lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e86

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

Manufacturing technical differences employing raw earth at theprotohistoric site of Sant Jaume (Alcanar, Tarragona, Spain):Construction and furniture elements

Marta Mateu a, *, M. Mercè Bergadà b, David Garcia i Rubert c

a SERP and GRAP, Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Montalegre 6, 08001 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spainb SERP, Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, 08001 Barcelona, Spainc GRAP, Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, 08001 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 4 October 2013

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: mmateusa@gmail.com, marta

bergada@ub.edu (M.M. Bergadà), dgarciar@ub.edu (D

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.09.012

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents the results of an ongoing micromorphological investigation that aims at identifyingthe use of raw earth during the protohistoric period in the NE region of the Iberian Peninsula at the EarlyIron Age site of Sant Jaume (Alcanar, Tarragona, Spain). The current manufactured raw earth elements(mainly composed of sun-dried mixed clays, sands, gravels and vegetal components) have been analyzed.This preliminary research has been integrated into a typological classification that could improve un-derstanding of the manufacturing methods, use and postdepositional processes that might have takenplace in Sant Jaume. The emerging patterns suggest that two different techniques were used in manu-facture: 1) furniture elements (e.g. boxes and containers) and 2) construction elements (those inherentto the structure of the building: e.g. ceilings, shelves).

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Sant Jaume (Alcanar, Tarragona, Spain) site

Sant Jaume is an exceptional site located on the top of a low hill2 km away from the Mediterranean coastline and situated 224 mabove sea level (Fig. 1). This small settlement (w640 m2) has apseudo-circular ground plan and is in an excellent state of preser-vation, with walls standing to an average height of 2 m. To date,only two trenches have been excavated, accounting for approxi-mately 35% of the total space at the site (Garcia i Rubert, 2011).

This research included all the architectural and housing ele-ments manufactured with raw earth belonging to the protohistoricsite of Sant Jaume (Alcanar, Tarragona, Spain). This settlementshows a single phase of occupation, which ended with a general-ized burning event at the end of the 7th century BC and beginningof the 6th century BC, corresponding to the Early Iron Age period(Bea et al., 2008).

mateu@ub.edu (M. Mateu),. Garcia i Rubert).

nd INQUA. All rights reserved.

The site is characterized by the distribution of two floor rect-angular structures arranged according to an orthogonal pattern(Fig. 1). In some cases, the ground floor of the buildings seems tohave been used as a stable, whereas in others it appears to havebeen used for the processing of farm and livestock products. In theexcavation, no object has been found in situ on the ground floor.This phenomenon suggests that all the objects come from the up-per floor. In all cases, the first floor was used to store large quan-tities of containers, manufactured products, raw materials andother similar goods.

The defensive system is characterized by the combination ofthreemajor elements: 1) a double facewall of up to 4mwidewhichencloses the settlement; 2) a long, narrow tower (T1), round at thetop, which is attached to the eastern third of the wall’s northernsection; and 3) an original system of gate fortification, which con-sists of several advanced walls and other defensive structures. Themonumental aspect of that construction reflects a matter of sig-nificance and representation of the power (of the people whoinhabit in this site) in addition to the defensive function. Sant Jaumehas a unique architectural defensive system, which seems to beexclusive for the northeastern Iberian Peninsula and has never beenfound in any other similar Early Iron Age site (Garcia i Rubert, 2011).

A mainstream theory has interpreted Sant Jaume as a large,fortified house. This hypothesis has been mainly focused on the

Fig. 1. Geographical location of the archaeological site. Aerial view and plan of Sant Jaume site. In the plan, coloured are the two spaces where all the samples (studied in this paper) come from. (For interpretation of the references tocolour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) GRAP.

M.M

ateuet

al./Quaternary

International315

(2013)76

e86

77

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e8678

interpretation of the site’s function taking into consideration theartifacts remains, the architecture and organization of its internalareas, and its relation with the nearby settlements. The fortifiedhouse would have been an imposing, monumental building ownedby a local chief who wished to perpetuate his memory by passinghis power on to his successors. Accordingly, we suggest that it wasinhabited by a single nuclear family belonging to the ruling eliteand, perhaps, their servants. The massive presence of numerouslarge Phoenician vases also suggests that Sant Jaume played afundamental role in trade relations between the inhabitants of thisterritory and the Phoenician seafarers.

