312
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Between the hearth and the store>
pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age
settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández1, Eva Alarcón García2, Alejandra García García2,
Luis Arboledas Martínez2, Auxilio Moreno Onorato2,
Francisco Contreras Cortés2, and Linda Chapon2
1 Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, Faculty of Geography and History,
University of Salamanca, Salamanca, ES
juanjesuspadillafernand@gmail.com
2 Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters,
University of Granada, Granada, ES
eva@ugr.es< alejandragarciamlg@gmail.com< arboledas@ugr.es<
auxiliomoreno@ugr.es< fccortes@ugr.es< lindachapon2002@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT – Research into the Bronze Age on the south-eastern Iberian Peninsula has always occu-
pied a pre-eminent position in the archaeological discipline. Although we can state that there is a
certain degree of scientific unity regarding the main cultural features of that period, few studies
have focused on the social and technological process involved in the manufacture of pottery vessels.
This paper aims to remedy that situation. To do this, we provide the results obtained from the tech-
nical analysis of the pottery vessels used in two activities essential to human survival – food storage
and processing – in the Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (2086–1450 cal BC). At the same time,
the macroscopic identification of the technological patterns developed in the tasks of manufacturing
earthenware jars and pots allows us to reflect on the significance of the concept of specialization in
the Argar Culture.
IZVLE∞EK – Raziskave bronaste dobe na jugovzhodnem Iberskem polotoku so v arheologiji vedno
zavzemale izjemen polo∫aj. Kljub temu da obstaja dolo≠ena stopnja znanstvene enotnosti glede glav-
nih kulturnih zna≠ilnosti tega obdobja, se je le malo raziskav osredoto≠alo na dru∫bene in tehno-
lo∏ke procese, ki so vklju≠eni v izdelavo lon≠enih posod. V ≠lanku posku∏amo popraviti to stanje raz-
iskav. Tako ponujamo rezultate, ki smo jih pridobili s tehni≠nimi analizami lon≠enih posod, ki so
bile uporabljene pri dveh klju≠nih aktivnostih za ≠lovekovo pre∫ivetje – shranjevanje in predelava
hrane – na bronastodobnem najdi∏≠u Peñalosa (2086-1450 pr. n. ∏t.). Hkrati pa nam makroskopski
opis tehnolo∏kih vzorcev, ki so nastali pri izdelavi lon≠enih vr≠ev in loncev, omogo≠a razmislek o
pomenu koncepta specializacije v argarski kulturi.
KEY WORDS – pottery technology; cookware; storageware; domestic specialisation; maintenance
activities
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – tehnologija lon≠enine; kuhinjske posode; posode za shranjevanje; gospodinjska
specializacija; vzdr∫evalne dejavnosti
Med ognji[;em in shrambo> specializacija in uporaba lon;enine
na bronastodobnem argarskem najdi[;u Peñalosa ({panija)
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.17
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
313
nological know-how were used to make pottery. The
first would have had an economic and social signi-
ficance, being based on specific technical patterns
and connected to ritual practices. The second would
not have been so important and was just related to
daily life activities. But was it really as simple as it
seems? In fact, that these assumptions are generally
accepted as valid because they are logical and un-
derstandable to us does not mean that the manu-
facture of domestic pots and jars necessarily has to
remain outside the framework of the specialisation
generated by production. The main objective of this
paper lies precisely in re-examining these issues from
alternative approaches, introducing a pottery tech-
nological study with a social perspective.
In this sense, this research starts from the idea of
the existence of a reciprocal relationship between
objects and people and understands technology as
a social phenomenon. Under this premise, the com-
prehension of the technological aspects of a certain
pottery set is not only useful with regard to know-
ing the way in which objects are made or the com-
plete and exact sequence of technical actions that
are necessary to develop certain types of items (Gar-
cía Roselló, Calvo Trías 2013). Here we propose the
execution of a cross-sectional technological analy-
sis, also focused on identifying the technical practi-
ces that commonly go unnoticed into the final char-
acteristics of a finished product. Ignorance of all
these actions leads to the loss of fundamental data
that could completely change some of the interpre-
tations made about the world of those who lived in
the Bronze Age and the place they had in it. In this
regard, it is possible that erroneous complexity val-
ues have been granted, linked to certain processes
of specialization and use that deserve to be reviewed
to better understand the social reality of past com-
munities.
The work undertaken over more than thirty years
in the Argaric settlement of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain),
dated between 2086–1450 cal BC, offers a unique
opportunity to deepen our understanding of these
issues (Contreras Cortés 2000; Contreras Cortés
et al. 2014). Thanks to the implementation of a sys-
tematic excavation method on a microspatial scale
and the excellent state of conservation of its archa-
eological record, the site of Peñalosa has made it
possible to recover considerable amounts of data
that is very valuable for studying, analysing and in-
terpreting the behavioural patterns related to pot-
tery production. Specifically, we will focus all our
attention on those items of pottery that, due to their
Introduction
How was pottery production organized in the south-
east of the Iberian Peninsula during the Bronze Age?
Can we speak of specialisation? Maybe only partial-
ly? These questions still do not have a clear answer,
despite the large number of archaeological studies
dealing with the pottery assemblages associated with
this period. Perhaps this is because most works have
focused their interest on reproducing and continu-
ing the typological scheme that the Siret brothers
established in the late 19th century (Siret, Siret 1890).
Since then, the classic definition of the ‘eight argaric
ceramic forms’ has been present in all the investiga-
tions about recent prehistory in the south-eastern
Iberia, either to date relatively newly discovered ar-
chaeological sites, or to strengthen the static and pre-
established concept of Argaric Culture (Lull Santiago
1983; González Marcén et al. 1992; Gilman Guillén
1999; Gili Suriñach et al. 2001; Eiroa García 2010).
Nevertheless, pottery production studies are slowly
beginning to reach goals that go beyond mere typo-
logical classification and attempt to examine in the
behavioural aspects of manufacture and production,
generally related to rituality (Colomer Solsona 2005;
Aranda Jiménez 2008). The acceptance of the idea
that at least some of the Argaric pottery maintained
a high degree of uniformity and technological homo-
geneity, due primarily to a series of social contri-
buting factors, is beginning to gain ground (Albero
Santacreu, Aranda Jiménez 2014). According to
these hypotheses, it is clearly possible to speak of
specialised manufacture in the vessels linked to the
direct consumption of food and drink, such as bowls,
cups and carinated vessels. This agrees with the need
to justify the introduction of new ‘asymmetric forms’
of social organisation (Aranda Jiménez 2010.83).
In contrast, the pottery associated with food storage
and preparation seems to manifest a much greater
variability, in both formal and technological terms.
This would lead at the same time to think of the or-
ganisation of domestic production linked to daily
life (Van Berg 1998; Aranda Jiménez 2004). At first
glance, the lack of evidence for standardised manu-
facturing patterns in this second group would point
toward obvious differences with what we habitually
consider should be the result of well-defined pro-
ductions with a quantified number of production
units (Rice et al. 1981; Costin 2001).
Of course, if we analyse the data of past societies
from a current perspective, it seems logical to infer
that in the Argaric world two different types of tech-
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
314
morphometric characteristics and apparent functio-
nality, have been generically categorized as earthen-
ware jars and pots and, therefore, related directly to
unspecialised domestic activities: the storage and
processing of food ready to be consumed, i.e. for
cooking.
