalued things or unforeseeable developments prompted deviant procedures of dis-posal, which contributed decisively to the formation of this misunderstood arch-aeological record (Blanco-Gonzalez, 2015). Bronze Age people encapsulated theinvolvement with partial items, despite the fact that planned breakage of vessels hasnot been demonstrated in the chosen case-studies. Endurance of such atavistichabits is to be regarded as a cultural revival: second-millennium people chose todraw on previous cultural manifestations, rather than being passively conducted byhistorical inertia.

Concluding remarks

This paper has stressed the very fragmentary and unbalanced nature of the extantmaterial evidence throughout Iberian later prehistory. Entrenched empiricist prem-ises have led to the analysis of this problematic archaeological record in an undulyconfident way, whereby the domestic sphere supposedly faithfully reflects thematerial conditions of life, and the mortuary/ritual occurrences (of undisputableintentional character) mirrors shared beliefs and past social organisation. In orderto challenge these contentious yet consensual assumptions, the taphonomic anddepositional research presented here has examined a selection of especially ambigu-ous contexts. This attempt has proven effective in supporting a ‘bottom-up’ reap-praisal (Gamble, 2001: 195–196).

Blanco-Gonzalez 357



This diachronic perspective has tracked the extended currency of several ever-changing social practices, as linking threads running through space–time. Thebreakage, dispersal, retrieval, handling, and final deposition of ceramics and fur-ther substances (biological remains, stones, metals, ashy sediments, etc.) were cru-cial to those Iberian societies. They responded to contingent circumstances, buttheir everlasting contribution to the formation of the archaeological evidence is tobe underscored.

This overview began with the earliest pottery-using communities, c. 5500 BC. InPit 1 at La Lampara, some purposeful gestures are apparent in both the regularfracture of a jug, likely reconfigured to enhance its anthropomorphism (Rojo et al.,2008: 377–378) and its placement accompanying a dead woman (Figure 2). Beyondthe funerary realm, patterning and willingness are also traceable in the filling ofsunken features. The association of two unique sherds belonging to different jarswithin Pit 13 (Figure 3b) may have responded to their joint pre-abandonmentmanipulation, or may have come about as a genuine case of selective deposition.In any case, this latter option is strongly backed by the incorporation of particularceramics (Rojo et al., 2008) and disarticulated human bones (Garrido-Pena et al.,2012; Weiss-Krejci, 2011) to contemporary depositional contexts. The Chalcolithicperiod exhibits a plentiful empirical basis for the deliberate breakage of pottery:Bell Beakers smashed within pits as votive offerings (Abarquero et al., 2012), ordespoiled in tombs to erase the memory of competing factions (Flores-Fernandezand Garrido-Pena, 2014). Several strands of evidence bear witness to the circula-tion and discriminatory abandonment of partial things such as broken Bell-Beakervessels or isolated bones, likely regarded as relics (Liesau et al., 2014b; Woodward,2002). Besides this, the eloquent third-millennium BC evidence allows confrontinguncontested assumptions. Thus, the hut at Fuente Lirio, with its well-preserved andabundant refitting sherds, but with peculiarities diverting from a true ‘Pompeii-like’context (Table 2), represents a touchstone against which to assess prospective‘occupation layers’. Rather than being so, many of them will prove to be accumu-lations occurred once dwellings were left (even emptied), during the abandonmentphase (LaMotta and Schiffer, 1999: 22–24). Moreover, interpretation should nei-ther add functional hierarchy nor rely on taken-for-granted misnomers (‘burialgoods’, ‘prestige items’), even when utilitarian roles seem straightforwardly infer-able. Ditched enclosures (El Ventorro, Camino de las Yeseras), deviant deposits(Valdeprados), and Beaker-associated tumuli (El Alto III, El Morcuero) were nei-ther residential nor solely funerary/ritual in character. Finally, in contrast toexpectations, Bronze Age low-lying (El Cerro) and hilltop (Pico Castro) sitesinvolved complex abandonment dynamics and multiple temporalities. Deliberatebreakage has not been confirmed for the second millennium BC, because of thesheer partiality of surviving remains and the absence of suitable contextual infor-mation. Yet, the conscious handling of partial things is very manifest in bothstudied sites (Figure 5) and is increasingly recognised elsewhere. Thus, the raretriple burial pit at San Roman de Hornija (Figure 1, no. 2) yielded half of avessel, the remainder being missing. Following Chapman and Gaydarska (2007),