1.2. Raw earth

Previous archaeological works in Sant Jaume have provided alarge set of finds made with raw earth. The elements were consti-tuted with the following mass:

a) Amatrix of finematerial (clays, silts and sands), that has a clayeyor sandy appearance depending on the nature of the final object.

b) A coarse fraction which includes gravels and fine gravels (silt-stones in most cases)

c) A mixture to which plant materials of different proportions andsizes are added, also depending on the final object.

These elements were sun-dried without any combustion pro-cess during the drying process (Fig. 2). Although raw earth iscommonly used in protohistorical architecture, its extreme fragilityimplies that the number of recovered remains is very low (Garciaand Lara, 1999, 2007; Belarte, 2000, 2006). There are, at present,still very few studies based in the investigation of this material inthe NE Iberian Peninsula.

Thanks to the exceptional preservation of Sant Jaume, we con-ducted a sampling research on one of the largest sets of raw earthmaterials present in this area. The conservation of the 2 m highwalls is possible mainly because the top hill were not used foragricultural production or another human settlement after the SantJaume occupation. This, together with the fire event that led to theabandonment of the site, allowed the consolidation and preserva-tion of the manufactured materials.

Fig. 2. Fragments of raw earth. In this photograph we can see some fragments of thismaterial in the lab, they belong to a container type (furniture element). These frag-ments (2 cm of height) seem pottery, but with the structure, the voids, and its char-acteristics we can study as a raw earth. M. Mateu.

2. Methods

In order to study the whole group of elements, we establishedan initial and general typological classification (Mateu, 2010). Apreliminary assignment was established to identify two maingroups of raw earth elements:

a) construction elements (those elements inherent to the con-struction of the building).

b) furniture elements (those objects that are not part of the con-struction system). Conceptually, furniture can be displaced,although some of the objects that we classify in this categorywere directly made on the floor (and they cannot be moved).

Within the previous two categories, we identified a distinctivefunction for each element. A description for each function wasestablished considering the elements basics characteristics such astheir sizes, measures, thickness, and shapes.

In a second approach towards a better classification of raw earthelements, a micromorphological study was carried out (Mateu,2010). Micromorphological analyses were applied for a betterdefinition and description of the studied elements already classi-fied macroscopically. Eight representative samples from the twomain groups were selected (two associated with the constructiveelements and six samples extracted from furniture elements).

The thin sections were produced at the University of Lleida,Department of Environmental and Soil Science. Once the sedimentblocks have been classified and described macroscopically, weproceeded with the thin section preparation. These were producedfollowing the technique developed at this department. The sampleswere consolidated through impregnation with a synthetic resin ofpolyester composition. After this process, a thin section 25 mm thickand with dimensions of 13.5 � 5.5 cm is produced. For each sedi-ment block taken in the field, three to four thin sections were ob-tained. In this study, we present the results of the analysis of onlythe thin sections that correspond to the profile face (as taken in thefield) of the block sample. Descriptions have made following pub-lished guidelines (Bullock et al., 1985; Courty et al., 1989; Bergadà,1998; Stoops, 2003; Stoops et al., 2010).

Finally, samples were analysed using physicochemical tests inorder to achieve an improved determination of the aspects:

- Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and X-Ray Diffraction(XRD).

- Molecular Spectroscopy (Fourier Transform InfraredSpectrometry).

Theses analyses were made at the Centre for Scientific andTechnological Studies of the University of Barcelona (CCiT-UB).

3. Results

From our study we were able to distinguish two technical dif-ferences in the raw earth manufacturing process: the production offurniture elements, and the creation of construction elements.Study of the thin sections indicates the existence of significantdifferences in accordance to the main division of our typology.

3.1. Furniture elements

These elements have a silty clay groundmass. In general, thisgroundmass is characterized by the presence of very fine materials,such as clays and some fine limestone gravel. The porosity of theseelements is low, about 20%, with thin and small voids, mostlyvughs. The nature of these voids indicates that the plant remains

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e86 79

added during the manufacturing of these elements were of veryreduced dimensions. Most of these voids contain phytoliths (e.g.Fig. 5).

Table 1 presents the results from three of the five analyzedsamples belonging to the furniture elements classification (Mateu,2010). One disc (Fig. 3a and Table 1a) is of unknown function, butsome could be lids of the pottery or containers, and others could besupports for workshop activity. One box (Fig. 3b and Table 1b) is aperfect example. The possible function could be to store or servemeals, or other objects. Finally, there is one container (Table 1c).The function of this element was storage. A macroscopic descrip-tion (as undertaken in the field) and the results of the micromor-phological analysis accompany each case study.