To accurately analyse this group, we collected a to-
tal of 1000 sherds, 500 of each analytical type
(earthenware jars and pots). Their selection was far
from arbitrary. We took into account parameters
such as the ability to reconstruct their complete
shapes, evidence of manufacturing marks and func-
tionality and, needless to say, the clear sign of any
technical patterns. All the samples used for this
study were recovered from contexts undoubtedly
defined as habitation and production areas excavat-
ed during the most recent campaigns at the archae-
ological site (2009, 2010 and 2011), and attributed
chronologically to the two phases of occupation de-
fined to date at the settlement,
Phases IIIA (2086–1850 cal BC)
and III0 (1850–1450 cal BC).
Peñalosa and its social pot-
tery
Since its discovery, the archaeo-
logical site of Peñalosa appears to
have been closely connected to
concepts as economical and prac-
tical as specialisation and innova-
tion (Contreras Cortés, Cámara
Serrano 2002). The settlement is
strategically sited on a slate spur
that is difficult to reach and eas-
ily defensible, today surrounded
by the waters of the Rumblar re-
servoir (Fig. 1). Together with
other archaeological sites, it
structured a territory rich in me-
tallic mineral outcrops that con-
nect the centre of the peninsula
with the Guadalquivir Valley.
Since it first began to be excavat-
ed in the mid-1980s, its interna-
tional academic importance has
always been based on metallurgy
(Bartelheim et al. 2012; Moreno
Onorato et al. 2012; Rovira Llo-
rens, Montero Ruiz 2018).
The evidence in this settlement
of a unique mining-metallurgical
archaeological record has allowed the whole cop-
per extraction and metallurgical process to be rec-
ognized. As such, it has become a key site to con-
firm the existence for at least 4000 years of the in-
tensive production of this mineral in this territory.
It has also been useful to verify the interpretations
that since the 1950s (Childe 1950) have tried to re-
compose a linear and positive past that fixes the
beginning of urban revolution in the Metal Age. This
is a process that would have led to the emergence
of a level of social organization configured around
three basic pillars: towns, elites and specialized arti-
sans, the last group always being dependent on the
dominant classes (Hagstrum 1988; Blackman et
al.1993; Costin 2000; Lull Santiago et al. 2010; Cá-
mara Serrano, Molina González 2011). In theory,
this model proposes an organisational system based
on the control and exchange of surpluses outside
the domestic orbit, established to generate regular,
uniform and, on occasion, limited production (Long-
Fig. 1. Location of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain) (top). General view of the
archaeological site and the landscape related with it (bottom).
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
315
acre 1999; Costin 2005). In other words, what we
witness here is the configuration of a process that
lays the foundations for progress and the economic
and social principles of our Western world.
Regardless of the fact that the pottery of Peñalosa
has only been analysed with regard to its morpho-
logical typologies, it has served to consolidate the
existence in the Bronze Age of models of society
based on pyramidal-type structures, with strong po-
litical and religious powers. This is especially the
case of the group that has been associated from the
functional point of view as consumption pottery,
preferably linked to ritual contexts, and with very
homogeneous physical and dimensional characteris-
tics (Contreras Cortés, Cámara Serrano 2002; Con-
suegra 2006). This model involves assuming the
existence of several specialists in Peñalosa, which
were dedicated to the production of valuable goods
such as copper and fine tableware. They would have
worked in a standardized way in specific places, full
or part time, with the aim of generating surpluses to
carry out exchanges for other goods.
Obviously, these are interpretations of the past that
are very consistent with the epistemological postu-
lates typical of industrialised and capitalist cultural
contexts that are governed by the general principles
of economic formalism, and which forget the im-
portance and complexity of domestic contexts. The
latter, always associated with the feminine environ-
ment, have traditionally been categorized as second-
order collective spaces, in which very diverse and
heterogeneous tasks of a non-specialised nature were
performed (Alarcón García 2010a). To a certain
extent, the triumph of these discourses would also
respond to the subliminal attempt to justify through
the construction of historical processes the superi-
ority of masculine individuality over the essence of
the feminine (Sánchez Liranzo 2000; Hernando
Gonzalo 2005). As matter of fact, all the pottery sets
documented in Peñalosa related to domestic activi-
ties, regardless of their context and properties, have
been categorized directly as non-specialised produc-
tions and, therefore, manufactured using non-stan-
dardised work sequences.
The chaîne opératoire: a fundamental tool to
deepen into social pottery
Aware of the need to go further, we propose here
an archaeological study that avoids the construction
of pre-established functional criteria and rationali-
ties and that at no time questions the logical mean-
ing of what is investigated. That is, a theory is valid
if what is told about the past really responds to the
computation of categories that would define their
own reality. For this, a technological study is pro-
posed that conceives the Peñalosa pottery as social
objects and the technological fact as an active part
of the process of social production and reproduc-
tion. According to this rule, pottery is more than
just objects made up of a series of stylistic features.
It is an important source of social information (Hod-
der 2012). Pottery containers hide within themselves
specific behavioural rules of the groups that manu-
factured them. They entail interesting data that
could make us reflect, for example, on the recurring
ideas of superiority and progress associated with
the concept of artisanal specialization in the Bronze
Age.
If we wish to investigate the ‘how’ – in other words,
the way in which these objects were produced – as
well as aspects that delve more deeply into the ‘why’
and ‘for what’, it is necessary to use the chaîne opé-
ratoire concept as a methodological tool. Conceived
as the compendium of procedures undertaken from
obtaining the raw material to the completion of the
final product (Creswell 1976), this model not only
provides a full panoramic view of each of the phas-
es involved in the production process, but also al-
lows us to place the physical and purely immaterial
at the same level (Lemonnier 1993). Then, an axis
that simultaneously connects the technical task and
the cultural dynamic may be traced (Roux 2009).
This confers the power of adjusting the links be-
tween the manufacturing processes and the produc-
tion and consumption contexts, because it considers
technological processes as socially structured sys-
tems. This postulation offers the possibility of ex-
ploring technology, its social interaction and the cul-
tural meanings that are reproduced through it (Le-
monnier 2018).
As we have already stated, our action framework fo-
cuses on the analysis of the vessels destined for use
in food preparation (pots) and storage (earthenware
jars), mainly because these are the productions to
which we believe least attention has been paid, in
contrast to the fine vessels used for serving and
consuming food. In order to determine each of the
productive strategies, where they exist, we proposed
a study based on three elementary technical criteria:
(1) the ordered and exhaustive description of the
pottery cycle; (2) the detailed definition of each of
the gestures and practices used during the manufac-
turing process; and (3) the degree of technical ex-
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
316
pertise and skill developed in the application of
such practices. As a matter of fact, the more precise
we describe the pottery techniques, the closer we
are to obtaining a global image of the technology
and social context that they represent (Sigaut 1994).
The premise of understanding the objects as a fun-
damental part of ourselves leads us to infer that the
mechanisms used to create them are charged with
social messages (Webmoor, Witmore 2008). A de-
tailed examination of the different production se-
quences involved, the degree of routine in the know-
ledge applied and the level of skill acquired should
dictate the contributing factors of life inherent to a
community. The attestation of regulated learning
processes and a fully consolidated technological ha-
bitus (Bourdieu 1988), would help us to picture
highly specialized social structures, although ones
in which the weight of the collective would contin-
ue to be very strong.