such a behavior has been related to enchainment between the dead and the living(Esparza et al., 2012: 309). Moreover, the manipulation of ancient things, bestcategorized as relics or heirlooms with prolonged biographies (Lillios, 1999;Jennings, 2014), parallels the practices of circulating and placing radiocarbon-dated human bones from ancestors (Esparza et al., 2012). Therefore, it is possibleto argue for a long-term, transcultural phenomenon consisting of the manipulationand eventual discard of incomplete items; it originated in the Early Neolithic andonly came to an end over four millennia later, in the Late Bronze Age.

All in all, the studied archaeological cases are the physical correlates of a widesuite of irretrievable motives (David, 2004: 67; Davis, 1992: 336–337). Theseresulted from devoting efforts to attain hardly surmised utilitarian goals, whichnot necessarily matched our own rationale of instrumentality and causation(Bruck, 1999: 320–322). The depositional episodes glimpsed in this narrative con-stituted key media for the ongoing reproduction of sociality through their contin-ual reworking (Edwards, 2012: 94–96; Jones, 2012: 22–28, 127). It was theiriterative performance in face-to-face social interactions which was likely important,rather than the imperishable results of contingent (sometimes even improvised)procedures aimed at transient purposes. The resulting outcomes are always difficultto categorize (Jones, 2012: 134) and might be described in geoscientific terms asanthropogenic accumulations somewhere in a sliding continuum of depositionalpractice (Brudenell and Cooper, 2008: 30; Garrow, 2012: 94; Lamdin-Whymark,2008: 175; Lucas, 2012: 123; Thomas, 2012: 125) between two opposite ends (Table1): (a) planned products which testify to careful patterned or ‘ritualised’ closures(Lamdin-Whymark, 2008); and (b) casual aggregates or palimpsests (Lucas, 2012:112–123), unintended effects ‘generated through habitual and unconsidered adher-ence to cultural conventions’ (Thomas, 2012: 125) which came about by intendingsomething else (Garrow, 2012: 107). Formal, odd, or ‘structured’ deposits areidentified by their integrity (complete items, articulated portions) and spatial pat-terning, features which first attracted archaeological attention. This paper hasfocused particularly on the much neglected and under-theorised consequences ofroutine average practice, also known as material culture patterning (Garrow, 2012:109–113). In this regard, such manifold cases confirm that variability was indeedthe standard (Garrow, 2012: 111). Observations also suggest that even unplannedresults (e.g. accidental breakage, unconcerned transfer of refuse, casual deposi-tional patterning) have a great potential to inform depositional practice(Thomas, 2012). The backfilling of prehistoric sunken features (Thomas, 1999) isthe most representative case in point (Table 1). Taboos and precepts guiding thesehabitual ways of engaging with substances did not impede (and even sometimesmight have facilitated) the expedient and opportunistic retrieval, reuse, or recycleof previously discarded items. It is worth noting that since no Pompeii-like contexts(Table 1) are represented here, most studied ceramic assemblages (Table 2) experi-enced significant removal from their original utilitarian contexts (if any).Remarkable selection and diminution dynamics mediated the extant material frac-tion due to assorted combinations of natural and cultural factors (Lucas, 2005:

Blanco-Gonzalez 359



127–129, 2012: 61–68; Thomas, 2012: 126–127). This realisation entails importantinterpretive consequences. A great deal of such materials, especially the frequentcases of material culture patterning (Garrow, 2012: 109–113), is to be considered asan indirect source informing of severely distorted prehistoric activities beyondthose terminal ones referred to here.