Table 1Description tables of different elements. Furniture elements: a) Disc, b) Box, c) Containe

Field description

a) 50% of a disc of 25 cm diameter and 19 mm height. It has two flatsurfaces.The bottom surface is flat, but is not the visible surface. The uppersurface (which is also flat), shows a fluted decoration motifPorosity: 15e20% (vughs voids)c/f: 1/3 Coarse fraction: occasional presence of limestone gravel(diameter 5e10 mm)Colour orange (reddish yellow 5YR 6/6)On the surface, there are calcareous concretions

b) Diameter 85 cm, height 19mm. It is a flat and oval object, with sides thatrise up to 10 cm. We have almost the entire piece, which includesnumerous fragments of the base, the lateral faces and the four handlesPorosity: 10% (vughs voids)c/f: 1/4Coarse fraction: occasional presence of some limestone gravel (diameter5e10 mm) Colour orange (7.5YR 7/3)In the surface, there are calcareous concretions

c) Generally, it looks irregular. The element shows evidence of asuperposition of several layers, possibly the result of processing anddynamic modeling. The element was modelated in situ, fixed on theground.The exterior wall has a frustum tendency, closing of the interior, whichis concave. The edge is thin and rounded.Porosity: 40% (vughs voids)c/f: 1/3Coarse fraction: limestone gravels (>2 mm)Colour orange, and beige in the interior (10YR 7/2).In the surface, there are calcareous concretions

d) It has a smooth surface. The opposite surface has reed impressions(Impression of reed has 10 mm diameter)Shapeless fragment, height: 8 cm.Porosity: 30% Vughs voids caused by decay of plant materialc/f: 2/1 Coarse fraction: fragments with different sizes and shapesHeterogeneous colour: between white 10YR 8/1 and yellow 10YR 8/8Calcareous concretions around the fragment

3.2. Constructive elements

Macroscopically, the constructive elements were built up in avery basic and coarse way. The micromorphological analysisestablished that those elements have a groundmass composed of amatrix with unsorted sediment (from clay to gravel) and carbonate(dolomite crystals). During the manufacture process of these ele-ments, the mixture was enriched with a significantly higheramount of limestone gravel, as compared to the furniture elements.In this case, the documented voids are larger, which means that theplant components found in the groundmass are different and theirdimensions are larger in order to strengthen the constructiveelement. This could be necessary to achieve their functions.

r; Construction elements: d) Ceiling or Roof, e) Shelf or Daub.

Micromorphological description

MicrostructurePorosity: 30%Channel (str.) and locally vughy (str.)Voids: channels and vughsGroundmassc/f: 1/3Clay matrix with a crystallitic and calcitic b-fabricFine fraction: 5e10% sands (>125 mm) of limestone and quartzCoarse fraction: some rounded fragment of limestone (2e5 mm)c/f related distribution: porphyricPedofeaturesFe (hydr)oxides nodules (250 mme1 mm) and a Fe (hydr)oxides coatingaround the fragmentCalcium carbonate coating around the fragmentMicrostructurePorosity: 10e15%Channel (str.) and locally vughy (str.)Voids: channels and vughsGroundmassc/f: 1/4Clay matrix with a crystallitic and calcitic b-fabricFine fraction: some sands (<500 mm) of limestone and quartzCoarse fraction: some rounded fragment of limestone (2e5 mm)c/f related distribution: porphyricPedofeaturesFe (hydr)oxides nodules (0.36e1 mm) and Fe (hydr)oxides coatingaround the fragmentCalcium carbonate coating around the fragmentMicrostructurePorosity: 20e60%Channel (str.) and locally vughy (str.)Voids: channels and vughs. Some planar voidsGroundmassc/f: 1/3Clayey and calcitic groundmass with some gravelFine fraction: sands (250e50 mm) of dolomite and quartzCoarse fraction: some rounded fragment of limestone (>2 mm)c/f related distribution: porphyricPedofeaturesFe (hydr)oxides nodules (180e720 mm) and a layer coating of Fe (hydr)oxides around the fragmentCalcium carbonate coating around the fragmentMicrostructurePorosity: 40%Granular (str.) and subangular blocky (str.)Voids: channels and vughs. Some planar and packing voidsGroundmassc/f: 2/1Clayey and calcitic groundmass with some gravelFine fraction: crystalline and crystallitic b-fabric with sands of all size(specially dolomite and quartz)