The following two sections focus directly on these
issues. They attempt to re-compose the chaînes opé-
ratoires of each morpho-typological group, paying
special individualized attention to three major pha-
ses: (1) the selection, extraction and preparation of
the raw material; (2) the modelling; and (3) the fir-
ing (Livingstone Smith 2007; García Roselló, Calvo
Trías 2013). To do this, a macroscopic categoric exa-
mination backed up by a binocular loupe was car-
ried out, with the aim of verifying the marks and
physical-chemical particularities that are difficult to
perceive with the naked eye.
Function or type? The chaîne opératoire of
cookware
For purely metric reasons (diameters, heights, base
and rim angles, etc.), we established 18 pottery types
that appear to have been linked to food processing
and preparation. At the same time, based on a pos-
sible similar functionality, these types were also ca-
tegorized generically within the following typologi-
cal groups: XVIII1 cylindrical vessels/pots; XIX small
incurving rim pots; XX medium-sized/large incurv-
ing rim pots; XXI pots/bottles with a small marked
neck; XXII small pots with a large marked neck; XXIII
large pots with incurving walls; XXIV pots with open
walls; and XXV earthenware pots/cooking pots (Fig.
2). If we adhere merely to this classification, we
Fig. 2. Morphometric scheme of cookware done through the archaeological evidence found in the site
of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain).
1 The Roman numerals correspond to the recording system adopted to classify typologically all the pottery shapes documented at
the Peñalosa archaeological site (Contreras Cortés 2000). The Roman numerals used in the section that deal with storage pot-
teries are based on the same system.
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
317
would assume that we are facing a heterogeneous
collection of items that only share superficial signs
of repeated exposure to fire. In contrast, however,
the detailed technological analysis of these contain-
ers seems to show different results.
The mineralogical composition of the pottery ma-
trices observed macroscopically indicates the use of
different clay sources that were near both the archa-
eological site and between each other. The majority
of the identified minerals – mica schist, feldspars,
quartzes and micas – are closely linked to the igne-
ous and metamorphic geological horizons predomi-
nant in the surroundings of Peñalosa (Jaramillo
2005). Moreover, their predominantly spherical
shape leads us to assume that they originate in areas
with a high degree of erosion, possibly in the vicin-
ity of the Rumblar River (Fig. 3). The quantities of
minerals, related to a more than likely knowledge of
their properties, indicate the meticulous preparation
of the chosen clays, which in turn points to specia-
lisation. Organic and inorganic solids would have
been removed by sieving, in a similar way to the me-
thods seen in multiple ethnoarchaeological studies
(González Ruibal 2005; Gosselain 2008; Djordje-
vi≤ 2013). At the same time, and perhaps to endow
the raw material with greater resistance to thermal
contractions (Albero 2008; Skibo 2013), we can also
consider the possibility of the premeditated addi-
tion of crushed quartz and ground calcite. The ang-
ular distinction of part of the quartz crystals and the
presence of average values of calcite could consti-
Fig. 3. Binocular loupe of cookware pottery sherds. 1 Inv. 9405-2; 2 Inv. 91007; 3 Inv. 91086; 4 Inv.
25439; 5 Inv. 25653-2; 6 Inv. 25739; 7 Inv. 25785; 8 Inv. 28267; 9 Inv. 28301; 10 Inv. 28863-1; 11 Inv.
50249-1; 12 Inv. 50360; 13 Inv. 50365; 14 Inv. 50366; 15 Inv. 50385; 16 Inv. 50419; 17 Inv. 50460; 18
Inv. 50473; 19 Inv. 501001; 20 Inv. 501002.
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
318
tute a significant, although not de-
finitive, indication that they had been
added. If this were finally shown to
be the case, we would definitely be
in a position to assert a strong link
between the amount of temper and
the formal codes. Consequently, this
would support the interpretation that
specific types of decantation were
chosen according to the desired use
and function of the final pottery pro-
duct (Fig. 4).
As soon as the clay had been select-
ed and manipulated, it was trodden
and kneaded, a decisive sequence
aimed at achieving the correct homogenisation of
the ceramic pastes. The low rate of detection of cla-
yey nodules and the minor frequency of variegations
and air bubbles in the Peñalosa matrices are evi-
dence of the efficient application of these techniques
prior to the modelling of the clay.
The modelling of the pottery would not have been
conditioned by the use of rotation devices. The ab-
sence of parallel marks on the surfaces and the cha-
racteristic granulometrics on the observed sections
reveal the application of technical gestures related
to the superposition of coils from the base to the
rim. In contrast to the technological argument put
forward for certain archaeological sites (Van Berg
1998; Colomer i Solsona 2005), in the sample ana-
lysed from Peñalosa it has so far been impossible to
detect the use of moulding techniques. Moreover,
the unequivocal identification
in these supposed cooking
vessels of flat and horizontal
breakage traces and profiles
full of 2cm wide concave in-
tersection points rules out the
use of different techniques
(other than coil pottery) for
their shaping. If we focus on
the gestures and technical ac-
tions carried out, they appear
to correspond to a high de-
gree of technical and formal
skill. It is not easy to find
signs of technical faults, such
as asymmetric deformations,
continuous changes in thick-
ness, irregular rims or coarse,
cracked bases (Fig. 5). Conse-
quently, we could presume
that well-defined and well-as-
similated working methods
were applied to the manufac-
ture of these items. This fact
also translates into a period
of advanced learning. We may
then deduce that this learning
was not horizontal but a ver-
tical transmission of knowl-
Fig. 4. Detail of a fragment of large quartz mineral documented in
the pot with inventory number 25439. It is possible that this ma-
terial was going to be crushed into smaller pieces like those usu-
ally observed in the ceramic matrices of the containers used pri-
marily for cooking. Perhaps its addition to the clayey paste, just
before implementing the modelling tasks, was accidental given its
size. However, it opens the possibility of the existence of specific
technical actions aimed at the preparation and intentional addi-
tion of degreasers.
Fig. 5. Pots documented in the site of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain). It is possi-
ble to clearly appreciate the horizontal points of union of the overlapping
coiling during the modelling process. 1 Inv. 91086; 2 Inv. 501001; 3 Inv.
25689; 4 Inv. 50360.
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
319
edge. This means that this knowledge would have
been transferred from generation to generation
through the reiterated reproduction of a consolidat-
ed pottery habitus. This would help us to under-
stand the reason why we found no signs of technical
failure. At the same time, it could explain the exis-
tence of a specific range of shapes with different
thicknesses and treatments of the surfaces.
Indeed, we can perceive an apparent link between
the shape types and specific surface decorations in
the Peñalosa contexts. Technologically and morpho-
logically speaking we can make two big groups. On
the one hand, cylindrical and ovoidal vessels and
pots that consistently show a wider-diameter mouth,
thicker walls and a rougher appearance were lightly
spatulated while fresh to smooth their exterior lay-
ers. On the other hand, globular vessels, pots and
bottles and those pottery types with marked necks
that have a smaller-diameter mouth and thinner
walls, were also initially spatulated. Nevertheless,
they were later, when in a leather-like state, also in-
tensively polished, probably to seal any porosities
that emerged as a result of the
loss of hydration and to make
them waterproof (Echallier
1984). Finally, another group
that encompasses the cassero-
les and ‘basin pots’ more sim-
ilar to the first morphological
group tends to break with
these established manufactur-
ing guidelines. They are large,
open pottery shapes that ap-
pear to have been not only
smoothed but also subsequent-
ly burnished (Fig. 6). This fact
validates the idea that techno-
logical choices were taken ac-
cording to a specific functio-
nality.