Pottery has demonstrated its informative value as a socially embedded material,an accessible medium which afforded consecutive human–thing entanglements(Hodder, 2012). Because of its physical properties, both mixing/forming anddetaching/dividing were two inseparable aspects acknowledged by pottery-usinggroups from the very onset. Prehistoric things might have accrued meanings andthese were context-specific and far from immanent or fixed. Thus, certain vessels(Figure 5) became redolent of sociality throughout their complete existence(Blanco-Gonzalez, 2014b: 452; Jennings, 2014: 48–49; Jorge, 2014: 494–450), andthis observation speaks volumes on their social biographies or itineraries (Gosdenand Marshall, 1999; Hahn and Weiss, 2013; Meskell, 2004). By contrast, severalexamples, such as the case of Bell-Beaker ‘symbolically’ decorated sherds (Figure4a), could have lost their social esteem and finished as socially deactivated refuse.Importantly, such things were endowed with ascribed connotations irrespective oftheir intrinsic physicality. A fetishist attitude (cf. Meskell, 2004: 46–50) has focusedexcessive attention on ornamented ceramics, thus curtailing the testing of furtherpossibilities at alternative analytical scales. Both plain coarse- and profusely deco-rated fineware, partial and eroded or complete pots were actually handled inuncanny ways, such as those traced in Pit 23 from Pico Castro (Figure 5). Oldfractures and missing parts are too often disregarded as evidence for post-deposi-tional, unproblematic disturbance (e.g. Fitzpatrik, 2011: 37–43). Yet, even afterundergoing degradation processes such as breakage or erosion, some vessels keptaccruing further meanings and participated in social episodes, as if such alterationsrepresented but a threshold to a new status rather than the end of their social lives.In the face of this realization, western–modern categorisations, such as damaged ordysfunctional, should be challenged (Jones, 2012: 58) in order to not eclipse anadequate understanding of the otherness of the past.3

In conclusion, the focus on ceramic fragments has illuminated the wide variabil-ity behind a series of challenging depositional contexts in later prehistoric Iberia.This paper has spotlighted assorted degrees of intentionality and diverse ways offraming the social practices of fragmentation and deposition in contingent prehis-toric contexts. This reappraisal controverts key assumptions stemming from thecustomary and widespread ‘reflectionist’ standpoint: (a) the surviving evidence is adeformed and faint image of past material conditions of life; (b) fragmentation andincompleteness emerge as highly context-dependent archaeological features insteadof natural, only modern, or unavoidable side-effects; and (c) past human interven-tion was a driving factor decisively channelling all long-lasting physical conse-quences of social action, both planned end products and random effects.Important insights have been gained on the fragmented nature of the evidenceand the kind of narratives we can draw upon these past fragments.




Acknowledgements

This research has been possible due to a Marie Curie fellowship (PAST FRAGMENTSFP7-PEOPLE-2011-IEF-298285) and a post-doctoral contract (FPDI-2013-17394) funded

by the Spanish Ministry of Economy. The paper benefited from the advice of Prof. JohnChapman (University of Durham), and the improvements by Dr Ben Jennings (University ofBradford) and Prof. Katina Lillios (University of Iowa) who also corrected my Englishversions. I am indebted to Prof. Lynn Meskell (Stanford University) and three anonymous

reviewers for their insightful suggestions and criticisms on an early draft.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publicationof this article.

Notes

1. Marie Curie project Past Fragments. Materiality and depositional practices in later pre-historic Europe: an interdisciplinary approach using Central Iberia (Spain) record as a casestudy funded by the European Commission.

2. All dates used in the text refer to radiocarbon calibrated estimates.3. Beaker ON 6/23 from the Boscombe Bowmen pit is very illuminating. An old crack

running from its base up to its wall due to a pre-firing shrinkage limited its usage to

hold liquids, yet lipids and animal fats have been found in it (Fitzpatrik, 2011: 40).

References

AbarqueroFJ,GuerraE,DelibesG, et al. (2012)Arqueologıa de la Sal en lasLagunas deVillafafila(Zamora):Investigacionessobre loscocederosprehistoricos.Valladolid:JuntadeCastillayLeon.

Aranda G, Monton-Subıas S and Sanchez-Romero M (2015) The Archaeology of BronzeAge Iberia. Argaric Societies. New York: Routledge.

Arnaiz MA and Montero J (2011) Funerary expression and ideology in the Cogotas culturesettlements in the Northern Meseta of the Iberian Peninsula. In: Moore T and ArmadaX-L (eds) Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium BC. Crossing the Divide. Oxford:Oxford University Press, pp. 558–574.