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued )

Field description Micromorphological description

Coarse fraction: rounded or sub-rounded fragments of limestone(<3 mm)c/f related distribution: porphyricPedofeaturesFe (hydr)oxides nodules (50e150 mm).Calcium carbonate coating around the fragment and calcium carbonatemicritic infillings of some voidsSilty clay coating of some voids

e) It has a reddish smooth surfaceThe opposite surface has reed impressions (8 mm diameter)Height 1.50 cmPorosity: 40% Vughs voids caused by decay of plant materialc/f: 1/4Colour pale brown (10YR 6/3).The upper layer is weak red (10R 4/3)Calcareous concretions around the fragment

MicrostructurePorosity: 20e25%Massive (str.) and locally granular (str.)Voids: channels and vughs. Some planesGroundmassc/f: 1/4Clayey and calcitic groundmass with some gravelFine fraction: crystalline and crystallitic b-fabric with sand(<150 mm)(specially dolomite and quartz)Coarse fraction: rounded fragments of limestone (2 mm)c/f related distribution: porphyricPedofeaturesFe (hydr)oxides nodules (270e720 mm)Calcium carbonate coating around the fragment and calcium carbonatemicritic infillings of some voids

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e8680

Tables 1d and e present the results from two of the threeanalyzed samples taken from constructive elements (Mateu, 2010,2011), one roof/ceiling fragment (Fig. 3c and Table 1d) and oneshelf/daub fragment (Fig. 3d and Table 1e). These examples includethe macroscopic description (field description) and the results ofthe micromorphological analysis.

3.3. Other results

The addition of organic temper has been detected by the pres-ence of the voids left by plant remains and phytoliths (Fig. 4). Theidentification of these vegetal species remains as an open questionand a phytolith analysis is required.

The third step in our research corresponds to the physico-chemical analyses. In the case of the shelf or daub-based con-struction elements, we carried out two analyses. With micromor-phology, we have distinguished three levels: one level ofpostdepositional CaCO3; one level of Fe (hydr)oxides; and a thirdlevel for the groundmass (Fig. 5 Left, upper part). We have analysedthe second layer for Iron through Fourier Transform InfraredSpectrometry, and the groundmass through a Scanning ElectronMicroscope.

As shown in the description table of the shelf or daub-basedconstruction element (Table 1e), the second layer of Fe (hydr)oxides is interpreted as a final surface coating to this element. Thisinterpretation is based on the morphology and micromorpho-logical structure. Fig. 5 (right upper part) shows the spectrum asresult of the analysis of the Fe (hydr)oxides through FTIR. Thisspectrum indicates the predominance of quartz and calcite andalso an anomaly, suggested to be water or some type of protein(Núria Ferrer, CCiT-UB, personal communication). These elementscould be part of the agglutinative material that was used in orderto expand the layer of Fe (hydr)oxides with quartz and calcite (andclay).

The groundmass of this shelf or daub (Fig. 5, left upper part) wasanalyzed through SEM. An enlargement and its spectrum becomeapparent in the results (Fig. 5, bottom part). In this case, calcium,silica and aluminium are the predominant elements.

4. Discussion

In the NE Iberian Peninsula, very few studies are based on theinvestigation of this material. However, elsewhere in Europe,there are some works that partially compare with this investiga-tion and results. Cammas (1999, 2003), de Chazelles-Gazzal (1997,2001, 2003), Courty et al. (1989: 118e126), Matthews (2010), Love(2012), and Friesem et al. (2011, 2013) have investigated theconstructive materials, especially the mud bricks. These areinteresting because most used the micromorphology technique.There are the investigations about ethnoarchaeology, and theconstruction and devolution of constructive elements, conductedby researchers such as Goodman-Elgar (2008), and Balbo et al.(2012).

On the other hand, other works that have references to thestudy of the furniture elements have been published. However,this investigation is carried out only from the typological view(not micromorphological). These works have been done by re-searchers such as Nin (2003) and Chausserie-Laprée and Nin(2001).

Therefore, we have integrated two views: the macro-morphological, including field description and typology of the el-ements; and the micromorphological study. Fig. 6 illustrates all theelements exemplified and described in the results section. Profilesare shown on the left and a microphotograph of each element onthe right, as seen in thin section. Note the differences between thefirst three (furniture elements) and the last two (constructionelements).