The decoration of these pot-
tery items perfectly materia-
lises the cultural and self-iden-
tifying signs of the Argaric
sphere (Aranda Jiménez
2004; Sánchez Romero, Aran-
da Jiménez 2005; Alarcón
García 2010a). Most pieces
show nipple-like elements, un-
gulate incisions and impres-
sions on the lips, as well as a
very well-marked burnishing
that, at the same time as waterproofing, also simu-
lates a metallic finish and texture.
After drying, these pieces would have been fired in
mixed reducing atmospheres. Their study with a bi-
nocular loupe highlights the preponderance of
brownish-reddish firing tonalities, a direct conse-
quence of a lack of oxygen entering the obtained
matrix (Roux 2016) and the significant presence of
iron. Accordingly, the matrices show a high concen-
tration of Iron (Fe2O3). The detection in some of the
samples of small, clear and oxidising hues, funda-
mentally in the external strips, tells us that the en-
trance of oxygen into the firing atmospheres was
only partially controlled, evidencing the use of open
combustion structures. We are basically referring to
small holes in the ground or ephemeral structures
arranged on the surface, ones that unfortunately
leave little or no archaeological traces.
There are many ethnoarchaeological (May, Tukson
1982; Gosselain 1995; Livingstone Smith 2007; Cal-
vo Trías et al. 2011) and experimental (Calvo Gál-
Fig. 6. Pots documented in the site of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain). They clear-
ly show the different surface treatments used in the production process
according to the predefined function and shape. Mild smoothing in a
fresh state: 1 Inv. 50385; 2 Inv. 9405-2. Smoothing in the fresh and later
burnishing in a leather-hard state: 3 Inv. 91007; 4 Inv. 25785.
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
320
vez 1992; Calvo Trías et al. 2004; Moreno Onorato
et al. 2017) studies that have dealt with the particu-
larities of these kind of firing structures. Special at-
tention has been paid to the maximum peak tempe-
rature that they usually reach, which could be approx.
700°C. This thermal range has been confirmed by
the archaeometric use of DRX analysis, which reveals
low peaks of chlorite and talc in Peñalosa pottery
(Cámara Serrano et al. 2005). Although their firing
practices appear to have been rudimentary, the ma-
stery of the technical gestures used to develop this
last phase could be described as exemplary. There
were no surface marks typical of poor firing, such as
chipping, network and star cracks, or fractures. This
reinforces the idea of artisans with consolidated ex-
perience, who would have perpetuated the inherited
and previously-learned technical gestures.
Function or type? The chaîne opératoire of pot-
tery for storage
Another group of pottery items found in Peñalosa
are known as earthenware storage jars, mainly due
to their medium or large size and because grain re-
mains have sometimes been found in them. They
have been classified into six pottery types that are
further divided into three heterogeneous typological
groups according to the inclination of their ridges:
XXVI incurving-rim earthenware jars; XXVII marked-
rim earthenware jars; and XXVIII open-rim earthen-
ware jars. However, the technological study of a
significant sample of these containers reveals other
aspects that question this heterogeneity. This sug-
gests a manufacturing process based on fairly mark-
ed technical planning (Fig. 7).
The phases of the selection, extraction and prepara-
tion of the raw material reveal similarities with those
already mentioned for the production of vessels
linked to food preparation and cooking. XRF chem-
ical analyses clearly show glimpses of the accumu-
lation of non-calcareous and highly ferrous clays
composed of minerals frequently found in the im-
mediate geological area of the Peñalosa archaeolo-
gical site (Cámara Serrano et al. 2005). The quanti-
fication of the tempers contained in the pottery ma-
trices also attests to the meticulous preparation of
the selected clays. The identification of clasts with
different densities points to the use of sieves with
medium-sized meshes to remove impurities. At the
same time, besides crushed quartz, we can also cor-
roborate the deliberate addition of threshed straw,
presumably to diminish the proportion of water in
the mixture and thus ensure quicker drying and low-
er losses in volume after firing (Sestier 2005). More-
over, the inclusion of this type of organic element
would have considerably reduced the weight of the
final piece, thus making it easier to handle and trans-
port (Albero Santacreu 2007). The macroscopic de-
tection of the typical traces and rectangular hol-
lows left by these materials of plant origin are fur-
ther proof of the conscientious way the ceramic
pastes were prepared, in keeping with the specific
functions and types (Figs. 8–9).
Treading and kneading as a prior step to modelling
would also have been a constant and conscientious-
ly undertaken process. The compacting of the clay
particles that structures the matrix and the regular
distribution of the natural or added tempers indicate
this. The low presence of vacuoles caused by air bub-
bles and the sparse detection of knots as a conse-
quence of uneven hardness is evidence of a conside-
rable homogeneity, quality and resistance.
Again, as for cooking and food preparation pottery
items, the modelling of these pieces would not have
required the generation of kinetic energy. All the
Fig. 7. Morphometric scheme of storageware done through the archaeological evidence found in the site
of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain).
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
321
types documented to date were made by continu-
ously superimposing coils between approx. 3 and
6cm in width. It is probable that, also imitating ges-
tures acquired through vertical learning generation
after generation, vessels with thick, strong walls and
surface finishes were modelled with the use of
hands. We can distinguish two different specific pot-
tery groups according to the surface treatment ap-
plied. On the one hand, there are the containers that
with the naked eye show less worked walls, having
only been spatulated fresh and slightly smoothed in
the leather state. On the other, there are the contai-
ners that present spatulas and intense burnishes, co-
vered by a thin layer of red slip applied with a high
degree of skill (Fig. 10).
As we specified earlier in the case of the pots, the
decorations applied to these pottery pieces corre-
spond to the Argaric canon. Nipple-like elements, un-
gulate incisions and impressions on the upper part
of the lips and metallic burnishes are also obvious
here. However, we need to point out, as an excep-
tional case, the occasional use of red ochre for the
slip. In this case, rather than seeking an actual chro-
matic series associated with a specific ontology, this
use may reflect a particular technological adaptation
(Fig. 11).
The macroscopic analysis of the Peñalosa earthen-
ware jar ceramic pastes supports the idea of an opti-
mum technical knowledge of the firing process. The
Fig. 8. Binocular loupe of storageware pottery sherds. 1 Inv. 25132; 2 Inv. 25197; 3 Inv. 25456; 4 Inv.
25745; 5 Inv. 25816-1; 6 Inv. 25474; 7 Inv. 28401-1; 8 Inv. 28613; 9 Inv. 28920; 10 Inv. 281272; 11 Inv.
281292; 12 Inv. 50258-1; 13 Inv. 50390-3; 14 Inv. 50612; 15 Inv. 50655; 16 Inv. 50887; 17 Inv. 50892;
18 Inv. 50960; 19 Inv. 501046; 20 Inv. 501047.
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
322
matrices show abundant mixed ranges of dark and
brownish-reddish colours that lead us to believe that
the pieces were fired in the same kilns described
above. The maximum temperature indices hover
around 700°C. This peak is confirmed not only by
XRD (Cámara Serrano et al. 2005), but also by the
presence of a considerable number of vascular and
striated pores in the middle of the matrices, a conse-
quence of the formation of gases and the concen-
tration of clayey particles resulting of a firing with
low thermal curves (Freestone 2001; Goffer 2007).