Bailey DW (2001) Review of Chapman: fragmentation in archaeology. American

Anthropologist 103(4): 1181–1182.Balsera V, Bernabeu J, Costa-Carame M, et al. (2015) The radiocarbon chronology of

Southern Spain’s late prehistory (5600–1000 Cal BC): a comparative review. Oxford

Journal of Archaeology 34(2): 139–156.Beadsmoore E, Garrow D and Knight M (2010) Re-fitting Etton: space, time and material

culture within a causewayed enclosure in Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 76: 115–134.Blanco-Gonzalez A (2014a) Evocative monuments in the late 3rd millennium BC.

Reassessing depositional practices beyond funerary and domestic realms. Norwegian

Archaeological Review 47(1): 1–17.

Blanco-Gonzalez 361



Blanco-Gonzalez A (2014b) Tracking the social lives of things. Biographical insights into

Bronze Age pottery in Spain. Antiquity 88(340): 441–455.Blanco-Gonzalez A (2015) Unconventional prehistoric worlds: untangling the Later Bronze

Age in Central Iberia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(2): 435–460.

Blanco-Gonzalez A and Chapman J (2014a) A new method for identifying sherd refits: a casestudy from the Neolithic of Northumbria, UK. Journal of Field Archaeology 39(3): 248–255.

Blanco-Gonzalez A and Chapman J (2014b) Revisiting the Chalcolithic site of El Ventorro(Madrid, Spain). Ceramic re-fitting and taphonomy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 80: 87–103.Blanco-Gonzalez A, Kreiter A, Badreshany K, Chapman J and Pancel P (2014) Matching

sherds to vessels through ceramic petrography: an Early Neolithic Iberian case study.

Journal of Archaeological Science 50: 139–152.Braun D (1983) Pots as tools. In: Moore JA and Keene AS (eds) Archaeological Hammers

and Theories. New York: Academic Press, pp. 107–134.

Bruck J (1999) Ritual and rationality. Some problems of interpretation in European archae-ology. European Journal of Archaeology 2(3): 313–344.

Brudenell M and Cooper A (2008) Post-middenism. Depositional histories on Later BronzeAge settlements at Broom, Bedfordshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27(1): 15–36.

Bueno P, Barroso R and Vazquez A (2008) The Beaker phenomenon and the funerarycontexts of the International Tagus. In: Bueno P, Barroso R and Balbın R. de (eds)Graphical Markers and Megalith Builders in the International Tagus, Iberian Peninsula.

Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 141–155.Chapman J (2000) Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the

Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.

Chapman J (2012) Structured deposition meets deliberate object fragmentation.Archaeological Dialogues 19(2): 129–133.

Chapman J and Gaydarska B (2007) Parts and Wholes. Fragmentation in Prehistoric

Context. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Colomer L, Gonzalez Marcen P and Monton Subıas S (1998) Maintenance activities,

technological knowledge and consumption patterns: a view of Northeast Iberia (2000–500 Cal BC). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11(1): 53–80.

Cruz Berrocal M, Garcia Sanjuan L and Gilman A (eds) (2013) The Prehistory of Iberia.Debating Early Social Stratification and the State. New York: Routledge.

David B (2004) Intentionality, agency and an archaeology of choice. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 14(1): 67–71.Davis W (1992) The deconstruction of intentionality in archaeology. Antiquity 66(3): 334–347.Delibes G and Romero F (2011) La plena colonizacion agraria del Valle Medio del Duero,

in Aldeas y ciudades en el primer milenio a.C. In: Alvarez-Sanchıs J, Jimeno A and RuizZapatero G (eds) La Meseta Norte y los orıgenes del urbanismo. Madrid: EditorialComplutense, pp. 49–94.

Dıaz-del-Rıo P (2001) La formacion del paisaje agrario. Madrid en el III y II milenios BC.Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid.

Dıaz-del-Rıo P (2004) Copper Age Ditched Enclosures in Central Iberia. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 23(2): 107–121.