The construction elements display in thin section a calciticgroundmass that is not present in the furniture elements. Theirprofiles indicate another technical difference concerning themanufacturing process of the elements. The coarse fraction andthe plant components used in the production of the elementsare larger (a negative trace is observed). The manufactured ele-ments, especially the box and disc, are composed of a homoge-neous fine matrix with a more regular vegetal fabric(distribution and shape of negative traces are veryhomogeneous).

Fig. 3. Photograph elements. Furniture elements: a) Disc (left: upper face where we can see the “decoration”, right: bottom face), b) Box (left: zenithal view where we canappreciate the size of the object, right: detail of the profile and a handle); Construction elements: c) Ceiling or Roof (left: upper surface, right: bottom surface with reed im-pressions), d) Shelf or Daub (left: reddish surface, right: surface with reeds impressions). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred tothe web version of this article.) M. Mateu.

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e86 81

Fig. 4. Microphotographs of the voids from plant remains. Left: Voids in the roof or ceiling (XPL). Right: Detail of the phytoliths in the shelf or daub (LPP). M. Mateu and M. Bergadà.

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e8682

On the basis of these observations, we conclude that at this site,builders and artisans were fully aware of which materials to usebefore processing the elements. Furthermore, they chose one spe-cific technical process or another accordingly to different con-struction or manufacture purposes. Although we are not sure aboutthe precise techniques that they developed for the manufacture ofthe construction elements, we have detected a calcitic compound(thermoaltered or not) which was added during the process. Inaddition, it seems clear that the clays were selected depending ontheir final use and that these clays would have been separated atthe beginning of the fabrication process for producing the furnitureelements (or even pottery pieces). In one case or another, there wasa clear intention of using the earth differently, depending on theenvisioned final product.

The distinction between furniture and construction elementsdetermined macroscopically and by micromorphology analyses, isalso supported by the SEM results. Two samples have beenanalyzed:

a) A furniture element (box); andb) A construction element (shelf).

SEM results show that the groundmass of the shelf sample ishigh in calcium concentration whereas that of the box is richer inaluminium and silica (Fig. 7).

In the comparative works, we have not found any similar casestudy indicating that the constructive elements were composedwith a calcitic mixture. We have the studies of Karkanas (2007) butit does not completely answer the question, “Why and howdid theyuse this lime?”

In order to identify more accurately the crystalline groundmassof the construction elements (the calcitic groundmass) other tests,such as XRD, would be necessary. Due to their micromorphologicalcharacteristics (rhomboid shape, cleavage type, etc.), these min-erals have been identified as dolomite fragments, indicating apossible intentional selection of this mineral for the manufacturingof these elements.

After the characterisation of furniture elements and construc-tion elements, a further distinction between the specific elementswas made (Fig. 6). The comparison of the roof or ceiling with theshelf or daub fragments has highlighted that, although these twoelements have a large coarse fraction, they differ in both theamount and size of these coarse components. Based on these ob-servations on manufactured elements, we suggest that there is afixed relation between, on side, clay types and water amount andon the other side, coarse fraction and plant remains (both withcontrolled sizes).

Finally, we have taken into consideration the fire effectobserved on some samples (mostly on the construction ele-ments). We have been able to identify the exposure of some ofthese elements to fire action microscopically by the colour in-tensity and the fragmentation of the gravels. We suggest thatthese elements were not cooked, but burnt during the fire eventoccurred at the site, which altered the material with differentintensities. These fire traces are not present in the furniture el-ements. We suggest that the specific sorting and compoundcharacteristics (a clayey matrix) could have played an importantrole in preserving the elements’ integrity.

5. Conclusions

Two technical processes have been identified at Sant Jaume site,both involving an excellent control over the whole procedure aswell as over the amounts of each material to be utilised, withtechnological choices being made depending on the particular useof the final product.

Constructive elements have a clayey and calcitic groundmasswith plant inclusions and an abundant coarse fraction. Furnitureelements are composed of a clayey groundmass without lime, withinclusions of homogeneous plant materials and an abundant finefraction. One of the future lines of research will involve an inves-tigation of the origin of this calcitic groundmass as well as thereconstruction of the complete technological processes of bothclassifications of raw earth elements, and of the different types ofend products made (disc, shelf, roof, box, etc.).