The significance of a marked specialisation
To date, the archaeological interpretations of the
contexts and objects documented in Peñalosa have
served to ratify the interpretative discourse that still
prevails today to explain from the generic and ratio-
nal point of view how Argaric societies were and
how they lived. Following these principles, ceramic
sets with specific marks of use found at archaeolo-
gical levels directly associated with eco-facts and
structures related to the storage and preparation of
food, have merely served to fully support the exis-
tence of domestic areas, in contrast to other speci-
fic and more specialized sectors, presumably ‘non-
domestic’. These domestic spa-
ces were considered to have
been exclusively dedicated to
carrying out daily tasks and
were, therefore, not specia-
lised.
According to this view, the
pottery found within these
areas would only be non-spe-
cialized containers of a very
heterogeneous nature, func-
tionally created with the aim
of being used in diverse non-
specialized types of work.
However, the detailed study
of each of the phases and
technical actions involved in
the manufacture of these
items seems to point to ano-
ther direction. This offers us
the possibility of looking de-
eper into the purpose of these
objects and the social logic
that configures them as such
(González Ruibal 2018). Be-
cause, as we originally point-
ed out, knowing the way in
which objects have been produced gives us the op-
portunity to delve into the links between objects
and the social dynamics that create them (Gosselain
2011).
The detailed comparison of chaînes opératoires
achieved for the manufacture of earthenware jars
and pots clearly shows the application of perfectly
defined know-how that led to the establishment of a
manufacturing routine and particular technical know-
ledge (Fig. 12). The deliberate addition of tempers or
the selection of specific burnishes reflects concrete
ways of thinking, feeling and understanding reality
adopted through primary learning by enculturation.
It is probable that from childhood a technological
habitus began to be acquired, composed of a series
of guidelines that would grant a specific lifestyle, ac-
cording to certain comportments and behavioural
modes. In this sense, a process of cultural appropria-
tion designed for this purpose would be established
to create technologically homogenous and therefore
specialized pieces. Unlike what has been pointed out
to date, in Peñalosa regular types of pots and jars
would have been manufactured, assigned to specific
uses, contents and meanings that were socially pre-
disposed from the beginning.
Fig. 9. Storageware documented in the site of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain). The
added inorganic degreasers are clearly visible, as well as the rectangular
holes left by organic elements also added, such as threshed straw. 1 Inv.
50258-1; 2 Inv. 28613; 3 Inv. 50612.
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
323
After the breakdown of chaînes opératoires, it is
easy to distinguish two pot formats. Firstly, there are
those with thick, open walls, a larger-diameter mouth
(between 20 and 25cm) and slightly spatulated sur-
faces; they would have been suitable for cooking
solid or semi-solid foodstuffs that required continu-
ous stirring. Secondly, those that have thinner, in-
curving walls, a smaller-diameter mouth and bur-
nished surfaces would have been used to heat liq-
uids or semi-liquids. A similar thing happens with
the earthenware jars, as their technological features
also point to two morphological types. Those that are
described on the basis of their slip-covered walls,
marked rims and intensive smoothing could have
been used to store liquids or semi-liquids, while
those with more open, lightly-spatulated walls would
have been designed mainly to contain solids or semi-
solids.
The results presented in this paper allow us to un-
derstand these pottery assemblages and the actions
linked to them from a different perspective. In this
regard, each community intrinsically creates and so-
matises a set of social behaviours that structures its
group identity. In this case, the specialization of
earthenware jars and pots would be an expression
of the importance of food as a determining social
factor. Under this premise,
feeding would not have been
a mere ‘biological function’,
but an action full of ‘social re-
gulatory meanings’ (Sánchez
Romero 2002), both in the
case of participation in the ri-
tual practices of commensali-
ty and in the framework of
day-to-day life (Alarcón Gar-
cía 2010a; Aranda Jiménez
2016). Therefore, it is likely
that the actions of storing and
preparing food resources im-
plied an unconscious streng-
thening of the community
sense of survival. The econo-
mic, social and cultural signi-
ficance of the tasks of food
storage and preparation was
very marked in past societies,
as well as in those living in
pre-industrial eras. Unlike the
functional and economic
meaning that meals and food
have for Western society to-
day, for other human commu-
nities the generation of surpluses has not been only
interpreted as a basic subsistence strategy, but also
as a social one (Mora González 2011). Knowing that
the main subsistence economy of the settlement of
Peñalosa was based on cereal farming (Peña Cho-
carro 2000), the procurement of energy resources
would have become one of the most important daily
life tasks. The time and effort dedicated to obtaining
foodstuffs of whatever type would have involved an
attitude focused on minimizing them on the one
hand, and taking the maximum advantage of them
on the other. The manufacture of pottery vessels
technologically appropriated for such a purpose
would undoubtedly have been conceived as one of
those attitudes.
As previously stated, the concept of specialization
has been used regularly in historical discourse to
create economic, logical, and highly understandable
interpretative readings from our present perspec-
tive. In a generic way, the detection of morpho-typo-
logical evidence of uniformity in archaeological ob-
jects has determined the direct definition of com-
plexity and social segregation. In the same way, it
presumes specific supra-domestic spaces, where a
collective of specialized artisans would massively
produce a homogeneous material culture, as if a con-
Fig. 10. Storageware documented in the site of Peñalosa (Jaén, Spain). It
is possible to clearly see the horizontal points of union of the overlapping
coiling during the shaping process. 1 Inv. 281272; 2 Inv. 281292; 3 Inv.
25745.
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
324
temporary factory was involved. These may have
been the circumstances in other historical periods,
but this was not what happened in Peñalosa during
the Bronze Age. Accordingly, it is not only the tech-
nology of the pottery pieces that tells us about the
existence of a high degree of specialization in do-
mestic spaces. Thanks to the very well-preserved
archaeological record of Peñalosa, it has been also
possible to recover each and every one of the details
preserved in the contexts in which these pottery
items were inserted and that have been associated
with the two occupation levels of these habitational
units. In the material culture recovered on the floor
of each level, evident remains of metallurgical, tex-
tile and pottery production have been found, such
as raw or in-process tools or raw materials. In con-
trast, there is no archaeological trace so far of speci-
fic areas of the settlement designed for this purpose.
This leads us to conclude that in the domestic sphe-
res, regardless of the phase of occupation, a cluster
of specialised manufacturing tasks would converge
that, in addition to coinciding in place and time,
would share structures and material culture (Alarcón
García, Mora González 2014.90).