Dıaz-del-Rıo P (2006) An appraisal of social inequalities in Central Iberia (c. 5300-1600 calBC). In: Dıaz-del-Rıo P and Garcıa Sanjuan L (eds) Social Inequality in Iberian LatePrehistory. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 67–79.




Dornan-Fish J (2012) Motive matters: intentionality, embodiment, and the individual in

archaeology. Time and Mind 5(3): 279–298.Edwards B (2012) Social structures: pits and depositional practice in Neolithic

Northumberland. In: Anderson-Whymark H and Thomas J (eds) Regional Perspectives

on Neolithic Pit Deposition: Beyond the Mundane. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 77–99.Esparza A, Velasco J and Delibes G (2012) HUM 2005-00139: Planteamiento y primeros

resultados de un proyecto de investigacion sobre la muerte en Cogotas I. In: RodrıguezMarcos JA and Fernandez Manzano J (eds) Cogotas I, una cultura de la Edad del Bronce

en la Penınsula Iberica. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid: 159-320.Fabian F (2006) El IV y III Milenios AC en el Valle Ambles (Avila). Salamanca: Junta de

Castilla y Leon.

Fitzpatrik AP (2011) The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell Beaker burials atBoscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.

Fernandez Castro MC (1995) Iberia in Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Flores-Fernandez R and Garrido-Pena R (2014) Campaniforme y conflicto social:Evidencias del yacimiento de Humanejos (Parla, Madrid). In: Actas de las NovenasJornadas de Patrimonio Arqueologico en la Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid, pp. 159–167.

Gamble C (2001) Archaeology: The Basics. London: Routledge.

Garrido-Pena R, Rojo MA, Garcıa I, et al. (2011) Drinking and eating together: the socialand symbolic context of commensality rituals in the bell beakers of the interior of Iberia(2500–2000 cal BC). In: Aranda G, Monton Subıas S and Sanchez Romero M (eds) Guess

Who’s Coming to Dinner. Feasting Rituals in the Prehistoric Societies of Europe and theNear East. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 109–129.

Garrido-PenaR,RojoMA,TejedorC, et al. (2012)Lasmascaras de lamuerte: los ritos funerariosen el Neolıtico de la Penınsula Iberica. In: Rojo Guerra MA, Garrido Pena R and Garcıa I(eds) El Neolıtico en la Penınsula Iberica y su contexto europeo. Madrid: Catedra, pp. 143–171.

Garrow D (2006) Pits, Settlement and Deposition during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Agein East Anglia. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Garrow D (2012) Odd deposits and average practice: a critical history of the concept of

structured deposition. Archaeological Dialogues 19(2): 85–115.Gosden C and Marshall Y (1999) The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology

31(2): 169–178.

Guerra-Doce E, Delibes G, Abarquero FJ, et al. (2011) The Beaker salt production centre ofMolino Sanchon II, Zamora, Spain. Antiquity 85(329): 805–818.

Hahn HP and Weiss H (2013) Introduction: biographies, travels, and itineraries of things.

In: Hahn HP and Weiss H (eds) Mobility, Meaning and Transformation of Things.Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 1–14.

Hodder I (2012) Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things.

Oxford: Willey-Blackwell.Jennings B (2014) Travelling Objects: Changing Values. The Role of Northern Alpine Lake-

dwelling Communities in Exchange and Communication Networks during the Late BronzeAge. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Jennings B (2015) Obtaining indicators for Late Bronze Age deposition practices at Zurich-Alpenquai (ZH, Switzerland) from ceramic sherds. Open Archaeology.

Jones A (2012) Prehistoric Materialities. Becoming Material in Prehistoric Britain and

Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jorge A (2014) Reconnecting the Late Neolithic social landscape: a micro-regional study of

objects, settlements and tombs from Iberia. European Journal of Archaeology 17(3): 434–467.

Blanco-Gonzalez 363



Knappett C (2005) Thinking Through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Lamdin-Whymark H (2008) The Residue of Ritualised Action: Neolithic Deposition Practices

in the Middle Thames Valley. Oxford: Archaeopress.

LaMotta VM and Schiffer MB (1999) Formation processes of house floor assemblages.In: Allison PM (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge,pp. 19–25.