Simultaneously we want to improve both mineralogical andplant remains identifications through different analytical tech-niques, including micromorphology, SEM, and XRD. Multi-methodological research is the most suitable approach to studythe technical differences embedded in the manufacture process ofraw earth elements, which shed light into the various buildingpractices in use during the Early Iron Age in the Mediterraneanregion of the Iberian Peninsula.

Acknowledgments

Wewish to thank the organizer of the 14th IWMSM in Lleida, Dr.Rosa Poch, and the coordinator of the archaeological session, Dr.Richard Macphail, for the opportunity to contribute to the confer-ence. This paper draws on research that was part of the projects2009 SGR 1145 Seminari d’Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques-UBand the 2009 SGR 243 Grup de Recerca en Arqueologia Proto-històrica-UB (both funded by AGAUR-Generalitat de Catalunya).The PhD research of Marta Mateu, is funded by a FI-AGAUR grant at

Fig. 5. Physico-chemical analyses. Upper part: Left) Microphotograph of shelf or daub, detail of the three levels (upper layer of CaCO3, middle layer Fe (hydr)oxides and bottom, groundmass). Right) FTIR spectrum:20120626_1 ¼ quartz; 20120626_2, 3, i 4 ¼ quartz, calcite and water or protein. Bottom part: Photograph and spectrum through SEM (groundmass of the shelf or daub).

M.M

ateuet

al./Quaternary

International315

(2013)76

e86

83

Fig. 6. Profiles photograph and microphotograph. Furniture elements: a) Disc, b) Box, c) Container; Construction Elements: d) Ceiling or Roof, e) Shelf or Daub. With these mi-crophotographs we present the differences between the groundmass of the constructive elements (with the inclusions of dolomite crystals) and groundmass of the furnitureelements (e.g. different sizes and shapes of voids). M. Mateu and M. Bergadà.

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e8684

Fig. 7. SEM results: Construction element (shelf) and Furniture element (box). We can see that the groundmass of the shelf sample is high in calcium concentration whereas that ofthe box is richer in aluminium and silica (clay). Mateu, 2010.

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e86 85

the Universitat de Barcelona. The research could not have beencompleted without the grant 2008 ACOM 00057 (AGAUR), and thegrants by Cultur Department of the Generalitat de Catalunya andAlcanar government (In order to carry out the excavation of SantJaume archaeological site). Also we wish to thank the University ofLleida, especially Asier Santana for the elaboration of the thinsections, and the CCiT-UB, specially Núria Ferrer for the TFIR. M.M.is especially grateful to Natalia Égüez, Aroa García Suárez andFrancesc C. Conesa. Finally, we thank Dr. R. Macphail (UCL) and Dr.W. Mathews (University of Reading) for welcoming me into theirlabs during my stay in these universities.

References

Balbo, A.L., Iriarte, E., Arranz, A., Zapata, L., Lancelotti, C., 2012. Squaring the circle.Social and environmental implications of pre-pottery Neolithic building tech-nology at Tell Qarassa (South Syria). PLoS ONE 7 (7), e42109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042109.

Bea, D., Diloli, J., Garcia i Rubert, D., Gracia, F., Moreno, I., Rafel, N., Sardà, S., 2008.Contacte i interacció entre indígenes i fenicis a les terres de l’Ebre i del Séniadurant la primera edat del ferro. In: Garcia i Rubert, D., Moreno, I., Gracia, F.(Eds.), Contactes. Indígenes i fenicis a la Mediterrània Occidental entre elssegles VIII i VI ane, Actes del Simposi d’Arqueologia d’Alcanar (2006). GRAP-UB,pp. 135e169.

Belarte, C., 2000. Sobre el uso del barro en la protohistoria del Bajo Aragón: estudiode materiales conservados en el Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya. Kalathos18e19, 65e93.

Belarte, C., 2006. Elementos constructivos de barro. In: Moret, P., Benavente, J.A.,Gorgues, A. (Eds.), Iberos del Matarraña: Investigaciones arqueológicas enValdeltormo, Calaceite, Cretas y la Fresneda (Teruel), �Al-Qanni�s 11, Alcañiz(Teruel), pp. 36e42.

Bergadà, M.M., 1998. Estudio geoarqueològico de los asentamientos prehistóricosdel Pleistoceno Superior y el Holoceno inicial en Catalunya. British Archaeo-logical Research International Series 742.

Bullock, P., Fedoroff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G., Tursina, T., 1985. Handbook for SoilThin Section Description. Waine Research Publ., Wolverhampton.