Summarising and connecting everything argued or
seen so far, could we then talk about specialisation
in the pottery production studied in this paper? Per-
haps, if we are able to assume that the concept of
specialisation should not necessarily be linked to so-
cioeconomic factors and to movements or flows of
supply and demand (Clark 1995). In this case, the
meaning of specialisation would then acquire a
purely social and more collective reading. It would
appear closely linked to the domestic sphere and
to the concept of maintenance activities, which has
become one of the main lines of research in the stu-
dies of women and gender relations in prehistory
in recent years. Its use as an analysis category opens
new ways that allow a better understanding of the
knowledge and practices associated with the man-
agement of daily life in the past, as well as the envi-
ronment in which they were developed (Alarcón
García 2010b). As these practices are, presumably,
intended to supply the consumption needs of the
immediate domestic environment, and the commu-
nity as a whole, these activities have traditionally
not been considered as specialised jobs. However,
the data collected in this paper encourages us to de-
fend the opposite here and to consider them (main-
tenance activities) as a structured processes involv-
ing a host of elements, such as the acquisition of
knowledge and the development of learning or the
technological application. Furthermore, it is a process
that would also involve innovation, would require
experience and in which, without a doubt, memory,
experimentation and, of course, the cultural and iden-
tity traditions of each human group would intervene
(Alarcón García, Sánchez Romero 2015).
It is possible that in a scenario of increasing hierar-
chical organization, such as the Bronze Age, in which
Fig. 11. Storageware documented in the site of Pe-
ñalosa (Jaén, Spain). They clearly show the diffe-
rent surface treatments used in the production
process according to the predefined function and
shape. Smoothed in a fresh state, later burnished
in a leather-hard state and covered with a fine red
slip. 1 Inv. 25816-1; 2 Inv. 25197; 3 Inv. 25474.
Light smoothing in a fresh state and a second light
smoothing in a leather-hard state. 4 Inv. 25456; 5
Inv. 50892; 6 Inv. 28401-1.
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
325
masculine individualism and its positions of power
would progressively gain ground (Cruz Berrocal et
al. 2013), the female collective assumed more and
more the ‘emotional anchor of the world’, leading
these maintenance activities to take place within do-
mestic spaces (Hernando Gonzalo 2015). These are
understood as the set of tasks whose purpose is to
promote and safeguard human survival, i.e. the care
and hygiene of the living spaces; the care of teach-
ing and socialization of infants; storage and culinary
practices, etc. Also included in this group are those
tasks related more to the productive sphere, such as
textile or pottery production (Picazo 1997; Sánchez
Romero 2002). Indeed, until the appearance of the
potter’s wheel, handmade pottery had generally
been considered as significant part of maintenance
activities (Padilla Fernández 2018).
Thus, at this point we could say three things; First-
ly, that traditional positions have overlooked the de-
mand for knowledge, experience, work and effort
that the development of these activities requires,
solely because they have been associated with the
sphere of the domestic and feminine. Secondly, that
the earthenware jars and pots documented in Peña-
losa, which formed part of the daily life of these
groups 4000 years ago, were not outside the frame-
work of specialization, but quite the opposite. Third-
ly, the social importance of these recipients and the
active role of women in favour of the survival of
their world are beyond doubt.
Final considerations
If we recapitulate the data provided in this paper,
we will be in a position to answer the questions we
asked ourselves at the beginning of this study, and
the response must be: yes. The clear signs of techno-
logical systematisation in the production of earthen-
ware jars and pots appear to confirm the execution
in the Bronze Age of manufactures regulated by pot-
tery types directly linked to defined tasks, such as
maintenance activities. The earthenware jars and pots
documented in Peñalosa give us the opportunity to
reflect on what we may call ‘domestic specialisation’
in the Argaric culture (Hendon 1996.52). In this
sense, pieces that have traditionally been considered
as heterogeneous and multi-functional (Ayala Juan
1991; Castro Martínez et al. 1999) were made in
specialized domestic production spaces to be used
for specific functions, already pre-established.
The importance of this work lies in the scarcity of
studies that understand specialisation not only as a
process that guides us to a combination of patterns
or contributing economic factors, but as terms that
Fig. 12. Châines opératories used to produce specialized pots and jars documented in the site of Peñalosa
(Jaén, Spain).
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
326
also help to reflect on certain social circumstances
and demands; in our case, the production of pottery
for storage and the processing and transformation
of foodstuffs by cooking. The absence of specialisa-
tion is not necessarily linked to domestic manufac-
ture and self-consumption, or vice versa, rather it
should be linked to the realistic presence of reveal-
ing traces of technological homogeneity. This tech-
nological homogeneity corresponds, without doubt,
to the assimilation of established, regulated knowl-
edge transferred through vertical learning. Routine
and the repetition of actions take up daily time, and
it is precisely in this temporal framework that the
reproduction of social roles, the acquisition of know-
ledge (learning) and the assimilation and develop-
ment of abilities (socialisation) find their largest and
best field of action. Thus, to speak of specialisation
in the production of earthenware jars and pots has
an equal scientific validity and corresponds to the
same and single social situation that specialisation in
metallurgical production in the case of the Argaric
settlement of Peñalosa. The fact is that both types of
production have the same spatial setting – the settle-
ment – and therefore the domestic area.
This paper also serves to demonstrate two things.
The most important is that there are no absolute
truths in the historical process and that everything
is relative and reflective, it is repeatedly rewritten
and constantly changing. Historical reconstructions
are just that, reconstructions that contribute to conti-
nue discovering our unknown past. Secondly, techno-
logy is a useful analysis strategy to decipher the pat-
terns of rationality of the human groups that pro-
duce it.
This research has been carried out within de frame-
work of two R & D Projects: (1) “Arqueología y Quí-
mica. Reconstruyendo los hábitos alimenticios en la
cultura de El Argar” (HAR2015-66009-P), funded by
the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitive-
ness and directed by Francisco Contreras Cortés; and
(2) "Explotación y comercio del metal del sureste de
la península ibérica en la antigüedad. Proyecto ECO-
METAL" (PGC2018-098665-A-100),funded by the Spa-
nish Ministry of Science and Innovation and directed
by Luis Arboledas Martínez.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alarcón García E. 2010a. Continuidad y cam-bio social:
análisis de las actividades de mantenimiento. Univer-
sidad de Granada. Granada.
2010b. Arqueología de las Actividades de Mantenimien-
to: Un nuevo concepto en los estudios de las mujeres
en el pasado. Arqueología y Territorio 7: 195–210.
Alarcón García E., Mora González A. 2014. De la materia-
lidad a la interpretación arqueológica: Análisis de las de-
sigualdades sociales en el poblado argárico de Peñalosa.
Arkeogazte 4: 83–107.
Alarcón García E., Sánchez Romero M. 2015. Arqueología
feminista, de las mujeres y del género en la Prehistoria de
Andalucía. Menga 6: 33–59.
Albero Santacreu D. 2007. Primeras aproximaciones a la
tecnología cerámica prehistórica en la Península de Cal-
viá (Mallorca). Arqueología y Territorio 4: 70–86.
2008. La Calcita como desgrasante añadido en cerámi-
cas arqueológicas prehistóricas: Estado de la Cuestión.
In Orjia (ed.), I Congreso de Jóvenes en Investigación
Arqueológica: Dialogando con la cultura material.
Cersa editorial. Madrid: 93–100.
Albero Santacreu D., Aranda Jiménez G. 2014. Elección
tecnológica y expresión social: Análisis arqueométrico de
cerámicas funerarias argáricas del Cerro San Cristóbal
(Ogíjares, Granada). Complutum 25(2): 109–127.
https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CMPL.2014.v25.n1.45358
Aranda Jiménez G. 2004. Craft specialization in pottery
production during the Bronze Age in south-eastern Ibe-
ria. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 6: 157–179.
2008. Cohesión y distancia social. El consumo comen-
sal de bóvidos en el ritual funerario de las sociedades
argáricas. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de
la Universidad de Granada 18: 107–123.