Liesau C, Rıos P, Vega J, et al. (2014a) Buscando los ancestros: la manipulacion de los restos

de las tumbas campaniforme en Camino de las Yeseras (San Fernando de Henares,Madrid). In: Actas de las Novenas Jornadas de Patrimonio Arqueologico en laComunidad de Madrid. Madrid, pp. 137–148.

Liesau C, Guerra E and Delibes G (2014b) Casual or ritual: The Bell Beaker deposit of LaCalzadilla (Valladolid, Spain). Quaternary International 330: 88–96.

Lillios KT (1999) Objects of memory: the ethnography and archaeology of heirlooms.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 235–262.Lucas G (2005) The Archaeology of Time. London: Routledge.Lucas G (2012) Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Marquez-Romero JE and Jimenez-Jaimez V (2013) Monumental ditched enclosures insouthern Iberia (fourth-third millennia BC). Antiquity 87(336): 447–460.

Martınez Navarrete MI (1988) La Edad del Bronce en la Submeseta suroriental: una revision

crıtica. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain.Matthews S (2007) Review of Chapman, J and Gaydarska, B. 2007. Parts and Wholes:

Fragmentation in Prehistoric Contex. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 18:

184–189.Meskell L (2004) Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present.

Oxford: Berg.

Milisauskas S (2002) Interpretations and narratives of the Neolithic of southeast Europe.Antiquity 76(293): 887–889.

Mills BJ and Walker WH (eds) (2008) Memory Work. Archaeologies of Material Practices.Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, pp. 41–59.

Porcic M (2012) De facto refuse or structured deposition? House inventories of the LateNeolithic Vinca culture. Starinar 62: 19–43.

Rıdky J, Koncelova M, Sumberova R, et al. (2014) How Were Neolithic Ditches Filled In?

Deposition Study of Two Enclosures from Bohemia. European Journal of Archaeology17(4): 579–601.

Rojo MA, Garrido-Pena R, Garcıa I, et al. (2014) Beaker barrows (not) for the dead: El

Alto I & III, Las Cuevas/El Morron and La Perica (Soria, Spain). Cuadernos dePrehistoria y Arqueologıa de la Universidad Autonoma de Madrid 40: 31–40.

Rojo MA, Kunst M, Garrido R, et al. (2008) Paisajes de la memoria: asentamientos del

Neolıtico antiguo en el Valle de Ambrona (Soria, Espana). Valladolid: Universidad deValladolid.

Russell L (2004) Drinking from the Penholder: Intentionality and Archaeological Theory.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 64–67.

Sanchez-Polo A and Blanco-Gonzalez A (2014) Death, relics and the demise of huts: pat-terns of planned abandonment in Middle BA Central Iberia (Spain). European Journal ofArchaeology 17(1): 4–26.




Schiffer MB (1985) Is there a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology? Journal of Anthropological

Research 41(1): 18–41.Thomas J (1999) Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge.Thomas J (2012) Some deposits are more structured than others. Archaeological Dialogues

19(2): 124–127.Vale A (2010) Rethinking the political implications of statics and dynamics at the site of

Castanheiro do Vento, Portugal. In: Koerner S and Russell I (eds) Unquiet Pasts.Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 185–192.

Weiss-Krejci E (2011) Changing perspectives on mortuary practices in Late Neolithic/Copper Age and Early Bronze Iberia. In: Lillios K (ed.) Comparative Archaeologies:Prehistoric Iberia (3000–1500BC) and the American Southwest (A.D. 900–1600).

Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 153–174.Woodward A (2002) Beads and Beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze

Age. Antiquity 76: 1040–1047.

Author Biography

Antonio Blanco-Gonzalez is a Postdoctoral Scholar with the University ofValladolid (Spain). He previously held a Marie Curie research fellowship atDurham University (UK). He was awarded a PhD in Prehistory in 2009 by theUniversity of Salamanca (Spain), has participated in several research projects, andhas published on later prehistory, material culture and landscape archaeology.

Blanco-Gonzalez 365



Blanco-González, A. (2015): Past fragments: from ceramics to social practices in later prehistoric...

Documents

Transcript of Blanco-González, A. (2015): Past fragments: from ceramics to social practices in later prehistoric...