Cammas, C., 1999. Dynamique pédo-sédimentaire urbaine. Modes de constructionet d’occupation à Lattes au 4ème siècle BC. Lattara 12, 211e227.

Cammas, C., 2003. L’architecture en terre crue à l’âge du fer et à l’époque romaine:apports de la discrimination micromorphologique des modes de mise en ouvre.

In: Echanges transdisciplinaires sur les constructions en terre crue. Actes de latable-ronde de Montpellier 17e18 novembre 2001, pp. 33e54.

Chausserie-Laprée, J., Nin, N., 2001. De la fouille à la mise en valeur: l’habitatprotohistorique de l’Ille de Martigues. Arqueomediterrania 6, 133e155.

Chazelles-Gazzal, C.-A. de, 1997. Les maisons en terre de la Gaule méridionale. In:Monographies instrumentum 2. Éditions Monique Mergoil, Montagnac.

Chazelles-Gazzal, C.-A de, 2001. Les techniques de construction protohistoriques enGaule méridionale. Arqueomediterrania 6, 11e26.

Chazelles-Gazzal, C.-A de, 2003. Témoignages croisés sur les constructions antiquesen terre crue: textes latins et données archéologiques. Techniques & Culture 41,1e27.

Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P., Macphail, R., 1989. Soils and Micromorphology inArchaeology. Cambridge University Press.

Friesem, D., Boaretto, E., Eliyaju-Behar, A., Shahack-Gross, R., 2011. Degradation ofmud brick houses in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological Model. Journalof Archaeological Science 38, 1135e1147.

Friesem, D., Tsartsidou, G., Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., 2013. Where are theroofs? A geo-ethnoarchaeological study of mud brick structures and theircollapse processes, focusing on the identification of roofs. Archaeological andAnthropological Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-013-0146-3.

García, E., Lara, C., 1999. La construcció en terra. In: González, P., et al. (Eds.), CanRoqueta. Un establiment pagès prehistòric i medieval (Sabadell, Vallès Occi-dental). Excavacions Arqueològiques a Catalunya 16, Barcelona, pp. 193e204.

García, E., Lara, C., 2007. L’aprofitament de l’argila a l’entorn de Can Roqueta. In:Carlús, X., et al. (Eds.), Cabanes, sitges i tombes. El paratge de Can Roqueta(Sabadell, Vallès Occidental) del 1300 al 500 aC. Quaderns d’Arqueologia deSabadell vol. 4, 102e106. Sabadell.

Garcia i Rubert, D., 2011. Nuevas aportaciones al estudio de los patrones deasentamiento en el nordeste de la Península Ibérica durante la Primera Edaddel Hierro. El caso del Complejo Sant Jaume. Trabajos de Prehistoria 68 (2),331e352.

Goodman-Elgar, M., 2008. The devolution of mudbrick: ethnoarchaeology ofabandoned earthen dwellings in the Bolivian Andes. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 35, 3057e3071.

Karkanas, P., 2007. Identification of lime plaster in prehistory using petrographicmethods: a review and reconsideration of the data on the basis of experimentaland case studies. Geoarchaeology 22, 775e796.

Love, S., 2012. The geoarchaeology of mudbricks in architecture: a methodologicalstudy from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology 27 (2), 149e156.

Mateu, M., 2010. Estudi sedimentari i micromorfològic dels elements mobles iimmobles elaborats amb terra del jaciment del Primer ferro de Sant Jaume-Masd’en Serrà (Alcanar, Montsià). Archaeology, MSc dissertation. University ofBarcelona.

Mateu, M., 2011. Proposta d’aplicació de la micromorfologia a l’estudi dels materialsde construcció protohistòrics. Estrat Crític 5 (2), 76e85.

M. Mateu et al. / Quaternary International 315 (2013) 76e8686

Matthews, W., 2010. Geoarchaeology and taphonomy of plant remains and micro-archaeological residues in early urban environments in the Ancient Near East.Quaternary International 214, 98e113.

Nin, N., 2003. Vases et objects en terre crue dans le Midi durant l’Âge du fer. In:Échanges transdisciplinaires sur les constructions en terre crue. Actes de laTable-ronde de Montpellier, 17e18 novembre 2001, pp. 95e146.

Stoops, G., 2003. Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and Regolith ThinSection. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, 184 pp.

Stoops, G., Marcelino, V., Mees, F., 2010. Interpretation of MicromorphologicalFeatures of Soils and Regoliths. Elsevier.