2010. Entre la tradición y la innovación: el proceso de
especialización en la producción cerámica argárica.
Menga 1: 77–95.
2016. Meat consumption as a social strategy: feeding
new identities in Early Bronze Age societies in Iberia.
In R. Vilaça and M. Serra (eds.), Matar a fome, alimen-
tar a alma, criar sociabilidades Alimentação e comen-
salidade nas sociedades pré e proto-históricas. Centro
de Estudos Pré-históricos da Beira. Alta Coimbra: 17–
38.
References
∴
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
327
Ayala Juan M. 1991. El poblamiento argárico en Lorca.
Estado de la cuestión. Real Academia Alfonso X el Sabio.
Murcia.
Bartelheim M., Contreras Cortés F., Moreno Onorato A.,
Murillo-Barroso M., and Pernicka E. 2012. The silver of
the South Iberian El Argar Culture: A First Look into Pro-
duction and Distribution. Trabajos de Prehistoria 69(2):
293–309. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2012.12093
Berg van P. L. 1998. La Collection Siret à Bruxelles 2. La
Céramique de la Culture d’el Argar (2300–1600 avant
notre ère). Musées Royaux d'art et D’ histoire. Brussels.
Blackman M. J., Stein G. J., and Vandier P. B. 1993. The
Standardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Production:
Technological, Compositional, and Metric Indexes of Craft
Specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity
58(1): 60–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/281454
Bourdieu P. 1988. La distinción. Criterio y bases socia-
les del gusto. Taurus editorial. Madrid.
Calvo Trías M., Fornés J., García J., Guerrero V., Juncosa
E., Quintana C., and Salvá B. 2004. La cerámica prehistó-
rica a mano: una propuesta para su estudio. El Tall.
Mallorca.
Calvo Trías M., Gavua K., García Roselló J., Javaloyas Mo-
lina D., and Albero Santacreu D. 2011. Social approaches
in pottery distribution networks: the case of upper east
Ghana. Old Pots Almanack 16(2): 13–17.
https://doi.org/10.11588/opa.2011.2.11799
Cámara Serrano J. A., Molina González F. 2011. Jerarqui-
zación social en el mundo argárico (2000–1300 a.C.).
Quaderns de Prehistòria i Arqueologia de Castelló 29:
77–104.
Cámara Serrano J. A., Milá Otero M. S., Arana Castillo R.,
and Contreras Cortés F. 2005. Estudio arqueométrico de
diversos materiales cerámicos procedentes de Peñalosa
(Baños de la Encina, Jaén). Anuario Arqueológico de An-
dalucía 2002(2): 37–50.
Castro Martínez P., Chapman R., Gili Suriñach S., Lull V.,
Micó R., Rihuete Herrada C., Risch R., and Sanahuja M. E.
1999. Proyecto Gatas 2. La dinámica arqueoecológica
de la ocupación prehistórica. Consejería de Cultura de
la Junta de Andalucía. Sevilla.
Clark J. E. 1995. Craft Specialization as an Archaeological
Category. Research in Economic Anthropology 16: 267–
294.
Colomer i Solsona L. 2005. Cerámica prehistórica y traba-
jo femenino en el Argar: una aproximación desde el estu-
dio de la tecnología cerámica. In M. Sánchez Romero
(ed.), Arqueología y Género. Editorial Universidad de Gra-
nada. Granada: 177–219.
Contreras Cortés F. 2000. Proyecto Peñalosa. Análisis
histórico de las comunidades de la Edad del Bronce del
Piedemonte Meridional de Sierra Morena y Depresión
Linares-Bailén. Arqueología Monografías. Consejería de
Cultura. Junta de Andalucía. Sevilla.
Contreras Cortés F., Cámara Serrano J. A. 2002. La jer-
arquización social en la Edad del Bronce del Alto Gua-
dalquivir (España). El poblado de Peñalosa (Baños de
la Encina, Jaén). British Archaeological Reports IS 1025.
Archaeopress. Oxford.
Contreras Cortés F., Moreno Onorato A., Arboledas Martí-
nez L., Alarcón García E., Mora González A., and Padilla
Fernández J. J. 2014. Un poblado de la Edad del Bronce
que tiene mucho que decir. Peñalosa: últimas novedades
en la acrópolis oriental. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Ar-
queología de la Universidad de Granada 24: 347–390.
Consuegra S. 2006. Copa de El Argar (Almería). Museo
Arqueológico Nacional. Madrid.
Costin C. L. 2000. The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the
Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4): 377–403.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026523023550
2001. Craft Production Systems. In G. M. Feinman, T. D.
Price (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Source-
book. University of Wisconsin. Madison: 273–327.
2005. Craft production. In H. Maschner, C. Chippin-
dale (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Method. Al-
tamira Press. Lanham: 1084–1107.
Creswell R. 1976. Avant-Propos. Techniques et Culture
1: 5–6.
Cruz Berrocal M., García Sanjuán L., and Gilman A. 2013.
The Prehistory of Iberia. Debating Early Social Strati-
fication and the State. Routledge. New York.
Childe V. G. 1950. The Urban Revolution. Town Planning
Review 21(1): 3–17.
Djordjevi≤ B. 2013. Pottery Making in Zlakusa. First Ethno-
archaeological Research Project in Serbia. Ethnoarchaeo-
logy. In F. Lugli, A. Stoppiello, and S. Biagetti (eds.), Cur-
rent Research and Field Methods. British Archaeological
Reports IS 2472. Archaeopress. Oxford: 49–52.
Echallier J. C. 1984. Éléments de Technologie Cérami-
que et d’Analyse des Terres Cuites Archéologiques, Do-
Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández, E. Alarcón García, A. García García, L. Arboledas Martínez, A. Moreno Onorato, and F. Contreras Cortés
328
cuments d’Archéologie Méridionale. Méthodes et Tech-
niques volume 3. CNRS. Paris.
Eiroa García J. J. 2010. Prehistoria del mundo. Sello Edi-
torial. Barcelona.
Freestone I. 2001. Post-depositional changes in archaeolo-
gical ceramics and glasses. In D. R. Brothwell, A. M. Pol-
lard (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester: 615–625.
García Roselló J., Calvo Trías M. 2013. Making pots. El mo-
delado de la cerámica a mano y su potencial interpre-
tativo. British Archaeological Reports IS 2540. Archaeo-
press. Oxford.
Gili Suriñach S., Lull V., Micó R., Chapman R. W., and Cas-
tro Martínez P. 2001. La sociedad argárica. In M. Ruiz-Gál-
vez Priego (ed.). La Edad del Bronce ¿Primera Edad de
Oro de España? Sociedad, economía e ideología. Crítica
editorial. Barcelona: 181–216.
Gilman A. 1999. Veinte años de Prehistoria funcionalista
en el sureste de España. Boletín del seminario de estu-
dios de Arte y Arqueología 65: 73–98.
Goffer Z. 2007. Archaeological Chemistry. John Wiley &
Sons ed. New Jersey.
González Marcén P., Lull V. Risch R. 1992. Arqueología de
Europa, 2250–1200 a. C. Una introducción a la Edad
del Bronce. Síntesis. Madrid.
González Ruibal A. 2005. Etnoarqueología de la cerámica
en el oeste de Etiopía. Trabajos de prehistoria 62(2): 41–
66. https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2005.v62.i2.68
2018. La lógica social de la cerámica. Un ejemplo etno-
arqueológico. In E. Alarcón García, J. J. Padilla Fernán-
dez, L. Arboledas Martínez and L. Chapon (eds.), Algo
más que galbos y cacharros. Etnoarqueología y expe-
rimentación cerámica. Menga. Sevilla: 43–59.
Gosselain O. P. 1995. Identités Techniques. Le travail de
la poterie au Cameroun méridional. University of Brus-
sels. Brussels.
2008. Thoughts and adjustments in the potters back-
yard. In I. Berg (ed.), Breaking the Mould: Challenging
the Past through Pottery. British Archaeological Reports
IS 1861. Archaeopress. Oxford: 67–79.
2011. Fine if I do, fine if I don’t. Dynamics of technical
knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa. In B. W. Roberts, M.
Van Der Linden (eds.), Investigating archaeological
cultures. Springer. New York: 211–227.
Hagstrum M. B. 1988. Ceramic Production in the Central
Andes, Peru: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Compa-
rison. In C. C. Kolb, L. M. Lackey (eds.), A Pot for All Rea-
sons: Ceramic Ecology, Laboratory of Anthropology.
Temple University. Philadelphia: 127–145.
Hendon J. A. 1996. Archaeological approaches to the or-
ganization of Domestic Labor: Household practice and Do-
mestic Rela-tions. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:
45–61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155817
Hernando Gonzalo A. 2005. Mujeres y prehistoria. En
torno a la cuestión del origen del patriarcado. In M. Sán-
chez Romero (ed.), Arqueología y género. Editorial Uni-
versidad de Granada. Granada: 73–108.
2015. ¿Por qué la arqueología oculta la importancia de
la comunidad? Trabajos de Prehistoria 72(1): 22–40.
https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2015.12142
Hodder I. 2012. Entangled. An Archaeology of the Rela-
tionships between Humans and Things. Willey-Black-
well. NewYork.
Jaramillo A. 2005. Recursos y materias primas en la
Edad del Bronce del Alto Gualdaquivir. Medioambiente
y registro arqueológico en la cuenca del Río Rumblar.
Editorial Universidad de Granada. Granada.
Lemonnier P. 1993. Introduction to Technological choi-
ces: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neo-
lithic. Routledge. London.
2018. ¡Hay algo extraño! Objetos estratégicos y comuni-
cación. In E. Alarcón García, J. J. Padilla Fernández, L.
Arboledas Martínez and L. Chapon (eds.), Algo más que
Galbos y Cacharros. Etnoarqueología y Experimenta-
ción cerámica. Menga. Sevilla: 15–27.
Livingstone Smith A. 2007. Chaîne Operatorie de la Po-
terie. Réferénces ethnografiques, analices et reconstitu-
tion. Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Tervueren.
Longacre W. 1999. Standardization and Specialization:
What’s the Link? In J. M. Skibo, G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pot-
tery and people. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City:
44–58.
Lull V. 1983. La cultura del Argar. Un modelo para el
estudio de las formaciones sociales prehistóricas. Críti-
ca. Barcelona.
Lull V., Micó R., Rihuete C., and Risch R. 2010. Las relacio-
nes políticas y económicas de El Argar. Menga 1: 11–36.
May P., Tuckson M. 1982. The Traditional Pottery of Pa-
pua New Guinea. Bay Books. Kesington.
Between the hearth and the store> pottery specialisation and use in the Argaric Bronze Age settlement of Peñalosa (Spain)
329
Mora González A. 2011. Agricultura y producción: algunas
reflexiones en torno a la cultura del Argar. Arqueología
y Territorio 8: 53–70.
Moreno Onorato A., Alarcón García E., and Contreras Cor-
tés F. 2012. La met-alurgia y otras actividades de manten-
imiento en una casa argárica. El complejo estructural XVIa
de Peñalosa (Baños de la encina, Jaén). Antiquitas 24:
95–116.
Moreno Onorato A., Bashore Acero C., Dorado Alejos A.,
and Padilla Fernández J. J. 2017. Experimental recon-
struction of copper metallurgy based on archaeometallur-
gical remains from the Peñalosa Bronze Age site. In R.
Alonso, J. Baena and D. Canales (eds.), Playing with the
time. Experimental Archaeology and the study of the
past. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Madrid: 269–274.
Padilla Fernández J. J. 2018. Identidades, cultura y ma-
terialidad cerámica: Las Cogotas y la Edad del Hierro
en el Occidente de Iberia. Editorial Universidad Complu-
tense de Madrid. Madrid.
Peña Chocarro L. 2000. Agricultura, alimentación vegetal
en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce de Peñalosa (Baños
de la Encina, Jaén). Complutum 11: 209–220.
Picazo M. 1997. Hearth and home: the timing of mainte-
nance activities. In J. Moore, E. Scott (eds.), Invisible peo-
ple and processes. Writing Gender and Child-hood into
European Archaeology. Leicester University Press. Lon-
don: 59–67.
Rice P. M. and 13 co-authors. 1981. Evolution of Specia-
lized Pottery Production: A Trial Model. Current Anthro-
pology 22(3): 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1086/202661
Roux V. 2009. Technological innovations and develop-
mental trajectories: social factors as evolutionary forces.
In M. O’Brien, S. Shennan (eds.), Innovation in cultural
systems. Contributions from evolutionary anthropology.
MIT Press. Cambridge: 217–234.
2016. Des ceramiques et des hommes. Décoder les as-
semblages archéologiques. Presses Universitaires de
Paris Puest. Nanterre.
Rovira Llorens S., Montero Ruiz I. 2018. Proyecto “Ar-
queometalurgia de la Península Ibérica” (1982–2017).
Trabajos de Prehistoria 75(2): 223–247.
https://doi.org/10.3989/tp.2018.12213
Sánchez Liranzo O. 2000. Algunas reflexiones para la pre-
historia y arqueología: Las mujeres en la construcción de
la Historia. Spal 9: 495–505.
https://doi.org/10.12795/spal.2000.i9.28
Sánchez Romero M. 2002. Espacios domésticos y muje-
res en la Prehistoria Reciente de la Alta Andalucía. Hi-
storia de Andalucía. La Mujer. Volume 1. Sevilla: 275–
288.
Sánchez Romero M., Aranda Jiménez G. 2005. El cambio
en las actividades de mantenimiento durante la Edad del
Bronce: Nuevas formas de preparación, presentación y
consumo de alimentos. Treballs d’arqueología 11: 73–90.
Sestier C. 2005. Utilisation du degraissant vegetal en
contexte neolithique: hypotheses technologiques et ex-
perimentation. British Archaeological Reports IS 1349.
Archaeopress. Oxford.
Sigaut F. 1994. Technology. In T. Ingold (ed.), The Com-
panion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London.
Siret H., Siret L. 1890. Las primeras edades del metal en
el Sudeste de España. Resultados obtenidos en las exca-
vaciones hechas por los autores de 1881 a 1887. Direc-
ción General de Cultura. Museo Arqueológico de Murcia.
Murcia.
Skibo J. M. 2013. Understanding pottery function. Sprin-
ger. New York.
Webmoor T., Witmore C. L. 2008. Things are us! A com-
mentary on human things relations under the banner of a
‘social’ archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review
41(1): 53–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00293650701698423